Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

I really liked this movie. The visuals were stunning and the actors sold the total isolation and danger of working in space incredibly well. I preferred "Moon" as a character study on the effects of working in isolation in space, but this is a close second. (although visually "Gravity" kicks "Moon"s butt).

 

The movie made $55.6 million this weekend.

Saw his name in the closing credits.

 

Not to mention the destruction of the Hubble. And the debris field will likely orbit the Earth for a long time which puts a big wrench in any hope for future launches into space. (We'll accept for the moment that communication satellites, space telescopes, space stations and shuttle missions all happen in the same orbit.)

As I said in my review such an incident (though it is impossible to occur in real life) would decimate man's ventures into space and the loss of the satellites would have a lot of consequences in all sorts of areas on Earth. And the debris field would be a constant hazard to us on Earth as it came crashing down over the period of the next few decades or however long it'd take.

Yeah, Russia would not be looking good to anyone at all and would have a big "Oops, our bad!" statement coming. Trillions of dollars in damage and we're assuming there were no more lives lost beyond the shuttle crew. (The escapees from the ISS and Tiangong could've died/crashed into debris during their escape.)

This whole thing would be "quite* the incident. My buddy and I talked about this after the movie how there'd be *massive* consequences following these events.

And I was so taken by Sandra Bullock in her tank-top and spandex shorts it didn't dawn on me until much later she wasn't wearing the under-garment/apparatus to the EVA suit. Also, didn't NASA stop using the MMU a long time ago (during the shuttle era, that is.)

It's also funny to note that if Clooney wasn't dicking around so much in the MMU it would have had enough fuel in it to not make the trip to the ISS so "on the line", risky, and not mention saved his life. (Though, that was inaccurately portrayed. In real life once Bullock had a hold of him and both were stopped he'd have no momentum "pulling" her away causing the strain.)

 

It would take less than a few decades for that debris to fall into the atmosphere and burn up, but yes, the short term consequences on our daily lives would be insane.

I still say that being spoiled about the ending of Gravity is like being spoiled about the ending of Titanic. Gravity is more about the visceral emotional experience of the characters than the ending. It's obvious how it's going to end very early on.

 

The debris field wouldn't effect future launches, because you can just launch things into a different orbit. Space is big. Despite how it's portrayed in the movie, the debris field wouldn't chase you around wherever you go. Aren't most communication satellites in geostationary orbits anyway, and thus much higher up than Hubble or the ISS?

 

Nice. I heard it was 50 plus. Hopefully sometime tonight, I'll find out how it went here. Checked earlier, and was yet to be updated. Thinking shall be tomorrow, as the holiday Monday would be included too.

 

The satellite field, the Hubble, the ISS, the Chinese Space Station are all in completely different orbits and completely different latitudes. They're all no where near each other which makes all of the events of this movie impossible.

However, as portrayed in this movie they're in the same orbit and the debris field was taking out the satellite network, suggesting that "in this universe" space exploration and usage is pretty fucked.

 

Yeah, Neil deGrasse Tyson has already poked a few holes in the movie on Twitter. Like how communication satellites are in a much higher orbit and wouldn't have been affected by the destruction, how Bullock shouldn't have had a problem holding onto Clooney's tether in zero-G, and how her hair didn't float on her head like we're used to seeing happen in space (something which I'm kinda surprised I didn't notice myself).

 

I liked it. Probably B+ or A-.

Honestly, I'm a little surprised at the nearly overwhelmingly supply of positive reviews. I mean, the movie is definitely good, but there are people calling it the best science-fiction film since 2001: A Space Odyssey, and I don't think that's true at all. It's a really tremendous film, but it's more of a visual spectacle than anything else.

I saw the film in IMAX 3D, and I am glad I did. If there is any film that deserves to be seen in the IMAX format, it is this one. If there is any film that absolutely needs to be seen in 3D, it is this one. I'm typically not a fan of 3D, but it was utilized almost perfectly here, and made Gravity not just a movie, but an experience. The sequences with the Explorer and the debris or really any sequence involving Sandra Bullock's character and the debris was stunningly realized. The flow of the camera movement, the music, editing, etc. - there was some truly tense moments that really made you feel like you were there. It was breathless.

