Smith & Wesson Forum

Go Back   Smith & Wesson Forum > General Topics > The Lounge
Forum Register Expert Commentary Members List


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:04 AM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,255
Likes: 27
Liked 536 Times in 244 Posts
Default Anyone else see Gravity?

Anyone else not that impressed? Kept thinking "Nice photography but it seems like something I've seen before."
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Western PA
Posts: 7
Likes: 1
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Default

Beautifully filmed. Like you I really expected more.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:34 AM
hobby-gunsmith's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: New Port Richey, Florida
Posts: 472
Likes: 38
Liked 85 Times in 45 Posts
Default Gravity

My wife and I thought the movie was fantastic. It was all about Sandra Bullock and she did a fantastic job. It was quite different than Captain Phillips. The photography was outstanding and as a whole, you had to appreciate the movie for what it's worth.

Nick
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:51 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Mid-Atlantic region
Posts: 8
Likes: 8
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Default

My gf and I really enjoyed it. I realized at one point I was clutching my jacket in a clenched fist.

We had dinner with some friends for a birthday a couple nights later .. one of the ladies in the crowd mentioned that she was pissed that Bullock's character could not have been protrayed as a strong woman but had to have an emotional breakdown and the back-story of having lost a child. She compared that to Clooney's character that we know nothing about and take at face value. I didn't really want to argue.. this woman was a very liberal lawyer and a lesbian and I'd just admitted my chosen recreational acivities as being motorcycles and shooting. I was just happy she didn't take a fork to my throat right there in the restaurant. We did chat about bikes later. I would have thought she'd have been happy that Bullock really carried much of the movie.

btw.. i agree.. the photography was very cool and the weightless effects were really well done and seamless ..
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-28-2013, 12:35 PM
H Richard's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: West Central IL
Posts: 9,507
Likes: 1,773
Liked 1,710 Times in 1,002 Posts
Default

I saw it in 3D, and the effects were very good. Photography was excellent. I think the story line was rather thin. To me this smacks of being in the category of an "art film".
__________________
H Richard
SWCA1967
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-28-2013, 05:51 PM
coltle6920's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Denver,Colorado
Posts: 580
Likes: 267
Liked 628 Times in 223 Posts
Default

Saw a short article about this movie which cracked me up. There were reporters asking questions about the movie. One man stood up and asked the movie director what problems they had encountered while filming in space. As you would imagine the other reporters just sat there in utter silence but the director calmly replied "We lost one cameraman while shooting but that was about it."

It was a gag question asked by a reporter (?) for some off the wall rag that does fake reporting. I would've loved to been there.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:46 PM
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: California
Posts: 950
Likes: 552
Liked 1,262 Times in 494 Posts
Default

I'm just peeved that 44 years after landing on the moon, we STILL CAN'T shoot movies in outer space!
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-28-2013, 09:55 PM
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SLC, Utah
Posts: 3,163
Likes: 26
Liked 514 Times in 213 Posts
Default

While I have never seen gravity, I feel it more and more every day...
Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Like Post:
  #9  
Old 10-29-2013, 12:27 AM
model70hunter's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: SE Kansas, east of OZ.
Posts: 1,701
Likes: 2,384
Liked 928 Times in 417 Posts
Default

From the trailers I did not think it would be pulling enough.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-29-2013, 01:02 AM
calmex's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: San Miguel de Allende,Gto
Posts: 775
Likes: 54
Liked 474 Times in 173 Posts
Default

The wife and I really liked it. 3-D goggles and the works!
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-29-2013, 08:17 AM
Dominus_Lex's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Way Up North - MI
Posts: 513
Likes: 68
Liked 263 Times in 123 Posts
Default

The story was flat at best, but well worth the price of admission to see the show. Spend the extra $$$ to see it in IMAX 3D.
__________________
always trust your cape...
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-29-2013, 09:02 AM
vito's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Rockford, Ilinois, USA
Posts: 484
Likes: 2
Liked 489 Times in 189 Posts
Default

I really enjoyed this movie, and it didn't hurt that I saw it in Imax-3D. This is the type of movie where seeing it on the big screen really is what makes the experience a good one. My guess is that folks who see it later on a TV screen at home will wonder what the fuss was about.
__________________
VITO
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-29-2013, 09:13 AM
CAJUNLAWYER's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On da Bayou Teche
Posts: 9,911
Likes: 1,783
Liked 9,384 Times in 2,410 Posts
Default

Didn't see it.
__________________
Forum consigliere
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-29-2013, 11:36 AM
S&W45Colt's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: NC
Posts: 1,408
Likes: 2,188
Liked 1,752 Times in 643 Posts
Default

Clooney is an anti-gunner and his views are radical, I'm not putting my money in his pocket to reward him for it.

