f13.net

This is a hell of a trailer. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufsrgE0BYf0)

But can it make me watch Sandra Bullock and George Clooney as astronauts?

Weird bad timing in terms of the ISS guys having to do an emergency fix of an ammonia leak. But Cuaron has me sold in advance on anything he wants to do.

Pretty much. Children of Men built up a lot of goodwill with me.

I'll see it because of Children of Men, but the trailer reminds me of Open Water in Space.

It seems a little infeasible as a story? In space, a mishap of that magnitude ought to equal fairly quick death. I'm not sure you can procrastinate that conclusion for very long without it becoming mind-numbingly contrived.

But, yeah, well, as previous speakers.

Edit:
I should have checked the cast list before posting. I apologize for thinking the movie might be something other than existential dialogue.

2 minute clip.

This may be my most anticipated movie of this year now. The score sounds amazing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4pcg7bXgmU

How is Sandra Bullock is space the most anticipated movie this year...

Yes, clearly the reason I am looking forward to it is Sandra Bullock. You got me. I'll post a picture of my autographed poster from THE NET later today.

Edit: Of course, I then remembered that I have an autographed photo from Speed with her and Reeves signatures that I got as a gag gift.

*hangs head*

I don't think I can take any scifi movie with non-Chinese space explorers seriously anymore.

I think it's a "period piece", given it seems to be a US orbiter.

but, ouch. truth.

[spacegeek]
There's also a Russian Soyuz TM orbiter, but we can't tell specific dates from that since the newer ones only look different on the inside. The earliest the movie can take place is July 2009 since the big robot arm is the one from JEM (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Experiment_Module), and the last space shuttle mission to the ISS was July of 2011 so it's actually a pretty narrow window. Bullock is in a Russian Orlan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlan_spacesuit) spacesuit, but those are pretty much the standard on the ISS since they're made in one piece so they're much faster than Clooney's American suit to get into and out of.

Speculative plot info:

Orlan suits can hold seven hours of air, and even if somebody can bring some extra oxygen the suit only filters our CO2 for nine hours, so she's going to pass out after a maximum of 10. There isn't physically time to, for example, launch a America-Fuck-Yeah shuttle mission to pick Bullock up... and this looks like the sort of movie that cares about realism. Regardless, the shuttle program has been quite effectively mothballed today and isn't going to launch anything even with months of prep time available: 2009 - 2011.
[/spacegeek]

I'll watch that.

(http://i.imgur.com/TMwJmif.jpg)

 :why_so_serious:

On a serious note... this looks interesting and terrifying.

Spoilering a couple screenshots on why I believe it involves a US orbiter. The suoz doesn't look like that.

I wasn't saying there wasn't a US orbiter - the most obvious scene of it for me was where it seems to be starting to reenter upside down - just that there's also clearly a Soyuz visible in the first trailer.

More speculation:

Your theory is pretty much mine. Sorry about the confusion, I thought you were saying it couldn't be a US orbiter.

I'll go see this if and only if they end up using a MOOSE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOOSE)-equivalent to get home. That would be a rad scene.

Beautifully shot movie, which is the main reason to see it (3D is worthwile here also). There's some token attempts at characterization, but for the most part the movie just goes from one event to the next with only a few real moments of downtime to catch your breath. At an hour and a half it doesn't overstay its welcome which was also nice.

Jesus Christ, that looks fucking terrifying!  Definitely going to see this this weekend.

Do NOT see it in IMAX 3D. You will toss your goddamn cookies. It's beautiful though and just amazing to watch.

(Just saw it)  Yah, I actually thrust my hands in front of my face once.  That's never happened; and all I watch is IMAX 3D.  
That being said, Bullock messed up this movie with her typecast grunting, whining, and crying routine.  I wanted CastAway in space, instead I got whiny woe-is-me melodrama.   Srysly, it would be nice for her character to be a truly strong one for once; a Ripley-like character instead of a sniveling girly girl.

Other then that it was pretty good.  I still liked Oblivion better though.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/poking-holes-in-the-gravity-trailer-with-nasas-help/ (http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/10/poking-holes-in-the-gravity-trailer-with-nasas-help/)

A deconstruction of sorts with NASA EVA Task Group manager Zeb Scoville.

Let it be known that even though I liked Oblivion better (twas just more up my alley at a time when I preferred more mindless movies), Gravity is pretty much essential viewing.  It is a cinema masterpiece no doubt.  Look at it like that movie you've just gotta see when you catch the artsy indy flick bug every now and then.

Yes, it will win some Oscars.  It's a shoe-in for an FX Oscar and the talk is Bullock will get at least a nomination.  Clooney was a master in this as well, and pretty much made the movie even in that short a time.

