simonlewis said:Talkingdrum said:I just sat through Gravity. Total and utter drivel. It got awards!!!!!! WTF is the world coming to?
It's designed to be watched in 3D on a large tv.
David@FrankHarvey said::doh:
ellisdj said:David@FrankHarvey said::doh:
Gravity is a thrill / visual based film - its all about the experience of it - rather than story / plot which is all based on the visuals and the tension created by the sound.
The better those 2 are produced the more enjoyable its going to be - hence my comments and why the IMAX experience has been so highly praised in my opinion.
I dont see why thats a pat on the head in confusion based set of comments?
hammill said:ellisdj said:David@FrankHarvey said::doh:
Gravity is a thrill / visual based film - its all about the experience of it - rather than story / plot which is all based on the visuals and the tension created by the sound.
The better those 2 are produced the more enjoyable its going to be - hence my comments and why the IMAX experience has been so highly praised in my opinion.
I dont see why thats a pat on the head in confusion based set of comments?
It was because you managed to suggest that whether or not the films were enjoyable would depend on whether your TV was calibrated, which I imagine managed to exasperate everyone. Have you ever made a comment without using the word calibrated?
David@FrankHarvey said:mission goes wrong, and it is then a fight to survive, and if they survive, it is then it is a case of trying to get back to earth or die in space......
Really? What more do people want?!
simonlewis said:David@FrankHarvey said:mission goes wrong, and it is then a fight to survive, and if they survive, it is then it is a case of trying to get back to earth or die in space......
Really? What more do people want?!
A proper story, i waited an hour and a half for it to start only for it to end.
The_Lhc said:The biggest problem I have with Gravity, other than not having seen it, is that I don't know what it's supposed to be. They portray a Shuttle mission, STS-157 I think but the Shuttle missions ended with STS-135, and as far as I can tell there's no explanation for this, so what is this? A fantasy, an alternate universe or what? I can't just overlook something like that, it's too much of a reality jolt for me, so much so I may never bother watching the film unless there's an explanation forthcoming.
simonlewis said:David@FrankHarvey said:mission goes wrong, and it is then a fight to survive, and if they survive, it is then it is a case of trying to get back to earth or die in space......
Really? What more do people want?!
A proper story ....
his dudeness said:The_Lhc said:The biggest problem I have with Gravity, other than not having seen it, is that I don't know what it's supposed to be. They portray a Shuttle mission, STS-157 I think but the Shuttle missions ended with STS-135, and as far as I can tell there's no explanation for this, so what is this? A fantasy, an alternate universe or what? I can't just overlook something like that, it's too much of a reality jolt for me, so much so I may never bother watching the film unless there's an explanation forthcoming.
so you will only watch something that is factually correct,you dont watch anything then its a MOVIE :wall:
The_Lhc said:simonlewis said:A proper story, i waited an hour and a half for it to start only for it to end.
Yeah I felt the same way about the Poseidon Adventure, waited hours for the story to start and then BOOM! they all get out of the ship and it's all over! Rubbish...
bigboss said:Not sure what you mean by "NOBODY NOTICED". The explanation given in the film was that all communication was broken as the satellites were destroyed by debris.
Anyway, the makers never said the film was a true story, or a depiction of real events. Maybe they purposefully introduced inaccuracies so as not get sued by anybody? :?
The_Lhc said:his dudeness said:The_Lhc said:The biggest problem I have with Gravity, other than not having seen it, is that I don't know what it's supposed to be. They portray a Shuttle mission, STS-157 I think but the Shuttle missions ended with STS-135, and as far as I can tell there's no explanation for this, so what is this? A fantasy, an alternate universe or what? I can't just overlook something like that, it's too much of a reality jolt for me, so much so I may never bother watching the film unless there's an explanation forthcoming.
so you will only watch something that is factually correct,you dont watch anything then its a MOVIE :wall:
There's a bit of a difference between showing the Hubble telescope and the ISS in the same orbit compared to pretending that there were 18 additional shuttle missions, one's a minor technicality, the other's a complete fantasy. Think about it, it's fine to portray things that didn't happen, all the Marvel superhero films are fine because, as Marvel set out decades ago, they actually all take place in an alternative universe, one of many, that's easy enough, sci-fi set in the future, fine, we don't don't know how the future will unfold, full fantasy, no problem, it's another world (except LOTR of course but then Tolkien went to great lengths to explain that).
But this is something else, this can't be set in the future as the shuttles don't fly anymore and if they've been recommissioned, where's the explanation? So, is it an alternative world, if so, is that explained? If not then surely this is the mother of all plot holes, 18 additional shuttle missions with one ending with the shuttle being destroyed and astronauts dying and NOBODY NOTICED? Little things, like most films portray, fine but this is a world-wide event!
It's about believability, about not being wrenched out of the story, for instance in a costume drama when a character suddenly uses a colloquialism that didn't exist in that time, it destroys the illusion for the viewer. This doesn't even let me get into the story, I can't just ignore 18 shuttle missions that never happened!
BenLaw said:I'm sure it's more a qualitative problem for you than a quantitative one.
I can't agree with you: if they're allowed to make the film (they are) then they have a number of choices. (i) no mission number - people complain about a lack of realism. (ii) a number already used - people complain it didn't happen. (iii) an unused number with exposition - exposition is unnecessary, clunky and distracts from the narrative. (iv) use a later number with no exposition - I'm guessing the smallest number of people find this offensive or intrusive; unfortunately you're one of them.
ellisdj said:its just a number used and has zero relevance to anything else - maybe by using a fake number noone will get upset or confused that the film is based on reality / a true story.