Gravity (2013) (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

2nd viewing, AMC Tyson's, ETX theater with Atmos. Fantastic. Best movie I've seen this year.As someone explained to me, it seems IMAX is brighter than RealD. But I think RealD is better 3D. In this showing, the intro text and credits weren't 3D. IMAX they were, but were nearly unwatchable due to crosstalkAtmos is impressive, but loud. Second loudest movie this, after Pacific Rim, perhaps.Cuaron hits me in an emotional solar plexus. Love this movie. Want to see it again.

I warned you about the Tysons Atmos screen!

Not sure I'd blame Atmos - I'd blame that theater. I saw "PR" and "Gravity" Atmos at Kingstowne - they were loud but not LOUD!!!!! like "Die Hard" was at the Tysons Atmos screen. I suspect they just like to crank it to 11 there...

 

[RobertR]

My friend had the same reaction.My perception, perhaps I'm unconsciously retconning, is different. I perceive them both still in motion, unraveling the parachute cords. They are in tension. They have some momentum. The spring force of the parachute isn't linear, but is decreasing. Cutting Kowalski halves Stone's mass and momentum. He continues on his course. She now reacts less massively to the fleeting spring force and is drawn back in.

There was no momentum, because we could clearly see that his velocity relative to her was zero (her velocity relative to the station was also zero). There is no momentum without velocity. We could also clearly see that there was no rotation, since the stars and earth didn't move. There was simply nothing there to cause tension. I understand that it was done for dramatic purposes, but I wish they had put more thought into making his letting go a necessity.

 

[Johnny Angell]

There was no momentum, because we could clearly see that his velocity relative to her was zero (her velocity relative to the station was also zero). There is no momentum without velocity. We could also clearly see that there was no rotation, since the stars and earth didn't move. There was simply nothing there to cause tension. I understand that it was done for dramatic purposes, but I wish they had put more thought into making his letting go a necessity.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but IMHO, those who are criticizing the film for failing to reproduce reality, are the probably the same people who get in the bread line and ask for toast.

This is a wonderful film, I enjoyed it immensely. For those who let the "reality" issues get in the way of enjoying the film, I offer my sympathies.

 

[RobertR]

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but IMHO, those who are criticizing the film for failing to reproduce reality, are the probably the same people who get in the bread line and ask for toast.

Actually, it's more a case of they implied they were going to deliver toast, and even did so partially, but could have easily done a better job of doing so if they were willing to work a little harder.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Saw this at the local new IMAX over the weekend, which turned out to be LieMAX, but oh well. The image was bright enough and big enough.
Remember the old George Carlin routine about going to the dentist, where he says that when you get the gas, you still feel the pain; you just don't give a sh*t? Well, I noticed all the physics issues (nobody mentioned the fire yet?), but was enjoying the ride so much that I didn't give a sh*t!

Spoiler

As for the idea that Sandra dies at the end, well, IMO that approaches "Deckard is a Replicant" levels of stupidity. You can have your hero fail to reach the goal, or you can have your hero die at the end, but when the goal is simply surviving dangers that are entirely outside human control, having the hero fail and die produces no emotional payoff for the audience. Granted, you could go in a supernatural/ afterlife direction, but that wouldn't have felt right here. And while Sandra is "reborn" with a new desire to live, I would argue that that is simply the end result of her experience, as opposed to an emotional journey that she takes over the course of the story. The running focus of the story is the action/ adventure, not inner changes.

Gravity reminded me of Apocalypto in the way it kept upping the stakes. Probably not quite to that level, but Apocalytpo is one of my all-time favorites. It was close, though.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

There was no momentum, because we could clearly see that his velocity relative to her was zero (her velocity relative to the station was also zero). There is no momentum without velocity. We could also clearly see that there was no rotation, since the stars and earth didn't move. There was simply nothing there to cause tension. I understand that it was done for dramatic purposes, but I wish they had put more thought into making his letting go a necessity.

I felt like their relative velocities were small, but non-zero.

At least, that's what I was telling myself as I watched it.

 

[Chris Will]

Actually, it's more a case of they implied they were going to deliver toast, and even did so partially, but could have easily done a better job of doing so if they were willing to work a little harder.