Before you go realize this;  The only setpieces used in the entire movie were the insides of the shinzu and soyuz.  The rest is CGI.

I am not sure "Not as good as Oblivion thus essential viewing" is a good way to phrase it. Oblivion was a pretty weak film

You mean they didn't actually go into space?

Boom.

Welp, if it was a Favreau film he'd have built an entire shuttle, ISS interior, all the space suits, etc.  This flick is half a foray into new digital filming tech.  Most of the actors' time is spent on a bike inside an LED-cube and yet it looks more photoreal then if they'd used setpieces.


I figured that'd be confusing.  Lemme put it this way... Gravity is a better piece of cinema; probably the best sci-fi film of the year (including IM3, ST, etc.)  It's like saying 2001 was the best sci-fi film of all time, yet you might not appreciate it more then Star Wars.

If you're in the mood for proper high culture cinema sci-fi, then you'll love it.  If you want a fantastical action-diversion, you'll merely like it, but will appreciate it nonetheless.

I said I liked Oblivion better relative to the moment that I saw Oblivion (it was the type of movie I wanted to see at the time).  If I were to see both now, yes, Gravity would be better. :headscratch:

Why do you even keep bringing up Oblivion?

Good question.  I dunno actually. 

Also:


The audience is supposed to feel the terror of the situation. You aren't going to get that if her character is confident, experienced, and knows exactly what to do in every situation. Instead you have a character who is out in space for the first time who is understandably terrified when shit starts going wrong, but who manages to keep pushing herself even at the point where she is very close to just giving up. I'd hardly call the character a sniveling girly girl, as regardless of how much training one receives prior to going up in space, I think most people would freak the fuck out in that situation.

I loved this and I thought Bullock was fine.  I didn't see anything whiny or melodramatic in her fight for survival.  Saw it in IMAX 3d and was blown away.

I would liken the experience to an amusement park ride.  It's good as a movie, but that doesn't tell the whole story.  It's just as much an experience as it is a film.

For me it overstated the 'existentialist shit' a little much to be great, but it was very good and I enjoyed it. Clooney was perfect.

Very good movie but I DID like Oblivion better!  *raises shields*  This was more of a spectacle movie, like 2001.  It didn't have strong characterizations either but is considered a classic.  Gorgeous film and Sandy B did fine.  I was so glad there wasn't hardly any sound in space.  The hyper-realism really sold the whole story as the plucky astronauts fight to stay alive. I have some minor, nerd-like quibbles with the movie and I did get slightly bored at one point, but money well spent and I wish I'd seen it at an IMAX.  Oh and Clooney played himself again.

Plus Buzz Aldrin liked the film and I'm scared to disagree with him.

Ignore Surlyboi, go see this on an IMAX screen. Best application of 3D in any movie.

Loved this. Very well done from beginning to end and a gorgeous movie.

Just got home from seeing this (saw it in 3D) and it was awesome. Even in lieu of Sandra Bullock character whininess. I'm sure the nerds will nitpick all the inconceivability but it was entertaining and the 3D had me rocking in the seat at times.

My only nerdist gripes were:

There was two things that bugged me - the spoiler you guys mentioned being the big one and

Many moments in the movie didn't make a lot of sense on reflection, and there really isn't much to say about the story or the plot after the fact... but it never asks you to turn off your brain. Instead it throws so much disaster at the screen that you don't have the time or the energy to think before some other crisis has arrived. Your brain has other things to do. I regularly had to remind myself to breathe and literally had to wrench myself out of my seat to stretch when the film was over.

This isn't cinema so much as a theme park attraction. One that lasts more than an hour.

Enjoy the ride.

I understand why people love this terrible film, its a horror movie very close to October. Its like saw or final destination for people who go to see sandra bullock do shit. My only real complaint besides falling asleep and walking out halfway through this is that I didn't need to see sandra bullocks ass in 3D.

This comment, I don't even understand the language the poster is speaking.  The words are all english but strung together in ways that make no sense.

The Movie was bad. The 3D was unnecessary. And it should have been 90 minutes shorter and given me a blowjob.

So basically, you're insane. Ok then.

It's soo riveting!! Watch as a girl who could have given instructions from the safety of an arm chair, not listening to clear instructions, and than getting everyone with her killed!! Watch as she slowly does everything, notices nothing, and says sandra bullock things for 90 minutes. And wait there's more  :oh_i_see: 

Don't worry, you have plenty of quality entertainment like Arrow to go watch.

Yeah I can't seem to grasp the fine art that is Agents of Shield. :awesome_for_real:

You're insane. 

