The Watchtower of Destruction: The Ferrett's Journal - So If You Saw Gravity This Weekend....
[Recent Entries][Archive][Friends][User Info]
So If You Saw Gravity This Weekend....|
...did anyone believe that Matt's return was anything other than a dream sequence?
I liked the dream sequence, but thought it was so obvious that it couldn't be anything but a big tip-off to the audience that "Hey, she's drifted off." It's a good way of externalizing a conflict that would otherwise be her going, "Oh, right, I push this button." And I think they made it hella-obvious, from the way that Clooney opens a door to come in to his over-bright delivery, but maybe someone didn't get it.
So did you?
(And what'd you think of the film as a whole?)
About Matt's return: I didn't believe or disbelieve at first--I mean, I thought it was a little too convenient for a film where just about everything else goes wrong for Ryan. But I was too caught up in Ryan's frozen hand-over-face pose at first to really care if it was a hallucination. As that scene went on, I pretty quickly decided that it was probably a hallucination, just given the increasing evidence of their non-interaction, i.e., she doesn't share the vodka.
About the movie: I really dug it. I was very engaged by the realism of the piece and even the somewhat artless moves--having Ryan give her backstory in simple dialogue--worked to connect me with the characters and their plight. There was some chuckling at the end though, when she stands on the beach, which nicely captures a moment of triumph--the return of that groundedness that we may feel after the airless and weightless unreality of tremendous grief. But it was a little cheesecakey, too.
I figured it almost immediately as a dream sequence. And I think it worked.
I enjoyed the film, but I fear it's been over-hyped. It's not the Second Coming.
The effects are amazing, though, and truly do redefine what movies can accomplish. That opening shot--masterful.
Every review says its amazing. But i find it hard to believe anything with Sandra Bullick or George Clooney in it could be good.
Sandra Bullock plays against type and succeeds. Best Actress Oscar level of succeeds, IMHO.
Clooney's a supporting character.
|From:||bunny42 — |
|Date:||October 7th, 2013 06:23 pm (UTC)|| |
I just got home from seeing it. I found it exciting, action-packed, beautiful to watch, implausible, and pretty much all Sandra Bullock. I just could never get invested in the story because, even with what little I know about space travel, I'm pretty sure it could never go that way. The mystery for me was whether or not she'd actually finally survive, given that I had no idea The Perfect Storm would end the way it did. Ever since then, I figure all bets are off and anything could happen.
As for Clooney's reappearance, by that time so many other unlikely events had occurred, I would have believed whatever they said in the way of explanation. I was way more fascinated with Apollo 13, and I already knew that story.
I'm glad I went, but I'm not raving.
Nope. I knew immediately.
I enjoyed the film. It conveyed very well the sense of terror and panic of the main character. It was just one step back from a VR 1st person experience.
I've watched a lot of horror and suspense and thriller movies over the decades, but this movie really got my heart racing, hands clammy, clenching my partner's hand.
I didn't buy it, but judging by the gasps and murmurs in the theater, some people were suckered. The movie's a masterwork; on a visual level, I feel the way the audiences who saw 2001: A Space Odyssey must've felt; on a dramatic level, it's a powerful story well told.
best part of gravity is that it induced a twitter fitstorm by neil degrasse tyson
I was pretty sure it was a dream. BUT. I also think she actually died during that sequence and everything else was an afterlife. FWIW. :)
|From:||bunny42 — |
|Date:||October 8th, 2013 02:52 pm (UTC)|| |
What a neat idea! I'm rethinking the whole ending in light of this concept. I was already questioning how she could possibly have survived the opening of that port. And with all that space junk, etc. the odds of her little pod functioning perfectly were so long. Very nice!
I didn't at first. In fact, I thought they went for the hacky, "And he made it out alive!" at first. But I started having my doubts when she didn't show any signs of decompression from him opening the door.
As to the film as a whole, I think it's one of the best films I've seen in a few years now. Special effects wise, I'd say it's the best film I've seen in a very long time because it didn't have me thinking, "Well that's a neat computer trick" but instead had me thinking, "Wow, what a tense moment!" In other words, it backed the story instead of just being the story.
I saw this via FriendsFriends, so you don't know me... but I can't quite get this movie out of my head.
Well, I figured that it couldn't be real, because it was hallucinatory to have him suddenly show up alive and drink vodka and peptalk her. For a moment there, I was thinking, "No, Hollywood, don't you dare; his survival does not help the story," so was relieved when it was indeed unreal.
I loved the movie. I actually am aware of all the problems, all it got wrong, but loved what it got right, and the sheer gorgeousness and intensity of the production was stunning. I cringed. I startled myself by silently crying ridiculously hard as the Chinese station deorbited and burned up on reentry, while Ryan fought to escape in the capsule, because I just kept thinking of space shuttle Columbia burning up on reentry, leaving shooting stars of debris. I went into Gravity without knowing if anyone survived it, so...
