I didn't think what followed her visit from Kowalski was anything terribly implausible. Dramatically, once she decided she wasn't going to give up, she had to overcome some hurdles to demonstrate it. I didn't get that was the U.S.A. To me, it looked like she came down somewhere in Scotland. Granted, if dropped at random, she was most likely to come down in the middle of an ocean. And, of course, submersion in water is symbolic baptism...
Most of the criticisms of Gravity can be easily explained away by the fact it doesn't take place in our reality, but instead an alternative one (as shown by the fact they are using an orbiter that never actually existed) That being the case, it's easy to rationalise that Hubble and the ISS and the Chinese station are all in similar orbits for ease of access in the event of an emergency. As for Mike drifting off, I just assumed that the ISS was rotating.
Yep. I just accept that--in this reality--the Chinese built their space station in fairly close proximity to the ISS for just such an emergency. And, in this reality, NASA put the Hubble near the ISS so they could do easy service calls to it. I'll have to watch the film again, but as for Mike drifting off: if I recall correctly, Stone's leg is wrapped in some cables and the combined momentum of her and Kowalski is pulling her loose from them. If that's correct, then a simple tug on the cable isn't sufficient to save Kowalski because, although the tug would bring them back together, their combined momentum would STILL be pulling on the cables holding Stone's foot.
I always thought "2001" was the number of minutes the movie ran- or that's how long it seemed. Kinda like ST:TMP. Pretty to look at but not much else.
I think 2001 was always meant to be experienced as a companion piece to the book (despite a couple of glaring inconsistencies).
I don't. Kubrick went out of his way to make the movie different from whatever Clarke might have been writing. He had a tendency to treat book authors that way, which is to say keeping them at a distance at best.
Which is weird, because it was never the case, ever, that a studio crammed a book down his throat, and said "make this movie!!", he sought out all the material he adapted, and wouldn't make a movie until something resonated for him.
I kinda got that from the radio chatter. There was a line like 'This is Houston, help will be there in three minutes' or something like that. Sounded like she came down close to home. Maybe I misheard due to sensory overload in the final action piece, and as I had to watch the dubbed version it's possible they fucked something up. If the movie is to be taken without all the interpretation, which is entirely possible, she just landed in a lake. Without looking it up I'd say it's Lake Powell, Arizona. It's one of those places you recognize from dozens if not hundreds of movies. I don't get all the comparisons to 2001 anyway. Maybe I just didn't see the thick philosophical/religious background because I was more interested in the visuals than the plot. Sure, there was a little religious stuff, especially the 'thank you' in the end but I took it as a version of no atheists in a foxhole. Guess I'll have to wait until the BR release to watch it again and find out. I'm also looking forward to finding out how much impact (or not) it has on a small screen.
His fourth tweet was the one I saw. Great movie!! Can't wait for the Blu-ray. I'm very happy I saw this in IMAX 3D after Paladin's advice in the first post. Otherwise I wouldn't have.
Someone posted a user comment on CNN... "I bet "Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson" is the guy who reminds everyone at a party to use a coaster."
Not true. 2001 was a collaboration between Arthur C Clarke and Stanley Kubrick. The book and the film were being produced at nearly the same time. According to Clarke's forward to the book, he and Kubrick were in regular communication at the time and maintained a friendship for a long time afterwards. The big difference between book and movie is that in the book, the Discovery mission is to Saturn rather than Jupiter and the climax takes place around Iapetus. Remember, the movie 2001: A Space Odyssey is actually based on Clarke's short story "The Sentinel," not the novel 2001.
Coy, this here's Bubba. How did you get that big Harley up on the high dive anyway? *****Spoilers aplenty as he asks about something few people seem to be talking about.*****
As I recall, the main reason for Jupiter/Europa in the film was that the special effects guys couldn't do an adequate Saturn. I'm pretty sure the other discrepancies were for similar technical issues. The film and book were definitely collaborative efforts.
I am aware of those facts. However, others working on the movie stated that Kubrick was known to have made sudden changes to the movie which resulted in differences from the novel, seemingly on purpose. You may want to read/watch the materials on 2001 made by Collative Learning.
And despite the media attack on all the scientific inaccuracies, the film keeps kicking everyone's asses week after week after week. Alphonso Cauron is laughing all the way to the bank.
Because it's an amazing visual... It's kinda like Avatar in that aspect. Avatar is an amazing movie to look at, but the story is written on a preschool level of good guys and bad guys.
That's because when it comes to film as an art form, those inaccuracies don't really matter. For me, it comes down to how well the story and characters are fleshed out and developed, how well the plot is crafted, pacing, and entertainment value. As long as it has those things, I'm sure most people are willing to overlook some mistakes here and there.
I heard an interview with an astronaut who was on the last Hubble repair mission, and he loved the film Gravity, and said that he was impressed by the amount of accuracy in the film.
I quite agree. The few things they got "wrong" are either necessary for the plot, or likely to go completely unnoticed by someone who doesn't have pretty deep scientific/astronautical knowledge.
I saw it last night in IMAX 3D and loved it! Glad I did that option rather than 2D. I did an early afternoon show and was in the theater mostly by myself and this guy comes in and sits down one seat away from me. I looked at him like, "Really? This whole empty theater and you have to sit down right next to me?" Fortunately his buddy came in a minute later and they moved down a row. But I was buzzing about the movie for hours afterwards. Really felt like you were up in space with the actors. And the story was exciting and moved along. You have to ignore the few scientific implausibilities for the sake of the story and action.
Yeah, that's the "parking lot syndrome." You park all the way out at the far end of the parking lot where nobody else is, and you come back to find some retard parked right next to your driver side door so you can't get in.
Neil deGrasse-Tyson to discuss Gravity with astronaut Mike Massimino, who was on a Hubble repair mission, Tyson's podcast/radio show today. Both of them loved the film, so it should be an interesting listen.
Kevin Pollak recently did an interview with the film editor for Gravity. (Who's Kevin Pollak? He's the stand up comic who does a dead-on impression of the Shat and of Christopher Walken. How good of an interviewer is he? Excellent. He's not afraid to go "inside baseball" with his guests and that's when you start to hear the very, very interesting stories.) Its worth watching (though a bit long at almost 2 hours). What I found most interesting was they spent something like 18 months shooting the film before they even had any actors cast.
I watched one of the copies floating around the 'net a few days ago out of curiousity. It's still impressing on the small screen. Thought it would lose more in 2D and without the sheer size of a silver screen. Yet without the total sensory overload the story seems even tackier since there is not so much distraction. Still a must buy on Blu-ray. Looking forward to an extensive Making Of...
It won six Baftas, which means its likely to do well at the Oscars. If it does, then the odds of more hard SF films being made are pretty. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/17/showbiz/britain-bafta-awards/
Damn high-falutin scientists! Seriously though any time there's a movie about your area of expertise things will pop out at you as being wrong. I can't wait for the new Cosmos with Neil!
