"Gravity" and the Oscars

[madmac]

:roll:

As much as my daughter and I enjoyed the movie "Gravity", the film SHOULD NOT win an Oscar for best picture, let alone even be nominated. To nominate that film for best picture is a new low for Oscar and the film industry in general. The only redeeming quality of this film is the 3D special effects which were spectacular to say the least :E . It's ALL about the 3D effects in that film. To watch this movie on TV in 2D would be a huge disappointment to say the least!. Weak story line and generally poor acting. Speaking of acting, if Bullock is an Astronaut, then I am Mickey Mouse!. Again, a new low for Oscar to even nominate her for best Actress for that film. The ONLY award that film should get is for 'special effects'.......period!. On a positive note, It is a wonderful special effects 3D journey into what it feels like to be in space in zero gravity. I was blown away by that aspect only. :W

[Ovation]

I have to disagree. I found Bullock's acting quite good, the story was compelling and far more than simply a display of 3D technology. I don't know that it should win (I think American Hustle is a better movie, of those I've seen on the best picture list, and perhaps there are others that are even better than American Hustle), but I think Gravity has more than earned the nominations it has garnered. But that's the beauty of the arts--one person's favourites can be another's entry on the "worst of the year list".

[wkhanna]

a movie about courage, survival & how to find the will to carry on in face of the most deeply personal tragedies.....

What is not Oscar-quality abut that?

[George Bellefontaine]

Well, Dan, looks like you opened a can of worms here, huh :lol:

I purchased Gravity on Blu-ray and have to say I really love it. And it didn't have to be in 3D. I watched it on my 7 foot wide screen and was more than happy with what I saw. As for Sandra, well I've always felt she was a good actress, and felt she did an excellent job here. But I do prefer Bullock in comedies as she is a natural comedian.

I haven't seen any of the other films up for Best Picture, so I really won't comment on whether or not Gravity should win.

[Chris D]

I'll rent it on BD instead of PPV to make sure I get it in pure 1080p and lossless audio, to give it the full chance.

[George Bellefontaine]

I'll rent it on BD instead of PPV to make sure I get it in pure 1080p and lossless audio, to give it the full chance.

That makes sense, Chris. This has great picture and sound so you want to see it at its best.

[Lex]

I thought Gravity was going to take everything last night, and for a while, it looked like it might. But the filming, special effects, music, and directing and stuff was what it won. It didn't win best picture or best actress. So Dan, you can relax now...

I have not seen it yet. I will likely wait for it on movie network, see if I like it before buying it. Generally, these type films are not re-watch type films for me to much.

[madmac]

Like I said earlier guys, that film is ALL about the 3D and effects and should be seen in that 3D format. Now I'm not saying that it's a bad film. It's not. I was entertained. I was mesmerized at the cinematography and what they were able to do with the technology. Best picture????..........Best Actress??!!. Common????. No way!

[wkhanna]

I agree it was not the female performance of the year, however, IMHO it certainly deserved recognition, hence the nomination (which had nothing to do with CCG)

[Dmantis]

I got it here and I'm gonna watch it sometime this week if I get time or this weekend.

[impala454]

I just watched Gravity last night for the first time (been crazy busy lately!). Given all the rave reviews and being NASA related, I thought it was a no brainer blind buy on BD. So I bought it Saturday and gave it a spin. Pretty good movie I'd say but definitely wasn't worth the blind buy IMHO. I suppose the sheer silliness of much of what went on colored my attitudes on it some.

I don't want to be "that guy" who picks apart the movie based on being unrealistic, but the movie couldn't go five minutes without something utterly ridiculously unrealistic happening. I will say I really enjoyed the special effects. That's what kept me going. Other general thoughts before the spoiler tags start: It was a very short film! I also had a hard time with it being 100% Dr. Stone's point of view. It kinda wore on me after a while. Sandra Bullock's acting was ok but I definitely don't see it being Oscar nomination worthy (although I don't have much to compare it to as I didn't see a lot of films this year).

So on with the spoiler picking apart of what really bothered me (those that don't know, I work at NASA and have a little insight, so I'm pretty biased):

I'll start with my likes

1. I liked that the dead astronaut basically looked like his face had exploded. That seemed pretty realistic (albeit gruesome)

2. The concept of the destroying one satellite leading to a chain reaction thing is definitely a real possibility (the extra features on the BD talk about it as well), although highly unlikely it would affect low earth orbit that severely (most of the communications satellites we care about are in much higher orbits.

3. The look of everything. The actual graphics were pretty awesome, and you can tell they took great care in the look and feel.

