| Author |
 Topic  |
|
randall 
"I like to watch."
|
 Posted - 10/13/2013 : 18:19:08
|
GRAVITY is every bit as good as you�ve heard. It�s not just a nail-biting thriller, not just far and away the best cinematic depiction of what it�s like to be in space, not just the finest performance ever from Sandra Bullock. Even more important, it introduces new concepts to the language of film: swirling, swooping, gyroscopic shots that observe no earthbound rules, that can take you inside a space helmet and out again without cuts or dissolves; the opening shot alone must last ten minutes. They�ll have to invent a new term to describe this constantly malleable point of view. But the story doesn�t stop long enough to let you ponder �how�d they do that?� For all I know, they built some rockets and shot two game movie stars into Earth orbit. You�ve never seen anything like this. Nobody has.
It�s a howling, crowd-pleasing, eye-popping triumph for director/co-writer Alphonso Cuaron. His resume is already impressive: besides directing the best Harry Potter film (PRISONER OF AZKABAN), there�s also CHILDREN OF MEN (he tops the opening shot here) and the delightful Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. His friend Guillermo del Toro, also a fan of the fantastique, must be bursting with pride. But Cuaron leads an army of technical wizards so state-of-the-art that I didn�t recognize several of the jobs listed in the end credits.
The story, by the director and his son Jonas, is simplicity itself. Two astronauts are on a space walk as the film begins. Something bad happens, and now it�s all about survival. Playing opposite Bullock is George Clooney, who knows more about this mission than her medical officer does, and delivers perfectly timed moments of lightness (he listens to Hank Williams in space and tells �Houston� � the unseen Ed Harris � �it�s not rocket science�). That�s your entire on-camera cast.
The space effects are beyond belief, and so is the sound design. You never hear �sync� sound unless it would be physically possible, and space is by and large silent, emphasized by an opening fanfare under the title card that gets louder and louder and louder�until we cut to space and utter silence for the beginning of that first magnificent, marathon, multigravitational, POV-shifting, �single shot.� But there�s a top-notch music score by Steven Price which ratchets up the tension almost unbearably.
GRAVITY set an October-opening box-office record here in the States, and continued its financial rampage in the second weekend, which is when I saw it, earlier today. I attended a regular-screen 3-D performance, and though the 3-D effects were leagues better than those in the trailer for THE HOBBIT 2 which preceded it, GRAVITY is probably just as enjoyable flat. But real thrill-seekers will go me one better and screen it in IMAX.
Do not miss this one. See it in a theater if you can. �Amazing� isn�t strong enough. Maybe the word we want is �GRAVITY-like.�
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 10/13/2013 : 19:42:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by randall
GRAVITY is every bit as good as you�ve heard. It�s not just a nail-biting thriller, not just far and away the best cinematic depiction of what it�s like to be in space, not just the finest performance ever from Sandra Bullock. Even more important, it introduces new concepts to the language of film: swirling, swooping, gyroscopic shots that observe no earthbound rules, that can take you inside a space helmet and out again without cuts or dissolves; the opening shot alone must last ten minutes. They�ll have to invent a new term to describe this constantly malleable point of view. But the story doesn�t stop long enough to let you ponder �how�d they do that?� For all I know, they built some rockets and shot two game movie stars into Earth orbit. You�ve never seen anything like this. Nobody has.
It�s a howling, crowd-pleasing, eye-popping triumph for director/co-writer Alphonso Cuaron. His resume is already impressive: besides directing the best Harry Potter film (PRISONER OF AZKABAN), there�s also CHILDREN OF MEN (he tops the opening shot here) and the delightful Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN. His friend Guillermo del Toro, also a fan of the fantastique, must be bursting with pride. But Cuaron leads an army of technical wizards so state-of-the-art that I didn�t recognize several of the jobs listed in the end credits.
