ApolloHoax.net
Off Topic => General Discussion => Topic started by: gtvc on September 05, 2013, 12:08:50 PM
-
Hi, a new Space movie is coming, is about a space accident, looks very realistic, check the trailers what do you think?
-
From Wikipedia
Although the first trailer has audible explosions in it, Cuarón has confirmed that scenes in space will be silent: "They put in explosions [in the trailer]. As we know, there is no sound in space. In the film, we don't do that."
This is a good start.
Enquiring minds want to know, will there be a weightless nude scene with Sandra Bullock?
-
Looks cool, but I've always thought that complaining about noisy explosions in space movies is one of the nerdiest things anyone can do. If you're watching Star Wars and pointing out that there's no sound in space, you're missing the point.
Anyway, I bet there's incidental music in this. Are there orchestras in space?
-
Silence is way underused in movies. Think of the shuttle noiselessly exploding, with only the sound of the radio link dying. Leaving an astronaut floating quietly in space with no way home. That can give the chills to an audience who cares about the character.
-
Clooney's in it? Oh, well, someone let me know if it's any good...
-
Silence is way underused in movies. Think of the shuttle noiselessly exploding, with only the sound of the radio link dying. Leaving an astronaut floating quietly in space with no way home. That can give the chills to an audience who cares about the character[
I think understatement is way underutilized in movies. Silence is just one form of that.
I noticed a long time ago that in comedy, the less you show in a gag, the funnier it often is. Warner Bros' Golden Era made good use of this principle; I was especially fond of the Coyote's eyes narrowing to pinpoints as the shadow of the boulder grows around him. (Never mind that in reality his eyes should widen, not narrow.)
Young Frankenstein contains another good example. When Dr. Frankenstein tells Inga that he has figured out the rotating bookcase he instructs her to remove the candle and he'll block the bookcase with his body. Brooks leaves the camera on Inga so we see her cringe when the inevitable happens. That was much funnier than simply showing us what she was seeing.
-
I'm looking forward to it. I might even catch a bus to Toronto to see it at the Film Festival next Sunday.
-
I think understatement is way underutilized in movies. Silence is just one form of that.
The technology of making movies gives us the constant assault on our senses that occurs in contemporary sci fi and comic book movies. It makes them a great ride, but leaves something behind for adult viewers who want more than action. If you look at older sci fi movies they tended to use all the traditional theatrical techniques of drama to force the audience to fill in the gaps in the visual presentation within their minds. Movie makers don't need to do that anymore but can offer convincing and often stunning visual immersion. It is fine for what it is, but there is a burn out that occurs after some number of action films that leaves me, at any rate, wanting more than Spider Man Reboot 7.
My mind always comes back to the genius of Apollo 13. A movie whose ending was known but still managed to enthrall the audience with the drama of the situation and the wonder of human ingenuity. Stunning visuals and attention to detail were important to making that such a good movie. I hope Gravity can capture some of the spirit of Apollo 13. I haven't seen the film Marooned in many years, but Gravity sounds like an update. If Gravity holds up at all, it should be at least worth a solo visit for the discounted Sunday early show. If it turns out to be more than a space flick, then it will be good for a date with my wife.
-
I know movies today are oversaturated with special effects and fast action, is like junk food taste good but doesn't give you all the nutrients that you need and you can get tired easily ::), more action less suspense.
Hey!, Looks like the new trailers are fixed "no sound in space". ;D
-
Silence is way underused in movies.
I agree, but sometimes it can be used very effectively. Even though the 2009 Star Trek movie is, of course, full of sounds of starships zooming around, phasers and torpedoes firing and explosions all over the place, one sequence very effectively uses silence. Right near the start when the Narada attacks the USS Kelvin there's a shot of a corridor being blown out. Bangs, crashes, screams, then we follow the hapless ensign who got blasted out of the hull breach, and as we move out of the ship into space the sound stops and we have a few seconds of total visual chaos with weapons firing left, right and centre in silence. It's a nice little sequence, even if it is entirely unique in the movie and therefore a little out of place.
-
The technology of making movies gives us the constant assault on our senses that occurs in contemporary sci fi and comic book movies.
This happens in documentaries now as well, especially the trailers.
I just no longer bother watching trailers for documentaries on Discovery, Nat-Geo or the History channel. I have had about as much of the visual battering from the rapid fire FLASH - FLASH - FLASH shot sequences that I can take. They run sequences of ½ to 1 second shots (or even shorter) in quick succession, accompanied by loud, melodramatic, over the top music, for example...
