Oh jeez, really? That isn't really the point, BDA.

Again, not the point. That has nothing to do with what I was moaning about what the dude was moaning about. Or something.

I didn't say anything at all about most films being entirely CG. I was talking about how the film looked. I was talking about CG but what you said about all films being in CG was not my point.

Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-11-18 17:15:04)

No.....no.....he said the FX were not that special, that they looked shit. Which I disagree with.

Oh for fuck's sake, BDA. Really? He said both, alright. Take it up with him.

Bloody sorry I mentioned it now.

Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-11-18 17:20:36)

Yeah, nothing condescending about that statement at all.

Oh and I'm pretty sure something close to it would have happened either way.....

Last edited by Jimmy B (2013-11-18 17:29:38)

I don't feel as though I did say anything lacking any piece of information. My original statement is exactly what I wanted to say. But yeah, let's walk away.

Nice. Must have been kind of weird to see that up on the screen.

Just saw that myself. Wish there was more to it, but it's still really cool that they took the the time to make it.

Good to see Gravity is being rewarded at the box office. It just cracked the all-time top #100 for half-a-billion+, so looks to be a highly profitable ROI. That'll hopefully mean a fully-featured blu-ray box set.

I'll say this right now, I think Gravity is a much bigger game-changer than Avatar was, both in terms of VFX and filmmaking technique. This feels like a new cinematic medium entirely, something ultra immersive and experiential that takes the in-the-moment intensity from first person videogames, and adapts it for the film format.

I honestly think this could be a blue-print for many movies going forward as a fundamentally different way of telling a story visually. It's the best next step past the Found Footage genre. That genre tries to disorient the user to try to simulate the visceral experience of being there, but the end result is usually that the movie actually distances you from the events happening by making you feel like you're watching a recording.

Cuaron's approach is like the next best version of those kinds of movies, where instead of disorientation, you feel completely and utterly like you're there in the moment, and there's no cuts to break you out of that reality. It's almost less of a movie, than it is an experience. Wanna feel like you're in space? Watch Gravity in Imax 3d. What's stopping us from having an "Abyss"-style thriller filmed in this same aesthetic to capture the experience of being underwater? It feels like a whole host of possibilities has been unleashed by the success of this one movie.

I agree. AVATAR used undeniably groundbreaking filmmaking techniques, but did so with a target goal of making a fairly typical movie, though a prettier one. GRAVITY used equally groundbreaking techniques in the service of a particular, crafted-to-the-context experience.

I've said before that the problem with 3D has been that filmmakers continue to make films the way they do in 2D -- that if there's a validity in the 3D medium, it will require the development of a different cinematic grammar. (If I may toot my own horn, I had a suspicion it would involve longer shots, since the refocusing of eyes and brain between cuts is much of what makes 3D distracting, and I noticed the longer shots in BEOWULF were more successful; but I'd certainly never have dared to think of anything on the order of GRAVITY.) If 3D filmmaking does indeed develop into its own language, GRAVITY may not turn out to speak it fluently, but it's at least the Rosetta stone.