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

[Ns1]

Everytime someone uses the term "LieMAX", I have to remind them that IMAX is a simply a brand, and not a specification. They're not obligated to set up the exact same screen with the same size/spec in every location where they are advertised. Use discretion when deciding which screen to go to.

My local IMAX screen isn't one of the huge 7-story tall ones, but it's still pretty damn good, so it works for me. There's a huge one about a 30-minute drive away from my house but I don't feel compelled enough to make the trip.

they most certainly don't advertise this fact. I guess I'll suck up the extra few bucks for parking and go to the giant 7 story IMAX from now on.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

Regarding IMAX. I have been to one and I did not understand the concept. This huge screen that you sit 40 feet away from? It seemed dumb but maybe it was just that one theater.

 

[mmntech]

IMAX isn't a brand exactly. It is a film specification. It uses 70mm stock, which has 8 times the exposure area of standard 35mm. So you get a very crisp, realistic image. Problem is 70mm stock is very expensive, so only used to shoot sequences rather than the entire movie.

More recently, IMAX has been using digital DLP projectors. Not sure if they're using 4K or 8K projectors.

 

[rockyct]

IMAX isn't a brand exactly. It is a film specification. It uses 70mm stock, which has 8 times the exposure area of standard 35mm. So you get a very crisp, realistic image. Problem is 70mm stock is very expensive, so only used to shoot sequences rather than the entire movie.

More recently, IMAX has been using digital DLP projectors. Not sure if they're using 4K or 8K projectors.

I can only think of Dark Knight, MI:4, and Dark Knight Rises being movies shot with real Imax film stock. Imax itself is more of a brand now than a spec. The screens are much smaller than the old tradition Imax size and often just slightly larger than a normal screen.

 

[Howard]

9.5/10

 

[allisolm]

My local IMAX screen isn't one of the huge 7-story tall ones, but it's still pretty damn good, so it works for me.

My local IMAX screen IS one of the huge ones but they're not showing Gravity. Got Riddick and the Wizard of OZ instead. Fingers crossed that they will be showing it soon.

 

[Howard]

Yea, someone needs to explain the physics in this scene. Is it movie physics, or is it real physics that I'm just not understanding?

The only possible explanation that I can come up with is

Spoiler

that the entire ISS is spinning ever so slightly. When they're holding on for dear life, the tether and cords are fully taught and they are at a large distance away from the ISS. If it's in fact barely spinning, then the large distance from the axis of rotation increases centripetal force. If this is true, this is why Sandra Bullock is able to pull herself in (i.e. she is closer to the axis of rotation, less force) whereas George Clooney cannot (i.e. too far away).

My understanding of these physics may be wrong. If I could just watch that scene again, I'll pay more attention next time for any clues that may support or disprove my theory.

I don't recall if the tether was fully taut but you see earlier in the movie that when Clooney is pulling Bullock, the force is not constant but intermittent, evident from the jerking. Maybe each time a jerk happened the strap got a little looser.

 

[LucJoe]

I don't recall if the tether was fully taut but you see earlier in the movie that when Clooney is pulling Bullock, the force is not constant but intermittent, evident from the jerking. Maybe each time a jerk happened the strap got a little looser.

Seems to be different to me. My understanding is when he was towing her the jerks were because they were accelerating. I'm no physicist but that would seem to indicate the tether was not fully inelastic (?) and each time they reached the edge would snap and transfer momentum to her. Then he would hit the jets and again it would snap and transfer. I'm probably not explaining it well but it made sense to me at the time.

I had a problem with the other scene though. There seemed to be a constant force pushing him away from the space station. Since we assumed no other force acting on the space station (like the jetpack was) it didn't make sense to me. I have since accepted another user's explanation that the station could have a slight angular momentum which could cause it.

 

[silverpig]

The way I see it, gravity is a constant force in the film. Imperfect orbits, the fear of falling toward Earth in an uncontrolled way, the fear of being launched beyond the pull of Earth's gravity and sent out into space...

Yeah there's no way that would happen without a massive rocket booster. A fire extinguisher, or even all the fuel on a Soyuz would only change the orbit, not get them to escape velocity.

 

[Ichinisan]

Yeah there's no way that would happen without a massive rocket booster. A fire extinguisher, or even all the fuel on a Soyuz would only change the orbit, not get them to escape velocity.