Sandra Bullock's ass was amazing in this movie.

She could be the hottest 49 year old woman in existence.

I'm sorry maybe I'm not white enough to find her hot. Me and girlfriend sitting in the theater we both looked at each other and went  :ye_gods: when she took off her astronaut suit. Even talking about the movie afterwards we both went  :uhrr: when we brought it up.

Out of curiosity, how old are you?

24. There is plenty of hot woman in then 50's...they just don't look like Sandra Bullock.

Name two.

Don't need to. Go to a gym. Or a local soccer game. Or a baptist church. Or a grocery store. Or a bar where the wings give you heartburn. But since we dwell in basements, Anna Gunn, Lucy Lawless, Sheryl Crow... I'm sure there's others.

Lucy Lawless is 45, Anna Gunn is 45 and Sheryl Crow is 51 so there's one at least.  Basically you are full of shit and trashing a movie on the basis of "lol it was dumb" and coming up with nothing but anecdotal evidence to support said bullshit.

 :heartbreak:

Shut up dipshit.

"Anecdotal evidence." His "anecdote" is that he didn't like the movie. You want what, polling data? A formalized proof? Your "evidence" that the movie is good consists if you crying a lot.

It's like a a down-syndrome baby that hasn't had a bottle in two days somehow figured out how to post.

All things a socially maladjusted emo kid who spends his time whining on forums likely does on a regular basis!

I consider Gravity to be one of the best "short story" movies in a long time.  I understand it's not for everyone but I will be surprised if Bullock doesn't get a nomination this year for it.

 :popcorn:

No - you said something stupid and I responded.

You could try saying something not stupid. Novel concept. But instead you'll make 50 more whine posts. Someone on the internet doesn't like a movie I like! There are two active threads in this sub-forum and they both consist of your endless whines. You have what, 7 posts on this page alone, none of which are really about the movie.

You appear to have no interest in actually discussing movies in either of these threads.

I could keep arguing on the internet but I think another good thing about gravity was that only one scene felt like "cheap" 3d having had something fly at your face which is a big step forward for 3d movies.

I love how you are so fucking stupid that even after I said that I was sending people silly PMs just to see if they'd post them you still went ahead and posted one, as if that is some sort of clever coup.

Dear god how is it possible to be so dumb?

With that said, this movies NEEDS to be seen in 3d, I think anyone watching a 2d version will indeed get bored since half of this rollarcoaster ride is visual.

You said it was lazy and embarrassing that I hadn't read a thread (when I clearly had), and now you're admitting you didn't even read the very thread you said that in!

Well-played dispshit.

You've been acting like a super douche for two days now, just because I didn't like a movie you liked. So please, can it nitwit. What absolves you of your two-day temper tantrum?

What is more douchey? Sending someone a silly PM like "hey cool guy" just so you can be amused when they post it like a predictable retard, or nonstop raging for days because someone didn't like your silly robot movie or doesn't think Sandra Bullock is hot?

Get over yourself. You calling someone else a douche is hilarious. Being a douche seems to be the only reason you post in this subforum at all.

Also a side note but did they play a song from oh brother at some point? I swear something like that played while clooney was off walking in space.

Reading. Don't try it at home.

How many more retarded whine posts are you going to make? Can I get an estimate? 20? 100? I honestly laughed out loud typing that, because 100 seems completely plausible.

I think some folks need to take a nice walk and have a warm bath and light some incense. There is nothing wrong with nerdfights per se but there is something wrong when they start to get this myopic.

PS.  I see what you are saying medium and while I may still think you are insane I wonder if people realize how many 49 year old don't look good or if they see an older lady and think "they must be 50!" but in reality they are late 30's.  Bullock is really holding up well and her work is heads and above anything she did 20 years ago which is very impressive.

Do you not understand how time works?

You posted this PM well after I made that post. You might even say that I made the post "before" yours. Highly technical lingo.

But keep complaining about how I'm being a douche. Lol. That's your objection here? That after two days of thread-shitting and attacking me personally because I DIDN'T LIKE A MOVIE YOU LIKED that I'm a douche.

K champ. You're totally not being a douche. Yep.

Well enough chatter, time for bed.

Maybe this is crazy but I read the Movies forum because I want to read other people's opinions on movies and sometimes share my own.

I'm not interested in reading a bunch of people shit-posting snidely over and over again about how talking about movies in the movies forum is bad. That seems frankly stupid and counter-productive to having a movies forum.

I don't have any beef with Lakov other than that a bug apparently crawled up his ass and he decided the movies forum needed to stop being about movies and start being about him impressing himself with his clever retorts and emoticons.

