Gravity [Not a spambot]

[Lucid]

I went to see Gravity (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1454468/?ref_=nv_sr_1) today and was blown away.

Stunning visual effects, a gripping story, and great performances by the two leads. A movie that grabbed my hand in it's first minute and didn't let me go until the credits rolled.

So, has anybody else seen it? Thoughts?

[Salbazier]

I've seen its last week. There is no other terms, I'm awed. I was both amazed and terrified in the early few minutes even before the debris thing started. Maybe because I'm acrophobia but I can help but thinking both how wonderful and how terrifying it is to be floating there in orbit. And after the debris thing started, well...

Not everyone feel the same, though. I watched it by my friends, and one of them complaining loudly after we're done, calling a waste of time :smalltongue:.

The only complaints I have again the film is that some things require some suspension of disbelief/are not scientifically accurate (for a movie that intended to portray space technology as realistic as possible this a very valid criticism). Like it very premise of communication black out. Being astronomy students, picking it apart are one of the things me and my friends talked post-watching :smalltongue: Oh, also it feel so short. :smalltongue:

[Lamech]

I assumed that the communications blackout was caused by something else going horribly wrong on the ground. Like Russia starting world war III, they just didn't mention it so the space dudes didn't panic more than they had too.

[jeas]

I've seen its last week. There is no other terms, I'm awed. I was both amazed and terrified in the early few minutes even before the debris thing started. Maybe because I'm acrophobia but I can help but thinking both how wonderful and how terrifying it is to be floating there in orbit.

[SiuiS]

I wanna know, before I consider seeing it, if the ear-rending volume and shrieks and building shape tones are an actual thing throughout the movie, or if that was just every trailer.

[SecondRevan]

Gravity amazed me. For the first time is a long time, I struggled to articulate just what made it so good. It works on so many subtle levels. Been so long, even with movies I love, that I haven't been able to see the strings (I mean, there is a lot of obvious surface stuff throughout the movie, but they weren't the stuff that made Gravity so good. It was all the subtle stuff that turned the obvious stuff from trite symbolism or meaningless action to the amazing experience it is.)

Also, on realism. There are issues, but honestly they don't matter, except to experts. Very few movies try and be realistic. Those that do are generally very experimental. Movies like Gravity instead attempt to have the appearance of reality (which is why this doesn't work on experts. Experts have a different belief of what the appearance of reality is to most people). This is a distinct, different thing, as reality is does a really bad job at being 'realistic'.

Though even as I say that, Gravity actually is doing it for slightly different reasons than most. Gravity is supposed to show us the wonder and terror of space. Therefore, they had to make changes to make sure that was shown. Interestingly, by doing things like making the space stations too close to each other, you do a better job at showing just how big space is than having them the true distance. Because running out of oxygen and jetpack fuel on the trip there does a much better job of showing distance than simply saying 'its too far'. There is a reason show, don't tell exists

[Lucid]

I wanna know, before I consider seeing it, if the ear-rending volume and shrieks and building shape tones are an actual thing throughout the movie, or if that was just every trailer. Don't worry, that's only in few parts. (Though I'm not sure what you mean by building shape tones'?) The trailer really doesn't do it justice.
And it's the first movie I can actually recommend seeing in 3D.

The only complaints I have again the film is that some things require some suspension of disbelief/are not scientifically accurate (for a movie that intended to portray space technology as realistic as possible this a very valid criticism). Like it very premise of communication black out. Being astronomy students, picking it apart are one of the things me and my friends talked post-watching :smalltongue: Oh, also it feel so short. :smalltongue: I can imagine an astronomy student would've a different experience than me, as even without any science background I could pick out some flaws. (Though it didn't detract from my experience and enjoyment)Stuff like the locations of the space stations and telescope apparently all being closer and at the same height in orbit to get hit by the debris. Especially when they show the Chinese station falling into the atmosphere, yet still getting hit. But it wouldn't have been a very interesting movie if they got back to the shuttle and then only could wait there till the oxygen ran out or they got hit again.:smallamused:
I just assumed communication breaking down was due to the satellites all breaking down. Though I wondered what the likelihood of this occuring are, and have have since learned there's an actual theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome) regarding this.
I have to agree with SecondRevan, how realistic it is doesn't matter as much as how real it feels, and for me they succeeded with that.
The visual effects certainly help with that, I found myself thinking they must've shot this in space for real! Pretty much rivals my 8 year old self's feeling at seeing dinosaurs walk around in Jurassic Park. :smallbiggrin:

[SiuiS]

Sorry, typo. That was to be sharp, not shape.

[huttj509]

I loved it, and there were definitely some, um, ninjas cutting onions in my theater (no, I wasn't tearing up, it was the ninjas).

And BTW, most of the comments I've seen from experts have had disclaimers along the lines of "I liked the movie, in case it wasn't clear."

Let's face it, as far as movies in space go, 90% is something like an A+++++++++++++ effort.

[Salbazier]

And it's the first movie I can actually recommend seeing in 3D.

Seconded. :smallbiggrin:


. I can imagine an astronomy student would've a different experience than me, as even without any science background I could pick out some flaws.

Well, fortunately it is possible to 'turn off our brain' when watching movies so to speak (and the constant tension help in this regard). It just that if you have expertise on any related subject, it will tend to nag. On the other hand, that knowledge is also the thing that allow you to recognize when they got it right and appreciate the filmamker's effort of accuracy. So, its not actually a bad thing. :smallsmile: When they got into ISS/Syouz, I wished I have some actual knowledge on aerospace electronics/rocket science just so I can have 'wow, that's part looks just like the real thing' moment.

[Kalmageddon]

It was one of the most intense cinematic experiences I've ever had.
I was on the edge of my seat the whole time, absolutely terrorized because that film is basically a rapresentation of my worst nightmare.

I'm not joking when I say that coming back from the movie theater at night I was freaked out by the black night sky above my head. That's how much it got to me.

[SecondRevan]

And BTW, most of the comments I've seen from experts have had disclaimers along the lines of "I liked the movie, in case it wasn't clear."

This is very true. Honestly, when it comes to realism, it isn't the experts who cause problems. They usually recognise the flaws, but are able to put that aside and enjoy the movie (or at least watch the movie on the terms that the movie wishes. Not every movie is good, after all).

The problem more lies with the type of people who have an obsession with realism, yet also don't fully understand everything, and end up either parroting the experts comments and using that as justification for why it is bad, or giving their own reasons why it isn't realistic (which are usually wrong)

[Equinox]

Ok, I agree with the above poster, and I am not one of the faux experts to complain about realism, in fact not complaining about anything at all, as I found the movie nothing short of mindblowing, but here's a question (spoilered just in case)

When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?

[huttj509]

When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?


If anyone figured it out, i'm sure the Chinese would.

Or possibly an astronaut brought it as a personal item/memento of home? I don't know what Chinese space policy is on that sort of thing.

Edit:
Video of Chris Hadfield "crying" in space, if you want verification of what happens IRL:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36xhtpw0Lg

[Soras Teva Gee]

This is very true. Honestly, when it comes to realism, it isn't the experts who cause problems. They usually recognise the flaws, but are able to put that aside and enjoy the movie (or at least watch the movie on the terms that the movie wishes. Not every movie is good, after all).

That's because actual realism is very very often... pretty boring to look at.

And why pay money to see the same old boring stuff you seek entertainment to escape from?




When she gets to the Chinese space station, we see, among other objects, a ping-pong paddle floating in the cabin. How the heck does one play Ping-Pong in zero-G? Or do you think it was a deliberate wink-wink-nudge-nudge by the filmmakers?

Answered by an ancient Chinese proverb: Very carefully!

