"Gravity" (currently 98% positive ratings on RT)

[CZroe]

This movie is a 6/10 for me. It was actually a good idea but implemented wrong and needed a director such as James Cameron to turn it into a 2 to 3 hr epic.

Oh, dear God: NO

*shudders*

 

[Ichinisan]

Oh, dear God: NO

*shudders*

I imagine a movie with a monologue from a greedy villain guy from a militaristic corporation.

 

[CZroe]

I imagine a movie with a monologue from a greedy villain guy from a militaristic corporation.

Who started it all by selfishly ignoring a wise hero-type who tried to warn him.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I was "forced" to watch this movie today by the wife.

With some regret, I had to admit that it was good. It was damn good. This is the reason that 3d movies exist.

Stop with the technical nitpicks, and enjoy the ride.

It's not just the technical nitpicks. The script really became terrible extremely quickly, and characters did things that made no sense at all. The cheese factor went through the roof.

Also, the premise as to why all the shit happened went beyond technical nitpicks. It was complete total "well that was retarded"

 

[BlitzPuppet]

Saw it this weekend....What a freaking BORING movie. Was one of the only movies that I actually felt like I was falling asleep.

I was amused with how many "That wasn't as good as I thought it was going to be" 's as I came out of the theater with my GF.

 

[Kaido]

Stop with the technical nitpicks

But this is ATOT

 

[zinfamous]

I see the Michael Bay crowd finally got themselves into the theater this weekend, and were disappointed by the lack of explosions and teenage boobs.

 

[Kaido]

It's not just the technical nitpicks. The script really became terrible extremely quickly, and characters did things that made no sense at all. The cheese factor went through the roof.

Also, the premise as to why all the shit happened went beyond technical nitpicks. It was complete total "well that was retarded"

Now that I've discussed it with people, it seems like 3 different sub-movies: the first 20 minutes or so with all the action, the middle part where you're along for the ride, and then the ending...like with the frog. It seems like it lost its focus a few times.

Which is a pity, because with a few tweaks to the script, this movie would have been a keeper for sure! Instead I've just been telling everyone it's definitely worth a watch, in theaters, in 3D, and that's it. I really felt like this could have been an amazing psychological horror film, like they portrayed it in the commercial. It started out that way, but it definitely didn't end that way.

I still don't want to be an astronaut after seeing that movie though :biggrin:

 

[AstroManLuca]

Spoiler

I think maybe if the whole thing was spinning in a centrifuge-style circle to give it some force, it would have been more believable

Spoiler

That seems like the only plausible explanation. If they were at equilibrium, all Sandra Bullock would have had to do was tug him toward her ever so gently and he would be fine. I thought that maybe he was afraid that if he pulled himself toward her, he would end up dislodging her from the ropes and pulling them both away, because of the whole Newton's laws thing. But in space, it would have only required the very slightest tug to get him back.

Oh and to the haters: What was your favorite "classic" Star Trek movie? If you said Wrath of Khan, I understand why you didn't like Gravity. Mine was The Motion Picture. Guess I'm weird like that, I enjoy "boring" movies more than action-packed ones, and that's part of why I liked Gravity.

 

[CZroe]

I see the Michael Bay crowd finally got themselves into the theater this weekend, and were disappointed by the lack of explosions and teenage boobs.

This.

 

[AstroManLuca]

This movie is a 6/10 for me. It was actually a good idea but implemented wrong and needed a director such as James Cameron to turn it into a 2 to 3 hr epic.

I really hope you were being sarcastic.

One of the best parts of this movie was the 90 minute runtime. I like short movies. I hate it when directors feel they must add an hour of useless padding just to make it more "epic" (P.S. talk about an overused word).

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I see the Michael Bay crowd finally got themselves into the theater this weekend, and were disappointed by the lack of explosions and teenage boobs.

That's funny. Because I remember tons of explosions and boob shots.

Which was exactly why I thought the movie sucked.

I was expecting something like Apollo 13. I got a mediocre earth orbit version of Red Planet.

 

[AstroManLuca]

That's funny. Because I remember tons of explosions and boob shots.

Which was exactly why I thought the movie sucked.

I was expecting something like Apollo 13. I got a mediocre earth orbit version of Red Planet.

Remind me where you saw aliens in Gravity?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Remind me where you saw aliens in Gravity?

I think you missed the point. I just thought up the first mediocre space movie that involved spaceship blowing up around main characters and trying to survive said destruction.

They were basically the same thing.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I think you missed the point. I just thought up the first mediocre space movie that involved spaceship blowing up around main characters and trying to survive said destruction.

They were basically the same thing.

I guess if you think the two movies were at all similar we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

I guess if you think the two movies were at all similar we'll just have to agree to disagree.

They were both mediocre, they both used terrible science, and both were extremely cheesy.

Hell I think Red Planet somehow managed to be less cheesy just because they didn't try to be so serious.

