August1991 Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 (edited) There is no plot/story. Plot: Sandra Bullock talks to George Clooney and herself in space and then (spoiler alert), she comes back to earth. The science is all wrong. People don't "bounce around" in space, pulling on tethers, careening off satellites, spinning then stopping, (Valentina Tereshkova was barfing during her flight.) It's all hype, and imagery. Welcome to the future of film, a once wonderful artistic medium now moribund. Nowadays, Hollywood only gives money if the movie involves 3d glasses, hype and CGI so that the proverbial 13 year old kid in Hongkong buys a ticket and sees it in the cinema - since otherwise, he will just download the movie. Edited October 20, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 Castaway in space, the biggest question, which one of them is wilson? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 An action flick with great CGI and that's it. Contrived plot and any suspense there might have been left with Clooney. Disappointing. Anyone seen Rush? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 Not terribly accurate. Everything is in the same orbit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 It's all hype, and imagery. Welcome to the future of film, a once wonderful artistic medium now moribund. Nowadays, Hollywood only gives money if the movie involves 3d glasses, hype and CGI so that the proverbial 13 year old kid in Hongkong buys a ticket and sees it in the cinema - since otherwise, he will just download the movie. This is simply not true; lots of "serious" film continues to be made. And the proverbial 13 year old in Hong Kong is not the arbiter of what does or does not make it to theatres. And the "special effects blockbuster" is not a new phenomenon. The special effects have just become more spectacular. People want astounding, awe-inspiring experiences. Hollywood has sought to provide them, ever since Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and probably before that as well. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 This is simply not true; lots of "serious" film continues to be made. And the proverbial 13 year old in Hong Kong is not the arbiter of what does or does not make it to theatres. And the "special effects blockbuster" is not a new phenomenon. The special effects have just become more spectacular. People want astounding, awe-inspiring experiences. Hollywood has sought to provide them, ever since Charlton Heston parted the Red Sea, and probably before that as well. -k Special effects have always been around and people have always wanted to see them. Films like King Kong, Metropolis, and The Day the Earth Stood Still were probably more ground-breaking in terms of effects for their time than anything that's being released today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted October 20, 2013 Report Share Posted October 20, 2013 Good catch, Cyber...let's hear how King Kong symbolizes the death knell of serious cinema, RKO circa 1933 pandering to the whims of foreign teenaged boys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 (edited) This is simply not true; lots of "serious" film continues to be made. And the proverbial 13 year old in Hong Kong is not the arbiter of what does or does not make it to theatres. -k I disagree, and I'm not alone. I suggest that you read Lynda Obst's book "Sleepless in Hollywood". Obst may be a confused Californian MILF, but she has her finger on the pulse of the American movie business. ---- Rich people in the world have 70" screens/basement cinema rooms. Poor people in the world download movies for free. Hollywood knows all this and now must make movies that force both groups to buy a ticket to the cinema. Gravity is a trifecta: rich people want to see it in 3D IMAX, poor people can't enjoy it as a fuzzy download, there's no plot so everyone can understand it. Edited October 23, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted October 23, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 Special effects have always been around and people have always wanted to see them. Films like King Kong, Metropolis, and The Day the Earth Stood Still were probably more ground-breaking in terms of effects for their time than anything that's being released today. King Kong had a subtext. Metropolis - well, I never liked Metropolis - but it had a subtext. But you have a point cybercoma, Gravity has a subtext: a woman survives. In the 21st century or the 9th century BC, this is hardly a revolutionary idea. Radical Islamists, fervent North Korean nationalists and even Quebec feminists would agree with such a subtext. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 But you have a point cybercoma, Gravity has a subtext: a woman survives. In the 21st century or the 9th century BC, this is hardly a revolutionary idea. Radical Islamists, fervent North Korean nationalists and even Quebec feminists would agree with such a subtext. The "woman survives" subtext was already presented in depth by the "space movie" Alien (1979). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 I disagree, and I'm not alone. I suggest that you read Lynda Obst's book "Sleepless in Hollywood". Obst may be a confused Californian MILF, but she has her finger on the pulse of the American movie business. ---- Rich people in the world have 70" screens/basement cinema rooms. Poor people in the world download movies for free. Hollywood knows all this and now must make movies that force both groups to buy a ticket to the cinema. Gravity is a trifecta: rich people want to see it in 3D IMAX, poor people can't enjoy it as a fuzzy download, there's no plot so everyone can understand it. You have yet to explain why theaters are still packed......with paying customers. I can offer a hint or two. Many, many movies are made specifically for the big screen and big sound. Many consumers recognize that reality. It makes me laugh to be online and listen to people bitch about how the latest CGI Blockbuster they pirated is not very good on their laptop. Gravity is basically a vanity movie for Sandra Bullock. She is in nearly every scene. The CGI is very, very good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 3, 2013 Report Share Posted December 3, 2013 1. There is no plot/story. Plot: Sandra Bullock talks to George Clooney and herself in space and then (spoiler alert), she comes back to earth. 