The story, by the director and his son Jonas, is simplicity itself. Two astronauts are on a space walk as the film begins. Something bad happens, and now it�s all about survival. Playing opposite Bullock is George Clooney, who knows more about this mission than her medical officer does, and delivers perfectly timed moments of lightness (he listens to Hank Williams in space and tells �Houston� � the unseen Ed Harris � �it�s not rocket science�). That�s your entire on-camera cast.
The space effects are beyond belief, and so is the sound design. You never hear �sync� sound unless it would be physically possible, and space is by and large silent, emphasized by an opening fanfare under the title card that gets louder and louder and louder�until we cut to space and utter silence for the beginning of that first magnificent, marathon, multigravitational, POV-shifting, �single shot.� But there�s a top-notch music score by Steven Price which ratchets up the tension almost unbearably.
GRAVITY set an October-opening box-office record here in the States, and continued its financial rampage in the second weekend, which is when I saw it, earlier today. I attended a regular-screen 3-D performance, and though the 3-D effects were leagues better than those in the trailer for THE HOBBIT 2 which preceded it, GRAVITY is probably just as enjoyable flat. But real thrill-seekers will go me one better and screen it in IMAX.
Do not miss this one. See it in a theater if you can. �Amazing� isn�t strong enough. Maybe the word we want is �GRAVITY-like.�
WOW! Thanks, randall! It better fall from space in this direction soon - my anticipation meter is running in overdrive ... or should that be warp-drive!!
|
 |
|
|
demonic 
"Cinemaniac"
|
Posted - 10/15/2013 : 06:21:11
|
| Absolutely agree - one of the best films of the year, and significantly the first film in many, many years to make a strong case for 3D film-making. I'm expecting there to be a few gongs thrown at this film come awards time. |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 10/21/2013 : 05:44:28
|
| Concur all the way around. I'm still smitten by this film, and it's been 8 hours since I saw it. Solid, solid, solid. |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/11/2013 : 17:29:32
|
No dissent from the lauding from me. Saw it yesterday and it keeps on resonating. My two most powerful memories are:
1. best use of 3D EVER - and sfx that raise the bar in the way that Kubrick did in 2001: Space Odyssey!
2. Yes, Clooney is characteristically charming and terrific, but, as randall has mentioned, Bullock is uber-amazing. She shares with you - both in the dialogue AND the silences - her troubled past and the strength she finds to face the future. Clutching sand - I will remember the unspoken tomes implied in that image.
Well done Cuaron - well done all
|
|
|
|
benj clews 
"...."
|
Posted - 11/13/2013 : 12:42:04
|
Wow... oh wow.
I wanted to get my feelings on this film down as soon as I could but in truth I suspect they'll stay with me for a long, long time.
Saw this in IMAX 3D last night and seriously could not tear my eyes from the screen for the entirety of its runtime. Although I was barely aware of it, but my mouth kept running dry from sitting agape for such long periods of time. Characters struggle for air and, as they reach safety just in time and gasp the air, I realise I haven't been breathing either and I swear I can taste the fresh air in my mouth. Every missed grab of a handhold and desperate flailing for an alternative had my hands tensing up in balls.
And the sound... just so subtle, the way it creeps up on you from silence to nerve-jangling horrific big orchestrations. The visuals were likewise subtle. I was aware of maybe two or three jump cuts, but beyond that the whole film seemed like one seamless floating shot. I'm glad I didn't need the toilet at any point because there just seemed to be no obvious break-points- it felt like one endless flowing whole.
The 3D was by no means showy (the Earth and stars are so faraway as to be effectively flat) but still enormously effective where they needed to be. There's one point in particular where I DEFY you not to blink (again and again) as debris tears through the screen at you. I thought I was past this after having countless pointy things waved at me through my 3D movie-going years. Gravity shows what immersive truly means.
Afterwards, my wife said "It feels weird being here now". And she was right, it was like we'd been in orbit for weeks and now finally crashed back to a planet we'd almost forgotten how it felt to be on.
