What's new

Gravity (2013) (1 Viewer)

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Vic Pardo said:
I found a lot of the spinning around of the characters and the constant moving of the camera to be disorienting and discomforting. Luckily I was watching on a 32-inch screen and not in a 3-D IMAX theater where I probably would have gotten dizzy or nauseous. Did anyone who saw this theatrically have that kind of reaction?
I'm pretty sensitive to that kind of thing (I nearly puked in the theater due to the shaky cam in Blair Witch and Cloverfield) and I didn't have a problem with Gravity in an IMAX theater.
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,571
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Sorry but this film was not meant to be seen on a 32" screen. Almost all of the impact of the film is lost. If any film begged to be seen in IMAX 3D it was Gravity. Anything less is a disservice to the film imo.
 

Vic Pardo

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,520
Real Name
Brian Camp
Tino said:
Sorry but this film was not meant to be seen on a 32" screen. Almost all of the impact of the film is lost. If any film begged to be seen in IMAX 3D it was Gravity. Anything less is a disservice to the film imo.

And the filmmaker's reliance on a hackneyed script filled with contrivance and implausibility is a disservice to the viewer.


(Well, this viewer at least.)
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,571
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
The script is a secondary aspect of the film in this case. The film was conceived from the start to be seen in 3D and on the biggest screen possible with a great sound system. It's a thrill ride. The closest you will ever get to feel like you're in space. I won't argue the plot contrivances as I agree there are a few. No home theater no matter how great can equal seeing this film in IMAX 3D with DOLBY ATMOS.

To watch it on a 32" screen with compressed video defeats its purpose. Does Lawrence Of Arabia have the same Impact on a 32" screen? Star Wars? Etc... You know what I mean Vic. It's unfair to judge Gravity within those viewing conditions. You might as well have watched it on an iPhone. I sincerely believe if you had seen this in a great theater, your opinion of Gravity would be much more favorable.

And then again......maybe not. ;)
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
I think every movie is enhanced by being viewed on a movie theater screen but at the same time, a good movie is always going to be a good movie whether you're seeing it on a TV or an IMAX screen. Personally, I think Gravity is excellent and seeing it in IMAX was beneficial to my viewing experience but I don't think my opinion would be that different if I had seen it at home.
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,571
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
TravisR said:
I think every movie is enhanced by being viewed on a movie theater screen but at the same time, a good movie is always going to be a good movie whether you're seeing it on a TV or an IMAX screen. Personally, I think Gravity is excellent and seeing it in IMAX was beneficial to my viewing experience but I don't think my opinion would be that different if I had seen it at home.
Really Travis? That's surprising. Recently I saw Singing In The Rain on the big screen at the Loews Jersey. I had seen the film countless times but was amazed at how much more I liked it after seeing it on the big screen. Everything was more pronounced from the acting to the dancing to the visuals. Everything. Dunno....maybe it's just me. [emoji15]
 

Colin Jacobson

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2000
Messages
13,328
TravisR said:
I'm pretty sensitive to that kind of thing (I nearly puked in the theater due to the shaky cam in Blair Witch and Cloverfield) and I didn't have a problem with Gravity in an IMAX theater.

Same thing here. I have serious nausea issues with shakycam movies but saw "Gravity" on Regal's version of LIEMAX and didn't encounter any issues...
 

EricSchulz

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
5,580
Tino said:
Really Travis? That's surprising. Recently I saw Singing In The Rain on the big screen at the Loews Jersey. I had seen the film countless times but was amazed at how much more I liked it after seeing it on the big screen. Everything was more pronounced from the acting to the dancing to the visuals. Everything. Dunno....maybe it's just me. [emoji15]

I remember the difference in seeing classics on the big screen for the first time after having grown up with them on TV: Rear Window, Gone With The Wind, Psycho and Wizard of Oz.
 

Vic Pardo

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 7, 2013
Messages
1,520
Real Name
Brian Camp
Tino said:
The script is a secondary aspect of the film in this case. The film was conceived from the start to be seen in 3D and on the biggest screen possible with a great sound system. It's a thrill ride. The closest you will ever get to feel like you're in space.

I think those are two contradictory aims. If it had aimed to be a realistic recreation of the experience of a space mission, I would have had a very different reaction. But instead, it aimed to be something very different--a thrill ride, as you say. I tend not to go to movies for "thrill rides." That's what amusement parks are for. And I can see how GRAVITY provided just that kind of satisfying ride to viewers seeking such a thing. However, as a recreation of the experience of being in space, the film would have been way more effective without all the melodrama and disaster pile-ons. I don't see how the film can succeed in making you feel like you're in space if it keeps thrashing its central character around and bashing her into every vehicle and piece of equipment she encounters and showering her with debris every ten minutes or so. Is that what an astronaut goes through every time they go up into orbit? Somehow I don't think so. If, however, being in space really does make you dizzy and the film made me dizzy then, yes, I guess it succeeded. But I don't go to films seeking an experience of dizziness.


If the film had been less of a thrill ride and more a quieter recounting of a novice space traveler's experience in orbit and the problems one might normally encounter when applying an add-on to the Hubble (or whatever the heck she was doing--it was never explained well enough for me), it would have been much less exciting and less of a hit, but I would have found it a more fulfilling experience and I would have wanted to see it in a theater. 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY wasn't a thrill ride (well, at least until the "trippy" portion of its finale) and it succeeded in being a work of art as well as offering varying degrees of entertainment value depending on one's capacity for ambiguity. It also offered a then-realistic picture of what life in space would be like in 33 years (which is now 14 years ago!).