...about 150 separate shots in 154 seconds. At one stage in the middle part of the promo, the shots come at between three and four each second
I like a trailer to show me a little of the documentary's subject material, not batter the hell out of me with a flashing light-show that is little more than a vehicle for the video editor to show off his editing skills. I find these sorts of things difficult to watch, so I usually mute the TV and go make a coffee.
If you look at older sci fi movies they tended to use all the traditional theatrical techniques of drama to force the audience to fill in the gaps in the visual presentation within their minds.
Forbidden Planet?
2001: A Space Odyssey?
Even the original Star Trek (if you can get past Kirk/Shatner's massive ego) made you think. The special effects were excellent for the time but they merely added to the story, they didn't dominate it.
-
Silence is way underused in movies.
I agree, but sometimes it can be used very effectively. Even though the 2009 Star Trek movie is, of course, full of sounds of starships zooming around, phasers and torpedoes firing and explosions all over the place, one sequence very effectively uses silence. Right near the start when the Narada attacks the USS Kelvin there's a shot of a corridor being blown out. Bangs, crashes, screams, then we follow the hapless ensign who got blasted out of the hull breach, and as we move out of the ship into space the sound stops and we have a few seconds of total visual chaos with weapons firing left, right and centre in silence. It's a nice little sequence, even if it is entirely unique in the movie and therefore a little out of place.
I liked that scene. It was very effective with the people being blown alive out into the void. It adds to the terror.
-
2001: A Space Odyssey?
2001 stands alone in so many ways.
-
2001 stands alone in so many ways.
Yeah, and many people (not me, natch) consider it boring, that's why.
I do find some of the 0g sequences pretty laughable or at least endearingly amusing now. No real astronaut dons velcro slippers and slowly inches down an aisle, but in 1968 nobody knew how real people would behave in real zero gravity when they had the room to move around. But the final showdown between Dave and Hal is as gripping as ever.
-
My mind always comes back to the genius of Apollo 13. A movie whose ending was known but still managed to enthrall the audience with the drama of the situation and the wonder of human ingenuity.
Absolutely. I probably knew the Apollo 13 story better than just about anyone else in the audience, but it was still thoroughly engrossing. I don't mind saying that the launch sequence was so well done that it moved me to tears, and I'll bet I'm not the only one here.
Another aspect that I thoroughly loved is that the much-maligned members of my profession -- engineers -- finally got their chance to be the heroes. The public saw that working with your mind can be every bit as exciting and important as anything people do. There are many examples, but my favorite is Howard's rapid backtrack along the MOCR consoles as everyone confirms Jim Lovell's calculations of the CM/LM IMU alignment offsets as they're firing up the LM. I never would have thought that a mainstream movie could inject so much drama into a simple pencil-and-paper addition problem, but it did.
-
I was wondering about the start sequence. Doesn't Tom Hanks "The clock is running" come too early? Shouldn't the lockdown latches and all the arms disconnect before the mission clock starts? Doesn't that clock start at first upward movement?
-
I cry when they come out of radio silence!
-
I was wondering about the start sequence. Doesn't Tom Hanks "The clock is running" come too early? Shouldn't the lockdown latches and all the arms disconnect before the mission clock starts? Doesn't that clock start at first upward movement?
There's a lot of inaccuracy in the movie when it comes to the details. Yes, the entire launch is altered for dramatic effect. Just off the top of my head, the 'ignitions equence start' announcement is late; in reality the swing arms don't detach in sequence as depicted in the movie; the engines in the movie fire on zero when in reality zero is the moment of liftoff, with the engines having fired a few seconds earlier and achieved steady state, and so on. It's still a damn good sequence though.
-
Another aspect that I thoroughly loved is that the much-maligned members of my profession -- engineers -- finally got their chance to be the heroes. The public saw that working with your mind can be every bit as exciting and important as anything people do.
I'm not holding my breath while waiting for a team of financial analyst to be the heros of a major motion picture. For some reason that eludes me, the heroic effort in figuring out the value of the common shares held in the ESOP of a private company is not the stuff of popular drama. The gripping drama of agonizing over what adjustments to make in the financial statements can be quite thrilling, in real life. Perhaps I need to write a script.
-
Haven't you seen "Wall Street"?
-
How much of the launch pad had to be rebuilt between each launch? The first stage exhaust was brutal - both very hot, very chemically active, and enormous pressure.