I won't be getting this on DVD. Or BluRay. Not because it's not worth it, but because I cannot imagine seeing this on a small screen. Quite simply put, this is a film that makes you realise why we still need cinemas. |
|
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/13/2013 : 22:54:48
|
Guess I'm gonna have to go see this in 3D then.  That's the only time I go to the cinema these days (for the movies for which it really matters). Hobbit Part 2 will be the next one...
 WARNING! SPOILERS IN MY POSTS BELOW!!! AND OTHERS. PROCEED WITH CAUTION!!! |
Edited by - Sean on 11/18/2013 21:46:07 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 10:03:02
|
Well I guess this thread needs a party pooper.  I'd read previously that this movie takes liberties with the physical laws of our universe but I wasn't expecting the total abandonment of them (in particular the law of inertia) when it suited plot development. I don't have the inclination to mention them all, but here are a few howlers:-
a) The average velocity of a rifle bullet is about 1km/s. The average relative velocity of space junk is about ten times that, 10km/s (36,000km/h). But hey, look over there, here comes a big pile of space junk! 
b) So Clooney needs to sacrifice himself to give Bullock a fighting chance (that's normal in movies). So he 'lets go'. Lets go of what exactly? What demonic force is pulling him 'away' from Bullock and the ISS after they're tethered and have exactly the same velocity? It sure isn't gravity. And of course once Clooney lets go and is pulled away by that invisible space demon the parachute lines go slack...
c) Yay, there happens to be a Chinese space station not too far away, and a one-second burst on the touch-down jets can get someone there quickly without further adjustment. (Actually, aiming at something and firing your rockets simply gets you into a higher orbit where you'll slow down and watch the space station get further away.)
d) ... but anyway, a few seconds after arriving in the vicinity of the Chinese station it's re-entering, having bits ripped off and decelerating, yet the floating debris inside the station is... floating, not decelerating at all. Must have been a negative gravity-reality-inversion or a disruption in the spacetime continuum or something...
So I'll knock off three points for that laziness; Kubrick got space physics right in 1968 with 2001, not sure why these guys couldn't. Perhaps reality just isn't exciting enough?
And I'll knock off another point for suggesting that it's OK or 'normal' to send panickers into space. Perhaps The Right Stuff days are behind us and astronauts don't go through rigorous testing to weed out the ones not psychologically suited to working in a hostile - and very expensive - environment but I'd be rather surprised. So we end up with someone who hyperventilates, chews through most of her air and generates respiratory alkalosis when under stress. Any self-respecting SCUBA diver would have done better.
But, I guess I'll add another point back on for originality, and overall it was entertaining enough once I'd decided that the laws of physics had been abandoned almost entirely. It certainly looked good. Glad I saw it in 3D too.
Disclaimer: I've done maths, physics and astrophysics at university level, so I guess I'm more picky than most, and clearly wasn't the target audience here (that must've been non-nerds  ). But really, any 15-year-old science nerd halfway through high school could have picked multiple holes in this one.
tl;dr (I stole this quote from a thread on IMDb) "At the start of the movie I thought I was watching a Werner Herzog documentary. By the end of the movie I thought I was watching Men In Black 3."
6.5 / 10 |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 10:31:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Well I guess this thread needs a party pooper. I'd read previously that this movie takes liberties with the physical laws of our universe but I wasn't expecting the total abandonment of them (in particular the law of inertia) when it suited plot development. I don't have the inclination to mention them all, but here are a few howlers:-
a) The average velocity of a rifle bullet is about 1km/s. The average relative velocity of space junk is about ten times that, 10km/s (36,000km/h). But hey, look over there, here comes a big pile of space junk!
b) So Clooney needs to sacrifice himself to give Bullock a fighting chance (that's normal in movies). So he 'lets go'. Lets go of what exactly? What demonic force is pulling him 'away' from Bullock and the ISS after they're tethered and have exactly the same velocity? It sure isn't gravity. And of course once Clooney lets go and is pulled away by that invisible space demon the parachute lines go slack...
c) Yay, there happens to be a Chinese space station not too far away, and a one-second burst on the touch-down jets can get someone there quickly without further adjustment. (Actually, aiming at something and firing your rockets simply gets you into a higher orbit where you'll slow down and watch the space station get further away.)
d) ... but anyway, a few seconds after arriving in the vicinity of the Chinese station it's re-entering, having bits ripped off and decelerating, yet the floating debris inside the station is... floating, not decelerating at all. Must have been a negative gravity-reality-inversion or a disruption in the spacetime continuum or something...
