It's not that complicated, it's just different. If you know your velocity and position, and know your target's velocity and position, it's a one-formula calculation of your engine boost to get you from A to B.
Gravity - Review and Discussion Thread
- Thread starter PlainSimpleJoel
- Start date
It's not that complicated, it's just different. If you know your velocity and position, and know your target's velocity and position, it's a one-formula calculation of your engine boost to get you from A to B.
Apparently there are certain complexities involved. I'm just a humble layman, I don't pretend to grokking the details.
Movie of the year for me, some scenes wacky, yes they were a bit ludicrous but this was a great movie. You can say there may be elements of Children of Men, Deep Impact, 2001, Gattaca and other scifi genre films but for me this movie is still unique I haven't really seen one like it before, a really great spectacle to see in the cinema and at 97% this is one of RottenTomatoes highest rated movies
Watched this tonight with the parents on 3D-Blu Ray.
Still a great, great, awesome movie. I just wish it didn't have that one nagging flaw in it that still irks me. (The manner of Clooney's death/sacrifice.) But otherwise a perfect movie. (Well, that and none of the orbiting objects are nowhere near each other in any of the three dimensions.) 3D-Blu Ray of it looked pretty good on the folks' set which is pretty high-end. I borrowed their standard BD to watch the special features of the movie. I've yet to pickup my own copy of the movie yet.
Again, just a fantastic movie that thrilled my parents and they even fell for Clooney's "survival" scene.
Still a great, great, awesome movie. I just wish it didn't have that one nagging flaw in it that still irks me. (The manner of Clooney's death/sacrifice.) But otherwise a perfect movie. (Well, that and none of the orbiting objects are nowhere near each other in any of the three dimensions.) 3D-Blu Ray of it looked pretty good on the folks' set which is pretty high-end. I borrowed their standard BD to watch the special features of the movie. I've yet to pickup my own copy of the movie yet.
Again, just a fantastic movie that thrilled my parents and they even fell for Clooney's "survival" scene.
I really loved this movie, but I don't know if I want to pick it up on Blu-ray. I'm afraid that a huge part of what made it such an experience will be lost on the small screen.
I never caught it in the theaters, so my only experience has been watching it on my computer screen (21.5" iMac) and I thought the movie played very well both visually and dramatically. I do agree with Trekker about the flaws of the film, but I likewise agree that those flaws weren't enough to take away from how much I enjoyed it. Sandra Bullock really helped me connect with her character on an emotional level ... so by the end, it became pretty powerful for me.
For me it wasn't lost, even now watching it on standard BD. Just an amazing film.
Watching the scene again where Clooney dies, I think I get what some astronauts/movie makers or whomever were getting at. The argument was that the ropes Bullock were tangled up in had some elasticity in them. So while her and Clooney seemed "stopped" they were still moving, straining against the elasticity in the ropes trying to pull them both back. It couldn't do this because apparently the mass coupled with the inertia of both Bullock and Clooney were too much. Letting go of Clooney reduced the mass-load on the elastic ropes allowing it to pull Bullock back.
I'm still nor sure how much weight this holds when it comes to mass, inertia and all of that in space but it sort of makes sense. One George Clooney plus a space-suit and the MMU would probably be a few hundred pounds. No weight in space, yes, but that's still a good bit of mass especially if its trying to move away from the station.
Pulling Clooney back may not have been capable for Bullock.
I *think* this makes sense but... I dunno. Still seems to me a simple tug would've pulled them both back to the ISS.
I'm still nor sure how much weight this holds when it comes to mass, inertia and all of that in space but it sort of makes sense. One George Clooney plus a space-suit and the MMU would probably be a few hundred pounds. No weight in space, yes, but that's still a good bit of mass especially if its trying to move away from the station.
Pulling Clooney back may not have been capable for Bullock.
I *think* this makes sense but... I dunno. Still seems to me a simple tug would've pulled them both back to the ISS.
Clooney + suit + backpack has more mass than Bullock + suit. So she would have pulled herself towards him, not the other way round. And the ropes didn't hold her strong enough, that's what Clooney was seeing, and that's why he told her to let go.
I was expecting more from this for the 22.99 TARGET is offering. I wish Clooney's character wasn't so know it all/
The Russian escape pod should have been more damaged too IMO when the next wave of debris flew around.
The Russian escape pod should have been more damaged too IMO when the next wave of debris flew around.
A
Amaris
Guest
I just watched it on my 19" TV (so I miss most of the sweeping visuals and 3D stuff), and I still loved it. I love hard science fiction, and this movie does a solid job of being both a nail biter, and a cornucopia of hard science moments. Sure, there are some liberties taken, but it is a movie, not a documentary, and I think they did a terrific job. I'm one of those who gave it a 9/10. It was well done, and is one of the more realistic science fiction films I've seen in decades. Here's hoping it grabs an Oscar or two.
7 Oscars, including nearly all the technical awards. Well deserved!
But wouldn't action of pulling have the equal and opposite effect of moving them both backwards (into the cable things)?
I've watched through the special features on the BD. Pretty incredible what all they accomplished and did in this movie!
To answer the question above on the CGI "legs" on Sandra Bullock it seemed to come during the scene when she was in the ISS airlock. After getting the suit off she curls into a fetal position and floats there. The rig they had her in to film this scene included one of her legs in a harness. Obviously this leg had to be removed and replaced with CGI to hide the harness.
Also an interesting "easter-egg" in the movie. When Clooney is dicking around in the MMU and mentions one of the other astronauts "doing the "Macarena" he passes the camera and looks in its direction. In the CGI creation of his suit's face shield they added in a "reflection" of a camera crew, director, and others in space-gear.
To answer the question above on the CGI "legs" on Sandra Bullock it seemed to come during the scene when she was in the ISS airlock. After getting the suit off she curls into a fetal position and floats there. The rig they had her in to film this scene included one of her legs in a harness. Obviously this leg had to be removed and replaced with CGI to hide the harness.
Also an interesting "easter-egg" in the movie. When Clooney is dicking around in the MMU and mentions one of the other astronauts "doing the "Macarena" he passes the camera and looks in its direction. In the CGI creation of his suit's face shield they added in a "reflection" of a camera crew, director, and others in space-gear.
It was a good film, but it really wasn't more difficult to film than say, Transformers, if you think about it.
Any scene where an actor is in a space suit, the only used footage of the actor's face, not the entire actor actor,. The face was lit from the glow of a nearby HDTV. The entire body was CGI. The entire background was CGI.
So, think about it: doing a CGI spacesuit and making it look real is pretty difficult, but is it any more difficult than animating and lighting the 10,000 parts of Optimus Prime in a computer?
And movies like the SW prequels and 300, etc, have extensive CGI backgrounds that are intricately detailed, as does this film.
The difference: in creating both the characters and the backgrounds they weren't using any fantasy-inspired imagery. But make no mistake, the only thing really "new" about the filming of Gravity was the planning of the sequences so the lighting on the actor's faces would be correct.
Killjoy: 
I've watched the special features on the DVD and it's still pretty remarkable in how it was filmed and brought to life.
I've watched the special features on the DVD and it's still pretty remarkable in how it was filmed and brought to life.
True story: here's an amazing shot in Supergirl wherein Supergirl (Helen Slater) is descended from a height of many stories, very slowly and lands softly in the middle of a city street for a perfect soft landing at night, and then she begins to walk around. Pretty amazing how they brought that shot to life.
Similar threads
- Poll