-
Horner's score helped. While almost overwrought, at the same time it conveyed so much of the emotional pull.
One of the few movies that made me cry, and the only one that made me cry tears of joy at the end.
-
I was wondering about the start sequence. Doesn't Tom Hanks "The clock is running" come too early? Shouldn't the lockdown latches and all the arms disconnect before the mission clock starts? Doesn't that clock start at first upward movement?
Yes, as Jason Thompson said, there are many inaccuracies in that sequence. Here are all those I can think of:
The F-1 ignition plume appearance is not accurate; the movie makes them look like CO2 extinguishers because that's exactly what they were. The real startup sequence began with a stream of LOX pouring down followed by an expanding red and black fireball as the hypergolic ignition fluid enters the combustion chamber, immediately followed by the fuel. And they are staggered in pairs at 100 ms intervals, not started simultaneously.
Most of the swing arms retracted simultaneously (and much more quickly) at liftoff except for one S-IC arm that retracted at T-15 sec.
Ignition actually starts at T-8.9 sec; liftoff (and clock starting) actually occurs at T=0.
I didn't see the 1.5 degree tower avoidance yaw maneuver (admittedly this is very subtle).
Cars are visible in the Pad 39A parking lot - for a launch the pad would be completely cleared (the 2nd unit helicopter that captured the background footage flew on a normal workday).
The paint pattern was not correct for Apollo 13.
Mattingly's view of the pad is from the west (launch tower on the left) when he is supposedly parked on the beach east of the pad -- where no one would be allowed during a real launch. And in reality, he was in Houston.
Condensation is seen streaming off the LM adapter, where there were no cryogenic fuels to cool the outside surface.
I don't see ice falling off the S-IVB when I believe it did.
Lovell has his hand on the abort handle at times. I don't think he would have put his hand anywhere near it unless he had decided to abort.
I think the solar illumination angle on the stack after the pitch program starts is incorrect, but I'll have to check that. It should be from the camera's (south) side.
The announcer should have read the actual words of the KSC Public Affairs Officer - it's not like they were hard to obtain.
The engines actually light up only once (admittedly this is artistic license).
The ground call "we see your BPC clear" comes early; the BPC comes off with the launch escape tower. Yet sunlight floods the cabin through the uncovered windows at the right time.
The engine status lights go out normally and light (continuously) when there is an engine problem.
Lovell hits the LES FIRE button to jettison the LES. I think that's for commanding manual LES (not jettison motor) ignition if the sequencer doesn't do it automatically after the translation handle is turned counterclockwise. I think the LES was jettisoned manually by the CDR, but I'd have to look up the correct switch.
The S-II and S-IVB plumes are nearly invisible in space. Just a dim blue glow inside the nozzle.
At the same time, they got an amazing amount right. The CSM hardware, suits and helmets were completely authentic, and the crew is in the correct seats. The right checklists are on the panel, the right program is running on the computer but I'm not sure the 8-ball display is correct (can someone check that?) The F-1 plumes have the dark section from the fuel-rich turbopump exhaust. The F-1 plumes expand and creep up along the tail of the rocket as the ambient air pressure decreases. The roll/pitch program calls and abort mode calls are correct. Lovell turns off the EDS at the correct time. The solid-fuel ullage motors on the S-II fire a split second before the J-2 engines light up. Certainly no other fictionalized portrayal of an Apollo launch even comes close, not that there are many.
-
Certainly no other fictionalized portrayal of an Apollo launch even comes close, not that there are many.
What about this one? :)
-
Haven't you seen "Wall Street"?
They were stock traders and certainly not heros. Although Gordon Gekko's statement about getting rich enough you don't have to waste time has some resonance.
-
Certainly no other fictionalized portrayal of an Apollo launch even comes close, not that there are many.
What about this one? :)
Oh man....
-
I know, dramatic license and all that, the director feels the need to skew some things to introduce tension, but I found the portrayal of Jack Swigert kind of irritating.
Swigert was no less experienced than Mattingly and in fact had specialized in CM systems during his training; he almost certainly knew the workings of the CM better than Mattingly, and was in fact probably one of the best choices to have along if you're dealing with a crippled spacecraft. He certainly did not "fail" the reentry problem as shown in the film, or any of the other sims they ran after he was moved up to prime crew, for that matter.
