RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 141,392
Posts: 5,505,360
Members: 25,129
Currently online: 494
Newest member: oorang

TrekToday headlines

Retro Review: The Emperor’s New Cloak
By: Michelle on Dec 20

Star Trek Opera
By: T'Bonz on Dec 19

New Abrams Project
By: T'Bonz on Dec 18

IDW Publishing March 2015 Comics
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Paramount Star Trek 3 Expectations
By: T'Bonz on Dec 17

Star Trek #39 Sneak Peek
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Star Trek 3 Potential Director Shortlist
By: T'Bonz on Dec 16

Official Starships Collection Update
By: T'Bonz on Dec 15

Retro Review: Prodigal Daughter
By: Michelle on Dec 13

Sindicate Lager To Debut In The US Next Week
By: T'Bonz on Dec 12


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

View Poll Results: Grading
A+ 35 42.68%
A 28 34.15%
A- 10 12.20%
B+ 6 7.32%
B 2 2.44%
B- 0 0%
C+ 1 1.22%
C 0 0%
C- 0 0%
D 0 0%
F 0 0%
Voters: 82. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 7 2013, 09:25 AM   #46
ElimParra
Fleet Admiral
 
ElimParra's Avatar
 
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

Scaredface wrote: View Post
The movie made $55.6 million this weekend.
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.
ElimParra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 11:25 AM   #47
Ugly Sweater
Trekker4747
 
Ugly Sweater's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

chrisspringob wrote: View Post
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?
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.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.
Ugly Sweater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 04:59 PM   #48
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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).
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 05:16 PM   #49
JacksonArcher
Vice Admiral
 
JacksonArcher's Avatar
 
Send a message via AIM to JacksonArcher
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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).
__________________
"Please... We need you to hope again... " - Professor Charles Xavier, X-Men: Days of Future Past
JacksonArcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 06:00 PM   #50
feek61
Captain
 
feek61's Avatar
 
Location: The Sunshine State
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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+
__________________
feek61 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:12 PM   #51
Admiral2
Vice Admiral
 
Admiral2's Avatar
 
Location: Arendelle
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
chrisspringob wrote: View Post
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?
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.
Yep, you have to think of it as an alternate Earth where the space programs don't use slide rules...
__________________
"You should never give up on family -- even if they say harsh things and create snow monsters to make you go away."

-Elsa on what she learned from Anna
Admiral2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:29 PM   #52
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 07:35 PM   #53
stj
Rear Admiral
 
stj's Avatar
 
Location: the real world
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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-.
__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.
stj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 7 2013, 11:02 PM   #54
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

There is a threat of a chain reaction, but it would take more time:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...-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/Gr..._buzz_999.html
http://www.space.com/23105-gravity-f...roy-chiao.html http://www.space.com/entertainment/
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=28092.0
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...831#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]

Last edited by publiusr; October 7 2013 at 11:48 PM.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 10 2013, 09:51 PM   #55
Hyperspace05
Commodore
 
Hyperspace05's Avatar
 
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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.
Hyperspace05 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 03:10 AM   #56
CaptainCanada
Admiral
 
CaptainCanada's Avatar
 
Location: Kingston, Ontario, Canada
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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.
__________________
"I'm a white male, age 18 to 49. Everyone listens to me, no matter how dumb my suggestions are!"

- Homer Simpson
CaptainCanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 13 2013, 09:30 AM   #57
Myasishchev
Rear Admiral
 
Myasishchev's Avatar
 
Location: America after the rain
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

CaptainCanada wrote: View Post
The long-term consequences of what is implied by this movie are pretty staggering. The Russians are, at a minimum, responsible for the deaths of four astronauts; the destruction of a space shuttle, the ISS, and Tiangong; and, from the looks of it, the gutting of a massive chunk of the global satellite network, with unknown and potentially massive consequences for the future of communications and other satellite technology; and, from the final images, possibly massive amounts of debris falling to the surface of the planet causing unknown destruction. The US, China, and the European Union must be pissed off.
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.
__________________

Myasishchev is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2013, 01:37 AM   #58
Ugly Sweater
Trekker4747
 
Ugly Sweater's Avatar
 
Location: Kansas City
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

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.
__________________
Just because it's futuristic doesn't mean it's practical.
Ugly Sweater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2013, 01:15 PM   #59
JarodRussell
Vice Admiral
 
JarodRussell's Avatar
 
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

Is the film also in HFR? That would be awesome.
JarodRussell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old October 14 2013, 06:52 PM   #60
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread

Trekker4747 wrote: View Post
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!
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.
davejames is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.