Jump to content


Photo

Have you seen "Gravity"?

  • Please log in to reply
14 replies to this topic

#1 gavinm

gavinm

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Auckland New Zealand

Posted 28 November 2013 - 12:08 AM

OMG

apart from some petty conservation of momentum mistakes...

What a great movie!!

#2 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1311
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 28 November 2013 - 08:08 AM

Very entertaining!!

Very cool!

One just needs to understand going in that Hollywood does not understand or care about scientific accuracy beyond how it will help put butts in the seats.

#3 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14384
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 29 November 2013 - 11:11 AM

I thought it was visually attractive, and I like Sandra Bullock; but it was a movie I forgot all about as soon as I left the theatre. It was like "Eh, that was pretty good; where you wanna go for lunch?"

#4 The Mighty Mo

The Mighty Mo

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 747
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013
  • Loc: South of North, North of South, Somewhere on the 3rd Rock

Posted 29 November 2013 - 12:05 PM

That goes without saying Tony. I take the same view of anything claiming to be a "factual" or "historical" movie. Hollywood doesn't care about facts or truth.

#5 Dr. Hoover

Dr. Hoover

    Sputnik

  • -----
  • Posts: 33
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2013
  • Loc: Turlock, California

Posted 29 November 2013 - 03:51 PM

I liked it very much! Of course it wasn't scientifically accurate, BUT:

1) You have to remember that it's a movie and some liberty is going to be taken for the sake of making the story more interesting. To those who immediately rolled theirs eyes and spouted off about how the movie makers "obviously don't know anything about physics", I just take a deep breathe and say,"Know you, there is no such things as Hobbits, Elves, and Wizards either, but that doesn't stop anyone from enjoying movies about them."

2) Upon watching it, I felt that it actually was a lot more scientifically accurate (to my understanding) than what I was expecting based upon the trailers.

I saw it in 3D and I thought it was a thrilling experience, in both senses of the emotion. It was both exciting and anxiety-provoking. I was on the edge of my seat many times.

#6 David Knisely

David Knisely

    Hubble

  • *****
  • Posts: 15440
  • Joined: 19 Apr 2004
  • Loc: southeastern Nebraska

Posted 30 November 2013 - 01:27 AM

It was an "OK" movie, but definitely not a great one. The story was weak, the scenarios rather stretched, and the action somewhat predictable. That, plus the little inaccuracies in the "factual" material made the movie less than outstanding. There were so many ways to make it more interesting that I am surprised that it did as well as it did at the box office. Clear skies to you.

#7 Ursus Sicagensis

Ursus Sicagensis

    Lift Off

  • -----
  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 27 Nov 2013
  • Loc: Chicagoland

Posted 30 November 2013 - 04:29 AM

I think it's an interesting piece of filmmaking. I typically enjoy it when filmmakers explore ways to use settings and characters in unusual ways: Hitchcock's Rear Window, Wall-E (which explores the ability to convey emotion through one's eyes/brow and the tone of one's voice), Dawn of the Dead satirizing American consumerism, etc.

In Gravity, Sandra Bullock is more or less asked to carry the movie by herself, bringing us into the suit and spacecraft with her. However, you also have space technology taking on the aspect of a monster in a horror film, constantly doing battle with our hero. Cuaron succeeded in making space a scary "thing" rather than just a setting. That's pretty neat from a filmmaking standpoint.

On the other hand, I feel like so much of the movie was sending the depressing message that "Humans shouldn't be in space." Unlike Apollo 13, which heavily emphasized human ingenuity and our collective sense of accomplishment even in the face of failure, Gravity's emphasis was on exploring our survival instinct and where it comes from.

On top of that, the story didn't have enough weight (ha!) to support a 90-minute movie. You can only play the "Oh my gosh, she survived all that only to die like this?!" card so many times before it becomes completely absurd, and for me Gravity passed that threshold and then some.

And I realize that like five people in the entire world were thinking about these things when the movie ended -- the rest only care about the cool effects and the uplifting story of survival against the odds -- so I'll stop now. :p

#8 Mister T

Mister T

    Apollo

  • -----
  • Posts: 1311
  • Joined: 01 Feb 2008
  • Loc: Upstate NY

Posted 30 November 2013 - 06:55 AM

Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

#9 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14384
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 30 November 2013 - 12:05 PM

And I realize that like five people in the entire world were thinking about these things when the movie ended -- the rest only care about the cool effects and the uplifting story of survival against the odds -- so I'll stop now. :p


You're wrong about that!
The rest were also impressed by Sandra in her space-shorts.

#10 PeterR280

PeterR280

    Apollo

  • *****
  • Posts: 1184
  • Joined: 27 May 2013

Posted 30 November 2013 - 12:07 PM

Are space short shorts standard NASA issue?

#11 Skip

Skip

    Starlifter Driver

  • *****
  • Posts: 3938
  • Joined: 23 Jan 2008
  • Loc: Fort Worth, Texas, USA

Posted 30 November 2013 - 12:47 PM

Are space short shorts standard NASA issue?


If Sandra is the astronaut, one could only hope!

I saw it in 3D and I thought it was a thrilling experience, in both senses of the emotion. It was both exciting and anxiety-provoking. I was on the edge of my seat many times.


Yep. And I saw the movie in IMAX 3-D. When I left the theater I was pretty much exhausted, so I'll say I liked it - scientific inaccuracies and all. :)

there is no such things as Hobbits, Elves, and Wizards either


WHAT?!!! Oh NOOOOO! :p

#12 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14384
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 30 November 2013 - 01:54 PM

The main thing I object to in space movies is this: when they travel using their space suit jet packs, they stop moving when they turn off the jets. They've done that in several movies, and you'd think they'd at least give the audience credit for knowing that much!

#13 The Mighty Mo

The Mighty Mo

    Viking 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 747
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2013
  • Loc: South of North, North of South, Somewhere on the 3rd Rock

Posted 30 November 2013 - 02:27 PM

That's from all that aether, that also helps sound travel in space.

#14 Rick Woods

Rick Woods

    Voyager 1

  • *****
  • Posts: 14384
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2005
  • Loc: Inner Solar System

Posted 30 November 2013 - 07:34 PM

Oh yeah; I forgot about that.

#15 gavinm

gavinm

    Surveyor 1

  • -----
  • Posts: 1658
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2005
  • Loc: Auckland New Zealand

Posted 17 December 2013 - 12:58 AM

Right.. sorry to flog a dead horse, but I've just gone and seen this again (and took my wife who dislikes space movies and science-fiction intensely, but liked this...)..

I had my physicist hat on (except for the bit with Sandra Bullock exiting her space suit, but who can blame a man...)

Some things I observed:

When Clooney is flying around in his jet pack (and in fact when any craft was maneuvering), there was almost always a thrust in the opposite direction to decelerate - both linear and rotational. I actually found all the thrusting distracting so I could understand why the directors might remove some of them.

When Clooney has to let go of Bullock to save both their lives, the tethers for the parachutes are stretching - there is definitely deceleration occurring due to the elastic energy so the physics works (although I'm still not entirely convinced.

I even read a article from NASA about the considerations and complications of moving the Hubble orbit to that of ISS, with the conclusion it could be done, but would be financially unlikely.

My only gripe is Bullocks very bad wig and the rather *BLEEP* and predicatable ending.

PS I'm only returning to this thread because I read an appallingly unscientific criticism of Gravity in the local paper - written by someone with not quite enough physics education and no-where near enough journalistic skills. A bad combination.






Cloudy Nights LLC
Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics