• The new B5TV.COM is here. We've replaced our 16 year old software with flashy new XenForo install. Registration is open again. Password resets will work again. More info here.

Anybody seen "Gravity?"

Anyone here seen "Gravity?" Anyone wanna' talk about it? I just saw it tonight, FINALLY. (Been trying for 16 days straight. Something always comes up)
 
Sorry... that movie looks so stupid to me.

Stupid? ....or just a simple, star vehicle?

I'm not sure it could be considered "A simple star vehicle." It was an incredibly complicated, expensive shoot. It portrays phsics in a more-or-less realistic fashion. It's a very ambitious hard-science story.

The only "simple star vehicle' aspect to it is Sandra Bullock's non-NASA underwear in a couple scenes.

Really nice legs notwithstanding, though, I wasn't thrilled with her performance. Well, one aspect of it.
 
Sorry... that movie looks so stupid to me.

Stupid? ....or just a simple, star vehicle?

Nope... gonna stick with stupid.

Sorry... that movie looks so stupid to me.

Why does it look stupid?

Stuck in space... falling to earth... nothing to grab. "We're gonna die!!!" I got a hold of something... It's gonna snap..... ahhhhhhh!!! *snap*

*continue to fall*

Sandra: "George Clooney I love you!"
George: "Hold me..."

*They continue to fall...*

Then 2 hours later they either die or are rescued.

To me it just looks stupid as a movie. Kinda reminds me of that one movie where they left the two divers in the middle of the ocean. Not interested in watching it...
 
Sorry... that movie looks so stupid to me.

Stupid? ....or just a simple, star vehicle?

I'm not sure it could be considered "A simple star vehicle." It was an incredibly complicated, expensive shoot. It portrays phsics in a more-or-less realistic fashion. It's a very ambitious hard-science story.

The only "simple star vehicle' aspect to it is Sandra Bullock's non-NASA underwear in a couple scenes.

Really nice legs notwithstanding, though, I wasn't thrilled with her performance. Well, one aspect of it.

Simple story. Insert star actors. Basically what Demonn said in the second part of his reply..
 
Last edited:
Stuck in space... falling to earth... nothing to grab. "We're gonna die!!!" I got a hold of something... It's gonna snap..... ahhhhhhh!!! *snap*

*continue to fall*

Sandra: "George Clooney I love you!"
George: "Hold me..."

*They continue to fall...*

Then 2 hours later they either die or are rescued.

To me it just looks stupid as a movie. Kinda reminds me of that one movie where they left the two divers in the middle of the ocean. Not interested in watching it...

The comparison to the diver movie is apt, but there's no love story in it at all, one of 'em dies. It's more like if the diver movie took place in the middle of an Irwin Allen-styled disaster film. And it's hard science. Or at least as hard science as they could do without the audience becoming confused ("Where is them space aliens? Why for aint' they got no TIE fighters zwooshin' 'round? Aind they just gonna' beam 'em up?")

I enjoyed it, though I thought Bullock's backstory was kind of shoehorned in and served no real puprose.
 
Simple story. Insert star actors. Basically what Demonn said in the second part of his reply..

Since when is "Simple" bad?

Star Wars: Farmboy defeats the empire.
Yentl: Girl wants to do something only boys are allowed to do, so she pretends to be one.
Tootsie: Guy wants to do something only girls are allowed to do, so he pretends to be one.
Wizard of Oz: Girl goes to mysterious place, sings a bit, murders someone, and returns home without incident.
Romeo & Juliet: Stupid kids fall in love against the advice of thier families, and end up killing themselves
West Side Story: Stupid kids fall in love against the advice of their families, and Rita Moreno is involved
Romeo + Juliet: Stupid kids fall in love against the advice of their families and end up killing themselves, but this time The Cardigans are on the soundtrack.
Wall-E: A robot falls in love. Somehow this is related to environmentalism.
Titanic: People fall in love on a sinking ship.
Moby Dick: Don't screw with albino whales as they represent nature and it will kill you.
The Naked Prey: Dude is chased by Indians who want to kill him.
Butch Cassidy & The Sundance Kid: Dudes are chased by lawmen who want to kill them, and eventually do.
Citizen Kane: Idealistic kid turns into dour old man, as told in flashbacks.

Seriously: since when is simplicity the hallmark of a bad film? Likewise, since when in complexity automatically the indication of a good film? The Star Wars prequels were needlessly complex, and they were terrible.
 
It's not the story as in series of events that's important. They are merely the catalyst for the personal story which is far more important.

I thought it was a good movie until a certain thing happened... at which point I thought "this is going to get well hokey!" But actually it was a clever plot device that gave the film an important nudge to a higher level, making it incredibly memorable.

The cinematography was excellent... and I don't just mean the beautiful shots of Earth and the bits of debris flying around everywhere. There's a wonderful little Barbarella-esque scene...

[spoiler]where Sandra Bullock removes a spacesuit and curls up into a bull inside the ISS, it is shot in a way that deliberately brings to mind an infant in the womb[/spoiler]

If you listen to the backstory and pay attention to the visuals you'll find this is a film that has something for everyone - birth, death, rebirth, evolution and the metaphysical are all reference in some way or other.
 
Simple story. Insert star actors. Basically what Demonn said in the second part of his reply..

Since when is "Simple" bad.

It's bad when a simple idea is padded out to Hell and back to fill out a movie. If there isn't enough material to fill the time, and it's padded to fit, it's bad.

I don't think the problem was simplicity or padding, having reflected on it a bit. The scene where Bullock is talking to the guy on the ground in Chinese or whatever and he's making dog noises is really good, and nothing much happens in it. And her barely-there emotinal arc is probably enough to float a movie if they'd really comitted to it.

I think the real problem is that they actually made it too action-packed. It's like those saturday morning serials from the 30s that they'd occasionally edit together into a movie. The individual chapters were generally 15 minutes long, with an action piece in the middle and ended on a cliffhanger. Fine as an episode, but stringing them together into a movie gives you a 120 minuge film with an action sequence every 7 minutes and a fairly rudimentary plot (As all serials had). Since the sequences were generally a couple minutes long, you've really only got about 5 minutes between setpieces, and that's just too damn much. Cutting a little bit makes it better.

This movie had that problem.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top