So I'll knock off three points for that laziness; Kubrick got space physics right in 1968 with 2001, not sure why these guys couldn't. Perhaps reality just isn't exciting enough?
And I'll knock off another point for suggesting that it's OK or 'normal' to send panickers into space. Perhaps The Right Stuff days are behind us and astronauts don't go through rigorous testing to weed out the ones not psychologically suited to working in a hostile - and very expensive - environment but I'd be rather surprised. So we end up with someone who hyperventilates, chews through most of her air and generates respiratory alkalosis when under stress. Any self-respecting SCUBA diver would have done better.
But, I guess I'll add another point back on for originality, and overall it was entertaining enough once I'd decided that the laws of physics had been abandoned almost entirely. It certainly looked good. Glad I saw it in 3D too.
Disclaimer: I've done maths, physics and astrophysics at university level, so I guess I'm more picky than most, and clearly wasn't the target audience here (that must've been non-nerds ). But really, any 15-year-old science nerd halfway through high school could have picked multiple holes in this one.
tl;dr (I stole this quote from a thread on IMDb) "At the start of the movie I thought I was watching a Werner Herzog documentary. By the end of the movie I thought I was watching Men In Black 3."
6.5 / 10
I think that final line says it all- go in expecting an accurate space documentary and you'll be thrown out of the film by some of the leaps it makes.
Having said that, in answer to a couple of your issues...
a). Surely this depends on the size of the space junk and the distance away it is? If it's big enough and far enough away you could see anything coming at you (assuming it's not going FTL). You don't see bullets because they're so small and generally fired from a matter of metres away. Having said that, the speed said space junk was clearly travelling when it hit the astronauts was definitely not bullet speed. I chalk this one up to: if it was actually depicted at the correct speed you'd see nothing and it wouldn't be cinematic.
b). I thought this too until I clocked something: the background is spinning. It's quite subtle because you're more focused on the astronauts and the slowly slipping tether but that's an issue with the environment we're working in here. What way is up? Down? It's hard to tell, so hard to tell you quite often don't realize what the universe is doing in relation to them. What's actually happening is Bullock and Clooney are in a spin with the space station and Clooney is being pulled outwards by centrifugal force. Having said that, it seemed weird it barely affected Bullock but seriously pulled on Clooney (perhaps due to the considerable mass of his ego?). I'm also no expert and don't know if centrifuge might work differently in zero-G.
On the whole though, it seems unfair to dock points for inaccuracy in a blockbuster (I'm pretty sure sharks don't just go after specific people but that doesn't stop me loving Jaws)- perhaps Space Station 3D would be more up your street (albeit less of a thrill ride)?  |
|
|
|
BaftaBaby
"Always entranced by cinema."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 11:02:31
|
Sean, I cannot begin to tell you how super-impressed I am that you understand the astro-physics of this and any film set in space. If I wore a hat, I'd tip it!
But at the risk of tresspassing on Nerd City Limits ... and with a nod in benj's movie-first direction ... one of the things that makes Gravity stand out from the usual blockbuster is the character of Ryan Stone.
[SOME SPOILERS HERE]
It's good writing on several levels, not least is her inner journey - and just at the time she may not be around to appreciate how far she's come. What Bullock does, with precious little dialogue, is make you care and make you hope she will make it, against all odds, and then make you glad when she does.