(Or just without a table and between two people)

[Equinox]

(Or just without a table and between two people)Possibly. But then it's just Ping without the Pong ... :smallamused:

[Soras Teva Gee]

Possibly. But then it's just Ping without the Pong ... :smallamused:

Actually I would think that's closer to Pong....

[DigoDragon]

Actually I would think that's closer to Pong....

Heehee, good one. :smallbiggrin:

Ping Pong should still be viable, though my idea would be a table that's more like a box (walls and a ceiling in adition to a floor) to keep the ball from bouncing away into another part of the station.

[Psyren]

I saw it last weekend it was really, really good. Sandra Bullock is still an A-list actress.

There are definitely some realism problems - Neil de Grasse Tyson did a great job pointing them out (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Gravity-Gets-Fact-Checked-By-Astrophysicist-Neil-deGrasse-Tyson-39705.html) (though he enjoyed the movie anyway.)

Kinda sad about George Clooney. Now I imagine his skeleton slowly orbiting the planet.

But seriously, they need to put WAY MORE TRACTION ON ASTRONAUT GLOVES! Give them electromagnets or velcro or something, jeez.

[Tylorious]

Check out what Neil Degrass has to say about this movie. Quite humorous if you ask me.

[Psyren]

Check out what Neil Degrass has to say about this movie. Quite humorous if you ask me.

I linked it in my post :smalltongue:

[Equinox]

While he's a PhD and I'm a lowly MSc, I have to say it seems at points he's trying too hard. Some of the 'flaws' he points out really aren't.

[Psyren]

I'm sure it was all in good fun. And his points about her hair in the zero-G scenes, as well as regarding the two only major plotholes (the communication satellites should have been even higher than they were, and the three station "islands" should not have been within sight of one another) were good ones. WSJ:


Tyson says he liked “Gravity,” and that in retrospect he should also have discussed more prominently “the hundred things they got right.” But he makes no apologies for his insistence on scientific accuracy in the face of the retorts that “it’s only a movie.”

[SecondRevan]

I'm sure it was all in good fun. And his points about her hair in the zero-G scenes, as well as regarding the two only major plotholes (the communication satellites should have been even higher than they were, and the three station "islands" should not have been within sight of one another) were good ones. WSJ:


Tyson says he liked “Gravity,” and that in retrospect he should also have discussed more prominently “the hundred things they got right.” But he makes no apologies for his insistence on scientific accuracy in the face of the retorts that “it’s only a movie.”

I don't have any issues with Tyson's tweets. Honestly, I love the fact that a scientist is using Gravity to try and build interest in science. I have a problem with people who use those tweets to say it is a bad movie (if you don't like it, have some more legitimate critiques. I can think of several possible criticisms you could direct at Gravity. I don't agree with them, but they are much more legitimate than the science is wrong) The only tweet I had a problem with was


Mysteries of #Gravity: Why anyone is impressed with a zero-G film 45 years after being impressed with "2001:A Space Odyssey"

Unsurprisingly, this is the tweet where he isn't talking about science. Zero-G film making is still impressive, even 45 years after 2001. Any successful attempt to go above and beyond the standard cinematography tricks is impressive, even if Kubrick did it first.

His quote on scientific accuracy, though, I disagree with. Not because 'it is only a movie', but because it is a movie (there is a distinction). Movies have their own demands. That is why I had my speech about 'appearance of realism v realism' above, and how they are different things. And in 99% of cases, a movie should take the former over the latter. Because art has different goals to science.

Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity. Inconsistent with real life, but elements of the setting of Gravity. Sorry, it is just plot holes are so often misapplied, and it is frustrating, especially when idiots then use misapplied plot holes to attack movies (once again, I want legitimate criticisms. I mean, while Dark Knight Rises had many problems, I don't think I ever saw a complaint about it that wasn't 75% 'plot holes that aren't actually plot holes')

[Equinox]

Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity. Inconsistent with real life, but elements of the setting of Gravity.Well said.
Also, any knowledgeable viewer would be clued in to the fact that the movie takes place in an alternate reality by the fact that in real life the Space Shuttle program was discontinued two months before the Chinese Space Station was launched, hehe.

[SecondRevan]

Well said.
Also, any knowledgeable viewer would be clued in to the fact that the movie takes place in an alternate reality by the fact that in real life the Space Shuttle program was discontinued two months before the Chinese Space Station was launched, hehe.

One of my favourite lines I remember someone saying about Gravity is that the film is obviously isn't realistic because in the movie, the US cares about the space program

[MLai]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.

[Equinox]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.Thankfully, one does not need to be Neil Degrasse Tyson to rebut that. It's called Gravitational Gradient. As you know, the rotation period of a satellite in a circular depends on it distance from earth.

The ISS is at a height of about 200 miles above the earth. Therefore, it should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes and 14 seconds. George Clooney is dangling, let's say, about 50 meters below the ISS on some tethers, therefore he's (200 miles minus 50 meters) above the earth, and should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes 13.9 seconds.

The 0.1 second difference doesn't seem like much, but remember, they are moving at about 8 km/sec, so a difference of 0.1 seconds represents about 800 meters. Left to his own devices, if nothing held him, George Clooney would drift from the ISS 800 meters per revolution, or about 500 meters per hour. It is simply not possible for George Clooney to be 50 meters below the ISS and maintain the same orbit without being tethered to it.

That's the mysterious force pulling him away.

[Psyren]

A physics mistake I don't see ppl mentioning is the very important scene of Clooney's death.

You get a scene where Sandra is gripping onto George's lifeline, and him dragging behind her, as if there's some sort of mysterious gravitational force pulling him away from her. And it ends up necessitating him to sacrifice himself so that he doesn't "pull her down with him."

But... what is this mysterious constant force pulling him away? As soon as Sandra countered his momentum the first time, i.e. when she tugged at his line as he shot past her, he should have immediately rebounded towards her. Or, if she somehow applied just enough force to stop him right at that relative point, then he should just be drifting there with no further forces pulling/pushing him away. At that point, one slight tug from her would have reeled him back in.

NdG did point that one out too actually.



Also, your two plot holes are not plot holes. They are elements of the setting of Gravity.

Oh don't give me that crap. If they wanted "the setting of Gravity" to be different, they would have established it as such. They wanted the punch of using real, instantly recognizable names like "Hubble" and "Shenzhou"; by doing so, they invite the flak that comes with that. If they wanted to avoid it, the space stations would have been Hope, Dream, and Gumdrop or something. If you use real things, you don't get to cry "Fake setting! Fake setting! Forget everything you know about space!"

[MLai]

Oh, was Clooney "below" the space station, i.e. with the Earth under his feet? I just watched the movie yesterday, and was under the impression that Clooney was trailing "behind" the space station as it orbited the Earth.

I could be wrong, what with the vertigo-inducing cinematography during the action scenes. Nice explanation, thanks.

[SecondRevan]

Oh don't give me that crap. If they wanted "the setting of Gravity" to be different, they would have established it as such. They wanted the punch of using real, instantly recognizable names like "Hubble" and "Shenzhou"; by doing so, they invite the flak that comes with that. If they wanted to avoid it, the space stations would have been Hope, Dream, and Gumdrop or something. If you use real things, you don't get to cry "Fake setting! Fake setting! Forget everything you know about space!"

That doesn't make it a plothole. A plothole is an internal error in a story. Gravity is completely consistent with the locations of everything, I believe. They may be in the wrong place, but that doesn't make it a plothole. It just makes it inconsistent with reality, which is a completely different thing. That is what I was correcting you on. Because it certainly is different to real life, which I admitted.

