The Walk | Zemeckis, Joseph Gordon-Levitt | Sep. 30, 2015 in IMAX 3D | Wide Release on Oct. 9

[kowhite]

Did you know that Gravity is not Sci Fi? They say that in the documentary

Well, it's kinda sci-fi.

Like, it's not exactly realistic. But...close enough.

I for one love that movie...it's a triumph of filmmaking, forget you haters. Cuaron fucking delivered.

[WrathOfHan]

andherewego.gif

[The Futurist]

Well, it's kinda sci-fi.

Like, it's not exactly realistic. But...close enough.

I for one love that movie...it's a triumph of filmmaking, forget you haters. Cuaron fucking delivered.

 

Gravity was 100% made on british soil.

All CG guys were british too, Framestore was the main VFX house for this and they worked very closely with Cuaron & Lubezki for years.

God Save the Queen.

Edited September 30, 2015 by The Futurist

[kowhite]

Gravity was 100% made on british soil.

All CG guys were british too, Framestore was the main VFX house for this and they worked very closely with Cuaron & Lubezki for years.

God Save the Queen.

And they did good.

Oh yes, they did good.

[Chewy]

The Gravity backlash really is something else. Just as fervent as the Jurassic World backlash

[kowhite]

The Gravity backlash really is something else. Just as fervent as the Jurassic World backlash

I can at least almost understand the JW backlash. Even though I think it's fun.

The Gravity backlash? Bah, lame.

[Plain Old Tele]

Did you know that Gravity is not Sci Fi? They say that in the documentary

[The Futurist]

Nah, just a very vocal minority.

Most people with common sense reckon the many qualities of the movie.

Edited September 30, 2015 by The Futurist

[kowhite]

You have the power.

Abuse it.

I own Red Dead Redemption, I can get my John Marston fix elsewhere.

[Avatree]

Nah, just a very vocal minority.

Most people with common sense reckon the many qualities of the movie.

 

Most people with common sense use their own critical skills to recognise what they may perceive to be either positive or negative qualities of the movie.

[kowhite]

Most people with common sense use their own critical skills to recognise what they may perceive to be either positive or negative qualities of the movie.

Lots of people don't have common sense.

[Fancyarcher]

Gravity was 100% made on british soil.

All CG guys were british too, Framestore was the main VFX house for this and they worked very closely with Cuaron & Lubezki for years.

God Save the Queen.

 

Technically 99% of the film was shot in the U.K. The earth scene at the end was actually shot in Lake Powell, Arizona. Just pointing that out.

 

Still, a fantastic film regardless of where it was made.

Edited September 30, 2015 by FancyArcher

[kowhite]

Technically 99% of the film was shot in the U.K. The earth scene at the end were actually shot in Lake Powell, Arizona. Just pointing that out.

Minus 1% to that UK tax incentive.

[Wormhole]

Nah, just a very vocal minority.

Most people with common sense reckon the many qualities of the movie.

 

It's a technical feat, no doubt.

 

But, to me, it's just... Boring. It expects us to care about the fate of a character we barely know and mistakes weird George Clooney dialogue for character development. 

[Chewy]

I can at least almost understand the JW backlash. Even though I think it's fun.

The Gravity backlash? Bah, lame.

 

Backlash is immediate these days

 

I saw people complaining that Chris Pratt was in everything when JW came out. I was like, he's been in 2 movies in 2 years

 

He was more ubiquitous BEFORE his breakout

[Fancyarcher]

Minus 1% to that UK tax incentive.

 

Such a loss of money!

Edited September 30, 2015 by FancyArcher

[kowhite]

It's a technical feat, no doubt.

 

But, to me, it's just... Boring. It expects us to care about the fate of a character we barely know and mistakes weird George Clooney dialogue for character development.

Your post is boring. Boo.

Sorry, now I'm just being mean. I like you! I'm just...disagreeing.

[Chewy]

I haven't seen Gravity in a minute but I remember thinking it was aces. Yes, even at home without a mega screen

 

Familiar character arc? Sure. Bad character arc? Nah.

[Cmasterclay]

Look, without getting into a huge discussion over Gravity's overall quality (it's been awhile since I saw it, but I remember liking it alot), I think that calling it "empty spectacle" and  "special effects fest" just doesn't make sense. Movies are about telling stories, and there's more than one way to tell a story. Sure, Gravity might have been more production driven and had less dialogue/"quiet moments" than most traditional "character driven" films, but that doesn't make it an empty spectacle, it just means it implemented different ways to tell the story of a character and her survival against all the odds. Would Gravity have really worked- as an examination of the loneliness and terror of both space and life, and the fight to survive it (which is what it was, clearly seen in Bullock's character arc)- with Tarantino dialogue and a bunch of dramatic monologues and "deep" character development? No, of course not. All of those long shots and set pieces and intense disaster scenes that were there instead served a clear narrative purpose- to tell the story of the sheer instrumountable odds that are thrown at a person, and her quest to overcome them. Everything that happens in Gravity makes clear sense in terms of the narrative and the character's arc- and if the movie uses innovative tactics to get this story across, I say all the better. Movies are supposed to be different. What matters is that they tell their story in a way that makes sense. Gravity's way certainly made sense, from a filmmaking perspective. 

[kowhite]

Look, without getting into a huge discussion over Gravity's overall quality (it's been awhile since I saw it, but I remember liking it alot), I think that calling it "empty spectacle" and  "special effects fest" just doesn't make sense. Movies are about telling stories, and there's more than one way to tell a story. Sure, Gravity might have been more production driven and had less dialogue/"quiet moments" than most traditional "character driven" films, but that doesn't make it an empty spectacle, it just means it implemented different ways to tell the story of a character and her survival against all the odds. Would Gravity have really worked- as an examination of the loneliness and terror of both space and life, and the fight to survive it (which is what it was, clearly seen in Bullock's character arc)- with Tarantino dialogue and a bunch of dramatic monologues and "deep" character development? No, of course not. All of those long shots and set pieces and intense disaster scenes that were there instead served a clear narrative purpose- to tell the story of the sheer instrumountable odds that are thrown at a person, and her quest to overcome them. Everything that happens in Gravity makes clear sense in terms of the narrative and the character's arc- and if the movie uses innovative tactics to get this story across, I say all the better. Movies are supposed to be different. What matters is that they tell their story in a way that makes sense. Gravity's way certainly made sense, from a filmmaking perspective.

Excellent, I like you.