I think my biggest complaint is the film's story, or lack thereof. I mean, the film has a story, but it is very thin. It's a kind of film that relies on its technical prowess more than anything - I think if I had seen the film in a regular, conventional theater I would have been less impressed. As someone else mentioned, there are times when things get a little ridiculous and by the end you just want her to stop suffering; honestly, I thought the ending went on for a little too long. For a moment I thought we were going to be given a slightly ambiguous ending (i.e does Ryan Stone actually survive or not...) but I'm glad we got the resolution we did. I think any other ending would have been inferior, but I just sort of wish it wrapped up a bit sooner than it did. Even though the run time was just about the perfect length for this kind of movie.

Overall, I think Gravity is a tremendous achievement on a technical and cinematic level, even if I felt underwhelmed by the film's script and story. Not as overly stunning or powerful as Children of Men, but definitely one of the best films I've seen this year and one of the best science-fiction films I've seen in a while (probably since Moon).

 

I thought it was a good solid movie but if I'm being honest; I believed the hype and was disappointed in it. I think I would have had a better reaction had I not heard how great it was. That being said; I would rate it a good strong B+

 

Yep, you have to think of it as an alternate Earth where the space programs don't use slide rules...

 

Yeah it's a really strong, suspenseful, and well-constructed movie, and one of the coolest I've seen in a long time.... but I don't really see where the critics are getting the "revolutionary, game-changing classic" idea from.

It relies a little too much on the conventional action movie style for that, I'm afraid.

 

Extremely well-done action flick. This is in many ways very much in the vein of Children of Men, except that this script's religious motifs are rather clumsy. You might think yourself encouraged to think that it's not a ghost, but the alternative interpretation contradicts much better known aspects of biological science than the finer points of the space science. Hypoxia simply does not inspire better thinking. Period.

Most action stories have no character story, so the one in Gravity is much more substantial than most. As far as Bullock's acting goes, the technical difficulties involved in acting with SFX seem to be rather enormous, but she delivers. But in addition to being an action movie, the SF element will be an obstacle to anyone much remembering the performance. Bullock already got an Oscar for a crap movie, one for something as unserious as SF action, regardless of the quality of the performance, just isn't going to happen.

The movie is SF, unless you hold to moronic notions about SF=fantasy.

A-.

 

There is a threat of a chain reaction, but it would take more time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...on-could-destroy-communications-on-Earth.html

This is the so-called Kessler Syndrome, as talked about in these reviews: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2376/1
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Gravity_draws_stellar_reviews_awards_buzz_999.html
http://www.space.com/23105-gravity-film-review-astronaut-leroy-chiao.html http://www.space.com/entertainment/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28092.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28092.msg1105831#msg1105831 EASTER EGGS


There have very likely been cases where two cars in an otherwise empty parking lot hit each other--so since to engineer is human, I would suggest the following scenario instead:

Now instead of the ASAT test, I would have had a depot get hit by a micrometeoroid just as, say, a Mars cycler was going to do a flyby of ISS.

The venting depot hits the cycler, allowing the huge debris swarm of around the same altitude and overall speed.

New-spacers may not like that, but it makes for more technical sense than comsat bits suddenly in LEO clouds. I might make the depot a hypergolic, multi-module affair that was sub-standard, and put into a bad orbit by an over-zealous alt.space advocate, and have it also suffer from overheating, initially.

This would serve as a cautionary tale against depots.

Gravity is set in an alternate universe where someone had the foresight to have shuttles keep flying, with Hubble launched where ISS would be built. Then too, if that were the case, why not just send an OMV if we had that foresight. http://www.astronautix.com/craft/omv.htm

The Columbus Free-flyer was as close to co-orbital assets close together as space station ever would have gotten:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/colrmtff.htm

My only gripes were:
The MMU was a bit too maneuverable, and that type of activity wouldn't be allowed.