-
Yes, that's classic movie 'let's make the guy who's dead and can't complain about it a bit less good than he really was for dramatic effect'. Swigert was pretty much the best person to have the the CM when the accident took place, and Lovell's line 'when was the last time he was in a simulator?' bugs me because, as backup CMP, he'd have been in the simulator only a few days previously at worst. The whole point of a backup crew is that they're ready to go if needed, after all...
-
Yeah, it was a dramatization.
I am so glad I was able to find Lost Moon. Really worth reading.
Still one of my favourite movies mind you, though the CGI was pretty obvious, even back then.
-
I know, dramatic license and all that, the director feels the need to skew some things to introduce tension, but I found the portrayal of Jack Swigert kind of irritating.
Yes, that bugged me too. Not just the "C'mon rookie, park that thing" nonsense but also the yelling match that never happened. These guys were simply too wrapped up in their jobs for that sort of thing.
Part of the problem is that NASA went so far out of their way during its glory years to portray the astronauts as unblemished superhumans that in later years everyone else (including Hollywood) felt obligated to take them down a few notches. I think it would have been much better (and much more interesting) if everyone had simply shown them as they were.
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
-
Of course I expect a film to switch things around a bit for dramatic effect, but as for this,
but also the yelling match that never happened.
I wouldn't have minded it, if the eventual kiss-and-make-up weren't such a horrible Hollywood cliché.
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
-
I bet there'd be a lot less of a reaction today.
-
Another question on Apollo 13 (the movie):
When they prepare to dock with the LM, Tom Hanks asks "How is the alignment", and Bacon answers "GDC aligned" and presses a button. Had he forgotten part of the procedure, and what what did that button do? Align the probe with the LM?
-
I cry when they come out of radio silence!
I do, too, probably because I remember being a small child and sitting through that, hoping so desperately to hear something. Sometimes real life can conceive of more dramatic situations that the most lurid screenwriters.
-
I cry when they come out of radio silence!
I do, too, probably because I remember being a small child and sitting through that, hoping so desperately to hear something. Sometimes real life can conceive of more dramatic situations that the most lurid screenwriters.
And, as a side note, a tribute to the skill of Opie Ron Howard - to manage that level of suspense in telling a story of which we already know the outcome. (As opposed to - IMHO - Argo, for example.)
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
Cernan's statement was technically accurate. The LM was Snoopy, Snoopy was a dog, dogs are by definitions sons of bitches.
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
Cernan's statement was technically accurate. The LM was Snoopy, Snoopy was a dog, dogs are by definitions sons of bitches.
The funny thing, I thought, was that the Commander, Tom Stafford, was also cursing a blue streak. Stafford, whose nickname was "Mumbles", was known to get just a bit less than articulate when excited (some of the other astronauts said that he was so smart he couldn't talk as fast as he was thinking) and his profanity didn't come across the comm link.
According to Cernan, what saved their collective butts was Stafford taking manual control of the LM and getting them into the correct attitude in time to make the ascent burn. As Gene said, "Old Mumbles sure do know how to fly."
-
Are the Nasa helmets like that?
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
I seem to recall Cernan saying the anomaly was due to a crew screw up; ie. Tom and Gene both changed the same switch's position, one not knowing the other had thrown it.
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
I seem to recall Cernan saying the anomaly was due to a crew screw up; ie. Tom and Gene both changed the same switch's position, one not knowing the other had thrown it.
Yep, and on Apollo 17 he apparently made it very clear to Jack Schmitt where the line was - don't touch any switches on my side of the line.
-
Hello? somebody please check the last trailer the one I posted above and tell are the helmets really with HUD display or is science fiction? :P ::)
-
Look how long it took to publish the in-flight intercom tape dumps. They certainly weren't classified for any reason other than to hide the fact that these guys made mistakes, swore, joked, got emotional, and otherwise acted like perfectly normal human beings doing a very unusual job. Nothing they said in private could take away the fact that they did their jobs quite well.
Remember how much flak Cernan caught when he yelled "SONOFABITCH!" just because the LM computer suddenly decided it belonged on a carnival ride? The Right Reverend Larry "Dickhead" Poland raised such a stink that Cernan, under orders, made a public apology at a press conference.
Of course, Cernan later referred to the uproar as "goddamn hogwash".
I seem to recall Cernan saying the anomaly was due to a crew screw up; ie. Tom and Gene both changed the same switch's position, one not knowing the other had thrown it.
Just so. And then when the ascent stage "went nuts", Stafford - thinking the problem was in the Abort Guidance System - flipped the switch again, which of course left the system "totally confused and helpless".