Though on whether the fact that it is wrong matters, I suggest you read my above posts on how the appearance of realism is more important than realism. Gravity, like most films, cared about the former, because if you care about the latter, it ruins half a dozen more important things. The incorrect locations were actually important for plot, cinematography and communication of ideas. And those elements are actually much more important than 100% accuracy (making the satellites visible actually does a better job of showing distance than saying they are too far away to see. Might sound counterintuitive, but it is true)

[Zerter]

Did you guys know Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are not actually trained as astronauts? They are actually actors! Bullock also does not have a PhD. It it is totally unrealistic to portray them as being in space.

[SecondRevan]

Did you guys know Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are not actually trained as astronauts? They are actually actors! Bullock also does not have a PhD. It it is totally unrealistic to portray them as being in space.

While I disagree with Psyren's point, this is the wrong response. It is reducing his argument to teh point of parody. If we are going to disagree with him, could we at least treat his arguments with respect when we do

[Zerter]

This is not directed at Psyren specifically, but no, lets not treat his arguments with respect. Lets make fun of them like they deserve. Nothing but respect for Psyren personally though, he writes great handbooks.

[Psyren]

That doesn't make it a plothole. A plothole is an internal error in a story.

While I agree with that, Gravity still relies on external constructs to formulate its internal universe. That there is something there to notice at all is proof that this causes a disconnect.

Perhaps "plot hole" isn't a perfectly accurate term to use for this phenomenon, but I can't think of anything better to call it.


Though on whether the fact that it is wrong matters, I suggest you read my above posts on how the appearance of realism is more important than realism.

To reiterate, I enjoyed the movie. I was only acknowledging that NdG had a point.


Did you guys know Sandra Bullock and George Clooney are not actually trained as astronauts? They are actually actors! Bullock also does not have a PhD. It it is totally unrealistic to portray them as being in space.

But it is realistic to portray Hubble as being in space. Get it?

[shadow_archmagi]

The ISS is at a height of about 200 miles above the earth. Therefore, it should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes and 14 seconds. George Clooney is dangling, let's say, about 50 meters below the ISS on some tethers, therefore he's (200 miles minus 50 meters) above the earth, and should complete a revolution around the earth in 93 minutes 13.9 seconds.

The 0.1 second difference doesn't seem like much, but remember, they are moving at about 8 km/sec, so a difference of 0.1 seconds represents about 800 meters. Left to his own devices, if nothing held him, George Clooney would drift from the ISS 800 meters per revolution, or about 500 meters per hour. It is simply not possible for George Clooney to be 50 meters below the ISS and maintain the same orbit without being tethered to it.

That's the mysterious force pulling him away.

Fascinating! I hadn't thought about it like that. Still, shouldn't one good tug have given him the momentum needed to help him get back up to the station?

Also, just for fun- let's assume that he HAD been securely tethered to the station, in a purely hypothetical scenario. He starts off exactly below the station (in the 6 o clock position, if we orient ourselves so the earth is down). He's now completing his orbit in a shorter period of time, effectively going "faster" than the station. (Moving up to the 5 o clock position). The tether means he can't go further forward, so he starts moving "up" instead (moving into the 4 O clock position). Would this continue until he was "above" the station? At which point he'd be in a larger orbit, and thus going "Slower" which would force him backwards and so our hypothetical tethered friend would make counterclockwise revolutions around the station?

[Equinox]

Fascinating! I hadn't thought about it like that. Still, shouldn't one good tug have given him the momentum needed to help him get back up to the station?Probably, yes. However, since Sandra Bullock was hanging on for dear life on some parachute straps at the same time, by Newton's Second Law, same tug would have been applied to her in the opposite direction, possibly detaching her and sending her to space.


Also, just for fun- let's assume that he HAD been securely tethered to the station, in a purely hypothetical scenario. He starts off exactly below the station (in the 6 o clock position, if we orient ourselves so the earth is down). He's now completing his orbit in a shorter period of time, effectively going "faster" than the station. (Moving up to the 5 o clock position). The tether means he can't go further forward, so he starts moving "up" instead (moving into the 4 O clock position). Would this continue until he was "above" the station? At which point he'd be in a larger orbit, and thus going "Slower" which would force him backwards and so our hypothetical tethered friend would make counterclockwise revolutions around the station?
That's a great point. Yes, I guess he would end up rotating around the station :smallsmile:

[huttj509]

That's a great point. Yes, I guess he would end up rotating around the station :smallsmile:

Summary: Real world physics can get a LOT more complex than they seem at first glance, and would not necessarily make for a good movie scene.

For example, the tears. I liked that scene, even if properly the tears would be pooling in a puddle over her eye and nose.

But it really is interesting taking the physics to the next level of detail and realizing how amazingly complicated it can become.

[SecondRevan]

While I agree with that, Gravity still relies on external constructs to formulate its internal universe. That there is something there to notice at all is proof that this causes a disconnect.

Perhaps "plot hole" isn't a perfectly accurate term to use for this phenomenon, but I can't think of anything better to call it.

I don't know if it has a proper name, but it is simply inconsistent with real life. Which is a very different thing to a plothole, as they keep that internally consistent.

To some experts, this does cause a disconnect. It didn't to me, even though I was also aware of those issues, because of how I watch movies. While I do analyse them heavily, I always let the movie dictate the terms of the world, instead of letting real life get in the way. My analysis is more about 'how well does the movie do what it sets out to do', not 'is everything accurate'. While there is a point where a movie expects too much suspension of disbelief, tiny errors like the ones that Gravity made (especially considering every mistake was carefully done to improve the experience of the movie) aren't a problem.

[/quote]To reiterate, I enjoyed the movie. I was only acknowledging that NdG had a point.[/QUOTE]

NdG does have a point. Gravity does have a whole bunch of minor mistakes in things like that. But I also think that calling any of those mistakes 'flaws' is being overly critical (and this comes from a person who loves analysing movies to the deepest level I can go. If you look at the Saph watcher Avatar thread, you will see me going into really deep depth about character arcs etc).

Saying the movie would be better if they gave a more accurate height of the satellites is meaningless criticism. If it was true, it improvement would be so insignificant that it helps no one (and it may not be true, as it affects other aspects of the movie, like our suspension of disbelief on whether George Clooney could jetpack from the Hubble to the ISS).
I'd actually say that critiquing the fact that you can see the satellites is even worse than meaningless, as that was a cinematographic choice designed for effect. If you are going to criticise that, you should criticise in on cinematography grounds, not realism grounds.
That's more my point. While I love the fact that NdG is exploiting Gravity to draw attention to science, his comments should be taken as interesting facts abut the world, not meaningful criticisms on Gravity

[The Grue]

Kept thinking, "Wow, Clooney's character really reminds me of some other astronaut." Only after I left the theatre did I realize who:

http://onebit.us/x/i/3TO7BhHi4a.png

[MLai]

The gravitational gradient raises another question for me.

If the satellite debris is travelling so fast that it's circling around the planet and catching back up with Sandra every 90 minutes, shouldn't it have elevated to a higher orbit by now, rather than still being on the same orbital level as Sandra and the space stations?

[Soras Teva Gee]

NdG does have a point. Gravity does have a whole bunch of minor mistakes in things like that. But I also think that calling any of those mistakes 'flaws' is being overly critical

A great and wise youtube channel has stated these words of wisdom: No movie is without sin.

Seriously you can find something wrong with every movie if you look hard enough.

[Lamech]

The gravitational gradient raises another question for me.

If the satellite debris is travelling so fast that it's circling around the planet and catching back up with Sandra every 90 minutes, shouldn't it have elevated to a higher orbit by now, rather than still being on the same orbital level as Sandra and the space stations?
I cannot believe that I missed that one. I assume Russia must have been releasing junk waves every 90 minutes, and NASA was just lying about the source.

