Gravity | Re-released on 2D and 3D January 17 | IMAX 3D on January 31! | 100M+ WW IMAX

[Manu Delpech]

About tracking shots being self-indulgent, that's what I feel, it's all good to have like a 2, 3 minute tracking shot, but go above, and it starts feeling to me anyway like the director is furiously jerking off behind the camera, thinking "yeah look what I can do, look at me". I'm sure Cuaron does it because he really loves it and he feels in some way that it's integral to his movies, but it just feels too much, too pretentious, gimmicky. 

 

I also feel that you don't get any impact with tracking shots like in COM or this here, I don't feel involved, I feel an odd sense of detachment, I do believe that good editing definitely helps adding impact and flair to the action, like if you'd shoot a fight sequence, would the punches feel as powerful or as impactful as a tracking shot? I doubt it. 

[Jack Nevada]

Lol, it's not like there's total silence and just watching her spin or anything, there IS stuff going on too.

 

Honestly, are you just mad WB forgot to pay you to promote this one or something?

LOL

[Dementeleus]

To me, the whole point when you like a director is that you're on-board no matter the concept. You don't think "What a boring idea", you think "Hmmm, I trust and like this guy's stuff so I'm interested in how he approaches the material".

[RichWS]

What I'm getting at is that what Cuaron is doing with Gravity is not technically new nor really that unique or groundbreaking. He's using techniques and tools pioneered by Cameron, to the point that he got "stuck" during Gravity production, didn't know how to progress further, and called Cameron to help him.

 

Do you want him to have a producer credit? A truck of cash? 72 virgins? What should Lord Cameron receive for his bountiful knowledge?

[Ozymandias]

Do you want him to have a producer credit? A truck of cash? 72 virgins? What should Lord Cameron receive for his bountiful knowledge?

 

I don't think its about Cameron worshiping.  If I recall correctly, ACCA is not a fan of Avatar at all, lol.

 

Basically, I think hes saying the movie looks boring and doesn't feel groundbreaking(whether it technically is or not) at all and has a problem with tracking shots.  RonSwanson explained why he doesn't like tracking shots and it seems understandable, but I haven't seen Children of Men(lol yep) so no comment.

[Deep Wang]

I also feel that you don't get any impact with tracking shots like in COM or this here, I don't feel involved, I feel an odd sense of detachment, I do believe that good editing definitely helps adding impact and flair to the action, like if you'd shoot a fight sequence, would the punches feel as powerful or as impactful as a tracking shot? I doubt it. 

 

 

You tell me.

 

Also, great editing can make a scene much more exciting than a poorly edited one.  However, I think that some filmmakers rely on quick cuts and other editing tricks to force that feeling of excitement.  A confident filmmaker can create excitement and tension from nothing but the characters and the conflicts they are involved in.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Omega Shrinkage

[grim22]

NVM.

Edited July 24, 2013 by grim22

[Dementeleus]

Long uninterrupted takes (which don't have to be tracking shots) have a long history -- Tarkovsky, Bela Tarr, and many others have done tremendou work. They can be tremendously effective if they're used appropriately. They strip away the artifice of editing, and help draw the audience into the "reality" of the film world. They can be very immersive and really help draw the audience into what the characters are perceiving and feeling. They're far from boring -- they can be incredibly exciting at times. And yet, often you forgot you're watching an uninterrupted shot, especially if it's your first viewing. GRAVITY seems like the sort of project that could benefit greatly from this technique.

[Gopher]

They strip away the artifice of editing, and help draw the audience into the "reality" of the film world. They can be very immersive and really help draw the audience into what the characters are perceiving and feeling. They're far from boring -- they can be incredibly exciting at times. And yet, often you forgot you're watching an uninterrupted shot, especially if it's your first viewing. 

 

See also: Before Sunrise, Before Sunset, and Before Midnight. Long takes like the 10 minutes we see of Celine and Jesse's car ride are incredibly hard to stage and shoot, but Linklater uses them so the audience can completely buy into the reality of the relationship in all three films. 

 

Long takes are the utter opposite of laziness in filmmaking. 

Edited July 24, 2013 by Gopher

[Crusader]

This looks awesome 

 

anyone who doesn't agree - shut up 

[Ezen Baklattan]

The 17-minute shot is my single most anticipated moment in upcoming film. I'm so excited to see how Cuaron pulls it off, though I have little doubt of it being less than amazing.

[ZappBrannigan]

I almost wish I wasn't aware of how long the opening take is.  Children of Men amazed me when I first saw it and then a friend mentioned the tracking shots for my favorite scenes so I went back and really noticed it and was doubly stunned.

[Neo]

[Ozymandias]

Just looked it up, Children of Men flopped?

[Dementeleus]

Long takes are the utter opposite of laziness in filmmaking.

Indeed. They're incredibly difficult and hard to pull off, which is why most people don't try.

[vc2002]

The academy will most likely reward the visuals of this at the Oscars. I had doubts cause I thought the space scenes were just a small part, but if the whole movie is about the god damn space rescue mission, you can just easily tell how much the visuals weight for the whole movie. And if it turns to be a good film, they are gonna have to reward it.

[The Futurist]

That Speed guy is funny, he basically have no real clue about anything but he keeps arguing.

[The Futurist]

I hope there  s at least a spacesuit fart joke.

 

Should be big with GA.

Edited July 24, 2013 by The Futurist

[Manu Delpech]

 

You tell me.

 

Also, great editing can make a scene much more exciting than a poorly edited one.  However, I think that some filmmakers rely on quick cuts and other editing tricks to force that feeling of excitement.  A confident filmmaker can create excitement and tension from nothing but the characters and the conflicts they are involved in.

 

Already saw this, it's a neat technical achievement, does it make it impactful? The answer to me, is no. And I spoke of good editing, of course poor editing will make it bad. 

 

However, quick cuts do work sometimes, depends how it's done, it can make it more raw, visceral. 

[TLK]

This movie is going to bomb!!!  Who would want to watch a movie with a person floating in space for 90 minutes?

 

A movie about a guy stranded on a deserted island with only a volley ball to talk to made $233m.  Not only that, but you knew how that one ended because they gave it away in the fucking trailer!

 

This movie looks incredibly tense, exciting AND we have no idea how it will end?  GIVE IT TO ME NOW!!!

 

That movie had a strong human element. This looks very cold, detached and clinical. I can see it making money if it is a good movie and gets award bump but I don't see a breakout.