Gravity (2013)
- Thread starter Fedor
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
spronk
FPS noob
- 23,680
- 27,770
I think there's two type of people. the first dreamed of being an astronaut ever since being a little kid, wanted to visit Orlando not to see Disneyworld but to go to Cape Canaveral and see a space shuttle launch, and would sign up for an interstellar one way colonization ship in a heartbeat, even if its solo. We were mesmerized by how Gravity looked on an imax screen in 3d and for 90 minutes were completely immersed being in space.
The second type, not so much. but then again different people are into different things, I don't really get much into car shows like Top Gear or sports shows/movies but I can understand how some people do really, really get into them.
The second type, not so much. but then again different people are into different things, I don't really get much into car shows like Top Gear or sports shows/movies but I can understand how some people do really, really get into them.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 83,270
- 168,742
I think people are overstating the difference between Imax + home theater for this movie. I watched this with 3D glasses on a 90 foot screen at Chicago Navy Pier Imax and while a pair of shots I remember seemed really cool like a bolt slowly tumbling towards me and droplets of water in zero gravity - the remaining scenes didnt really take advantage of that kind of stuff. I watched the screener at home on a 42" LCD and didnt feel like I missed out on anything.
The reason people keep having this argument is because they feel there's a need to validate this movie in the absence of any other aspects that would normally be discussed: good plot, good characters, good dialogue - all these things that Gravity lacks entirely.
The reason people keep having this argument is because they feel there's a need to validate this movie in the absence of any other aspects that would normally be discussed: good plot, good characters, good dialogue - all these things that Gravity lacks entirely.
exactly this. it's the people that when asked what they liked about a movie say "the special effects" is the reason why more and more shitty movies with horrible plots and soap opera bad dialogue and acting keep getting made.
Szlia
Member
- 6,650
- 1,386
The opposite can be argued: there are a lot more movies with good plots than there are with amazing direction and stunning visuals.
Also, if the plot and dialogues of Gravity are indeed sub-par, the tension is amazing. There are long stretches of the movie where you just can't breath or blink.
Also, if the plot and dialogues of Gravity are indeed sub-par, the tension is amazing. There are long stretches of the movie where you just can't breath or blink.
Loser Araysar
Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
- 83,270
- 168,742
Tension that cant be reproduced on a home theater system?
C'mon - this argument is specious.
People feel the need to defend this movie on some level because its a relatively smart big budget movie and it tackles a subject that is largely ignored (space). Its a welcome change from every other big budget movie we get which is typically dumb as shit: Star Trek: ID, Iron Man 3, Pacific Rim and Man of Steel just this year alone. But you cant tell me that Gravity special effects are some ground breaking tour de force that made you drop your jaw like the first time you saw Jurassic Park or Terminator 2.
Tension? Like when she's at 1% oxygen and decides to just watch smugy mcsmugson float off to his death instead of scrambling for her life? That was like every scene of tension. "Oh I'm about to die, lemme prolong this scene super long by doing stupid shit no one would do to keep the tension going"
It was terrible. The movie was so bad that when smuggy found her capsule or whatever it was she finally landed with, in the insane vastness of space, I actually didn't expect it to be the dream it so obviously was because the movie was so bad I thought there is nothing these retards wouldn't do for dramatic effect (like have smugs mysteriously get oxygen and somehow find her shuttle and somehow float there)
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,216
- 101,361
Gask
Silver Baron of the Realm
- 13,323
- 52,410
But they need something other than pure spectacle to be worth watching for those to whom a depiction of space for its own sake fails to overawe. To me it just felt like an empty setting that has been established in films and my imagination over the decades and as such not particularly enthralling. Debris zipping around for 90 minutes doesn't entertain me, for 10 minutes sure but 90, no. Had this been my first exposure to the concept of outer space and big budget CGI then I might feel differently but I still doubt that I'd ever watch it more than once. The real divide is between people who are bored of such spectacle and those who can enjoy it as the grand multimillion dollar light show that it is.
This back and forth puts me in mind of the Life of Pi for comparison as both films are essentially the same at their core: lone protagonist caught in a hostile, blank and deadly environment. A story of perseverance and survival but one oozed character and created a bond with the viewer while the other (IMO) completely failed to do so.
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,216
- 101,361
You people are starting to sound like idiots who bitched at Superman for having insane levels of destruction and it being so terrible and unrealistic when every single other movie has it. Avengers was filled with buildings get knocked down and out of this world chaos yet no one bitched about that.
Szlia
Member
- 6,650
- 1,386
To be fair, they are not bitching about the presence of spectacular elements, they are bitching about the fact that these spectacular elements are enough for some people to enjoy Gravity.
I'll not defend Superman, but The Avengers also had effective comedy elements and very clever writing (most notably the way the plot paired the superheroes in many different combinations and each time explored what sparks could fly when bumping them together).
I'll not defend Superman, but The Avengers also had effective comedy elements and very clever writing (most notably the way the plot paired the superheroes in many different combinations and each time explored what sparks could fly when bumping them together).
Big Phoenix
Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
- 47,216
- 101,361
Please, the number one complaint in the superman thread was "omg so many people would of died too much destructioN!!" when there was just about equally as over the top destruction and chaos in the avengers. For whatever reason people bitch and hate one thing then the very things they bitch and complain about are in something they love.
Gravity wasnt Citizen Cane or Shawshank in terms of character development or story telling, but that does not mean it was not a good movie and something that is enjoyable.
Adebisi
Clump of Cells
- 27,820
- 32,906
Szlia
Member
- 6,650
- 1,386
What I remember of that thread was Astro saying mass destruction was out of place in a Superman movie.
That's three occurrences of spectacular destruction in movies, but in The Avenger the perception was it was a cherry on top of a movie that had other qualities, in Superman it was attacked for being a super faux pas and in Gravity it is dismissed as being the only quality of the movie. I don't remember many people in the Superman or in this thread saying these scenes failed to be spectacular, whether or not they liked the movie.
