Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
Native_bon
Well-known member
- Nov 26, 2008
- 182
- 5
- 18,595
Visually & sound wise it's stunning. But too many coincidences that went right in order for her to get back to land. Could have easily made the story line much better.
Watched Captain Phillips last night.................
Now, I thought it was a damn good movie, excellent tension with the pirate's volatility and general emotional imbalance, and a good performance from Hanks during the closing scenes in the lifeboat
Yes maybe the yankee rescue acting (Negotiator in particular), could have been better, but generally I would recommend a viewing rather than discount it.
Not seen Gravity as yet, have to say I am looking forward to it, if only for the visuals.
Now, I thought it was a damn good movie, excellent tension with the pirate's volatility and general emotional imbalance, and a good performance from Hanks during the closing scenes in the lifeboat
Yes maybe the yankee rescue acting (Negotiator in particular), could have been better, but generally I would recommend a viewing rather than discount it.
Not seen Gravity as yet, have to say I am looking forward to it, if only for the visuals.
David@FrankHarvey said:
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?
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.
You might find the documentary about space junk, part of the Blu-ray special features, more factually acceptable. ;-)
ellisdj said:
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?
hammill said:
I have once or twice - if I sound like a broken record then I apologise to you - but I stand by the comments for this film and any thats based mostly on effects in pic and sound. - to say it again - the screen is important as it lets you see the artwork properly and in this film its amazingly realistic.
This is especially true for 3D in the home
Its completely beliveable thats its all real - but none (vast majoirty I dare say) of it is. However its the sound in this film that has the greatest impact as with most films
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
The film blatantly isn't rubbish, garbage, or whatever. Whether or not someone enjoys the film or not is another matter, but just because someone doesn't enjoy a film, that doesn't make it rubbish (except for John Carter). That's like someone saying Chinatown is crap because they found it boring.
Regarding the plot, would someone have liked the three of them to be involved in some kinky orgy love triangle in space? Maybe one of them could have been an alien in disguise trying to sabotage the mission? Or maybe some aliens turn up and ask them what the hell they're doing, and tell them to "go and play up their own end". Maybe, blah blah blah. They're in space, their 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?!
Regarding the plot, would someone have liked the three of them to be involved in some kinky orgy love triangle in space? Maybe one of them could have been an alien in disguise trying to sabotage the mission? Or maybe some aliens turn up and ask them what the hell they're doing, and tell them to "go and play up their own end". Maybe, blah blah blah. They're in space, their 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?!
David@FrankHarvey said:
A proper story, i waited an hour and a half for it to start only for it to end.
The_Lhc said:
so you will only watch something that is factually correct,you dont watch anything then its a MOVIE :wall:
chebby
Well-known member
- Jun 2, 2008
- 1,257
- 34
- 19,220
simonlewis said:
What would that be then? They get attacked by a race of mutant space gerbils, enter a time vortex to escape and find themselves chased by a giant, slime ejecting squidman called Emperor Tentaculas The Terrible who entraps them in a giant gob of acid slime that is gradually eating through their spacesuits and would surely turn them to mush were it not for the plucky rebels turning up and freeing our heroes (just in the nick of time) during a massive fight with photon ray guns and swords?
(With a few adverts from Wonga just to stave off the feeling you might be watching something on the BBC.)
his dudeness said:
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!
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
- Jun 27, 2008
- 567
- 1
- 18,890
bigboss
Moderator
- Mar 25, 2009
- 6,366
- 1,289
- 27,570
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? :?
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? :?
bigboss said:
I mean us, here on Earth, out of 7 billion people nobody noticed that NASA actually ran another 18 shuttle missions without telling us?
This is a little more than an inaccuracy though (and I don't know who would be suing them?). The orbit thing was done purely for story reasons, I can live with that, and obviously it's not real events. I guess the point is this, 4 years ago, when Cuaron first came up with this story, the Shuttle was still flying, if the film had been made then they could pass it off as the story of a future mission, it's speculative, no problem with that but they aren't still flying, haven't been flying for 3 years in fact, so how can you make the basis for a present-era film something that was scrapped three years ago? There's no sense to it.
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.
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.
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.
BenLaw said:
Or (v), they don't use the Shuttle at all, the ISS has its own arm, they could have substituted most of the scenes quite easily*.
*This is a wild guess, having not seen the film I've no idea if they could have done or not, either way it didn't have to involve Shuttles that don't exist.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
A polite conversation about the merits of different DAC technologies.
- Started by Jasonovich
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram