Return to the Cloudy Nights Telescope Reviews home page


Speciality Forums >> Astro Art, Books, Websites & Other Media

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)
swalker
Imaging Editor - Sky & Telescope
*****

Reged: 01/22/07

Loc: 42.9225°N, 71.2242°W
Re: Gravity new [Re: BSJ]
      #6131107 - 10/11/13 01:13 PM

I'll probably see it, but I'll brace myself for the massive science failures (skip on over to ISS from Hubble, the completely wrong reason for a certain player to meet their demise...). As Morbo the Annihillator would say: "GRAVITY DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!" Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?

Edited by swalker (10/11/13 01:16 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rookie
Good Night Nurse
*****

Reged: 01/14/06

Loc: St. Petersburg, FL
Re: Gravity new [Re: swalker]
      #6131649 - 10/11/13 05:44 PM

The movie is science fiction, not science. Expect entertainment not edification. The cinematography is nice eye candy but it's not as beautiful as the IMAX Hubble Blu-ray 3D movie.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Gravity new [Re: rookie]
      #6131985 - 10/11/13 09:09 PM

Quote:

The movie is science fiction, not science. Expect entertainment not edification. The cinematography is nice eye candy but it's not as beautiful as the IMAX Hubble Blu-ray 3D movie.




I'm with you. Sure, I'd love to see more sci-fi movies as thought-provoking as 2001, but there's nothing wrong with a good popcorn movie now and then, especially one that's nice eye candy and makes a good effort to be realistic.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Gravity new [Re: David Knisely]
      #6132018 - 10/11/13 09:32 PM

Quote:

It was a good visual spectacle (and gives a few things to think about, like just how dangerous spaceflight really is), but as a whole, I was kind of disappointed in GRAVITY (even in 3D). In a nutshell, not a lot of story to be had there




That's the nutshell, all right. The Desperate Situation is something the hero(ine) finds themselves in while pursuing the plot line. In this case, that's all there was - the Situation, and no story to go along with it.
Still, it was OK. But I won't be buying it.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
RobertED
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/11/03

Loc: Smithfield, RI
Re: Gravity new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #6132226 - 10/11/13 11:27 PM

Even though there were a handful of technical NASA issues, it's definitely worth seeing!! GO FOR LAUNCH!!!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Gravity new [Re: swalker]
      #6132238 - 10/11/13 11:37 PM

Quote:

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?




By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
helpwanted
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/04/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Gravity new [Re: turtle86]
      #6132350 - 10/12/13 01:13 AM

By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."

Because a Red Shirt was always bound to be killed!
(i only learned that from watching Big Bang)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
obin robinson
Carpal Tunnel
*****

Reged: 10/25/12

Loc: League City, TX
Re: Gravity new [Re: swalker]
      #6132603 - 10/12/13 08:52 AM

Quote:

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?




Why? Because Tyson is a clueless astrophysicist that has never heard of a Payload Specialist and doesn't pay attention to detail.

http://www.newcanaannewsonline.com/news/article/Susan-Granger-s-review-of-Gra...
Quote:

In the dark depths of outer space, Dr. Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), a payload specialist on her first mission,




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Payload_Specialist

Quote:

Payload Specialists were generally selected for a single specific mission and were chosen outside the standard NASA astronaut selection process. They were not required to be United States citizens, but had to be approved by NASA and undergo rigorous training. In contrast, a Space Shuttle Mission Specialist was selected as a NASA astronaut candidate first and then assigned to a mission.

Payload Specialists on early missions were technical experts to accompany specific payloads such as a commercial or scientific satellite. On Spacelab and other missions with science components, payload specialists were scientists with expertise in specific experiments. The term also applied to representatives from partner nations who were given the opportunity of a first flight on board of the Space Shuttle (such as Saudi Arabia and Mexico), and to Congressmen and the Teacher in Space program.





Just because you have a degree in astrophysics it doesn't mean you know how to pay attention to details. That is the lesson today folks.

obin


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Gravity new [Re: helpwanted]
      #6132656 - 10/12/13 09:32 AM

Quote:

By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."

Because a Red Shirt was always bound to be killed!
(i only learned that from watching Big Bang)




You most definitely don't want to be a Red Shirt on Star Trek!
Of course, that still doesn't quite explain Dr. McCoy's presence among the landing party. Not really much that a doctor can do for a dead Red Shirt!

Unlike the brilliant doctor payload specialist in Gravity, it's funny that Wolowitz got to be a payload specialist on the Big Bang Theory even though he is famously not a "Dr." but just "Mr." Wolowitz!


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
helpwanted
Post Laureate
*****

Reged: 07/04/07

Loc: Phoenix, AZ
Re: Gravity new [Re: turtle86]
      #6132923 - 10/12/13 11:59 AM

But Mr Wolowitz did design the toilet on the Space Station! A rather important part!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Gravity new [Re: turtle86]
      #6133460 - 10/12/13 05:22 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?




By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."




Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
rookie
Good Night Nurse
*****

Reged: 01/14/06

Loc: St. Petersburg, FL
Re: Gravity new [Re: turtle86]
      #6134100 - 10/13/13 12:02 AM

Quote:

Unlike the brilliant doctor payload specialist in Gravity, it's funny that Wolowitz got to be a payload specialist on the Big Bang Theory even though he is famously not a "Dr." but just "Mr." Wolowitz!



and branded "Fruit Loop"


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Alan French
Night Owl
*****

Reged: 01/28/05

Loc: Upstate NY
Re: Gravity new [Re: David Knisely]
      #6134770 - 10/13/13 11:07 AM

Quote:

It was a good visual spectacle (and gives a few things to think about, like just how dangerous spaceflight really is), but as a whole, I was kind of disappointed in GRAVITY (even in 3D). In a nutshell, not a lot of story to be had there, which was (other than the rather obvious orbital goofups) probably the biggest problem with the movie. As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.