You sure about that? They're already at-or-close to perfect / stable orbit speed. Any slower and your orbit decays until you fall to Earth. Any faster, and your orbit grows and grows and grows until you escape Earth's gravitational pull.

 

[Ns1]

You sure about that? They're already at-or-close to perfect / stable orbit speed. Any slower and your orbit decays until you fall to Earth. Any faster, and your orbit grows and grows and grows until you escape Earth's gravitational pull.

Don't you guys play Angry Birds? Everybody knows this.

 

[Paratus]

You sure about that? They're already at-or-close to perfect / stable orbit speed. Any slower and your orbit decays until you fall to Earth. Any faster, and your orbit grows and grows and grows until you escape Earth's gravitational pull.

At the orbit the ISS flies we are always more than 180 days from de-orbit, even without doing a single reboost. And you have a long way to go before you'd escape earths gravity. Orbital speed is 5 miles /sec. Escape velocity is more like 7 miles/sec.

 

[phucheneh]

Am I the only one who will 100% avoid this movie this based on personal philosophy?

As in, every single 'critically acclaimed' movie in the past decade that seemed to completely lack dissenting opinions has been terrible. And it always seems like, after a few years go by, people start to admit that it was not that great. It's some kind of critic peer pressure that only seems to happen with with films of the highest 'in love with their own farts' caliber. I just quit watching the shit to save myself time and aggravation.

That and I thought the concept of 'Castaway' with Sandra Bullock [in space] sounded, you know, terrible. George Clooney is cool, but I'll only like his character if he floats through space plotting Sandra Bullock's demise.

 

[Aikouka]

Regarding IMAX. I have been to one and I did not understand the concept. This huge screen that you sit 40 feet away from? It seemed dumb but maybe it was just that one theater.

I've only been to a digital IMAX ("LieMAX"), but you don't sit far away in those. We have a dome IMAX here too -- I should check that out sometime!

My local IMAX screen IS one of the huge ones but they're not showing Gravity. Got Riddick and the Wizard of OZ instead. Fingers crossed that they will be showing it soon.

I'm not sure it will come I your theater. At least based on what all the people in here are saying, it sounds like it's only in IMAX 3D. 70mm doesn't support 3D as that uses two 4k digital projectors. Although, you get REAL IMAX not the reduced quality "LieMAX".

 

[Paratus]

So I did see this today. They obviously did a fair amount of research.

Accurate Things:

Spoiler

All the ISS hardware was spot on including some at least one module we're still waiting on the Russians to launch.

The computer displays in the ISS were mostly accurate too. They had the on board time line viewer up in the scene where Sandra is trying to reach Clooney on the radio in the Service Module.

When the fire starts the laptop annunciation an alarm. They show the actual ISS command pages called PCS. I use it all the time to command the vehicle.

Paper procedures looked correctly formatted too.

 

[silverpig]

You sure about that? They're already at-or-close to perfect / stable orbit speed. Any slower and your orbit decays until you fall to Earth. Any faster, and your orbit grows and grows and grows until you escape Earth's gravitational pull.

Yup. Think about it this way: you are at 200km in altitude, how much energy to you have to add to get to 1000km altitude? Can a fire extinguisher boost you 800km up?

 

[CZroe]

Saw it again today. It was a much better experience than the first time due in no small part to the theater giving me a new pair of folding glasses this time. I didn't ask but last time I did complain that the glasses with fixed legs were bad (my brother's were fine). They were clean enough but there was a picket fence effect on the vertical polarized lens (left) anywhere there was white text on the screen (right too but text is horizontal). It was most noticeable with text but anything bright had the same effect and my viewing experience was ruined. Also, the top ridge blocks your view when worn with glasses (sits too low on nose) despite the HUGE lenses.

I don't recall if the tether was fully taut but you see earlier in the movie that when Clooney is pulling Bullock, the force is not constant but intermittent, evident from the jerking. Maybe each time a jerk happened the strap got a little looser.

It was taut. The station and the tethered load could also have been moving parallel to each other at different speeds until the tether tightened and they were slowly drifting to the rear (assuming the station was faster), which could even create a spin.

Seems to be different to me. My understanding is when he was towing her the jerks were because they were accelerating. I'm no physicist but that would seem to indicate the tether was not fully inelastic (?) and each time they reached the edge would snap and transfer momentum to her. Then he would hit the jets and again it would snap and transfer. I'm probably not explaining it well but it made sense to me at the time.