"After poking fun at Heston’s then Alzheimer diagnosis, reporters questioned him about his insensitivity. Clooney: “I don’t care. Charlton Heston is the head of the National Rifle Association. He deserves whatever anyone says about him.”

How people can vote for or financially support people so diametrically opposed to their views they would never have a cup of coffee with them in the real word? It confuses me.

JMO, others differ.
__________________
S&W45Colt

Last edited by S&W45Colt; 10-29-2013 at 11:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Like Post:
  #15  
Old 10-29-2013, 12:53 PM
XD40inTX's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: The Republic of Texas
Posts: 60
Likes: 14
Liked 43 Times in 20 Posts
Default

Wife and I saw it in Imax 3D. Local reviews were great but I didn't expect much. I wasn't disappointed. It wasn't much.

Let's be honest here. Two-thirds of the movie was just Sandra Bullock. The scene of her climbing out of that space suit in those skin-tight shorts was worth the price of admission, but beyond that, what are you gonna do with one character? The monologues consisted of only three things. (1) Heavy breathing from her exertions. Not not that kind of exertion. (2) Her reading out of the spacecraft operation manual, and (3) her muttering about what a miserable life she had had.

I would have much preferred an hour and a half of her in the skin-tight shorts. Unfortunately, my wife wouldn't have let me go.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-29-2013, 01:14 PM
Tom K's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 948
Likes: 50
Liked 767 Times in 225 Posts
Default

On the recommendation of Phil Plait of badastronomy, we went to see Gravity at the IMAX in 3D. His review has spoilers in it, so if you don't like that sort of thing don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

My take? Truly great special effects, which is the only reason to go see it (and I almost never feel special effects are a justification for seeing a movie). I just wished they could've been used on a better movie. It's not as bad a movie story-wise as say Avatar (and the effects are much more believable - I never felt like Avatar was anything more than a cartoon). It is probably worthwhile to see it in 3D on the IMAX, but I don't intend to see it again so I have no basis for 2D/3D comparison. It's only 91 minutes which helps - I usually get a headache and irritated eyes during 3D movies.

There's a nifty shot where we get closer and closer to Sandra Bullock in her spacesuit, until we actually pass through her helmet and rotate around and are looking out from her point of view. And you've gotta look pretty good when the closeup of your face is 30 feet high. I was pretty impressed overall with the fidelity of all the floaty zero-G stuff. I think the bulk of it was CGI and I had wondered if they did any of it in a "vomit comet" (an aircraft that flies a parabolic arc to create free fall, about 30 seconds at a time). But I saw Sandra Bullock on Leno and she said that they had talked her into doing scenes in the vomit comet even though she hates to fly, but after she gamely signed up for that they let her know that it'd be hanging from wires and such instead.

However there are the glaring unrealities of things such as George Clooney in the opening scene, swooping around the shuttle/Hubble with a Manned Manvering Unit (MMU) backpack like some kind of drunken sugarplum fairy. Everything I've ever seen done in space is slow and deliberate. And he's not helping get the job done! They aren't going to have an astronaut out there on a Hubble servicing mission doing nothing during EVA except play Rocketeer.

Plus nobody but Clooney had any kind of backpack even though all US EVA suits now have SAFR backpacks, a more basic type of MMU that allows an astronaut to get back to the ship if they accidentally get untethered.

Then there's putt-putting from the Hubble to the ISS with an MMU because look, it's that bright dot right over there! (And not in a completely different orbital altitude and inclination, and not maybe thousands of miles away on the other side of the Earth.) And then in a crippled Soyuz from the ISS to the Chinese space staion because it, too is just right over there. Crowded neighborhood! And all by the seat of the pants, with no instruments or autopilot or calculations or respect to orbital mechanics.

There's a critical plot point involving tension on a tether between Bullock and Clooney's suits (the fuller description of the situation is one of Phil's spoilers in his review), which could be explained if they were swinging around in an arc and there was centripetal force involved. However that's not the way it was represented so they screwed up there.

And, the orbital debris that causes all the problems doesn't spread out and just keeps coming around every 90-minute orbit with closing velocities "like a rifle bullet", but still they can easily see it coming in a visible swarm.

Etc.