Maybe you should start a "PMs I got" newsletter. I'm sure everyone is endlessly fascinated!

Whine more dipshit. (Like I need to say that!)

Lol.

Are you really going back and editing your posts to completely change their content from insults to talk about the movie to make it look like you've been acting reasonably the entire time?

Ha ha. Fuck me. Well-played.

This guy! I have to say, that may be genius or stupid but it takes balls. I'll give you that. (Clever observers will note that my posts are now quoting text that has mysteriously vanished)


OH MY GOD I'M DYING.

"I could keep arguing." You did keep arguing - then you went back later and completely replaced your posts to make it look like you took the high road. Lulz.

Edit: Think we're done with this retarded drama. I shall not post again, unless I have something on-topic to add. Apologies for this bit of nonsense.

Edit2: This thread reads completely bonkers now.

Lakov can keep his hard-on for Sandra Bullock and this Movie. Doesn't offend my life besides giving me a good laugh. What did offend my life was seeing this movie. Did I mention that I was dozing in and out of sleep and missed absolutely nothing? Conscious effort to stay awake is what damned me. If I had merely snored I would have saved myself from the bad 3D and Sandra Bullock taking off her suit...

Lakov thinks he is one of the cool kids, which is fine since the internet hides our basements.

I'm actually sympathetic to your general point but everybody's gotta cultivate that XKCD point where you realize you are in way too deep and way too emotionally engaged over a basically trivial argument with people whose minds you are not going to change.

I saw this in 2D, I see no need for 3D.

Stop retconning your posts.

Movie was bullshit

I hate 3D but saw it in IMAX 3D because I was going with friends.  Afterward one of the first things I said was "I don't think that movie would have worked at all without the 3D IMAX gimmick."

This movie was ENTIRELY about the cinematography.  As far as that went I thought it was fantastic.  Definitely don't regret my $18 IMAX ticket.

The movie forum is becoming better than the sports forum for DRAMA LLAMA.

I thought this movie was fantastic.  It deserves serious Oscar consideration.  It was obviously meticulously made, the subject was fresh, it was edited well, annd the soundtrack was perfectly minimal yet effective.  Sure there were some Hollywood tropes but they were small (woman who lost a child has to find the will to live, the fetal position shot when she finally gets to safety was too long) but there was a lot to like.  It would be nice if a box office success won Best Picture.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

I agree with every word.


This guy is seems like a Filmmaker first. Not a storyteller, not a puzzle-maker, not special effects aficionado, not a genre superfan.  They all do make great movies. But Alfonso Cuarón seems to be in love with movie making itself.

I thought it was good. Not great, not whatever, but good. The whole was more than the sum of its parts.

I thought the Chinese station entering the atmosphere was gilding the lily, though. I could have done with her just struggling to keep from burning up after getting in the escape pod.

I did catch the scene with the ropes/Clooney letting go as being somewhat wrong in some way.

I almost think it would have been a good silent film--it has something of the cinematographic spirit of early silents.

I could've done with a bit less soundtrack too.  Not that it was overdone, but having dead silence in the dramatic exterior POV shots (and bringing in the sound as we switch to a POV someplace that has air) instead of underscoring everything with dramatic music might have actually made it more tense.

The music and dialogue and plot jumped between good/great and ham-fisted, which is why I think it was just a good film and not a great one.


It was a great film with just a splash too much formula over the top. It just wasn't brave enough to hit its heights.

But then if it was braver and 'better' I doubt it would have done as well financially, so...

I really liked the ending scene.  It was definitely not subtle, but like everything else in the movie, it was beautifully constructed.

The idea was ok, but it was too drawn out and over-emphasised. If you're too stupid to get the significance in the first place then are you really going to appreciate it when it condescends to you?

I also would have liked it more if she was then eaten by an alligator or something. It lessens the philosophical power if you make it too much about her as an individual.

LOL yeah lets get you to Hollywood right away.  Eaten by an alligator.  Classic.

 :awesome_for_real:

I think you missed a point there, but just chortle on imagining whatever you like to think I meant by that. :)

I didn't see it as condescension so much as taking its time and letting us soak it in.  This movie was really all about the pretty, and that whole sequence worked really well for me, not on the level of communicating the rather obvious idea (which could have been done in a few seconds), but taking that time to communicate the physical sensation of what she was experiencing.  I was so into it that I literally felt weighed down in my seat.  Whoever said earlier in the thread that it's more like a theme park thrill ride nailed it, I think.

Hmm, I wonder if the 3D played into any of that. There wasn't much spectacle in the landing/swimming/etc. in the 2D version.