I think Sean's correct that the training would mitigate against panickers - but she is actually in danger of dying - and, she does "come to" enough to think clearly, to dredge out her survival skills, so helpfully demonstrated by the hallucination.
Why so many people relate to the film seems to me because above ALL, it's a character movie.
Also, I did hear an interview on BBC radio 4 [a serious station!] with an ISS scientist - who said that with a few exceptions for dramatic purposes, much of the science was theoretically possible. But, hey, I said I wouldn't enter Nerd City! ;)
|
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 11:09:51
|
Another thing worth noting on accuracy is that when she strips off, Bullock should actually be wearing an adult diaper. Curiously there don't seem to be too many guys complaining about this little inaccuracy however.
Perhaps Cuaron left this out so his fetal-position-as-rebirth metaphor wouldn't come across as too heavy-handed |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 21:33:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Having said that, in answer to a couple of your issues...
a). Surely this depends on the size of the space junk and the distance away it is? If it's big enough and far enough away you could see anything coming at you (assuming it's not going FTL). You don't see bullets because they're so small and generally fired from a matter of metres away. Having said that, the speed said space junk was clearly travelling when it hit the astronauts was definitely not bullet speed. I chalk this one up to: if it was actually depicted at the correct speed you'd see nothing and it wouldn't be cinematic.
If a bus was 10km away, could you see it? It would be at the most a tiny dot. One second later and it's gone past you. Your last sentence sums it up, abandon reality for cinematic purposes. Kubrick did no such thing with 2001 with the shuttle scene, the space station, the moon, and the Jupiter mission (it goes into fantasy with the monolith and Jupiter descent but that's another story), one of the reasons I love it so much. Everything felt correct.
I'd have preferred it if they'd done the debris strike as a warning from Houston, then while packing up a whole bunch of holes suddenly appeared in the shuttle with total gas/air loss, that's the way it would have worked in reality and it would have been more frightening.
quote:
b). I thought this too until I clocked something: the background is spinning. It's quite subtle because you're more focused on the astronauts and the slowly slipping tether but that's an issue with the environment we're working in here. What way is up? Down? It's hard to tell, so hard to tell you quite often don't realize what the universe is doing in relation to them. What's actually happening is Bullock and Clooney are in a spin with the space station and Clooney is being pulled outwards by centrifugal force. Having said that, it seemed weird it barely affected Bullock but seriously pulled on Clooney (perhaps due to the considerable mass of his ego?). I'm also no expert and don't know if centrifuge might work differently in zero-G.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't spinning when they arrived, was it? And the parachute and cords were loose, if it was spinning the centripetal force inertia would have 'flung' them outwards away from the centre of mass of the ISS. Even if it had a modest spin that would have made little difference (but sure, it would have added a mild centripetal force, nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to commit suicide over). And as you say, once Clooney's ego had let go the 'force' disappeared.
Now you're making me want to watch it again to pick even more holes in it.  quote:
On the whole though, it seems unfair to dock points for inaccuracy in a blockbuster (I'm pretty sure sharks don't just go after specific people but that doesn't stop me loving Jaws)- perhaps Space Station 3D would be more up your street (albeit less of a thrill ride)?
I was disappointed in Jaws (probably because I read the book first). I give 2001 10/10, part of that would be its successful adherence to the laws of physics. Whereas I gave Armageddon 3/10, not just because it's shite  but also because they never even tried to stick to reality. So yeah, Gravity is somewhere in between. I actually scored it 7/10 on IMDb as they don't do half points.
BTW I finally found someone who mentioned the "letting go" scene, and they agree with me (an astronaut nonetheless).
Techno-thrillers (book or screen) that dumb-down (or what's more likely, they don't try to 'clever-up') for dramatic purposes have always irked me. What's the point in being a techno-thriller if the 'techno' is pulled out of the writer's arse hat? That's partly why I can enjoy Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum but laugh at Dean Koontz and Dan Brown.
|
Edited by - Sean on 11/19/2013 01:28:19 |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/18/2013 : 21:39:27
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Another thing worth noting on accuracy is that when she strips off, Bullock should actually be wearing an adult diaper. Curiously there don't seem to be too many guys complaining about this little inaccuracy however.