I could recite the many issues. The actual plot couldn't happen, because all the various spacecraft and satellites are not within line of sight, but in different orbits, to prevent such accidents. The Manned Maneuvering Unit exists, but doesn't have that much fuel or oomph, and cannot take anyone from Hubble orbit to ISS. The astronauts who died wouldn't have frozen so quickly. Ryan's hair didn't float in microgravity, I think. Ryan ignored signs of fire aboard ISS, so the resulting inferno was no surprise. While I didn't find her tanktop and shorts gratuitous, astronauts do wear another protective layer under their spacesuits, that white bodysuit/skullcap (which has a name I've forgotten). And all that.
But it was one hell of a ride.
"because all the various spacecraft and satellites are not within line of sight, but in different orbits, to prevent such accidents"
well actually sorry to be pedantic but that's not why they are in different orbits. The international space station is barely above the earth because it costs a lot to boost something like that and we couldn't get a better orbit because we were launching from too far north, the further south you go the more you can use the earth's spin to add a bit of boost to the launch. Hubble is up much further because they wanted a more stable orbit and the Hubble is going at a cross direction to the space station so even if you did use a MMU to get there when you did it would be going 250 miles per hour at an angle of about 50 degrees from you, good luck sticking the landing SPLAT.
The communications satellites I'm sure you know are in geosynchronous orbits much much higher up, they orbit once a day, so they are far enough out that their orbit is slow enough to do that.
But none of these orbits are chosen to avoid a collision.
In space the rule they use is "space is big". That's the only way they avoid a collision. Launches that won't orbit more than a year or two are close to the earth, if they launch from too far north or south they can't use the earth's spin to put it in a polar orbit, other satellites are further up because they are more permanent and the comm satellites are in geosynchronous, but every single satellite orbits west to the east because why waste fuel, and of course the movie got this wrong too.
The problem with the "space is big" theory of avoiding crashes is that sometimes like once a year there is a near miss, for instance, Cosmos 1805 nearly impacted the Fermi space telescope on March 29, 2012. The russian space junk btw was traveling at a speed of 27,000 miles per hour in relation to the fermi space telescope. If you were aboard the fermi spae telescope when this near miss happened you would see nothing and then in 30 milliseconds the space junk would zoom by and vanish. Then there was the collision in 2009 of some russian space junk with iridium satellite 33, which created a cloud of space junk in orbit.
Unlike the movie, in real life, because "space is big" this space junk is just orbiting around all the time now, but not hitting things.
The science is garbage.
And why does it matter if the science is garbage it's "only a movie". The audience doesn't learn science from books they don't get it from documentaries by a far margin the audience gets its "facts" about space travel from movies like this.
Fiction writers, movie directors, script writers in general do not care about facts, or real life, they care about the plot, the story and the characters, but they don't understand the audience drinks in every fact that their story presents as truth because . . . there's just no other competing source of information in their lives. Why not get it right? Because "it's just a story" it's just a cop out.
I know this science so for me it just doesn't seem real. I guess a good analogy is you are watching the "Towering Inferno" and there a bunch of people on top of the building about to get burned up, so they leap off the building one after the other and land on their feet 100 stories down, tuck and roll and dust themselves off and walk into their cars and drive away. No explanation is given as to why the nature of reality was completely violated. That's how I feel watching a movie like gravity.
Edited at 2013-10-08 02:33 pm (UTC)
Congrats on the pedantry; my apologies for my overly quick, simplistic post, and I bow to your superior ability to express yourself on these matters. *grin*
glad you took it in good humor, I was worried I was too hard headed there
|From:||bunny42 — |
|Date:||October 8th, 2013 02:55 pm (UTC)|| |
I was wondering if they hadn't used actual footage from Columbia, it looked so eerily familiar. Those in the know will probably point out that it was all CGI, but it's hard to get those images out of one's head.
|From:||starmind — |
|Date:||October 9th, 2013 04:39 am (UTC)|| |
Do they explain what in the world a bio-med is doing tinkering around with Hubble in the first place?
|From:||28bytes — |
|Date:||October 8th, 2013 06:23 am (UTC)|| |
I'll admit it: I was suckered. A completely credulous "oh, I guess he didn't drift off after all" before it became (even more) obvious what was going on. *shrug* I'm more gullible than the average bear, I suppose.
I thought the movie was brilliantly crafted, although the astronaut with the hole in his face gave me a nightmare or two.
|From:||bunny42 — |
|Date:||October 8th, 2013 03:00 pm (UTC)|| |
I've been wondering what would actually happen to a body drifting in space in a pressurized suit. Would the pressure slowly escape, and then the body would explode from internal pressure? In the case of the astronaut with the hole in his skull, the pressure would have been released, so after it equalized, would he just float forever? There wouldn't be any bacteria, etc. to cause decomposition. See, I know so little about this sort of thing.
|From:||gfish — |
|Date:||October 9th, 2013 06:03 am (UTC)|| |
It got me. I thought his return and the entry into the capsule was kind of dumb, but not 100% impossible. People have survived brief exposure to vacuum, you don't actually explode or instantly freeze or anything, after all. But mostly, I was in the moment.
And, overall, I thought it was an utter masterpiece. I've seen in twice now, and might see it a third time this weekend.
Didn't get caught by the dream sequence.
I thought Gravity was superbly done, but I didn't have any fun watching it. Too scary/bleak/sad.
3rd option. It was his ghost. Hey, it is what the protagonist believes.