 

[BlitzPuppet]

I see the Michael Bay crowd finally got themselves into the theater this weekend, and were disappointed by the lack of explosions and teenage boobs.

We thought it was boring because it was another Castaway.

Didn't realize how much I don't care for movies that only follow the struggles of one person throughout 70% of the movie... her character sucked/was terrible.

Good acting and everything was pretty so I'll give it that.

 

[zinfamous]

Didn't realize how much I don't care for movies that only follow the struggles of one person throughout 70% of the movie... her character sucked/was terrible.

...but that's basically every good movie that was ever made.

Do you hate movies like Raging Bull, On the Waterfront?

You can basically say that about the Nolan Batman movies as well. Granted, there is more action to distract you from the director's attempts to develop character, but it's there.

 

[NikolaeVarius]

...but that's basically every good movie that was ever made.

Do you hate movies like Raging Bull, On the Waterfront?

You can basically say that about the Nolan Batman movies as well. Granted, there is more action to distract you from the director's attempts to develop character, but it's there.

Except other movies have reasons as to why we should "care" for the main character.

This movie, I didn't give a damn about the main character. The only other character goes away in 15 minutes, and the characterization of Bullock simply didn't make any sense. I don't know if they were going for trying to make her seem more relatable by being "clumsy" and not knowing what was going on with emergency protocol, or why a doctor suddenly needs to be on the space shuttle installing equipment an engineer should be handling, but it just made the movie seem extremely poorly written.

She doesn't have a family to give a damn about, we barely know anything about her back story, no stakes on earth, no stakes in the sky. Literally no reason to care about her at all, unless you get off to her breathing loudly for 30 minutes.

 

[Kaido]

They were both mediocre, they both used terrible science, and both were extremely cheesy.

It's entertainment, why does everyone want accurate science? It's not a documentary; the purpose is to be entertained for two hours. In this particular case, to be entertained with more of a degree of realism than say Armageddon. For me, the science was mostly okay in this movie, it's the script that could have used some work - you never really get a chance to care about the main characters very much and they kind of go in three separate directions throughout the movie.

 

[Kaido]

Except other movies have reasons as to why we should "care" for the main character.

This movie, I didn't give a care about the main character. The only other character goes away in 15 minutes, and the characterization of Bullock simply didn't make any sense. I don't know if they were going for trying to make her seem more relatable by being "clumsy" and not knowing what was going on with emergency protocol, or why a doctor suddenly needs to be on the space shuttle installing equipment an engineer should be handling, but it just made the movie seem extremely poorly written.

She doesn't have a family to give a damn about, we barely know anything about her back story, no stakes on earth, no stakes in the sky. Literally no reason to care about her at all

Spoiler

Yeah, and that goes along with the lack of a "higher power" focus & ending. If movies are headed toward the athiest/agnostic ending route, then man, we're in for some boring, emotionless endings. I mean, I'm sure you can write them differently even if that's the case, but even if you're not religious, it's nice having that warm-fuzzy feeling at the end of a movie - that there is a greater reason to life than just living and dying and going through the motions, that there is someone looking out for you out there, that it's not all completely pointlesss & meaningless. The ending to Gravity was like: "So...science, yeah! And uh, no family for her. Yay she made it to earth. The end." It didn't feel like she grew very much or that she really learned anything meaningful at all. You have a bit of a triumph at the end but it kind of feels meaningless, partially because you don't really care about the main character.

 

[Kaido]

...but that's basically every good movie that was ever made.

Yup, that's the M.O for American movies - one character making a small change in their lives. It's really fun studying film in different cultures. For example, in Australia, the main character has to die gloriously in the end. If they don't, then the movie is a bust. If you do that in America, well, you get I Am Legend :biggrin:

 

[Printer Bandit]

when they were "floating" in space, how fast were they travelling ? 17,000 mph?

 

[Kaido]

when they were "floating" in space, how fast were they travelling ? 17,000 mph?

Spoiler

And that's one of the science problems - they're all like "the debris is traveling toward you faster than a speeding bullet!" And it will hit them again every 90 minutes! Except wait...wouldn't it actually take a month and a half to circle them again? :biggrin:

 

[AstroManLuca]

Spoiler

And that's one of the science problems - they're all like "the debris is traveling toward you faster than a speeding bullet!" And it will hit them again every 90 minutes! Except wait...wouldn't it actually take a month and a half to circle them again? :biggrin:

You know, I never really thought about that.

Spoiler

If the debris was flying UP from lower orbits, you'd expect there to be a single wave and then it would be over.

If the debris field was in a different orbit that crossed the one the characters were in, then the chances of it actually hitting them would be very low. Like hitting one flying bullet with another bullet.

It's basically depicted as if the debris is "sitting" in one spot, and the astronauts move through it once per orbit. That may work for meteor showers, where the Earth travels through debris fields in interplanetary space, but in low earth orbit, it wouldn't be able to sit in one spot and it wouldn't be able to orbit twice as fast as the astronauts either (it would escape orbit entirely).