I just watched "Gravity"

page: 1
6

log in

join

posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 02:16 AM
link   
So, I just got home from an IMAX 3-D showing of "Gravity". If you don't want any spoilers, please hit the back button right now, you've been warned.

When I first saw previews for this movie I automatically hated it. George Clooney as an astronaut? Sandra Bullock? How "exciting" can a two hour movie of people drifting in space be?

Let me preface this. I was, and always will be a 'space nut'. When I as a kid I wrote to NASA and received loads of photos, schematics and brochures on the STS program. I made Este's models, and always wanted to be an astronaut. My old man had an 8" Celestron Schmidt-Cassegrain with a 35mm camera attachment, filters, and eyepieces.

Visually, this movie was pretty good. I haven't seen a 3-D movie with as much "3-D" since James Cameron did "Avatar". That alone made up for many, many plot holes.

The movie opens with an STS mission adding some new tech to the Hubble. Clooney apparently is testing some kind of new EVA backpack. Suddenly, NASA informs the shuttle crew that the Russians have shot down one of their own spy satellites (similar to the real the 2007 ASAT Chinese test).

This creates a cloud of space debris, which in turn creates a cascade effect, destroying the Space Shuttle, and takes down ALL communication to the surviving Clooney and Bullock. Of course Clooney (with the help of his experimental EVA backpack) manages to save the spiraling Bullock, and decides to heroically head for the International Space Station (ISS).

Clooney somehow is able to calculate that every 90 minutes the cloud of razor-sharp 2,000 MPH debris will pass by. They need to get to the ISS for the one remaining Soyuz escape craft. Upon arrival at the ISS things don't go as planned. The remaining Soyuz is to damaged for re-entry, and it's parachute is already deployed. Both Bullock and Clooney fall into the ISS to hot, and Bullock's leg get's caught in the parachute lines.

Bullock eventually has to cut Clooney loose (notice I'm using the actors names, as the movie didn't give much character development) -- and he goes bye-bye. Bullock manages to get inside the ISS, and after many tense scenes, detaches the Soyuz only to realize it's out of fuel.

After a very nice hallucination scene featuring the now-dead Clooney (who gives her advice), Bullock remembers she can use the landing thrusters to get to the Chinese space station! Yay! She bails, uses a fire extinguisher as a thruster to "land" and get inside.

The Chinese space station has a Shenzhou escape craft (basically a photocopy of the Russian Soyuz). For some reason, however, there isn't anyone on board the Chinese space station, and it's orbit is decaying. She bails the Soyuz and uses a fire extinguisher as a thruster to "land" and get inside. Somehow Bullock manages to get the Shenzhou to Earth, and lives.

Movie over.

OK, a few things:

1. Okay, your Space Shuttle is gone, you make it to the ISS to find the last escape pod not able to re-enter. Get inside, use thrusters and get to a higher orbit. From my research, a Soyuz or Shenzhou could keep a human alive for a week or two.

2. Orbits and distances. Is the ISS/Hubble/Chinese "Space Station" (because to my knowledge it's just a few modules right now) in the same orbit? Are they even close enough for visual confirmation?

3. Why are there CO2 fire extinguishers in space? I assume they are CO2 because they did not leave residue like Purple K. Everything is modular on the ISS. Seal the hatches, vent the compartments, problem solved. Using CO2 even on Earth is a risk to the health of people. When I worked in fire & gas, testing the CO2 suppression systems was a huge deal. We had to evac the entire area so people didn't suffocate. Not really a good solution in space, unless you can put on a space suit, which brings me to ...

4. The suits. Now, I've seen my fair share of footage of people working on the ISS and Hubble. The tinted shield should have been shown/pulled down at *some* point in the movie. Nope.

5. Re-entry of the Shenzhou capsule. Okay, so you just can detach from a space station in a decaying orbit without giving any thought to re-entry angle and hope to survive? That capsule should have burned up in the atmosphere just like MIR. Bullock never course corrected, nor plotted an angle of re-entry.