[SecondRevan]

A great and wise youtube channel has stated these words of wisdom: No movie is without sin.

Seriously you can find something wrong with every movie if you look hard enough.

It is funny you mention CinemaSins, as they are actually a big part of the type of people I am being critical of here.

Every movie has problems. But if we are going to discuss the problems of a movie, could we at least discuss the meaningful ones? For example, Gravity as some very obvious symbolism (which I actually mentioned in my first post), to the point of distracting you from the movie. As much as I love the movie, I did feel those symbols were so obvious, they started to break my immersion for a moment, which is bad for any movie but lethal in a movie like Gravity. I could mention other things, if I wished. Finding these problems is a lot of what I do in a movie. If you go over to the 'Saph watches Avatar' thread, you will see me, at the end, have a debate where I criticise some aspects of the character arcs.

Now compare the critiques I was talking about above, to critiques about the location of satellites or 95% of CinemaSins' complaints (which usually fall into three categories: bad jokes, meaningless errors or things that aren't a problem but they say they are for another sin (this is a channel that explained exactly how Loki's spectre worked in Avengers and called it a sin. Nothing good or bad, but simply 'mind control occurs when he taps someone in the chest with his sceptre. Sin)).
My critiques have actual meaning. We can debate if they are accurate, but the use of symbolism, or the quality of character arcs matter. And there are plenty of other things you could criticise a movie for doing that are meaningful, for without having to talk about complex stuff like symbolism or character arcs (possible criticisms, for movies in general, is stuff like quality of humour/action/suspense or the general look of a movie)

This stuff is a lot more meaningful than criticising Gravity on the minutiae of it's science, the location of the satellites or doing anything that CinemaSins ever does.

And I have no problem that people are having an interesting discussion about where the science of Gravity is accurate and where it isn't, but to call it a flaw in the movie is wrong. The science in Gravity is nowhere near bad enough to be called a flaw

[shadow_archmagi]

The science in Gravity is nowhere near bad enough to be called a flaw

I'd say the death scene in particular was probably quite jarring for a lot of viewers, to the point of hurting suspension of disbelief. That said, yeah, we probably should focus on other aspects of the movie, since we've about exhausted the possibilities of science discussions.

[MLai]

There's symbolism in this movie?? Where??

[Psyren]

While there is a point where a movie expects too much suspension of disbelief, tiny errors like the ones that Gravity made (especially considering every mistake was carefully done to improve the experience of the movie) aren't a problem.

Where did I ever say they were a "problem?"

It's fun for me (and others, like CinemaSins/NdG/HonestMovieTrailers/RedLetterMedia etc.) to point nitpicky stuff like that out. If you take issue with that, well, too bad.



Saying the movie would be better if they gave a more accurate height of the satellites is meaningless criticism.

I never said this either. You're reading way too far into simple fun-poking.

[SecondRevan]

I'd say the death scene in particular was probably quite jarring for a lot of viewers, to the point of hurting suspension of disbelief. That said, yeah, we probably should focus on other aspects of the movie, since we've about exhausted the possibilities of science discussions.

Well, according to everyone above, it actually is consistent with science. Though if I was going to criticise one moment for its science, that would be it. I still think it works, especially considering everything else in that scene, but it is the spot where it appears to contradict the way science works everywhere else


There's symbolism in this movie?? Where??

The entire movie is a metaphor for rebirth. The very subtle stuff is the fact that she spends so much time in the early half of the movie holding onto things, just like she holds onto her past. Think about Clooney's death scene, where he tells her to let go. Talking blind (talking into the radio with no response, in the hope someone's listening) is a metaphor for prayer (which links to the cross and the buddha in the space stations, which go under the obvious symbolism)

However, on the obvious stuff, there is Bullock entering the ISS and curling up like a foetus. That started to pull me out of the experience, since the symbolism started to take over the actual story in that scene. It is followed by the man on the radio singing her a lullaby, and then her leaving the shuttle when it crashes in the lake (her leaving the womb), and crawling onto the beach like the very first amphibians leaving the seas (highlighted by having a frog swim by).

For me, I found some of the symbolism a bit too powerful. Broke my immersion a bit as the scene stopped being 'Bullock entering ISS' and started being 'the point of Bullock's arc where she starts her rebirth'.

Also, while I talk about all of this, I just want to congratulate the location scouts on the lake at the end. Because the dirt had so much texture to it. It just seemed so earthly, and it really helped make those last moments powerful.

[MLai]

The entire movie is a metaphor for rebirth. The very subtle stuff is the fact that she spends so much time in the early half of the movie holding onto things, just like she holds onto her past. Think about Clooney's death scene, where he tells her to let go. Talking blind (talking into the radio with no response, in the hope someone's listening) is a metaphor for prayer (which links to the cross and the buddha in the space stations, which go under the obvious symbolism)

However, on the obvious stuff, there is Bullock entering the ISS and curling up like a foetus. That started to pull me out of the experience, since the symbolism started to take over the actual story in that scene. It is followed by the man on the radio singing her a lullaby, and then her leaving the shuttle when it crashes in the lake (her leaving the womb), and crawling onto the beach like the very first amphibians leaving the seas (highlighted by having a frog swim by).

For me, I found some of the symbolism a bit too powerful. Broke my immersion a bit as the scene stopped being 'Bullock entering ISS' and started being 'the point of Bullock's arc where she starts her rebirth'.

Also, while I talk about all of this, I just want to congratulate the location scouts on the lake at the end. Because the dirt had so much texture to it. It just seemed so earthly, and it really helped make those last moments powerful.
Wow... talk about seeing things.
I've always wondered about how the use of such symbolism ever benefits a story. As in, I don't see the point at all.
The only one which IMO has a point is when Clooney tells her to let go. Okay I can see the benefit of the symbolism there. But it's more a narrative sort of symbolism.
The "rebirth" visual symbols just completely went over my head. LOL the only things I was thinking of when Sandra went into fetal position was:

(1) "Wow how did they do that zero-G effect of her slowly curling up? It can't look that smooth even if she's lying on a bed... maybe she's lying on a greenscreen smeared with olive oil."
(2) "She has a NICE figure for... how old is she now?"
(3) "She must be tired."

As for "crawling out of the sea"... how else are you supposed to escape a pod which is meant to land in the ocean? And after being in zero-G is anyone expected to just spring straight up and walk as soon as they get on land?
"Leaving a womb" is the last thing on my mind when a character is about to be drowned due to water rushing into a capsule. You might as well ask me to think of a baby being born when a car crashes into the river in any movie.

I'm not directing my criticism at you. It's just my general opinion of visual symbolism in storytelling, since the subject is brought up. 9 times out of 10, the meaning of the symbol is so far divorced from the narrative meaning it serves in the events, that it is begging for the reader/viewer to voluntarily break out of his immersion to consider it, for no true benefit to overall enjoyment or understanding. Which leads to my opinion that the device as a whole is pretentious BS.

[SecondRevan]

Wow... talk about seeing things.
I've always wondered about how the use of such symbolism ever benefits a story. As in, I don't see the point at all.
The only one which IMO has a point is when Clooney tells her to let go. Okay I can see the benefit of the symbolism there. But it's more a narrative sort of symbolism.
The "rebirth" visual symbols just completely went over my head. LOL the only things I was thinking of when Sandra went into fetal position was:

(1) "Wow how did they do that zero-G effect of her slowly curling up? It can't look that smooth even if she's lying on a bed... maybe she's lying on a greenscreen smeared with olive oil."
(2) "She has a NICE figure for... how old is she now?"
(3) "She must be tired."