My nitpicks (ok, major flaws, hehe )

1. The opening scene is crazy, there's no way in a million years they'd be flying a SAFER unit (the "jet pack") in circles around the shuttle for a joy ride. Even more insane is the dude in the cargo bay playing around jumping against his tether like a dog on a leash. They tried to get the physics of this stuff right but in doing so completely abandoned it for these idiotic kind of things. The forces at work for an astronaut in zero-G to jump against the tether like that in a full spacesuit would be very unsafe.

2. The part where Clooney's character flies the SAFER what seemed like a half a mile is to go fetch Sandra Bullock was insane too. The fact that she was spinning and they just hooked up and were bouncing around and somehow he maintained attitude simply wouldn't happen. I actually worked on the more recent version of SAFER and it does have a pretty awesome ability to automatically right and hold attitude, but only within the confines of one person. There's simply no way it could account for another astronaut being tethered to it. And no friggin way (I don't care how "good" of a pilot hollywood thinks astronauts are) an astronaut could have nulled out all that rotation.

3. If not for my girlfriend telling me she *wanted* to hear what was wrong during the movie, I might not have laughed out loud at them even considering the notion of flying the SAFER from the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) to the ISS. That very concept is absolutely unfathomable. It'd be like when the Titanic went down the passengers just swimming back to England. To give perspective, the ISS is at an altitude of about 250 miles. The HST is at around 350 miles. This vast difference in orbits means they're also travelling at different relative speeds and trajectories. Even if they were on the exact same trajectory, they'd be travelling at least 500 mph difference from each other (the higher the orbit, the less speed you need to maintain orbit).

4. The physics behind Clooney's character somehow being drawn backwards and having to "let him go" made zero sense.

5. The inside of the Soyuz was about 3x bigger than it should have been. It was cavernous compared to the real thing. If you want to get an idea of how crammed it is, sit in a large recliner, then have two dudes sit on each arm of the recliner with you (with your legs overlapping each other), then open up a golf umbrella over the top.

6. The concept of Stone just hopping in the Soyuz and starting it up within a few minutes by herself is pretty ridiculous. Perhaps not impossible but still very unlikely. Not to mention vehicles docked tend to run on and are charged by station power (which obviously didn't seem to be working too well). Also with the parachute tangled mess thing, no way she'd have ever managed to stabilize the attitude of the spacecraft with all that bouncing around. Not to mention she just so happened to have a special ratchet already fitted with the proper socket to remove the parachute?? Come on. I can't say but I highly doubt it's that easy to remove anyways (even if the tool magically appeared).

7. Every spacesuit is tailored exactly to a specific astronaut. The chances of there being a Russian suit that fits her is pretty slim to none.

8. The idea of flying the Soyuz over to the Tiangong station is pretty ridiculous too, but not quite as far fetched. They're at much closer altitudes and have actually gotten fairly close together before. But the idea that she could just dock it, hop out, then hop in the other one and go (and "guess" the buttons to properly get it going) is pretty ridiculous.

The sound on the BD was horrible IMHO. Their attempt to 3Dify the sound making the dialog all around you made it very difficult to hear conversations. Also the thumping all over was very poorly done and seemed like it was going to start bottoming out some of my speakers (while at the same time I could barely hear dialog). I had to stop and run a check of my gear to be sure I didn't have a center channel issue.

I really did enjoy the movie, but just feel it wasn't really worth owning, and definitely not worth all the Oscars it won.

[Dmantis]

I just watched this yesterday and I got to admit , I didn't care for it at all. I watched it in 2D and you can tell where they stuck in the 3D parts. Basically stuck out like a sore thumb.

[George Bellefontaine]

Well, Chuck, I can understand your highlighting all the things that were wrong because of your NASA related situation. Unlike you, I bought this one and was glad I did. It is a fictional movie on a subject on which I have little knowledge, so I enjoyed it for the ride and will enjoy watching it again, even though I am now aware of the more unrealistic aspects of the movie. For me it's sort of a Jurassic Park type of movie: it stretches the imagination a bit, but it is a fun ride. On the other hand, I'll sum up by saying that I have always had a thirst for knowledge, and I learned a great deal about what can or can't happen in space. Thanks for that, Chuck.

[madmac]

I just watched this yesterday and I got to admit , I didn't care for it at all. I watched it in 2D and you can tell where they stuck in the 3D parts. Basically stuck out like a sore thumb.

I told ya' all to go to the theater to see this on the BIG screen in 3D!!!. The only way in HELL I'd ever watch this film again (let alone own it!!) would be to see it on an IMAX screen in 3D. I couldn't possibly imagine watching this film in 2D on my 60" TV screen. It just wouldn't work.

[aud19]

Well I'll be watching it in 2D when I get the time...and I'm looking forward to coming back and reading Chuck's spoiler text AFTER I've seen it :lol:

[madmac]

Well I'll be watching it in 2D when I get the time...and I'm looking forward to coming back and reading Chuck's spoiler text AFTER I've seen it :lol:

That's a pity Jason. I'd almost advise you to not waste your time.....but......alas.........