6. Finally, why the hell do we not have a "rescue" rocket fueled ready to go at all times at the Cosmodrome and Cape Canaveral? I understand launch windows and weather, but WTF? How much can it cost to keep a rocket near the the pad ready to launch in a week or two?

Beyond these technical points (which I'm sure will be disputed and torn to shreds by some arm-chair "expert"), I have some qualms.

WHY does the ISS and everything in orbit look ghetto as hell? What is with the exposed umbilical cords/wiring? Why do all the consoles look just like they did from the Apollo era? Why do we still use arcade machine lighted buttons? My iPhone 5c is more impressive than any of the terminals on both the Soyuz and Shenzhou. Really NASA? Really Russia?

Look, I get that things have to be durable. I get that things have to survive escape velocity/launch into space. I get 4x redundancy. Really though, that's the best we can do? How much money are governments claiming they are spending?

We better have ships like this actually in space, like this scene from "Stargate Universe" where Eli Wallace looks out over Earth from a window of the USS George Hammond:



I'm OK with Apolo-era looking technology -- in the Apollo era.

In closing, if you can afford to see this movie in IMAX 3-D, it's OK. I personally wouldn't waste $17 for a ticket, thankfully mine was bought for me.
edit on 10-10-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 02:31 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


You make a lot of great points! I'll say this, I paid $14 for my IMAX 3D ticket. In my opinion, that's the ONLY way to see this. In fact, that IS the only reason I went to see it. It's space, in 3D. I mean, c'mon.

I had a bunch of glaring plot holes that just wouldn't stop sucking up my attention during the entire movie.

First off, yes he timed the orbital debris at 90 minutes. That's fine if one of two things were happening. Either the spacecraft are all stationary, or the debris was all stationary. Either of these scenarios would result in loss of orbital momentum and they'd simply fall to earth. I think realistically it would have taken some 45 minutes if the two sets of items were on a perfectly opposing orbit at the same speed since they'd encounter each other twice in their full 90 minute orbit.

Also, they lost "ALL" communication with earth, even though there are numerous ground stations, and there's a Ham Radio on pretty much every spacecraft the US sends up there, and there are always listeners there who can talk back. On top of (and literally above) that, the communication satellites are more likely than not in geosynchronous orbit, well above the debris field that would be on the same orbital altitude as the ISS.

Speaking of altitudes, if I recall correctly, the Hubble Telescope is so far out that it really pushed the boundaries of the shuttle. It's not at the same altitude as the ISS, which isn't at the same level as Tiongong-1.

Besides, even if they were, the odds of them being that close all the time is slim to none. Glancing at www.n2yo.com... will allow anyone to look and see that these things aren't even close to each other.

All things aside though, the scenes where the ISS was the star of the movie really made a couple of impressions... That's how 3D should be done, and holy crap it would suck to untangle a parachute from the space station.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 02:41 AM
link   
I havent seen this film and wasnt planning on it, but am intrigued after seeing nothing but good reviews online, literally people are hailing it as one of the best films in a long time, amazing experience etc. Like in the 90s% on all the rating critic websites. So its pretty funny to see you didnt really enjoy it much, and were just consumed by the details of realisticness. You mentioned Avatar in your op, and I wonder if you had similar trouble suspending belief for the sake of entertainment. This is not a shot at you, i often do the same thing, and it appears you have a bias in that you have high amount of passion and knowledge on the subject of the film. Also about the messiness and exposed wires and stuff, I dont think we are at the point of uber sci fi modern sleekness for those things, more function over fashion at this point, even the mars rover didnt look sleek and sexy. I know what you mean, like why not let lamburgheni and some modern architect students design the look of the stuff, idk, maybe it would be a few billion extra on the budget.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:05 AM
link   

MystikMushroom
the Russians have shot down one of their own spy satellites
This creates a cloud of space debris, which in turn creates a cascade effect, destroying the Space Shuttle, and takes down ALL communication

head for the International Space Station (ISS).