As for "crawling out of the sea"... how else are you supposed to escape a pod which is meant to land in the ocean? And after being in zero-G is anyone expected to just spring straight up and walk as soon as they get on land?
"Leaving a womb" is the last thing on my mind when a character is about to be drowned due to water rushing into a capsule. You might as well ask me to think of a baby being born when a car crashes into the river in any movie.

I'm not directing my criticism at you. It's just my general opinion of visual symbolism in storytelling, since the subject is brought up. 9 times out of 10, the meaning of the symbol is so far divorced from the narrative meaning it serves in the events, that it is begging for the reader/viewer to voluntarily break out of his immersion to consider it, for no true benefit to overall enjoyment or understanding. Which leads to my opinion that the device as a whole is pretentious BS.

The idea of symbolism is that it provides subconscious cues that back up the central ideas. Symbolism can very easily become pretentious BS, you are right. But the best symbolism perfectly fits the narrative, is actually intertwined with the narrative and not separate from it. It should improve your experience even if you don't look for it, on a subconscious level.
But it can also be used to greater effect. A good example is if you look at Batman. Batman as a character is supposed to be a predator of the night, stalking his prey (the criminals of Gotham). He is also supposed to be something that invokes terror into his targets. Therefore, the use of bats helps build Batman, by connecting him to a predatory creature of the night with strong connections to horror. If Batman was just a normal guy, without the bat imagery, he wouldn't be as effective of an image.
If you look, many superheroes have this sort of imagery. Is it a surprise that the superhero best known for being socially conscious is the guy who looks like Robin Hood? Or the hero heavily connected to american patriotism is literally called Captain America? You could create these same characters without the imagery, but the characters have been successful because the imagery associated with their symbols elevate them into something more than 'vigilante' or 'soldier'. It is Superman's 75th anniversary this year, and superheroes as a genre would have died a long time ago without these powerful symbols making them more than generic characters

When something shows you a whole bunch of symbols, with the expectation of forcing you to think about what it means instead of letting it be a natural part of the story, it is pretentious. But when you weave the plot in with elements that having meaning, there is no problem. And it allows people like you to enjoy the story at the level you like, while allowing people like me to enjoy it at the different level (this is not a value judgement on how you enjoy stories. If you don''t enjoy looking deeper like I do, just do what you enjoy)

I think it is very fair to say Gravity is about rebirth. It is about a woman whose life was destroyed by the lose of her daughter. She lives on autopilot, until she is forced to fight for survival in the depths of space (space serving as a symbol of death, as it is a great nothingness), and in doing so, chooses life over death.
Therefore, birth imagery fits this central theme. So if you can lace the plot with things that provoke meaning, without hurting the story trying to force it in (I think the reason many hate symbolism is because it is often obvious when it is used badly), that is great. To talk about the scene in the lake, it fits perfectly from a narrative standpoint. However, the scene has also been designed so that while it works on a narrative level, it also works on a symbolic level.
It is like telling two separate, but connected, stories at the same time. Lots of TV, for example, will often split the cast in two for an episode, and both stories are connected in some way, even as they are different. Good use of symbolism works the same way. The scene at the lake works on a narrative level in showing Bullock escape from the dangers of space and return to Earth, and on a symbolic level, shows Bullock escape the demons of her past and start living again.

Try thinking of it like that. Symbols are put in to support the narrative in some way. Whether it is to build an atmosphere, mirror character development or inform on setting, they are supposed to build on the narrative. Not saying you have to care about symbols, but just trying to make you understand why symbols are used, and why people like me enjoy looking at them, even if you don't

[huttj509]

Stuff

To me, the best use of symbolism is when the work holds up just fine without it. When it really does succeed at being 2 stories at once. If you only see one, no problem, it's a fine story on its own.

I think Gravity succeeded at that. I liked your analysis, and it felt obvious in retrospect, but at no point did I catch any of that on a conscious level (except "let go" referring to her also being hung up on her past, which could have easily led to her giving up).

I think something to be avoided in analysis of symbolism and deeper meanings (and I think you did avoid this), is the "oh man, you just didn't GET it, man." Generally that crops up in works that are poor uses of symbolism, in that if you don't see the second story completely, the first one doesn't hold up at all. I think many people can identify with the experience of "that was gibberish." "It was symbolic." Which tends to load the word "symbolism" with negative connotations.

[SiuiS]

This is not directed at Psyren specifically, but no, lets not treat his arguments with respect. Lets make fun of them like they deserve. Nothing but respect for Psyren personally though, he writes great handbooks.

What makes a point deserving of mockery? That's an entirely subjective road and, quote frankly, a big part of what's wrong with Internet culture. If someone is wrong, prove it. If they are ridiculous, tell them. But being ridiculous yourself diminishes the sum total of worth.

[Avilan the Grey]

...Am I the only one not interested in this movie?
It looks very well done, and I love both actors, but... I don't know, I just don't feel the slightest tug of interest to watch it.

Especially, unfortunately, after this discussion of symbolism; I don't know why, but now it feels like "oh, so that's the point of the movie; now I don't have to watch it". Of course I dislike symbolism in general, becaue to me, if spelled out, it takes away from the story (because then I cannot focus on the actual story, but instead keep searching for "clues" for the symbolism).

Besides, somebody is being rather sadistic by forcing a poor woman go through all that to make her appriciate life again, especially since sacrificing the other people to do it... what makes her so special she deserves that treatment and the others deserve to die for her? (not entirely serious, but the thoguh struck me after this discussion).

(As for 3D, btw, since I have glasses, I cannot watch 3D movies. Not that I would anyway, since the picture quality always gets so much worse).

[SecondRevan]

To me, the best use of symbolism is when the work holds up just fine without it. When it really does succeed at being 2 stories at once. If you only see one, no problem, it's a fine story on its own.

I think Gravity succeeded at that. I liked your analysis, and it felt obvious in retrospect, but at no point did I catch any of that on a conscious level (except "let go" referring to her also being hung up on her past, which could have easily led to her giving up).

I think something to be avoided in analysis of symbolism and deeper meanings (and I think you did avoid this), is the "oh man, you just didn't GET it, man." Generally that crops up in works that are poor uses of symbolism, in that if you don't see the second story completely, the first one doesn't hold up at all. I think many people can identify with the experience of "that was gibberish." "It was symbolic." Which tends to load the word "symbolism" with negative connotations.

This is very true. Good use of symbolism is when you don't have to notice it. As soon as it gets in the way, or requires you to put effort into understanding it before things make sense, the story is doing a bad job. The best symbols are there guiding the viewer (even if they aren't aware of the second story) but never get in the way.


...Am I the only one not interested in this movie?
It looks very well done, and I love both actors, but... I don't know, I just don't feel the slightest tug of interest to watch it.

Especially, unfortunately, after this discussion of symbolism; I don't know why, but now it feels like "oh, so that's the point of the movie; now I don't have to watch it". Of course I dislike symbolism in general, becaue to me, if spelled out, it takes away from the story (because then I cannot focus on the actual story, but instead keep searching for "clues" for the symbolism).

Besides, somebody is being rather sadistic by forcing a poor woman go through all that to make her appriciate life again, especially since sacrificing the other people to do it... what makes her so special she deserves that treatment and the others deserve to die for her? (not entirely serious, but the thoguh struck me after this discussion).

(As for 3D, btw, since I have glasses, I cannot watch 3D movies. Not that I would anyway, since the picture quality always gets so much worse).

Honestly, the marketing for Gravity didn't inspire me. Early buzz didn't seem like Gravity would be anything beautiful, neither did the trailers. Then all of a sudden, there was a massive discussion from everywhere about how great it was, and it was only then I got excited.