Yeah, I also read that it takes about an hour to remove a space suit on your own. Not something you can do at the bottom of a lake. |
|
|
|
benj clews
"...."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 00:09:37
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Having said that, in answer to a couple of your issues...
a). Surely this depends on the size of the space junk and the distance away it is? If it's big enough and far enough away you could see anything coming at you (assuming it's not going FTL). You don't see bullets because they're so small and generally fired from a matter of metres away. Having said that, the speed said space junk was clearly travelling when it hit the astronauts was definitely not bullet speed. I chalk this one up to: if it was actually depicted at the correct speed you'd see nothing and it wouldn't be cinematic.
If a bus was 10km away, could you see it? It would be at the most a tiny dot. One second later and it's gone past you. Your last sentence sums it up, abandon reality for cinematic purposes. Kubrick did no such thing with 2001 with the shuttle scene, the space station, the moon, and the Jupiter mission (it goes into fantasy with the monolith and Jupiter descent but that's another story), one of the reasons I love it so much. Everything felt correct.
You're assuming I'm talking about a bus. I said if something was big enough and far enough away, you could see it coming. For example, if the moon were speeding towards us at that speed it would, even at its perigee, take 10 hours to arrive. And since we can already see the moon with the naked eye, we'd certainly be aware of its approach over those 10 hours. Admittedly, I'm now no longer debating the accuracy of Gravity (since I suspect the debris is not, in fact, the size of the moon) and merely backing up my own statement however
Still, big enough to see or not, as long as the debris is, say, 100km away, that's still 10 seconds of warning as unfiltered sunrays reflect off spinning shiny objects. It doesn't sound completely inconceivable (to a lay person like myself at least).
Also, at great risk of upsetting some, whilst 2001 is a fascinating film, I would not call it exciting by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in my opinion, it's one of the slowest, most drawn-out films I can ever recall seeing. If that's an accurate depiction of space- fine, but I'm not going to sit down to watch it with the same giddy abandon I would Gravity. Space reality simply does not make great entertainment.
quote:
quote:
b). I thought this too until I clocked something: the background is spinning. It's quite subtle because you're more focused on the astronauts and the slowly slipping tether but that's an issue with the environment we're working in here. What way is up? Down? It's hard to tell, so hard to tell you quite often don't realize what the universe is doing in relation to them. What's actually happening is Bullock and Clooney are in a spin with the space station and Clooney is being pulled outwards by centrifugal force. Having said that, it seemed weird it barely affected Bullock but seriously pulled on Clooney (perhaps due to the considerable mass of his ego?). I'm also no expert and don't know if centrifuge might work differently in zero-G.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't spinning when they arrived, was it? And the parachute and cords were loose, if it was spinning the centripetal force would have 'flung' them outwards away from the centre of mass of the ISS. Even if it had a modest spin that would have made little difference (but sure, it would have added a mild centripetal force, nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to commit suicide over). And as you say, once Clooney's ego had let go the 'force' disappeared.
I could be wrong, but isn't centripetal force the one that pulls you towards an object, not pulls you away from it? Or are you talking about the centripetal force of the Earth?
To be honest, I can't remember myself what it was like when they arrived, but I assumed it would be spinning some due to it having already been struck by the junk once already. And then Sandy and George slammed into it also which would presumably have contributed. Regardless, this is the one scene that irked me as it suffered that Hollywood trait of "quit yammering and start climbing", by which I mean to say if George had used the time he spent yacking about how he had to sacrifice himself on pulling himself up the cord rather than giving this extended monologue he'd probably have survived.
quote:
quote:
On the whole though, it seems unfair to dock points for inaccuracy in a blockbuster (I'm pretty sure sharks don't just go after specific people but that doesn't stop me loving Jaws)- perhaps Space Station 3D would be more up your street (albeit less of a thrill ride)?