-
I saw "Gravity" today. It was pretty good... but it definitely takes some liberties with reality.
-
I saw Gravity tonight and enjoyed it. While there was a short list of things I was able to recognize as inaccurate, I didn't mind the absence of the cooling garment and MAG when Bullock did her Barbarella un-suiting.
Ranb
-
I saw "Gravity" today. It was pretty good... but it definitely takes some liberties with reality.
Which ones stood out to you the most? (I am assuming that anyone reading this thread is not worried about spoilers)?
The silliest one for me was when [spoiler]they got rid of Clooney - they could have made him need to sacrifice himself without losing the physics quite as much[/spoiler]. I like that Michael Massimino says the shuttle bay and HST looked spot-on, though.
Very, very pretty movie though.
-
I am assuming that anyone reading this thread is not worried about spoilers)?
Wrong.
-
No spoilers please!!! I just wanted to know if the movie was accurate ::)
-
No spoilers please!!! I just wanted to know if the movie was accurate ::)
I haven't seen it, but I read an interview with the director where he stated he tried to keep it based in reality as much as possible, but he did admit taking some liberties in the interest of storytelling.
-
Wrong.
Sorry.
No spoilers please!!! I just wanted to know if the movie was accurate ::)
Accurate in some senses. Angular and translational momentum were mostly conserved, sound in vacuum (aside from radio traffic) was limited to dull thuds and vibration, and while an airlock repressurized environmental sound slowly came back. The models of the actual space objects (Hubble, ISS, shuttle) are beautifully (and apparently faithfully) rendered.
The movie notably simplifies orbital mechanics, and changing in and out of space suits is much too trivial. Space junk whizzes past at an animated speed of just a fraction of what it actually would be. Neil deGrasse Tyson also points out that it comes from the east, which is improbable. Some of mission control's information at the beginning is pretty obviously for the benefit of the audience and not the astronauts.
-
Just seen it yesterday. The depictions of the hardware and the general views from orbit are all superb, but even assuming for the sake of the plot that the space stations and Hubble have been moved to similar orbits, the problems of rendezvous are brushed under the carpet. For most of the time the dynamics of interacting objects are good, particularly the tethered ones, apart from where the plot requires that they be ignored. The unconventional rocketry brought into use when the conventional stuff fails would again give a lot more problems than shown.
Enjoy it for the spectacle and the superb use of 3D, but as with a lot of films, you just have to suspend your disbelief here and there.
-
I'm finally watching it for the first time. I'm about 1 hour in, and I can only think of two different words:
Incredibly.
Incredibly.
Stupid.
It'll take me a while to think of anything else to say.
-
Personally, I was fairly impressed.
-
It's not perfect, but in a world where movies like "Armageddon" exist, calling it "incredibly stupid" seems a bit harsh. ;)
They had to diverge from reality a bit otherwise the movie would have been about 10 minutes long. Debris strikes Space Shuttle... no hope of rescue... the end. But there are few movies that get as much right as Gravity did, so like Gillianren, I was impressed.
-
They had to diverge from reality a bit otherwise the movie would have been about 10 minutes long.
Exactly. It's a vehicle for a story about human resilience, not an accurate take on the physics of orbital mechanics.
-
Oh, and I would have rather Sandra Bullock got the Oscar than Cate Blanchett, but then, I don't like Woody Allen.
-
In talking about this with some other friends I think I understand my reaction a little better.
In computer graphics there's a very well documented concept of an "uncanny valley". As animation of a human becomes more accurate it actually becomes less appealing until it finally mimics a real human closely enough to evoke the same reactions. This is why Pixar generally avoided human characters until fairly recently. Even then, they either made them look intentionally cartoonish or (as in Wall-E) used real human actors.
I can thoroughly enjoy a space opera like Star Wars, Star Trek and Wall-E because no real attempt at realism is ever made. But Gravity has an amazingly real visual look. That caused me to judge it by a completely different set of standards by which it fails completely. I could spend weeks documenting the physics blunders and wildly absurd plot holes.
I was sort of holding it together until Clooney's completely pointless and unnecessary (and physically impossible) self-sacrifice scene. Something in my brain just snapped at that moment.
-
How much of the people was CGI, and how much was actually real? It's my understanding that the actors heads were real, and only their bodies (when wearing spacesuits) were CGI.
-
My understanding is that it was almost entirely CGI, with the actors seen only by green screen.