The Chinese space Station will not look just like Mir, and she should have bailed out of the Soyuz a bit earlier, to lead the target better.

Space Cowboys was a bit more realistic--showing a Polyus type craft opening above a shuttle. There, they also put an astronauts face inside a CGI suit. I don't think Sandra actually wore a real helmet for the first part of the movie, and the only time we see Clooney wear a suit was his character as a "ghost."

In the past, you shot scenes and motion controlled the models. Here, much is CGI and you motion control the actors, swinging around their faces.

The greatest danger seemed to be at the very end, where she was about to drown. I wondered if a salt-water croc would come up from behind.

Being of a morbid type, I would have her struggle to stand, as she did in the film due to a weakened condition from returning from space, with perhaps the couch hurting her on impact--and then she would fall, strike her head, and lose her life just as her daughter did, as animals from the Serengeti circle...

I wonder what would happen if this thing broke up
[COLOR=#006699]http://www.space.com/23091-haumea.html[/COLOR]

 

I really enjoyed this film... A-. Much better than I anticipated.

As a space buff who considers himself very knowledgeable about Shuttle/ISS/Space hardware and orbital mechanics, there are some significant errors - but man it looks beautiful. An extreme amount of work was put into portraying past and current space hardware, and it all pays off. The sheer effort in portraying the environment allows me to forgive any errors. (and they really are a bit minor in the greater scheme of things)

The biggest problem with the film is that it is a "Murphy in space" film... anything that can go wrong, goes wrong. It does stretch credibility at times.


I'll probably see this again, and I might take my kids this time.

 

I saw Gravity again, this time with a friend who hadn't seen it. It holds up, and the visuals are positively amazing even on second watch.

Though I failed in identifying the land mass that Bullock ends up plummeting towards at the end. It seems semi-tropical, based on where she ends up, but I couldn't match the brief image we get of the land mass with any area I'm familiar with.

One bit I noticed more in Clooney's "reappearance" is how, after turning all the lights on when he first shows up, he gradually starts turning the lights back down to what they were actually like in the real world, easing back into reality.

 

Until Kowalski mentioned the possibility of satellite removal (and after the movie, when I remembered until 2007 there were still dumbasses testing ASATs on actual orbital targets, which is like testing a nuke over a city), I thought Russia was at war with PRChina (or maybe us), which gave my first viewing a real Abyss-like quality that I appreciated.

Even then, the idea that the ASAT was launched by Russia as part of a really botched version of Operation Burnt Frost was never definitive, it was just something Kowalski assumed. He doesn't know, even if he did become Head Six. I like the notion of a terrestrial war beginning just as deep background to what's happening in space.

 

I saw it again myself last night, this time I saw it in 2D to get a different viewing experience without the distraction of the 3D effects or the (extra) glasses.

Film still really holds up, looks really good and is just an experience. I caught that the MMU Clooney was using was "experimental" so based on that we could probably hand wave that this pack had the extra fuel to travel for a long period of time and to carry the burden of the weight/mass of two people.

The "Clooney lets go" scene still bugs me because it just doesn't make any physical sense. Not only does Clooney letting go cause him to float away but it causes her to float BACK towards ISS! The scene makes no sense. Once they were stopped they were STOPPED!

Bullock wears her spandex shorts very well and she looks great for a woman of almost 50. But her not wearing the under-plumbing for the EVA suit still bugs me. Astronauts just aren't in their undies while wearing those space suits.

Still a fantastic movie and a true experience.

 

Is the film also in HFR? That would be awesome.

 

I get the impression the director was simply slowing the moment down to a crawl for dramatic effect, and that Clooney was actually meant to be pulling away a lot faster than it appeared.

Unfortunately they slowed things down SO much that it effectively looked like his momentum had stopped completely.

Which, yeah, just looked very weird.