The thing about Gravity is that it is an experience. It isn't about plot, and while it has a good chunk of character stuff in it, it isn't about that either. The big thing is the experience of being in space, both the wonder and the terror that it provokes. If the idea of experiencing what it would be like to be in space appeals, watch Gravity. Otherwise, just wait for the DVD or miss it out entirely.

And you aren't alone with your opinion. I know others with similar opinions. Honestly, I would say Gravity's major selling point is so hard advertise. Trailers just can't do it justice. Because so much of it depends on just being there, watching everything in essentially real time. The experience can't really be spoiled.

And yes, we writers are sadistic people who love to engineer accidents to do horrible things to supporting characters just to make the leads learn the lesson we want them to. Its the only way I can get to sleep at night.

(I don't think 3D is too important. It works a lot better in Gravity than newly every other 3D movie, but it certainly isn't reliant on it. Though if there are 2D IMAX showings, I'd recommend it)

[SlyGuyMcFly]

Definitely a very worthwhile movie, IMO. It's the sort of movie that watch more for the experience of 'Space. Big, scary, awe-inspiring. Wow' than sheer entertainment or thinky-ness, and it does it very, very well. The 3D was, for once, not a waste of time. I actually appreciated what it added in terms of perspective both during the cramped interior and vast exterior shots.

I agree with what folks are saying regarding symbolism and subtlety. Gravity does it well overall, with the (to me) notable exception of the scene entering the ISS. The fetal position plus obvious umbilical chord simply yanked me out of the movie.

[Avilan the Grey]

This is very true. Good use of symbolism is when you don't have to notice it. As soon as it gets in the way, or requires you to put effort into understanding it before things make sense, the story is doing a bad job. The best symbols are there guiding the viewer (even if they aren't aware of the second story) but never get in the way.

I don't know, because I am the kind of person who, quite simply, don't pick up on symbolism at all unless it IS in my face. Meaning that if I don't notice it on a concious level, I definitely won't notice it on a subconcious level nor will I have a moment of Fridge Brilliance afterwards either.

On the other hand, if the symbolism IS in my face, I get thoroughly annoyed.


Honestly, the marketing for Gravity didn't inspire me. Early buzz didn't seem like Gravity would be anything beautiful, neither did the trailers. Then all of a sudden, there was a massive discussion from everywhere about how great it was, and it was only then I got excited.

The thing about Gravity is that it is an experience. It isn't about plot, and while it has a good chunk of character stuff in it, it isn't about that either. The big thing is the experience of being in space, both the wonder and the terror that it provokes. If the idea of experiencing what it would be like to be in space appeals, watch Gravity. Otherwise, just wait for the DVD or miss it out entirely.

And you aren't alone with your opinion. I know others with similar opinions. Honestly, I would say Gravity's major selling point is so hard advertise. Trailers just can't do it justice. Because so much of it depends on just being there, watching everything in essentially real time. The experience can't really be spoiled.

Apollo 13 was far more interesting to me. It's the ultimate "caught in space" movie for me. Of course we all knew how it would end...


And yes, we writers are sadistic people who love to engineer accidents to do horrible things to supporting characters just to make the leads learn the lesson we want them to. Its the only way I can get to sleep at night.

LOL
Wasn't aware you were a writer :smallwink:
And I have noticed. "Look, she can LIVE and LOVE again. Too bad all those people had to die to help her through her depression, but let's not replace her guilt of her daughter's death with the survivor guilt of this... because that would make sense..." :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Anyway, if we are just going to show that this poor woman need to Carpe Diem again, why not just have her survive a car crash on the way to Wallmart? :smalltongue:

[Zerter]

What makes a point deserving of mockery? That's an entirely subjective road and, quote frankly, a big part of what's wrong with Internet culture. If someone is wrong, prove it. If they are ridiculous, tell them. But being ridiculous yourself diminishes the sum total of worth.

Yeah, telling people they are wrong on the internet, great advice buddy. You seem to take this very seriously, but I don't think there is anything wrong with making fun of an argument that is about if the space station not being in entirely the right place. It is no different than what I would do in real life. Also, saying something is subjective is a worthless argument, I would back that up, but that would mean I care :smallcool:.

[MLai]

On the other hand, if the symbolism IS in my face, I get thoroughly annoyed.
Yeah. She just monologued for 5 minutes about how she's going to go on living with the happy memory of her daughter in her heart. I think I get that this movie is about letting go and living life. I don't see the need for some imagery about how she's being reborn like a fetus.

If she didn't display character development in the narrative, is the fancy symbolism going to substitute for it in any way? No. So then what purpose does it serve other than to temporarily confuse me?

Because the only thing I was thinking during the fetus scene, is "Wow, she still got it, go Sandra." And then my brain went on to compare her scene with Sigorney Weaver's underwear scene in Alien. And I was also confused as to why this scene took so long, but I let it go because my brain was too busy doing the Sigorney comparison.

So that's all the symbolism did for me. (1)Break my immersion, (2)confuse me.

Lastly, her survival in the narrative is all thanks to her smarts and gumption. And no fault of the astronauts' deaths lay on her. But if we accept that this entire movie is a metaphor for her rebirth, then suddenly her overcoming all the dangers was preordained, and all the astronauts became sacrificial side characters to her stage play. I agree it actually diminishes the movie for me, if I switch goggles and view it through the symbolic filter.

Anyway, if we are just going to show that this poor woman need to Carpe Diem again, why not just have her survive a car crash on the way to Wallmart? :smalltongue:
Which would you rather watch? :smallcool:

[Avilan the Grey]

Lastly, her survival in the narrative is all thanks to her smarts and gumption. And no fault of the astronauts' deaths lay on her. But if we accept that this entire movie is a metaphor for her rebirth, then suddenly her overcoming all the dangers was preordained, and all the astronauts became sacrificial side characters to her stage play. I agree it actually diminishes the movie for me, if I switch goggles and view it through the symbolic filter

Also, it kind of makes me go "...Why is her story important?". I mean if we remove the symbolism, I can totally see her struggle for survival in space for 2 hours because **** happens entertaining. But with it? Not a chance, because of this. And what is the lesson to be learned, really?



Which would you rather watch? :smallcool:

Apollo 13. Again. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

What makes a point deserving of mockery? That's an entirely subjective road and, quote frankly, a big part of what's wrong with Internet culture. If someone is wrong, prove it. If they are ridiculous, tell them. But being ridiculous yourself diminishes the sum total of worth.

It's fine Siuis, not hard to recognize this guy for what he is.



Wasn't aware you were a writer :smallwink:
And I have noticed. "Look, she can LIVE and LOVE again. Too bad all those people had to die to help her through her depression, but let's not replace her guilt of her daughter's death with the survivor guilt of this... because that would make sense..." :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:


She pretty much made the decision to keep on living and moving forward after turning the air back on in the Shenzhou; I don't think there's a need to worry about her depression any longer.

And by the way, that was one thing they did very right - the Shenzhou and Soyuz are very similar in design, so her hitting the right button among dozens based on its position was accurate and brilliant. So I and others am giving them credit where credit is due.

[SecondRevan]

I don't know, because I am the kind of person who, quite simply, don't pick up on symbolism at all unless it IS in my face. Meaning that if I don't notice it on a concious level, I definitely won't notice it on a subconcious level nor will I have a moment of Fridge Brilliance afterwards either.

On the other hand, if the symbolism IS in my face, I get thoroughly annoyed.

THings work on a subconscious level before a conscious level. Trust me when I say symbolism does work on you. You might not notice it, but it does work.