I agree, the story was just too thin to sustain the movie, and the action got repetitious. It was visually stunning, and often suspenseful, but had little substance otherwise.

Clear skies, Alan

Edited by Alan French (10/13/13 11:42 AM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Gravity new [Re: Alan French]
      #6136038 - 10/13/13 10:56 PM

My wife and I saw the film this afternoon, and we were not disappointed. It is well worth seeing for the stunning visual effects alone, and I would highly recommend paying extra for the IMAX and 3-D. The story line might be simple, but that sure didn't hurt Apollo 13, and it doesn't hurt this film either, as the suspense is often riveting, made all the more so by the superb direction and Sandra Bullock's compelling performance. A big thumbs up.

Edited by turtle86 (10/14/13 12:00 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
faackanders2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/28/11

Re: Gravity new [Re: Rick Woods]
      #6141950 - 10/16/13 10:18 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?




By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."




Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?




Because he was the best actor.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
faackanders2
Carpal Tunnel


Reged: 03/28/11

Re: Gravity new [Re: Alan French]
      #6141964 - 10/16/13 10:25 PM

Quote:

Quote:

It was a good visual spectacle (and gives a few things to think about, like just how dangerous spaceflight really is), but as a whole, I was kind of disappointed in GRAVITY (even in 3D). In a nutshell, not a lot of story to be had there, which was (other than the rather obvious orbital goofups) probably the biggest problem with the movie. As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.




I agree, the story was just too thin to sustain the movie, and the action got repetitious. It was visually stunning, and often suspenseful, but had little substance otherwise.

Clear skies, Alan




The difference is Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Gravity was never meant to be historical, but they did take the effort to make the HST, STS, ISS, and the space suits look as realistic as they possibly could. Expect to be entertained, not a NASA history lesson, and you will enjoy this action packed movie.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
David Knisely
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 04/19/04

Loc: southeastern Nebraska
Re: Gravity new [Re: faackanders2]
      #6142689 - 10/17/13 10:59 AM

faacanders wrote:

Quote:

The difference is Fiction vs. Non-Fiction. Gravity was never meant to be historical, but they did take the effort to make the HST, STS, ISS, and the space suits look as realistic as they possibly could. Expect to be entertained, not a NASA history lesson, and you will enjoy this action packed movie.




No, the difference is between having a good story line and not having one. Babylon 5 played fast and loose with the physics of space travel, but it had a very good story line that worked. Gravity didn't. I could have thought of many ways to make that movie into something more than a typical space disaster movie (ala "Marooned"), elevating the main character into something more memorable. It didn't happen. The movie was OK, but just wasn't what I had hoped it would be because the story line was kind of weak. Clear skies to you.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
starbux
sage
*****

Reged: 02/08/06

Loc: Sunnyvale, CA
Re: Gravity new [Re: David Knisely]
      #6143575 - 10/17/13 07:30 PM

Quote:

As space movies go, it was definitely inferior to both Apollo 13 and the HBO space series "From The Earth To The Moon". I think that if it had been at an IMAX 3D theater, I would have rather sat through seeing MAGNIFICENT DESOLATION again rather than seeing Gravity one more time. Clear skies to you.




I'm not sure it is really fair to compare a (albeit "hard") science fiction to movies recreating actual historic events. In the case of the latter, the story kind of wrote itself.

Could there have been more story? Absolutely. Yet it does succeed somewhat in its simplicity telling a story entirely in space and keeping the viewer interested while avoiding (for the most part) too many preposterous situations.

I would venture that "Momentum" or "Inertia" would have been a more appropriate title than Gravity.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
turtle86
Pooh-Bah Everywhere Else
*****

Reged: 10/09/06

Re: Gravity new [Re: starbux]
      #6144071 - 10/18/13 12:49 AM

Quote:



I'm not sure it is really fair to compare a (albeit "hard") science fiction to movies recreating actual historic events. In the case of the latter, the story kind of wrote itself.

Could there have been more story? Absolutely. Yet it does succeed somewhat in its simplicity telling a story entirely in space and keeping the viewer interested while avoiding (for the most part) too many preposterous situations.

I would venture that "Momentum" or "Inertia" would have been a more appropriate title than Gravity.




Both Gravity and Apollo 13 have essentially the same simple plot (returning home safely by way of ingenious improvisations after disaster strikes in space) but I don't hear anyone complaining about Apollo 13 having a simple plot.

Seems to me that space itself was a major "character" in Gravity; a very big part of what the film was trying to do what was put the viewer himself in space to convey what a simultaneously beautiful and scary place it is, a modern version of Wordsworth's notion of the "sublime" on steroids. I think a more cluttered plot would've gotten in the way of that. As it was, I thought the film might've been even better without the extraneous bit about Ryan's dead daughter.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Rick Woods
Postmaster
*****

Reged: 01/27/05

Loc: Inner Solar System
Re: Gravity new [Re: faackanders2]
      #6144826 - 10/18/13 12:50 PM

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Neil Degrasse Tyson laid out the biggest flaw: why would a medical doctor even be on a mission to repair the Hubble Space telescope?




By similar token, I always wondered why Dr. McCoy on Star Trek would often be part of the landing party. Especially since he would always say, "Dammit, Jim, I'm a doctor."




Hey, what was the Captain doing in the landing party?




Because he was the best actor.




Yeah. And, the space babes weren't going to swoon over McCoy.


Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | (show all)


Extra information
0 registered and 2 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  Geo557, kkokkolis 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled


Thread views: 2202

Jump to

CN Forums Home




Cloudy Nights Sponsor: Astronomics