My problems are more with the concept of GRAVITY than its execution. I had similar problems with INTERSTELLAR, which I finally saw a week-and-a-half ago (on the big screen) and which I've avoided weighing in on since I'm not likely to appreciate or even understand any of the answers to the many questions I have. It wants to be a serious science fiction film with weighty themes, yet it relies on heavy doses of "magic." I mean, people have actually said to me when I asked certain questions about the finale: "It was magic." The audience is asked to take an awful lot on faith and I just don't have that faith. (And I didn't have it with INCEPTION either.)
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,571
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
I was referring to the IMAX 3D aspect of the film when relating to the experience of feeling like you're in space, not the actual technical aspects of it.

And my whole point is that imo, Gravity needed to be seen in that format to truly appreciate what it was trying to do. That's all. Not the scientific inaccuracies or the plot holes or the performances. Just the visceral impact of the film which is integral to the film going experience of seeing Gravity in IMAX 3D.
 

Tino

Taken As Ballast
Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Apr 19, 1999
Messages
23,571
Location
Metro NYC
Real Name
Valentino
Again Vic this all stems from you saying you watched it on a 32" screen. Not trying to change your mind but that's the only point I was trying to convey.
 

Mark Booth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 25, 1999
Messages
3,574
The point of it all was to entertain. If the filmmakers succeed in entertaining the audience, then hopefully the film will make a profit.


Anyone that walks into a non-documentary film expecting anything other than entertainment is setting themselves up for disappointment. Sadly, in too many cases, we also get disappointed on the entertainment too. Which is not to say that 'Gravity' isn't entertaining. It is, and in a HUGE way. Your mileage may vary.


Mark
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
28,687
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Vic Pardo said:
If the film had been less of a thrill ride and more a quieter recounting of a novice space traveler's experience in orbit and the problems one might normally encounter when applying an add-on to the Hubble (or whatever the heck she was doing--it was never explained well enough for me), it would have been much less exciting and less of a hit, but I would have found it a more fulfilling experience and I would have wanted to see it in a theater.

Although just an audio story, this might be more to your liking :)

http://themoth.org/posts/stories/a-view-of-the-earth


I'll venture to say that Ryan Stone's experience in space is no less realistic than Dave Bowman's experience in space, replete with a non-existant space station, a murderous AI, and psychedelic cosmic trips.


As for me: Gravity was like Children of Men, also by Alfonso Cuarón, fundamentally an emotional experience about the human yearning for emotional and physical connection. Everything else, the setting, the special effects, the music, the plot devices, are novel and exciting tactics to provoke that emotional experience.


It may or may not work for you like it did for me. And that's ok ;)
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Mark Booth said:
The point of it all was to entertain. If the filmmakers succeed in entertaining the audience, then hopefully the film will make a profit.


Anyone that walks into a non-documentary film expecting anything other than entertainment is setting themselves up for disappointment. Sadly, in too many cases, we also get disappointed on the entertainment too. Which is not to say that 'Gravity' isn't entertaining. It is, and in a HUGE way. Your mileage may vary.


Mark

Wasn't Gravity supposed to have pretensions of being more than entertainment, though? I seem to recall stories at the time it came out about how "realistic" it was. It seems that it didn't quite "walk the walk" all that well after "talking the talk".
 

Wayne_j

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
4,898
Real Name
Wayne
I think the realistic was making you think that you are really seeing people filmed in space, not the actual science portrayed in the movie.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
Wayne_j said:
I think the realistic was making you think that you are really seeing people filmed in space, not the actual science portrayed in the movie.

A realistic portrayal of people in space kind of implies realistic science, doesn't it? After all, they didn't portray Sandra Bullock floating around in vacuum without a suit or with loud explosions, yes? So they did have SOME pretensions of adhering to actual science. They just didn't follow through in places.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
RobertR said:
A realistic portrayal of people in space kind of implies realistic science, doesn't it? After all, they didn't portray Sandra Bullock floating around in vacuum without a suit or with loud explosions, yes? So they did have SOME pretensions of adhering to actual science. They just didn't follow through in places.
Not to me. I still havent seen it stated by the creator of the movie that was dead on science fact.

I just don't get you people who continue to be hung up on that.
Get over it. It's a movie not a doc. Plenty of poetic license going on.
 

RobertR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 19, 1998
Messages
10,675
TonyD said:
I still havent seen it stated by the creator of the movie that was dead on science fact.

He did say he strove for realism. All I'm saying is that the movie fell short in this regard in some respects. It fascinates me that the willingness of some people to point out this simple fact bothers you so much.
 

Mark Booth

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 25, 1999
Messages
3,574
RobertR said:
Wasn't Gravity supposed to have pretensions of being more than entertainment, though? I seem to recall stories at the time it came out about how "realistic" it was. It seems that it didn't quite "walk the walk" all that well after "talking the talk".

I never once heard the filmmakers claim that 'Gravity' was about reality. Please provide your proof where anyone from the cast, crew or marketing department claimed 'Gravity' was based on reality.


All of the hype on this subject was from the OTHER SIDE, folks that were disappointed with breaks from realism and griping about it ad nauseum on internet forums and blogs.


'Gravity' is FICTION people, NOT a documentary!


It cracks me up that movie goers can turn up their noses over relatively minor annoyances in a film like 'Gravity' and then walk out of that theater and into the adjoining theater and cheer for a man in a Spiderman suit flinging web from his wrists and swinging from building to building! Go figure!


Mark
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,800
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top