But even though there were plenty of little visual nits like abundant stars in a daytime sky (even with the sun in frame!) the real problem with this movie isn't a lack of attention to visual detail but too much visual realism that squarely conflicts with the utter absurdity of every major plot element. It puts us squarely into the "uncanny valley" of space fiction.
-
For me, it was after Clooney's death that I was able to get into it because at least Clooney was gone from the movie.
The day time stars were annoying. The rest looked so good but the fakeness of having day time stars took me out of it.
-
For me, it was after Clooney's death that I was able to get into it because at least Clooney was gone from the movie.
Until he reappeared in the dream sequence, and then I got annoyed again. >:(
-
For me, it was after Clooney's death that I was able to get into it because at least Clooney was gone from the movie.
Until he reappeared in the dream sequence, and then I got annoyed again. >:(
Redeemed slightly by the dialogue. When he basically said, "you're kid died? Suck it up" I laughed out loud.
-
Am I the only one here who actually likes George Clooney?
-
It's got Sandra Bullock in it, so I am unlikely to ever watch it :D
-
Am I the only one here who actually likes George Clooney?
No, I just don't think the Gravity role suited him. He played the same cocky, suave, chirpy, quick tongued role in Gravity as he played in the Ocean's films. I just can't imagine the commander of a space shuttle flight being like that when orbiting the Earth while overseeing the upgrade of a billion dollar telescope, but then i guess it's Hollywood. I thought he was fantastic in Ocean's 11 and he's pretty good in the Monument's Men.
I actually like George Clooney, I think he does a great deal of good work for charity, and does so with a genuine heart, rather than because he's a star and he can. He was very good in Three Kings and produced the excellent Argo. I like the Ocean's films.
I have had a similar debate with a friend recently, he's an assistant Professor in English with an Oxford PhD. He hates Dead Poet's Society because it is inaccurate from a Literary standpoint. He also dislikes its portrayal of humanities and the way it treats analytic methodology in the arts. As I pointed out, it's Hollywood and the wider story is surely the key to the film' interpretation.
He instantly cited Gravity and asked me if my appreciation of the film was ruined by the bad physics. I did find myself analysing the physics while watching the film, but after the event I looked at the film as a human story.
-
He played the same cocky, suave, chirpy, quick tongued role in Gravity as he played in the Ocean's films. I just can't imagine the commander of a space shuttle flight being like that when orbiting the Earth while overseeing the upgrade of a billion dollar telescope, but then i guess it's Hollywood.
I completely agree. I was immediately put off by that right at the beginning of the film. No real commander would act that way, nor would he/she joyride a manned maneuvering unit like that around a multi-billion-dollar piece of hardware.
A real MMU would deplete its fuel in a matter of minutes if it were flown like that.
And yes, Clooney was good in other things. He was just miscast for this.
-
They did specifically say that he was testing a new kind of fuel to see if it was as efficient as they hoped.
-
And yes, Clooney was good in other things. He was just miscast for this.
I particularly liked him in "Michael Clayton", and he was a near-perfect fit for "The Peacemaker", but you're right, he was a complete miscast here.
Who would you have cast for the role?
(My choice would be someone who is not a big name actor, but who can come across with a serious persona without overdoing it, for example Corbin Bernson)
-
They did specifically say that he was testing a new kind of fuel to see if it was as efficient as they hoped.
The differences would not be nearly that great unless it used some form of nuclear power. And even then I'm not sure it would be enough.
A bigger problem is his high velocity and careless demeanor in close vicinity to some very expensive hardware. Anyone who has watched actual space maneuvers or spacewalks knows that they can be like watching grass grow. But this is necessary for both safety and fuel economy.
I recommend the "honest movie trailer" for Gravity, available on Youtube. Their use of pinball sound effects for the many collisions of astronauts with space hardware was inspired.
-
I recommend the "honest movie trailer" for Gravity, available on Youtube. Their use of pinball sound effects for the many collisions of astronauts with space hardware was inspired.
Very funny! I LOL'd at the "..starring Gus Fring" bit ;D ;D ;D
-
I recommend the "honest movie trailer" for Gravity, available on Youtube. Their use of pinball sound effects for the many collisions of astronauts with space hardware was inspired.
That cheered me up on a Friday night.
-
I recommend the "honest movie trailer" for Gravity, available on Youtube. Their use of pinball sound effects for the many collisions of astronauts with space hardware was inspired.
I LOL'd, thanks for the recommendation!