2. The science is all wrong. People don't "bounce around" in space, pulling on tethers, careening off satellites, spinning then stopping, (Valentina Tereshkova was barfing during her flight.) 3. It's all hype, and imagery. Welcome to the future of film, a once wonderful artistic medium now moribund. Nowadays, Hollywood only gives money if the movie involves 3d glasses, hype and CGI so that the proverbial 13 year old kid in Hongkong buys a ticket and sees it in the cinema - since otherwise, he will just download the movie. 1. Don't confuse 'basic story' with no story. There is a story. 2. Chris Hadfield, on Conan O'Brien, called it the best space movie ever. 3. I don't see how it's moribund. There may be a certain type of movie not being made anymore... you can perhaps look at the demographics to see why. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 "Chris Hadfield, on Conan O'Brien, called it the best space movie ever." Well, no. There are many better, off the top of my head I would rank 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien and Event Horizon well ahead of Gravity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 "Chris Hadfield, on Conan O'Brien, called it the best space movie ever." Well, no. There are many better, off the top of my head I would rank 2001: A Space Odyssey, Alien and Event Horizon well ahead of Gravity. Sorry - are you saying Hadfield didn't say this ? Or maybe that we're supposed to listen to 'overthere' and not an actual astronaut ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Besides which, we can presume that he was talking about realism vis a vis the space experience... not explosions and sexy actresses... Event Horizon ? Really ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Sorry - are you saying Hadfield didn't say this ? Or maybe that we're supposed to listen to 'overthere' and not an actual astronaut ?No, I'm saying that Hadfield is an accomplished scientist, snappy dresser and all around good guy but.... if he thinks Gravity is the best movie about space he needs to get out more. I do get out more, and gave three examples of 'space' movies that are better than Gravity. Yes, Event Horizon. One of the scariest movies ever, set in space. Interesting premise too. Well written and acted. You're an accomplished film critic, do you think Gravity is the best space movie ever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted December 4, 2013 Report Share Posted December 4, 2013 Having has a few minutes to think of space movies that are better than Gravity, add Moon, Apollo 13 and Solaris to an expanding list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 Besides which, we can presume that he was talking about realism vis a vis the space experience... not explosions and sexy actresses... Event Horizon ? Really ? I like Event Horizon, but this even made me laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) Having has a few minutes to think of space movies that are better than Gravity, add Moon, Apollo 13 and Solaris to an expanding list. Moon is probably the best Sci-Fi film released in the last 20 years. Edited December 5, 2013 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 No, I'm saying that Hadfield is an accomplished scientist, snappy dresser and all around good guy but.... if he thinks Gravity is the best movie about space he needs to get out more. His point of view on this is deserving of more consideration than yours. Sorry. I do get out more, and gave three examples of 'space' movies that are better than Gravity. See above. Yes, Event Horizon. One of the scariest movies ever, set in space. See above. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 It seems clear that Hadfield was talking about realistic depictions of space, and "Event Horizon" and "Alien" are certainly not realistic depictions of space. -k {guh.} Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 But Space Jam totally is ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 5, 2013 Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 So was Spaceballs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) It seems clear that Hadfield was talking about realistic depictions of space, and "Event Horizon" and "Alien" are certainly not realistic depictions of space. -k {guh.} Guh? IMHO, Chris Hadfield was talking more about realistic depictions of his pension, and potential status in life: "As a cost to Canadian taxpayers, I was once an astronaut - a famous person. Do you want to read my book/have sex with me?" Compare Chris Hadfield and Marc Garneau with, uh, Neil Armstrong. ----- Liberals or liberals or progressives or whatevers. Right/left. Conservatives. Kimmy, there is something called the "truth", and it's not putative. Edited December 5, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted December 5, 2013 Author Report Share Posted December 5, 2013 (edited) You have yet to explain why theaters are still packed......with paying customers. I can offer a hint or two. Many, many movies are made specifically for the big screen and big sound. Many consumers recognize that reality. It makes me laugh to be online and listen to people bitch about how the latest CGI Blockbuster they pirated is not very good on their laptop. Overthere, you make the same point as my OP. Gravity is basically a vanity movie for Sandra Bullock. She is in nearly every scene. The CGI is very, very good.Sandra Bullock was lucky. And you make my point once again. ==== So, here's the question: what of the future of film? Marshall McLuhan claimed that with technology, all old cultural expressions become "art". Edited December 5, 2013 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.