But it's a pretty cool movie to look at.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-29-2013, 07:37 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 599
Likes: 407
Liked 266 Times in 136 Posts
Default

My wife and I saw it in 3D. While some of the cinematography was good, the movie as a whole was unimpressive in my opinion.
Robert Redfords new movie "All is lost" is a better movie.
One actor, and only about 20 words spoken the entire film.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-29-2013, 07:45 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: RI
Posts: 329
Likes: 12
Liked 197 Times in 116 Posts
Default

I believe Isaac Newton was one of the first to see it, I hope it wasn't a granny smith.
Reply With Quote
The Following User Likes This Post:
  #19  
Old 10-29-2013, 08:04 PM
ChuckS1's Avatar
US Veteran
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Stafford, VA
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 45
Liked 464 Times in 215 Posts
Default

Saw it with the wife. All I can say is that even at Sandra Bullock's age, gravity doesn't seem to have had any effects on her...
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-29-2013, 08:58 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: W. NC
Posts: 643
Likes: 35
Liked 105 Times in 49 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom K View Post
On the recommendation of Phil Plait of badastronomy, we went to see Gravity at the IMAX in 3D. His review has spoilers in it, so if you don't like that sort of thing don't read it.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/04/ba_movie_review_gravity.html

My take? Truly great special effects, which is the only reason to go see it (and I almost never feel special effects are a justification for seeing a movie). I just wished they could've been used on a better movie. It's not as bad a movie story-wise as say Avatar (and the effects are much more believable - I never felt like Avatar was anything more than a cartoon). It is probably worthwhile to see it in 3D on the IMAX, but I don't intend to see it again so I have no basis for 2D/3D comparison. It's only 91 minutes which helps - I usually get a headache and irritated eyes during 3D movies.

There's a nifty shot where we get closer and closer to Sandra Bullock in her spacesuit, until we actually pass through her helmet and rotate around and are looking out from her point of view. And you've gotta look pretty good when the closeup of your face is 30 feet high. I was pretty impressed overall with the fidelity of all the floaty zero-G stuff. I think the bulk of it was CGI and I had wondered if they did any of it in a "vomit comet" (an aircraft that flies a parabolic arc to create free fall, about 30 seconds at a time). But I saw Sandra Bullock on Leno and she said that they had talked her into doing scenes in the vomit comet even though she hates to fly, but after she gamely signed up for that they let her know that it'd be hanging from wires and such instead.

However there are the glaring unrealities of things such as George Clooney in the opening scene, swooping around the shuttle/Hubble with a Manned Manvering Unit (MMU) backpack like some kind of drunken sugarplum fairy. Everything I've ever seen done in space is slow and deliberate. And he's not helping get the job done! They aren't going to have an astronaut out there on a Hubble servicing mission doing nothing during EVA except play Rocketeer.

Plus nobody but Clooney had any kind of backpack even though all US EVA suits now have SAFR backpacks, a more basic type of MMU that allows an astronaut to get back to the ship if they accidentally get untethered.

Then there's putt-putting from the Hubble to the ISS with an MMU because look, it's that bright dot right over there! (And not in a completely different orbital altitude and inclination, and not maybe thousands of miles away on the other side of the Earth.) And then in a crippled Soyuz from the ISS to the Chinese space staion because it, too is just right over there. Crowded neighborhood! And all by the seat of the pants, with no instruments or autopilot or calculations or respect to orbital mechanics.

There's a critical plot point involving tension on a tether between Bullock and Clooney's suits (the fuller description of the situation is one of Phil's spoilers in his review), which could be explained if they were swinging around in an arc and there was centripetal force involved. However that's not the way it was represented so they screwed up there.

And, the orbital debris that causes all the problems doesn't spread out and just keeps coming around every 90-minute orbit with closing velocities "like a rifle bullet", but still they can easily see it coming in a visible swarm.

Etc.

But it's a pretty cool movie to look at.
You do realize it is a MOVIE, right? Not a documentary?

I'm sure When John Wayne rammed his submarine into a Jap destroyer (Operation Pacific) some old salt was saying "that movie stunk, that sub would of sunk for sure!"
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-29-2013, 10:07 PM
Tom K's Avatar
SWCA Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Posts: 948
Likes: 50
Liked 767 Times in 225 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WNC Seabee View Post
You do realize it is a MOVIE, right? Not a documentary?
....
I've seen similar sentiments many times as justification for taking needless liberties, but you could say that about anything in movies. "Oh, let's have tanks roll through Atlanta in Gone With the Wind - it's just a movie!"

All films rely somewhat on suspension of disbelief, and the less you know the easier it is to do that suspendering. I don't expect anything approaching true physics in any Star Trek movie, but when you try to make a film regarding a shuttle mission in low Earth orbit, I hope for more realism than what Gravity presented.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
The Lounge Thread, Anyone else see Gravity? in General Topics; Anyone else not that impressed? Kept thinking "Nice photography but it seems like something I've seen before."...
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gunsafes, gravity and stock repairs Vulcan Bob The Lounge 9 04-30-2013 02:07 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
smith-wessonforum.com tested by Norton Internet Security smith-wessonforum.com tested by McAfee Internet Security

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.


S-W Forum, LLC 2000-2013
Smith-WessonForum.com is not affiliated with Smith & Wesson Holding Corporation (NASDAQ Global Select: SWHC)