• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

Page 14 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
zinfamous said:
Jesus tapdancing Christ--I think half of you are only capable of enjoying a droll documentary of an organic chemist performing titrations all day.
Click to expand...

Produced, written by, and directed by Michael bay. Starring Johnny depp as the madd scientist.
 
OK spoiler question about
the physics
.

When Sandra Bullock is holding onto Cloony and her leg is caught up in the parachute from the space module, Cloony tells her to let go because his momentum is pulling Bullock's foot out of the parachute cord. When he says this to Bullock he is not moving at all, yet there is apparently still some pulling force going on despite the fact that he is not moving at all at that moment when Bullock is holding onto him. When Cloony lets go he starts moving again. Is this really how it would happen in Space? If an object is stopped, shouldn't it just stop?
 
I tend to prefer space movies that take place way out there in distant galaxies like in some Star Trek and Alien series movies. But there are exceptions like Armageddon. After reading all this looks like I'll be seeing this one soon.
 
pete6032 said:
OK spoiler question about
the physics
.

When Sandra Bullock is holding onto Cloony and her leg is caught up in the parachute from the space module, Cloony tells her to let go because his momentum is pulling Bullock's foot out of the parachute cord. When he says this to Bullock he is not moving at all, yet there is apparently still some pulling force going on despite the fact that he is not moving at all at that moment when Bullock is holding onto him. When Cloony lets go he starts moving again. Is this really how it would happen in Space? If an object is stopped, shouldn't it just stop?
Click to expand...

LOL, read multiple entries earlier in this thread.

Seriously people - if you go into a movie like this expecting scientific realism, you are going to be in for one very boring, or very short movie.
 
pete6032 said:
OK spoiler question about
the physics
.

When Sandra Bullock is holding onto Cloony and her leg is caught up in the parachute from the space module, Cloony tells her to let go because his momentum is pulling Bullock's foot out of the parachute cord. When he says this to Bullock he is not moving at all, yet there is apparently still some pulling force going on despite the fact that he is not moving at all at that moment when Bullock is holding onto him. When Cloony lets go he starts moving again. Is this really how it would happen in Space? If an object is stopped, shouldn't it just stop?
Click to expand...

I thought this as well, however, I reasoned it out in my mind that they were close enough to Earth to have some minor gravitational effect. Right or wrong, that's how I dismissed that little flub in my mind to keep my belief suspended long enough to enjoy the rest of the movie.
 
Saw it, loved it, but was bothered by some sciencey things:
It has been discussed in this thread already, but the scene where Clooney has to detach himself really annoyed me. Once he is at rest Bullock should only need to nudge him towards her. Then again, the movie should have ended once Bullock was flung away from the hubble because there's be nothing to slow her down from drifting off into endless space. No way Clooney would ever catch up to her in his dingy little jetpack (or find her for that matter).


Also, how come every time they opened a hatch to an airlock the hatch opened incredibly violently, almost flinging them into space?
 
Kev said:
Saw it, loved it, but was bothered by some sciencey things:

Also, how come every time they opened a hatch to an airlock the hatch opened incredibly violently, almost flinging them into space?
Click to expand...

I assumed that was because of air pressure inside the cabin. I suppose even a cabin that is technically "depressurized" still has higher pressure than space does.
 
One thing I never figured out is how Sandra Bullock ever got on that space ship after she starred in "The Net". That should have been the end of her career, but I guess her hottness prevailed.
 
SlitheryDee said:
I assumed that was because of air pressure inside the cabin. I suppose even a cabin that is technically "depressurized" still has higher pressure than space does.
Click to expand...

You would think they would design around that, you could mechanically slow down the opening of the hatch.
 
Oh and I don't know why I used spoiler tags on my post. If someone has read this far into the thread without seeing the movie they deserve to have it spoiled.
 
Really loved the movie. Disappointed that Stockholm doesn't have IMAX and the two top theaters wouldn't show this movie on their biggest screens but I still enjoyed it.

Reading people nitpick the movie apart though makes me think back to when I was in college. You want to constantly analyze the movie as if it's some kind of challenge to do so but in the end you miss out on the movie experience. You gotta be able to enjoy suspension of disbelief. It's really easy with this movie if you try.

I for one really enjoyed it. I envy you guys who got to see it in IMAX.
 
AViking said:
Really loved the movie. Disappointed that Stockholm doesn't have IMAX and the two top theaters wouldn't show this movie on their biggest screens but I still enjoyed it.

Reading people nitpick the movie apart though makes me think back to when I was in college. You want to constantly analyze the movie as if it's some kind of challenge to do so but in the end you miss out on the movie experience. You gotta be able to enjoy suspension of disbelief. It's really easy with this movie if you try.

I for one really enjoyed it. I envy you guys who got to see it in IMAX.
Click to expand...

Did you get to see it in 3D? It was one of the more natural feeling 3d movies i've seen.
 
I did. I really didn't notice it very much though but maybe that was the point. I spent the last week trying to find the best theater to see it in and ultimately I couldn't do that. The movie doesn't seem to be advertised here or very popular.
 
Scarpozzi said:
One thing I never figured out is how Sandra Bullock ever got on that space ship after she starred in "The Net". That should have been the end of her career, but I guess her hottness prevailed.
Click to expand...

Most stars do a movie or two earlier in their career because they don't really have a choice.

But, if we're talking about Sandra Bullock bombs, I don't know why you'd go with The Net over Speed 2.
 
AViking said:
Reading people nitpick the movie apart though makes me think back to when I was in college. You want to constantly analyze the movie as if it's some kind of challenge to do so but in the end you miss out on the movie experience. You gotta be able to enjoy suspension of disbelief. It's really easy with this movie if you try.
Click to expand...
Well said.
jaedaliu said:
Did you get to see it in 3D? It was one of the more natural feeling 3d movies i've seen.
Click to expand...
AViking said:
I did. I really didn't notice it very much though but maybe that was the point.
Click to expand...
The less you "notice" it, the better. It means that the 3D was implemented well and not just a gimmick.
 
Saw it last night in 3D.

I hate 3D, actively avoid it, but it's all there was.

This is the only movie I've seen in 3D that made me forget I had glasses on. Didn't feel sick, didn't want to stab my eyes after. Actually showed me 3D doesn't have to always suck, even if it usually does.

The movie's plot is not the best in the world but I struggle to recall having ever seen a movie with better videography. I literally do not know how some of the special effects were done, even on a high level. It was really amazing to look at.
 
The third time I saw it was 2D on a normal screen and it wasn't the same experience at all.

Of course, the first 2 times were 3D IMAX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top