Like I said, I can't imagine much of the movie working without the 3D IMAX thing.  Especially the first-person bits; I can't imagine those being the same if they aren't filling your field of vision.

I can't imagine not throwing up in the first person bits if I'd gone for 3D though, so I guess you win some and lose some. (I have slight hearing loss in one ear from :rock: and it makes me more susceptible to motion sickness of that sort I think.)

I'll third the theme park analogy.  This is a great movie but it's not a style of movie that has been made in the last 20 years. It's all visual and visceral and I can't imagine it ever working in a 2d format.  One reviewer said this would be the perfect movie to show off at the smithsonion or another museum and I'm inclined to agree.

I thought that particular scene was weak until one attached some meaning to it, but the meaning I attached was more akin to man leaving the sea to walk on all fours, then on two legs, etc.  In this case   As if surviving space created an evolution.  Most folk just slap the 'birth' tag on it and walk away, but it was more complex then that.  It was in a way a nod to the opening scene of 2001.

What? Who? It's obvious. There's no need to attach it, it's there screaming at you...

Maybe I was wrong: maybe there is an audience that feels clever for being hit over the head.

OK, I have to apologise here, I thought I was in the Pacific Rim thread.  You're welcome.

Sorry.

I completely agree with this. Cuaron did an amazing job shooting this movie. The scene where Bullock spins away and the camera follows out to her, catching her spinning and then slowly starting to spin with her was amazing. Gave a real sense of her disorientation and how she gathered herself again. The camera work and long takes made this movie for me.

Maybe that part of it was more subtle than lamaros and I thought it was.   :awesome_for_real:

If you lookup Cuaron's spoiler explanations you'll see that it's indeed not as simple as "birth."  It's a very complex cinematic analogy, and done pretty well I'd say.  He put a LOT of thought into it (everything including the subtleties of the location setting as Lakov says). 

One could take it even further and inject some panspermia into it.  e.g. humans were derived from space, evolved via the seas, shedding bonds, and so forth.

My fav. scene though gave me chills:

I mean, you could hear a pinprick during this entire movie even after it was over... and not in a bad way.  People were generally very effected.  Honestly I dont see how it doesn't get an oscar, though as said, the IMAX3D requirement may hold it back.

No, I mean, we both got that, and we were talking about how hamfistedly obvious it was (he was complaining about it, I was saying I didn't mind the hamfistedness because subtext doesn't necessary have to be subtle for me to appreciate it).  Then in the middle of that conversation you popped up and started explaining the "hidden" message that we were discussing the obviousness of. 

See, it's funny.   :awesome_for_real:

Indeed. No wonder some misunderstood my alligator comment!

The movie is now out on disc/digital. I rented it and watched it. I had really wanted to see it in IMAX and we planned to go see it in IMAX.

Then I got laid off, so our normal mode of SEE EVERYTHING slowed down significantly.

Loved the FUCK out of this movie. At one point I was juuuuust on the safe side of a panic attack, which made me realize that maybe it was a good idea that I DIDN'T get to see it in IMAX. I'm going to sit with my thoughts and maybe watch it one more time before the rental period ends. And then I'll just buy the Blu-Ray anyway.

This movie almost got me to buy a 3D Blu-Ray player. Almost.  That feature of our new TV will have to sit unused a while longer though.

Don't stress it, because really you'd need an 85" TV to take advantage of the resolution.

Well I finally saw this earlier this evening on my 40" tv at home - so I definately missed out on the IMAX 3D experience.

I still thought it was pretty good, with one minor gripe that was missed.

Guess what?  :drill:  It was only $4K.  I was stunned.

Wow, this movie was worse than Her.

Now on HBO for us tightwads.

Really enjoyed it, first movie I've seen in a while that I was actually blown away by the FX. Excellent film.

I think this movie was intended to be more of an amusement park ride than anything.  If that was the intention, it did the job.  As a work of cinematic art... yeah, garbage.

I think Tom Hanks did it better. In both movies that are applicable.

 :headscratch:

Paying for HBO is the exact opposite of being a tightwad.

The CEO of HBO is on the record saying that the company does not care if HBO Go access is shared with non-subscribers. So all of you paying for HBO, be a buddy and share it with your friends!

http://www.buzzfeed.com/mattlynley/hbos-ceo-doesnt-care-that-you-are-sharing-your-hbo-password

To explain, I pay less in a month for HBO than the cost of a movie ticket or on-demand movie..:) It also pays for my netflix subscription as I traded my hbo password for my brother in laws netflix password.

Movie is good but only for cinema, special effects make this movie good so it's not the same feeling watching somewhere else.