Clooney somehow is able to calculate that every 90 minutes the cloud of razor-sharp 2,000 MPH debris will pass by.

Bullock remembers she can use the landing thrusters to get to the Chinese space station!



It looked like an interesting movie, from what I'd seen so far, your description is just... wow. Clearly the writers said "orbital calculations? Laws of physics? Who needs 'em?"

There are just sooo many things wrong with orbits, velocities, inclinations, thrust etc... that I dont think any amazing visuals could make up for it.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:08 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Thanks for the details. I almost went to see it. You saved me two hours and $7.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   
I know 1 thing, if they just so happen to cancel that Xprize to try and get a private company to put a rover on the moon, then we know they didn't go to the moon that's for sure.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:26 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaFungi
 





I havent seen this film and wasnt planning on it, but am intrigued after seeing nothing but good reviews online, literally people are hailing it as one of the best films in a long time, amazing experience etc.


I guess you have to ask yourself, as opposed to what. Spiderman 24, rocky 69, and on and on it goes.

Perhaps those reviews were because they had a new plot for a movie. It is the same with the TV, same old drivel week in week out.

P



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 03:31 AM
link   
Ya okay so?

It's a movie, made to entertain you and I. It's like a roller coaster you pay money to be entertained for either 2 minutes on a roller coaster or 2 hours in a movie. The writers wrote what they were told in the time they had to do it. It's just a story no need to nit-pick the details all that matters was did you feel something? Did you enjoy the ride?



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
Textreply to post by MystikMushroom
 


Thanks for the heads up, although I never planned to see it myself, as it looks unbelievably unbelievable. I think the movie execs. thought, "How can we go wrong with two of the better-looking and beloved stars in Hollywood, Sandra Bullock, "America's Sweetheart" and George Clooney, the very handsome "confirmed bachelor", and besides, isn't time for them to be in a movie together." I know people that plan to see it, so I'll pass along your helpful critique.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 08:59 AM
link   
reply to post by MystikMushroom
 


I didn't read your entire post because you said it contained spoiliers(thanks). I'm assuming from what I did read your problem was with the logistics of the movie, which I can't really comment on because I haven't seen it.
I did recently watch Pacific Rim, which I thought looked cheesy from the previews. Wow was I wrong. The movie had some issues mainly the script, poor dialogue, campy but it didn't work aswell as in say Cabin In The Woods, and serviceable actors. That being said the art direction was amazing. The movie was beautiful, the whole production, set pieces, backdrops, design of the costumes monsters robots, camera work, etc. I could go on and on.

Point being I was blown away by this movie and recently Man of Steel, a lot of these movies get labled "CGI fest" or something by some critic and everyone follows suit. Having worked in the digital arts, I can tell you most people have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to CGI or art in general. The things some of these movies are doing just wasn't possible a few years ago, yet people act like its been around for 20 yrs.

Every big budget film automatically comes attached with the stigma of being a product of Hollywood, but really this is an ultra critical world. NO ONE is doing anything right, GOVERNMENT NO, NASA NO, RELIGION NO, AMERICAN S NO, NEWS NO, MEDIA NO, FDA NO, PARENTS NO, CHILDREN NO, SCHOOLS NO, CORPORATION S NO, MONEY NO, RICH PEOPLE NO, CHARITY NO, FAT NO, SKINNY NO.

The point of movies are entertainment, its not really up to me to say what qualifies that for other people. I'm not sure what people expect anymore. Most people have some kind of idea what a movie is about before they go watch it. Then they criticize the film on points that really don't apply to the genre of movie they watched. Like when people complain about plot holes in movies about GIANT ALIEN ROBOTS, OR GIANT DIMENSIONAL MONSTERS FIGHTING ROBOTS, or the movie just wasn't intellectually stimulating. Most movies that require anymore brain power than what it takes to enjoy a movie completely tank.