For example, all set design works but setting up specific items in a specific pattern that symbolizes a 'seedy bar' or a 'boring workplace' or a 'high tech space ship'. Costuming is very similar. CLothes are chosen to to reflect character. Professional characters wear suits or something similar, while more casual characters wear shirts. Have a look at this (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LightFeminineAndDarkFeminine). This is the tvtropes page about the character contrast of light feminine and dark feminine characters. You can tell immediatly which character in the page image is which, because of the symbolism is the choice of clothes, choice of colour etc. Even something like the neckline is used help build the image of which one represents 'light feminine' and which one represents 'dark feminine'.

Just because you don't notice symbols doesn't mean they don't influence your experience. And as I said before, when symbols are too noticeable, they are being used poorly


Apollo 13 was far more interesting to me. It's the ultimate "caught in space" movie for me. Of course we all knew how it would end...

I thought you hadn't seen it? Have you seen it now?

If you've seen it, and have an opinion about it, that's your opinion. I disagree, but a movie isn't going to please everyone. I know there are many movies people like that I don't.


LOL
Wasn't aware you were a writer :smallwink:
And I have noticed. "Look, she can LIVE and LOVE again. Too bad all those people had to die to help her through her depression, but let's not replace her guilt of her daughter's death with the survivor guilt of this... because that would make sense..." :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

Anyway, if we are just going to show that this poor woman need to Carpe Diem again, why not just have her survive a car crash on the way to Wallmart? :smalltongue:

Amateur writer, but a writer.

The idea with a story is that we show the main character growing. SO that's why things work like that.
Why did supporting characters have to die? Because as supporting characters, their function in the story is to help the lead overcome her conflicts. THat is the purpose for all supporting characters. And this manifests in different ways. Sometimes, as a villain, who represents a leving manifestation of the character's issues. Sometimes, as the goal, that gives the main character a reason to try and move past their issues. And sometimes, as the character who has to die to force the main character to develop (that's why Obi-wan died etc)
And the reason they don't care about survivor's guilt is that it is boring. A character who starts optimistic and becomes guilty is interesting. A person who starts off guilty and then feels guilty about a different thing isn't. Exact same character, different target for guilt.

ANd why not a car crash? 2 reasons. One, it is boring.
Two, because the director wanted to make a movie about astronauts trapped in space trying to survive. Having made that decision, he then decided what story could tell. He chose a story of rebirth.


Yeah. She just monologued for 5 minutes about how she's going to go on living with the happy memory of her daughter in her heart. I think I get that this movie is about letting go and living life. I don't see the need for some imagery about how she's being reborn like a fetus.

If she didn't display character development in the narrative, is the fancy symbolism going to substitute for it in any way? No. So then what purpose does it serve other than to temporarily confuse me?

Because the only thing I was thinking during the fetus scene, is "Wow, she still got it, go Sandra." And then my brain went on to compare her scene with Sigorney Weaver's underwear scene in Alien. And I was also confused as to why this scene took so long, but I let it go because my brain was too busy doing the Sigorney comparison.

So that's all the symbolism did for me. (1)Break my immersion, (2)confuse me.

Lastly, her survival in the narrative is all thanks to her smarts and gumption. And no fault of the astronauts' deaths lay on her. But if we accept that this entire movie is a metaphor for her rebirth, then suddenly her overcoming all the dangers was preordained, and all the astronauts became sacrificial side characters to her stage play. I agree it actually diminishes the movie for me, if I switch goggles and view it through the symbolic filter.

Which would you rather watch? :smallcool:

I don't like the fetus scene, because the symbolism is too overpowering and breaks the immersion. The goal of symbolism is to work alongside the main story and enhance it. Of course, if the character development doesn't exist in the story, the symbolism won't help. If it does, the symbolism is subtly strengthening everything, on a subconscious level.

When someone like me watches a movie, we watch it at two levels. One level is watching the movie just like you, emotionally. ANother level is watching the movie analytically, exploring why the movie is making me feel that way. It takes a bit of effort to train yourself to watch movies like that, but that's how I watch movies. My way isn't inherently better, both methods of watching movies have strengths and flaws. But it is also how I avoid recognizing symbolism get in the way, unless the symbolism is so blatant it gets in the way of me watching the movie emotionally instead of just analytically. I don't switch goggles to the symbollic filter, I just watch with two sets goggles on.


Also, it kind of makes me go "...Why is her story important?". I mean if we remove the symbolism, I can totally see her struggle for survival in space for 2 hours because **** happens entertaining. But with it? Not a chance, because of this. And what is the lesson to be learned, really?

Like I said above, I watch the movie in two different ways at the same time, from an emotional level and an analytical level. I think the problem is that you are trying to address the symbolism while viewing it through the lens of the emotional level. At the emotional level, symbolism works because you don't notice it.

At the analytical level, I explore how the symbolism strengthens the story, but I don't let is affect how I treat the movie on an emotional level.

[Soras Teva Gee]

...Am I the only one not interested in this movie?
It looks very well done, and I love both actors, but... I don't know, I just don't feel the slightest tug of interest to watch it.


I have no real desire to see it.

I simply know I'm not terribly interested in space exploration/research/etc for a moive, probably from the weird interlocking of how very much I value it IRL against the the disinterest I tend to treat my IRL priorities in my entertainment.

Also I'm a getting to be immune to spectacle so and otherwise its seems like a fairly small scale survival story... which ehh never been something I'm that into.

I'd probably recommend to anyone though.

[Avilan the Grey]

Well written stuff

Oh I am not really arguing with you, I am just inserting logic in the process. As in "Pretending the writers are actually higher beings putting them through that for real" logic. :smallbiggrin:

Btw no I haven't seen it. I wasn't arguing from that perspective. I was arguing from the "it doesn't look interesting to me" :smallsmile:

[Hawriel]

I wanna know, before I consider seeing it, if the ear-rending volume and shrieks and building shape tones are an actual thing throughout the movie, or if that was just every trailer.

All sound in the movie is heard More or less realistically. If an astronaut is not touching it, or in side a space station, there is no sound.

Sound travels by conduction. For example when Ryan (Sandra) is using a drill you hear the sound of the drill. However it is muffled because the sound is traveling through her arms and space suite to get to her ears. When she is holding onto a hand hold on an air lock door and some thing smacks into the side of the station, with force, you here a muffled thump.

[Prince Raven]

Just watched Gravity, and my thoughts went something like this:
- Hmm, these are some nice visuals
- Ooh, it's George Clooney with a jetpack in space
- Racial minority guy is probably here so they can kill him off in the next ten minutes
- Yep, he's dead
- That's just scientifically inaccurate
- Ok, movie, we get it, you're pretty, stop shoving it in our face
- More scientific inaccuracies...
- George Clooney doesn't appear to have any emotions beyond "look at me, I'm George Clooney with a jetpack, see how cool and calm I am"
- They killed off George Clooney, this movie's going to go downhill really fast
- Obvious rebirth metaphor is way too obvious and goes on too long
- This movie really likes shoving things in your face
- More scientific inaccuracies...
- Oh wow, they're actually going to give us a really good, emotional ending
- To be fair, if I was about to die of oxygen deprivation, I'd probably be imagining George Clooney flirting with me as well
- Well, they decided to not have the really good ending, hopefully that means the actual ending is just plain awesome and not "and she makes to Earth and lives happily ever after"
- More way too obvious symbolism
- So you decided to trick us into thinking they were going to have a good ending, then go "psych" and have a lame standard one... Why?

Also, every time they did the massive crescendo into ear-splitting sound it really broke my immersion and made me want to leave before they did it again, but maybe that's just me.

[MLai]

Wait what's your idea of "plain awesome ending" and "lame standard ending"?