I don't remember seeing a title card saying that the film was 100% scientifically correct but, maybe I missed it. Gravity is a work of fiction and no more implied that they were doing everything 100% factual as any other movie. SpaceCamp didn't get the science right either, and it's based in the real world but it's still a fun movie. If every movie based in the real world, bond by real science, has to be 100% factual then how do some of you enjoy any movie because nothing will ever be 100% correct.

The goal is to make a good, entertaining movie, not a science lesson. Gravity has succeeded at that goal better then any movie this year and the continued criticism about the science is beyond ridiculous at this point IMO.

It's just hard to enjoy discussing this movie when some always comes back with "but the science was all wrong".

 

[RobertR]

I It's just hard to enjoy discussing this movie when some always comes back with "but the science was all wrong".

No one said the science was "all wrong". The movie gets some things right, and it was obviously important to the filmmakers to do so. You also seem to have missed the fact that people who have critiqued the science (including me) have said they still enjoyed the movie. It's never been implied that discussion of a movie requires that people are only allowed to describe it as flawless in every respect.

 

[DaveF]

Except that he shot the scene like there was a constant acceleration away from each other. They were always in tension like as if there was a headwind, even though they were stopped rleative to each other and the station. She never "bounced" back like there was a spring force in action. It is a "mistake" but, to me, it is moot since the "mistake" was really an artistic liberty taken to increase the dramatic tension that, once again, she was about to lose someone and was essentially powerless to stop it.

I do not think they were stopped relative to the station. They were pulling away from it, hence the unraveling of the chute cords. But I don't want to make much of it. Right or wrong physically, the scene was very effective as a story piece. What is surprising, in a way, is how Cuaron's last two 'science fiction' movies are raw emotion. They aren't intellectual endeavors, but are driven by intense emotion. They are small stories, centered on an individual nearly overwhelmed by forces beyond his or her control.

 

[DaveF]

No one said the science was "all wrong". The movie gets some things right, and it was obviously important to the filmmakers to do so. You also seem to have missed the fact that people who have critiqued the science (including me) have said they still enjoyed the movie. It's never been implied that discussion of a movie requires that people are only allowed to describe it as flawless in every respect.

Yes. Talking to my coworker this morning, he noted that the Chinese station de-orbited very fast (impossibly so). And I've heard that gun enthusiasts notice how all movie gunshots sound completely wrong.Such is the limitation of entertainment.

 

[cafink]

I'm somewhat ok with placing the space stations in such close proximity to each other. After all, there had to be some plausible way for her to get out of her predicament. What really bothers me is the "she had to let go of him" scene. The physics made that unnecessary. Once he stopped moving, there was zero tension on the line. A slight tug would have been sufficient to pull him towards her. Even if the line wrapped around her had a tenuous grip, all she had to do was reach down and grab it (which she obviously did later), then pull him towards her.

This is the error that most bothered me, too. I could forgive every other scientific liberty, but this one was so egregious in its ignorance of physics, and such a pivotal scene to the film, that it took me right out of the movie and went a long way towards spoiling my enjoyment.

I discussed the scene with a friend who interpreted it more like Dave did, but the scene didn't read that way to me at all. I'll have to watch it again sometime and pay closer attention to exactly how everything is depicted.

What I find especially wrongheaded is the excuse that the filmmakers HAD to take liberties with that scene for the sake of audience engagement/entertainment. The scene might not have been as emotionally engaging if it had been set up exactly the same except with an accurate portrayal of the physics, but that indicates that the real, underlying problem is in the writing. It's the filmmakers' job to place their characters into entertaining, engaging situations according to the "rules" established in the film's world. In this case, they failed, because after giving every indication that the movie takes place in the "real" world, with more-or-less realistic zero-gravity physics, they couldn't find any way to effectively stage the scene without contradicting that portrayal. I, for one, became totally DISengaged during that scene.

It's a shame, because everything else about the movie was just stunning.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Luckily for the filmmaker, the science errors doesn't appear to affect the majority that viewed this film.

 

[schan1269]

Luckily for the filmmaker, the science errors doesn't affect the majority that view this film.

I don't have a problem with that scene at all.

They are not "still", They are travelling how many miles per second?