I was disappointed in Jaws (probably because I read the book first).
Interesting you say that. I thought Jaws was often cited as one of the rare cases of a film being better than the original book? I haven't read it though, I must admit.
quote:
Techno-thrillers (book or screen) that dumb-down (or what's more likely, they don't try to 'clever-up') for dramatic purposes have always irked me. What's the point in being a techno-thriller if the 'techno' is pulled out of the writer's arse hat? That's partly why I can enjoy Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum but laugh at Dean Koontz and Dan Brown.
I agree with the sentiment but disagree that Gravity was as dumbed-down as you say. Basically, if the only people picking holes it in are those who studied Astrophysics at university or scientific luminaries like Neil deGrasse-Tyson then it ain't dumbed-down |
|
|
|
Sean
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 01:24:18
|
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
quote:
Originally posted by benj clews
Having said that, in answer to a couple of your issues...
a). Surely this depends on the size of the space junk and the distance away it is? If it's big enough and far enough away you could see anything coming at you (assuming it's not going FTL). You don't see bullets because they're so small and generally fired from a matter of metres away. Having said that, the speed said space junk was clearly travelling when it hit the astronauts was definitely not bullet speed. I chalk this one up to: if it was actually depicted at the correct speed you'd see nothing and it wouldn't be cinematic.
If a bus was 10km away, could you see it? It would be at the most a tiny dot. One second later and it's gone past you. Your last sentence sums it up, abandon reality for cinematic purposes. Kubrick did no such thing with 2001 with the shuttle scene, the space station, the moon, and the Jupiter mission (it goes into fantasy with the monolith and Jupiter descent but that's another story), one of the reasons I love it so much. Everything felt correct.
You're assuming I'm talking about a bus. I said if something was big enough and far enough away, you could see it coming. For example, if the moon were speeding towards us at that speed it would, even at its perigee, take 10 hours to arrive. And since we can already see the moon with the naked eye, we'd certainly be aware of its approach over those 10 hours. Admittedly, I'm now no longer debating the accuracy of Gravity (since I suspect the debris is not, in fact, the size of the moon) and merely backing up my own statement however
Still, big enough to see or not, as long as the debris is, say, 100km away, that's still 10 seconds of warning as unfiltered sunrays reflect off spinning shiny objects. It doesn't sound completely inconceivable (to a lay person like myself at least).
Good luck trying to spot satellite fragments moving at 36,000km/h from a distance of 100km. Anyway, that isn't what we saw on screen, we saw recognisably-jagged satellite fragments moving at a modest speed (it looked more like fast-car speed).quote:
Also, at great risk of upsetting some, whilst 2001 is a fascinating film, I would not call it exciting by any stretch of the imagination. In fact, in my opinion, it's one of the slowest, most drawn-out films I can ever recall seeing. If that's an accurate depiction of space- fine, but I'm not going to sit down to watch it with the same giddy abandon I would Gravity. Space reality simply does not make great entertainment.
I'm gonna have to do the 'each to their own' thing. 2001 blew me away when I was 10, and it still does. It's perfect.quote:
quote:
quote:
b). I thought this too until I clocked something: the background is spinning. It's quite subtle because you're more focused on the astronauts and the slowly slipping tether but that's an issue with the environment we're working in here. What way is up? Down? It's hard to tell, so hard to tell you quite often don't realize what the universe is doing in relation to them. What's actually happening is Bullock and Clooney are in a spin with the space station and Clooney is being pulled outwards by centrifugal force. Having said that, it seemed weird it barely affected Bullock but seriously pulled on Clooney (perhaps due to the considerable mass of his ego?). I'm also no expert and don't know if centrifuge might work differently in zero-G.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't spinning when they arrived, was it? And the parachute and cords were loose, if it was spinning the centripetal force inertia would have 'flung' them outwards away from the centre of mass of the ISS. Even if it had a modest spin that would have made little difference (but sure, it would have added a mild centripetal force, nothing to worry about and certainly nothing to commit suicide over). And as you say, once Clooney's ego had let go the 'force' disappeared.