No one is doing anything right unless they are criticizing someone or something else.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 09:47 AM
link   

MystikMushroom
George Clooney as an astronaut?

You must not have seen his movie Solaris from 2002 then.





spartacus699
I know 1 thing, if they just so happen to cancel that Xprize to try and get a private company to put a rover on the moon, then we know they didn't go to the moon that's for sure.

Oooh, I'm so sorry, but you can see the equipment and tracks on the moon in telescopes:


en.es-static.us...



img.gawkerassets.com...



I left links to the images as ATS isn't allowing scrollable images anymore. You can also clearly see the wheels on the moon buggy in the second image.

Now please, stop peddling the "we didn't go to the moon" hoax. Kthxbye.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 11:54 AM
link   
More Predictive Programing?


Interesting to say the least...



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 05:56 PM
link   
Saw it in 3D the other day. Not impressed, highly overrated. The scenes where you are "in space" are pretty cool though I'm no expert to rate its realism. As a movie there isn't really much to it except the neat shots and graphics. Almost nothing is said and not much goes on. Am pretty shocked to see how highly it's being hailed. Not a bad viewing experience just don't go in expecting much of a movie. I remember Sandra Bullock floating around and hopping about and muttering to herself. And then I left.

Got a refund. And complimentary tix to something else I wanna see. Score. Not for the movie. For me and the wifey.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 09:44 PM
link   
I heard someone else wasn't impressed



I thought the preview looked terrible, the plot sounds ridiculous and the cast completely unbelievable. Appreciate the review. I'm all for unrealistic space stuff but think I'm avoiding this until I can rent it with the intention of boring a date.



posted on Oct, 10 2013 @ 09:49 PM
link   

_BoneZ_

MystikMushroom
George Clooney as an astronaut?

You must not have seen his movie Solaris from 2002 then.





spartacus699
I know 1 thing, if they just so happen to cancel that Xprize to try and get a private company to put a rover on the moon, then we know they didn't go to the moon that's for sure.

Oooh, I'm so sorry, but you can see the equipment and tracks on the moon in telescopes:


en.es-static.us...



img.gawkerassets.com...



I left links to the images as ATS isn't allowing scrollable images anymore. You can also clearly see the wheels on the moon buggy in the second image.

Now please, stop peddling the "we didn't go to the moon" hoax. Kthxbye.





Shopped



posted on Oct, 16 2013 @ 01:28 PM
link   


I thought it was a good film except for Sandra Bullock in it because I have never liked her so called acting.
Also, her hair should have been flying everywhere in zero gravity, plus why was there no stars at all showing?
And where did she find The Big Dummies Guide To Landing on earth from space
edit on 16-10-2013 by scotsdavy1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 24 2013 @ 11:46 AM
link   
I found the movie mildly entertaining. Clooney was Clowney, which I liked, but Bullock continues to be meh. This was a great summer full of Sci-fi, some good, but nothing great or challenging. Looking forward to Ender's Game as I really enjoyed the books. I don't care if Sci-fi gets it technically right, that's why it has the fiction after the hyphen. What is disappointing to me is this idea that 3-D is some fantastic enhancement. I still put on the glasses to watch something shoot out of the screen...at least make it campy then. I live in 3-D, why do I need it in the escapism of unreality?



posted on Nov, 1 2013 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Just saw this movie. It was great, but very stressful to watch. I guess that's what made it great. I was writhing in my seat the whole time.



posted on Nov, 8 2013 @ 07:01 PM
link   
This was visually the most stunning movie.
I'm not sure what they did but it absolutely blew me away.
If you like space, SEE THIS MOVIE!!

Believe the hype, this is a jaw dropping movie experience.

Yes there's tv movie moments and crappy back-stories etc, but most it's a thrilling ride and pretty suspenseful and WOW, those visuals.
You must see it in 3D.





new topics
top topics
 
6

log in

join