8mm Forum: Gravity Blu Ray

This is topic Gravity Blu Ray in forum General Yak at 8mm Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://8mmforum.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=003019

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 07, 2014, 07:39 PM:

Just finished watching the new Blu Ray of Gravity. Very impressive technically, and it looks awesome on a 9ft screen, but I found the story was weak. Like most CGI films, this one completely ignores the basic laws of physics, with totally over the top effects which could not possibly occur in reality. George Clooney is his usual charming and amusing self, but the sight of him joy riding around in space is too ridiculous for words. And there is absolutely no way that Sandra Bullock would have survived all that trauma. So I thought the whole film was unbelievable and basically an excercise in CG effects and nothing much more.

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on March 07, 2014, 08:11 PM:

Paul, I watched it last night and largely agree with you. It does look stunning in blu ray on a big screen and overall I quite enjoyed it. The plot, however, is a bit thin and I felt it was overlong, even at 90 minutes. For my money, Captain Phillips carried me on a far more exciting, absorbing and moving journey.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 07, 2014, 09:10 PM:

Its really a 3D effects movie, and in that format projected on a large cinema screen, its an amazing roller coaster ride.

To watch it in "2D" ..I would probably give this one a miss [Frown]

Graham

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 07, 2014, 10:50 PM:

Well Graham I did in fact buy the 3D plus 2D version of the blu ray, as I have done with a few other 3D movies. I figure my next projector, a few years down the road, will probably be capable of 3D.

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 07, 2014, 11:10 PM:

Paul

That's a good idea [Smile]

I have only "Hugo" so far on 3D for the future. Without doubt, movies like "Gravity" and "The Life of Pi" will create an amazing 3D viewing experience.

Graham.

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on March 08, 2014, 01:00 AM:

I agree with the first comments : the special effects are impressive but there is no story. It could have been told in 20 minutes...

Posted by Graham Ritchie (Member # 559) on March 08, 2014, 01:18 AM:

Why would you want to cut it down to 20 minutes? "Gravity" is not a story film... its a 3D effects movie, that's what "Gravity" is,....its nothing more than a fun filled 3D ride, and a good one at that.

Graham.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on March 08, 2014, 01:46 AM:

I have to agree with Paul. I saw it at the theater in 3D and still was not impressed. I was so surprised it got nominated.

Posted by Jonathan Trevithick (Member # 3066) on March 08, 2014, 02:08 AM:

Technically, it is an amazing achievement, considering the only real things were the actor's faces. It thoroughly deserves recognition for that, i'd say.

Posted by Vidar Olavesen (Member # 3354) on March 08, 2014, 03:13 AM:

That's what sad about it for me. No effects gurus, just programmers. Soon the actors faces will be gone too and nothing is real. Wish the old art of film making was still here :-(

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on March 08, 2014, 05:08 AM:

Graham, a film is widely based on a story. If there is no story, it is, in my opinion, no longer a film.

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 08, 2014, 06:26 AM:

Unless it's a Documentary... or a Travelogue... or an Educational...or a ..... "Special Effects "?

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on March 08, 2014, 07:04 AM:

Yes, Martin, what you named is not what I call a film ;-)

Posted by Martin Jones (Member # 1163) on March 08, 2014, 07:21 AM:

Sorry, I didn't realise you were expressing a PERSONAL opinion...
not one that DOCUMENTARY FILM MAKERS (a VERY old title) would agree with.
But then does "a cored film" mean "one with a core" or "one without a core" (as in "a cored apple")?

Posted by Dominique De Bast (Member # 3798) on March 08, 2014, 10:59 AM:

Martin, I cannot answer your last question as it is too precise for my English level :-) To come back to my personnal opinion, I would rather say I saw a documentary than I saw film even if technically a documentary is of course a film. I would also say I saw a cartoon. A film is, for me, a story played by actors, shooted on filmstock. It is probably not the academic defintion, just mine.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 21, 2014, 02:58 PM:

The extras to the Blu Ray include full details of how the film was made. Basically the film is about 99% computer animation. Sandra Bullock and George Clooney did all their so called acting strapped to a 360 degree motorised gimbal, all within a 9ft x 9ft box, and all the camera movements alraedy pre-programmed into a huge robot. Basically they had to act out in exact synch to the already completed computer animation. Only their faces ended up in the final picture.
As I said Gravity is mainly an interesting technical exercise produced by an army of computer geeks, but hopefully it does not represent the new face of film making.
As science fiction films go, the 1953 War Of The Worlds with George Pal's Martian space ships suspended on nylon strings, has Gravity beat hands down in terms of acting, story, thrills, and entertainment.

Posted by Larry Arpin (Member # 744) on March 21, 2014, 09:44 PM:

There is also another movie made in 1964 called ROBINSON CRUSOE ON MARS. It's a survival film just like GRAVITY but a lot more interesting. I just recently watched this again as we were discussing this subject. Has some neat extras including a music video.

Posted by Paul Adsett (Member # 25) on March 23, 2014, 08:27 PM:

Two brilliant comments I have seen on the IMDB about Gravity:

Gravity is weightless [Big Grin]

In space nobody can hear you ..........ask for your money back! [Big Grin]

Both valid comments IMO.

UBB.classic^TM 6.3.1.2