I could be wrong, but isn't centripetal force the one that pulls you towards an object, not pulls you away from it? Or are you talking about the centripetal force of the Earth?
There's actually nothing 'pulling' something away from the rotating object, inertia tries to keep it going in a straight line away from the object but it's the centripetal force that pulls/accelerates the ropes or Clooney towards the centre of mass of the ISS, it's the object-on-a-string-being-twirled concept. I guess I should rephrase this... IF the ISS was spinning, the parachute and cords would be trying to continue in a straight line and head away from the ISS, but the centripetal force will be holding onto them and accelerating them inwards towards the centre of mass. I should have used the term 'inertia' (fixed now, I haven't needed this stuff since 1985 and slipped up with terminology). I avoided the term 'centrifugal force' as it's one of those fictitious forces created to model rotational motion, and the correctness depends on reference frame (e.g, rotating with the ISS or 'stationary' above it). Whereas centripetal force is absolute and independent of reference frame, it's a much simpler concept.
The point is that if the ISS was rotating (and I maintain that it wasn't, or certainly not significantly) then the loose stuff would be extended outwards from the ISS.
quote:
To be honest, I can't remember myself what it was like when they arrived, but I assumed it would be spinning some due to it having already been struck by the junk once already. And then Sandy and George slammed into it also which would presumably have contributed. Regardless, this is the one scene that irked me as it suffered that Hollywood trait of "quit yammering and start climbing", by which I mean to say if George had used the time he spent yacking about how he had to sacrifice himself on pulling himself up the cord rather than giving this extended monologue he'd probably have survived.
Agreed. A gentle tug on the tether by either would have had Clooney heading steadily towards the ISS. But that didn't suit the plot. And this is the one scene that two of the guys in that article I linked to (the astronomer and astronaut) found unforgiveable or horrible. I agree.
Aaaannnddd.... I've just thought of something else. When Clooney let go, Sandra watched him get further and further away, he didn't apparently rotate and end up 'behind' the ISS (from her frame of reference). If the ISS was rotating that's what would have happened. Say you're spinning on a roundabout in a park, and throw a ball away, the ball will appear to curve away from you and you'll have to look over your shoulder to see it. Clooney didn't appear to 'curve away' after he let go, did he? (Honest question, I'm trying to remember.) Further evidence that the ISS wasn't spinning.quote:
quote:
quote:
On the whole though, it seems unfair to dock points for inaccuracy in a blockbuster (I'm pretty sure sharks don't just go after specific people but that doesn't stop me loving Jaws)- perhaps Space Station 3D would be more up your street (albeit less of a thrill ride)?
I was disappointed in Jaws (probably because I read the book first).
Interesting you say that. I thought Jaws was often cited as one of the rare cases of a film being better than the original book? I haven't read it though, I must admit.
I read the book and was blown away, then years later watched the movie and wasn't. May have been the ages I was at the time.quote:
quote:
Techno-thrillers (book or screen) that dumb-down (or what's more likely, they don't try to 'clever-up') for dramatic purposes have always irked me. What's the point in being a techno-thriller if the 'techno' is pulled out of the writer's arse hat? That's partly why I can enjoy Tom Clancy or Robert Ludlum but laugh at Dean Koontz and Dan Brown.
I agree with the sentiment but disagree that Gravity was as dumbed-down as you say. Basically, if the only people picking holes it in are those who studied Astrophysics at university or scientific luminaries like Neil deGrasse-Tyson then it ain't dumbed-down
A fair point.
|
Edited by - Sean on 11/19/2013 01:56:38 |
|
|
|
MguyXXV
"X marks the spot"
|
Posted - 11/19/2013 : 02:42:38
|
BULLSHIT! Sharks DO have grievances against/and therefore attack, specific people.  |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Gravity