In space, mass matters...not weight. If she was "sliding" along the rope...less mass matters.

 

[RobertR]

They are not "still", They are travelling how many miles per second?

Their orbital speed is irrelevant. All that matters is that their speed relative to each other and to the station is zero. There was simply nothing there to cause tension in the line. Also, if the line was "sliding" along her leg, she would have immediately reached down and grabbed it, since a failure to do so would have killed both of them. But she made no such immediate move, therefore it's obvious it wasn't sliding.

Luckily for the filmmaker, the science errors doesn't appear to affect the majority that viewed this film.

Of course, the vast majority of people know very little about physics.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Of course, the vast majority of people know very little about physics.

Thus, with our ignorance, we are free to completely enjoy this great film without any science-related hesitation.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

It's like this, guys: Clooney's oxygen valve was malfunctioning, and he mistakenly thought he was pulling Sandra away from the station because he was lightheaded and not thinking straight.

Yep!

 

[Patrick Sun]

Math are hard.

 

[Tino]

Robert R said:

Of course, the vast majority of people know very little about physics.

I would argue that most people would notice this physics error but in the end not care due to the overwhelming majority of physics that Gravity did get right.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I've told this story before, and I am going to tell it again. A long time ago, I was on submarines. The military kind; like the ones in both good and bad James Bond movies, or Crimson Tide, or The Hunt for Red October. That does require some substantial technical training (and even some physics!). During a deployment in 1998, we had pulled into a port in Italy that maintains a small Navy base. On that small base was a theater. They were showing the brand new Godzilla (with Ferris Bueller and Leon). I saw it with several of my friends from the boat, because it looked cool, and anything from home was a good thing. This was the most hyped movie of the 98 summer, to boot. So we're watching this turd and, as you may dimly recall, at one point Godzilla jumps into the Harbor to escape yet another attack by the military. There are several submarines lurking in those waters which attack her (remember, Godzilla was a her [I guess] in this turkey). That was the moment my co-horts derisively chortled at, and the scene that they made fun of after the film was over and we were briefly discussing it.

Now don't get me wrong, the film Godzilla (1998) got all of the submarine facts wrong in. From uniforms, to outward appearance, to how things work aboard, etc. All wrong. But these men I went with, trained engineers, quite a few with technical Masters degrees, sat stone faced watching a giant nuclear lizard wander an empty New York set, beset by the least aerodynamically sound helicopters I've ever seen, flown by incompetent actors that gave better performances in commercials through their careers. Nothing. Now once an element in which they were familiar showed up (and was subsequently botched) in the film, my friends got derisive.

So what is my point? Everyone is an expert at something, and they can get defensive about it when something far reaching gets it "wrong." Filmmakers often know better but choose an altered representation for dramatic purposes. Because most of us aren't spies, or superheroes, or cops, or lawyers, or doctors, we just let it pass by.

Cuaron is one of the good ones, probably one of the best ones. I have no doubt that he was aware of the liberties he was taking, but he took them anyway for dramatic purposes.

What is interesting is how laser-focused criticisms like these tend to be. Focused around what people do know, but assuming everything else is rock solid.

As an example, I have heard NO criticism of another narrative element (non-physics related) that is, for my money, as crazy as any of the physics. For example, what are the chances that NASA sent up a very experienced mission commander that did NOT know the psychological makeup of every member of their team? Would Kowalski actually not know exactly where Ryan Stone was from, that she lost a child, the name of her parents and dog and high school? Of course he would. Even with only 6 months of training, Stone would have trained with Kowalski quite a bit (they don't "wing" spacewalks), and he would have read her entire file cover to cover. And I imagine that NASA keeps incredibly dense and detailed files on each and every single person that they spend millions of dollars to put into space at great risk to all involved. But the characters spend plenty of time, relevant meaningful time, having that conversation (for us, obviously).

Either you can roll with the punches (as many as there may be) or you can't. Either you choose to accept dramatic license or you don't. The challenge to a director is to make the audience either not notice the discrepancy or to not care as much, because the drama of the story is more powerful.

The point of my story is to not get too wrapped up in pockets of expertise. One person's ignorance is another person's passion.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Well done, Chuck.