[George Bellefontaine]

Well I'll be watching it in 2D when I get the time...and I'm looking forward to coming back and reading Chuck's spoiler text AFTER I've seen it :lol:

That's wise, Jason. As for watching it in 2D, I realize how passionate Dan is about watching Gravity in 3D, but I feel if you have a large enough screen, you will be quite happy with what you see. On the other hand, I wouldn't be impressed with the images on a 40" or less screen. My screen is 92" wide and I was mesmerized by what I saw. I'm not a fan of 3D, but there were things in Gravity that were obviously created for the 3D experience. These things, however, did not ruin anything for me.

[aud19]

As a general rule of thumb I can't stand 3D (in it's current offering anyway). Looks fake, gimmicky and the fact you must wear glasses is a non starter with me. "Holo-deck" or bust for this guy :lol:

IMO, properly filmed 2D movies should already look "3D" anyway.

[wkhanna]

I pretty much share your opinion on this one, too.
But after seeing the IMAX presentation of Gravity......well this is one heck of an impressive use of 3D that even this old curmudgeon enjoyed.
Regardless, I am sure you will still enjoy the 2D, it is a well made film from any standpoint.

[bigburner]

I have now watched Gravity twice, both times at home on my 50-inch plasma which is hooked up to my 2-channel audio system. I agree with Dan that it is a 3D fest and has been designed with that in mind. I had no qualms about watching it in 2D at home because I'm more interested in the content than the (3D) presentation. I found the content a little disappointing in the context of this being an award winning film. Had it been presented as another worthwhile sci-fi film then I would have no issues. It just didn't have the content to justify all the hoopla.

I watched "All Is Lost" in the same week and the two films have much in common. You could exchange their titles and nothing would be lost. I actually thought All Is Lost was a better film. It made me think a lot more. Gravity has a monologue throughout where Sandra Bullock is communicating (unsuccessfully) with mission control. This monologue is actually a vehicle for informing the less intelligent members of the audience what is happening. It was too obvious at times. In contrast there is no dialogue or monologue at all in All Is Lost. As I'm not a sailor I was challenged at times to understand why Robert Redford was doing some of the things that he did. There was no such challenge in Gravity.

The sound track in Gravity is just as presentation-over-content oriented as the video. The speech is very low in the mix compared to all the other sounds so you are forced to turn it up loud to hear the dialogue/monologue. There are lots of interesting sounds but forget about watching this film late at night without waking up the whole household. I enjoyed the sound track but the analogy to music would be a great band with an ordinary lead singer. In contrast there is no such audio gimmickry in All Is Lost. The content rules.

Anyway, enough of the serious stuff; it's time for a couple of petty observations. I was shocked at how anorexic Sandra Bullock looks these days. She's always looked very healthy in the past so the change in her body shape was quite a surprise. I was also shocked how "rugged" Robert Redford looks these days. He really does have the appearance of a man who has spent his life at sea in the strong sunshine and sea air. Also, I hope he washed the orange dye out of his hair when the film was completed. It's a very silly look for such a mature and dignified man.

Nigel.

[wkhanna]

What an excellent comparison / contrast!

I wonder how SB would look with orange hair?

[Chris D]

Hi, Chuck! :later: Good to see you around here. I appreciated your comments, even though you didn't like the movie too much. I wanted to hear your NASA perspective. I agree with several of your critiques, such as TOTALLY not understanding what physics they were trying to show during the scene when Clooney chose to "unhook" and make her let him go.

My thoughts about 3D in general are pretty much what Jason said.

To reiterate for everyone, though, I saw this on large screen in 2D in my home theater, and really enjoyed it.

[impala454]

Nigel I'm somewhat glad to hear you had issue w/the sound/dialog as well. If nothing else it just helps me confirm there wasn't anything wrong with my system.

Don't get me wrong I enjoyed the movie, just in hindsight don't feel it was an award winner or worthy of all the awards (save for perhaps the effects related ones).

[aud19]

Watched this on the weekend. It certainly was a good popcorn/edge of your seat flick but even this space non-expert had some eye roll moments watching it (confirmed by reading Chucks spoilers above). Particularly the scene where Clooney "let's go" :roll:

Great visuals/tech, tangible tension but I'd give it I think a 7/10 at best for an otherwise mediocre script and acting. (I too am baffled by any of the non technical awards. I mean Bullock did fine with moderate script but that wasn't even nomination worthy IMO.)

I noticed the "phasey" sound things as well. I think it was intentional and we weren't necessarily meant to hear all the dialogue in full clarity but I could see how one might find it an annoying "artistic decision". That said I had no problems with the dialogue I believe we were meant to here and the sound effects etc otherwise were quite entertaining/well done IMO :T