I had a problem with the other scene though. There seemed to be a constant force pushing him away from the space station. Since we assumed no other force acting on the space station (like the jetpack was) it didn't make sense to me. I have since accepted another user's explanation that the station could have a slight angular momentum which could cause it.

The jerks are because there is no drag and each tug suddenly snaps the towed subject forward faster than the pulling object with nothing to slow the towed subject down. It's exactly as I would expect from basic Newtonian physics.

 

[Ichinisan]

Am I the only one who will 100% avoid this movie this based on personal philosophy?

As in, every single 'critically acclaimed' movie in the past decade that seemed to completely lack dissenting opinions has been terrible. And it always seems like, after a few years go by, people start to admit that it was not that great. It's some kind of critic peer pressure that only seems to happen with with films of the highest 'in love with their own farts' caliber. I just quit watching the shit to save myself time and aggravation.

That and I thought the concept of 'Castaway' with Sandra Bullock [in space] sounded, you know, terrible. George Clooney is cool, but I'll only like his character if he floats through space plotting Sandra Bullock's demise.

FYI, this is *not* another District 9.

 

[Ichinisan]

So I did see this today. They obviously did a fair amount of research.

Accurate Things:

Spoiler

All the ISS hardware was spot on including some at least one module we're still waiting on the Russians to launch.

The computer displays in the ISS were mostly accurate too. They had the on board time line viewer up in the scene where Sandra is trying to reach Clooney on the radio in the Service Module.

When the fire starts the laptop annunciation an alarm. They show the actual ISS command pages called PCS. I use it all the time to command the vehicle.

Paper procedures looked correctly formatted too.

Spoiler

Are there no automatic fire suppression systems? Can't certain modules be sealed-off to prevent fire from spreading as it does in the movie?

 

[cbhaase16]

I... I can't describe... so amazing...

 

[bearxor]

@Paratus

Just curious about something.

Spoiler

When the communication satellites are destroyed and they start transmitting "in the blind", would you guys be able to hear that but not respond; or would those radios be way too weak to reach anything without a relay?

 

[Paratus]

Spoiler

Are there no automatic fire suppression systems? Can't certain modules be sealed-off to prevent fire from spreading as it does in the movie?

Spoiler

If the on board smoke detectors detect smoke then certain automated functions kick-off to stop ventilation in the affected module. Fire and combustion products spread by air currents. Without active ventilation the fire has a harder time getting O2 and spreading.

Fire in space looks more like the first scene where you small balls of fire burning then the second scene with the raging fire.

If the fire alarm goes off the crew puts on O2 masks and enters the module to take air sample readings at various fire ports to see if the fire is behind an equipment rack. Equipment should automatically unpowered if there's a short, but if it doesn't we'll kill power so as not to feed a short.

Once they determine the location of the fire the crew discharges a CO2 fire extinguisher in the closest fire port. They even take more readings to make sure the fire is out.

Module hatches can be closed but they have to be done manually.

 

[Paratus]

@Paratus

Just curious about something.

Spoiler

When the communication satellites are destroyed and they start transmitting "in the blind", would you guys be able to hear that but not respond; or would those radios be way too weak to reach anything without a relay?

Spoiler

It depends on where over the Earth they are and what radio system they are using. The high speed radio links that the shuttle and station use require TDRS satellites to work, plus they are highly directionally dependent.

The suit radios are UHF but weak and are relayed through a UHF receiver on the ISS or Shuttle and then through a satellite. The station shuttle and Soyuz also have UHF radios capable of reaching the ground, but it would require that the vehicle was over an American or Russian ground site. It's also possible that somebody could have picked up a suit transmission but not likely.

 

[bearxor]

Spoiler

It depends on where over the Earth they are and what radio system they are using. The high speed radio links that the shuttle and station use require TDRS satellites to work, plus they are highly directionally dependent.

The suit radios are UHF but weak and are relayed through a UHF receiver on the ISS or Shuttle and then through a satellite. The station shuttle and Soyuz also have UHF radios capable of reaching the ground, but it would require that the vehicle was over an American or Russian ground site. It's also possible that somebody could have picked up a suit transmission but not likely.

Spoiler

Thanks. I was just wondering if it was actually helpful or just a device to introduce narration in scenes when someone might not normally be talking. Though, in that situation I'd imagine you'd probably just talk to yourself a lot anyways.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Saw it a second time last night in 2D. What a brilliant film. That last scene with the ultra wide angle and the music comes up and the movies closes to the titles. Ahhh. Just brilliant!