[SecondRevan]

Just watched Gravity, and my thoughts went something like this:
- Hmm, these are some nice visuals
- Ooh, it's George Clooney with a jetpack in space
- Racial minority guy is probably here so they can kill him off in the next ten minutes
- Yep, he's dead
- That's just scientifically inaccurate
- Ok, movie, we get it, you're pretty, stop shoving it in our face
- More scientific inaccuracies...
- George Clooney doesn't appear to have any emotions beyond "look at me, I'm George Clooney with a jetpack, see how cool and calm I am"
- They killed off George Clooney, this movie's going to go downhill really fast
- Obvious rebirth metaphor is way too obvious and goes on too long
- This movie really likes shoving things in your face
- More scientific inaccuracies...
- Oh wow, they're actually going to give us a really good, emotional ending
- To be fair, if I was about to die of oxygen deprivation, I'd probably be imagining George Clooney flirting with me as well
- Well, they decided to not have the really good ending, hopefully that means the actual ending is just plain awesome and not "and she makes to Earth and lives happily ever after"
- More way too obvious symbolism
- So you decided to trick us into thinking they were going to have a good ending, then go "psych" and have a lame standard one... Why?

Also, every time they did the massive crescendo into ear-splitting sound it really broke my immersion and made me want to leave before they did it again, but maybe that's just me.

While I understand that you simply were not immersed in the movie (not just because of your issues with the soundtrack. Your comments do not sound like a man who had any immersion), I'm interested in why you criticise the movie for being beautiful? Surely a beautiful movie should exploit the beauty.

On the ending, it is obvious why they chose the ending they did. Because of, as you noticed, the rebirth metaphor (which I agree went on too long and was too obvious). It would have been unsatisfying to see her commit suicide. If she did, a lot of the heart of the movie would collapse as it would destroy any sense of character arc. If Sandra Bullock was an optimistic character, it would work. But since she isn't, it would be so unsatisfying. It might seem brave and original, but it simply wouldn't work.

Out of interest, what recent movies did you enjoy and why? What movies didn't you enjoy? Just want to compare experiences to see how our tastes differ.

[Prince Raven]

Wait what's your idea of "plain awesome ending" and "lame standard ending"?

While I wouldn't call it awesome, they set up her death quite well and it was genuinely touching, having Dr. Stone accept her death as the ending would have been a bold move and quite refreshing. Instead they went with her making it to Earth alive, resolving her psychological issues and her living happily ever after, oh and just in case we haven't hammered it home yet have another rebirth metaphor.


While I understand that you simply were not immersed in the movie (not just because of your issues with the soundtrack. Your comments do not sound like a man who had any immersion), I'm interested in why you criticise the movie for being beautiful? Surely a beautiful movie should exploit the beauty.

Imagine if you had a photographer friend who went to space and they shoved their camera in your face every minute for 2 straight hours. "Hey look at this beautiful shot of Earth, look at this shot of space, look at this extreme close-up of Dr. Stone's face, look at this obvious rebirth metaphor, look at more close-ups of her face. I know something important's happening, but I noticed there's a porthole there so I'm just going to focus my shot's out there instead of anything relevant to the plot..."


On the ending, it is obvious why they chose the ending they did. Because of, as you noticed, the rebirth metaphor (which I agree went on too long and was too obvious). It would have been unsatisfying to see her commit suicide. If she did, a lot of the heart of the movie would collapse as it would destroy any sense of character arc. If Sandra Bullock was an optimistic character, it would work. But since she isn't, it would be so unsatisfying. It might seem brave and original, but it simply wouldn't work.

I know why they did it, I just think that you shouldn't pretend to have a really heartstring-tugging emotional ending when your actual ending is pretty bland.


Out of interest, what recent movies did you enjoy and why? What movies didn't you enjoy? Just want to compare experiences to see how our tastes differ.

This is actually the first recent movie I've seen in a while, the last time I went to the movies would've been to see Iron Man 3, which was enjoyable and immersive enough that I didn't notice many of the faults until afterwards.

[Psyren]

To me, the ending wasn't really the point. It was the journey, and her will to survive, that matttered rather than the destination itself. Hell, she could even still die on a freezing cold lake in the middle of nowhere (though the after-credits bit does give us reason to hope.) For me, the movie ended when she woke up, decided to live and hit the button, and the rest was just denouement. She could have gotten fried on re-entry, and I would've said "at least she tried, that's the important thing."

[SecondRevan]

While I wouldn't call it awesome, they set up her death quite well and it was genuinely touching, having Dr. Stone accept her death as the ending would have been a bold move and quite refreshing. Instead they went with her making it to Earth alive, resolving her psychological issues and her living happily ever after, oh and just in case we haven't hammered it home yet have another rebirth metaphor.

I'd argue they hadn't set up her death well, though. Nor would it have been bold. Every part of the movie was pushing the exact opposite. And the complaint that her psychological issues are resolved is confounding. They are only in the movie to be resolved. You seem to be putting 'refreshing and different' over good storytelling


Imagine if you had a photographer friend who went to space and they shoved their camera in your face every minute for 2 straight hours. "Hey look at this beautiful shot of Earth, look at this shot of space, look at this extreme close-up of Dr. Stone's face, look at this obvious rebirth metaphor, look at more close-ups of her face. I know something important's happening, but I noticed there's a porthole there so I'm just going to focus my shot's out there instead of anything relevant to the plot..."

I guess this comes into the problem with immersion. I never felt any shot was gratuitous like that. They all added to the experience in some way. There were maybe some issues where Cuaron's love of long shots were a weakness, but it was never for the reasons you explain. I guess the fact that you weren't immersed means the shots didn't have the same effect.


I know why they did it, I just think that you shouldn't pretend to have a really heartstring-tugging emotional ending when your actual ending is pretty bland.

I guess this goes into immersion. The ending of a character arc is meaningless if you aren't invested


This is actually the first recent movie I've seen in a while, the last time I went to the movies would've been to see Iron Man 3, which was enjoyable and immersive enough that I didn't notice many of the faults until afterwards.

I'm interested in why you thought Iron Man 3 was immersive, and what you thought the faults were afterwards. Just interested in why the film wasn't as immersive to you, so want to compare experiences. TO me, it will be interesting to see why a certain audience isn't affected by Gravity, while other audiences are.

[MLai]

I'm interested in why you thought Iron Man 3 was immersive, and what you thought the faults were afterwards. Just interested in why the film wasn't as immersive to you, so want to compare experiences. TO me, it will be interesting to see why a certain audience isn't affected by Gravity, while other audiences are.
Perhaps it's more relevant to ask if he likes any Man vs Nature films/stories at all.

[SecondRevan]

Perhaps it's more relevant to ask if he likes any Man vs Nature films/stories at all.

Actually, the idea is to understand what appeals to him in a greater context, so that I can then compare those criteria to Gravity. If he doesn't like Man vs Nature movies, it doesn't tell me why Gravity doesn't appeal to him, only that it belongs to a genre that doesn't appeal

In fact, with the faults, I'll be very interested in knowing what his opinion was on the faults when they first appeared, before he had time to think about them.

Also, working on recent movies is the easiest way to make sure he discusses movies I actually know. Because no matter how big the movie is, the further back in time you go, the more likely he talks about a movie I haven't had the chance to watch yet (so many classics, so little time). I wouldn't mind his opinions on some slightly less recent stuff, if he can give them.

[Tylorious]

I linked it in my post :smalltongue:

Wow, didn't even notice, and it was directly above mine, i should be more observent.

[Psyren]

I thought I didn't like Man vs. Nature, but then I saw this and Life of Pi and now I'm re-evaluating my stance on the motif. (Not sure if it's prevalent enough to be a genre yet.)