Author Topic: Gravity  (Read 19647 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +781
Re: Gravity
« Reply #90 on: November 20, 2013, 11:41:29 PM »
+1
Well he did have 100 grand and a fully professional crew at his disposal. That's much more than most short films have.

And when they kept saying son I thought this was a child like when Gondry and his kid were writing that movie, or at least a young dude in his early 20s, not a 31 year old man.

Anyway, gravity is a brilliant movie, haters can suck an Oscar which it will probably win. (A rare deserved win)
under the paving stones.

Cloudy

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 376
  • Respect: +270
Re: Gravity
« Reply #91 on: November 21, 2013, 12:07:07 AM »
0
Well he did have 100 grand and a fully professional crew at his disposal. That's much more than most short films have.
I was rating the short itself without the asterisks. Another you could give it is how the short would lose a huge percent(maybe most) of it's power if Gravity was never made.

jenkins

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2794
  • Respect: +1711
Re: Gravity
« Reply #92 on: December 16, 2013, 11:20:17 PM »
0
today i was reading something else about robots and i accidentally discovered the background to gravity:
http://www.botndolly.com/robots

http://www.botndolly.com/gravity
Quote
“It can’t be done.” This is what Alfonso Cuarón heard when speaking of his vision of weightlessness for the film Gravity. While these words discourage some, they kindle others. The making of Cuarón’s Gravity was a formative project for Bot & Dolly. The film pushed us to evolve our robot platform to the specific needs of cinematographers and visual effects artists. By leveraging our IRIS platform, including four robots and Bot & Dolly’s engineering team, we were able to make that impossible vision a reality.

Our work on Gravity began mid-2011 after the Head of Visual Effects at Warner Brothers heard about IRIS and reached out to Bot & Dolly. He and his team were looking for the technology needed to bring Cuarón’s ambitious film to life, and after an initial test shoot in San Francisco our robots boarded a cargo plane headed to London.

Bot & Dolly provided Cuarón and Framestore with the tools necessary to execute complex cinematography based on computer previsualizations, in live action with industrial robots and other onset hardware. Because our tools integrate tightly with industry standard software Maya, Framestore was given control of camera, lighting and other set elements from within their established animation environment. The entire story of Gravity was animated in CG prior to filming. Through the use of BDMove and our four IRIS robots, we were able to reproduce the zero-gravity motion created by Framestore’s team of animators.

Cuarón and Webber took a unique approach to simulating weightlessness. Instead of moving an actor through a set using traditional wire rigs, they achieved the illusion of zero-gravity by moving the world around the subject. This could only be done by synchronizing lighting, LED backgrounds and actor pose with frame accurate camera positioning. Bot & Dolly enabled this approach by unifying technology on set with a single common timeline. Beyond camera control, we were responsible for driving LED graphics, cueing actors and technicians, real-time compositing, and implementing an interactive playback system. Each day, the challenges on set inspired us to expand the functionality of our tools and bring new levels of a technology to film production.

Gravity was an important milestone and unforgettable experience for Bot & Dolly. We would like to thank Alfonso Cuarón, Warner Brothers and Framestore for this amazing opportunity.

that's intense robotics. i learned about this while reading about the tech field's developing interest in robots, purchases made by google and amazon. the digital camera use alone represents developing cinema tech, but there's an element to this that represents another development

Robyn

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1023
  • Respect: +405
Re: Gravity
« Reply #93 on: December 17, 2013, 11:10:37 AM »
0
bullock was good in this, but clooney was so distracting. the only thing I could think of watching this was "look! it's a space movie with danny ocean. how cool!"

i liked the visuals, but I was expecting more of the story and characters. they where quite plain and boring.

Mel

  • The Meeting with the Goddess
  • ***
  • Posts: 444
  • Edgy TV show-watching Russian bodybuilder cartoon.
  • Respect: +168
Re: Gravity
« Reply #94 on: January 02, 2014, 06:04:38 AM »
0
I liked the technical side of Gravity, but the rest feels way too incoherent for me, to love this film. I feel that story is used to excuse epic calamity upon calamity and not the other way around, as it should be.

It isn't about human resilience for me: there is too much luck involved, she is saved more than once by other crew member (including supernatural intervention). Metaphor for taking control in your live? I see how it could work, but 10 minutes after she makes that decision, we get "eeny, meeny, miny, moe" scene. Great ending that represent evolution is undermined by religious symbols that were thrown through the whole film at audience and St. George occurrence. Am I nitpicking here? Probably yes, guess those details are used to appeal to larger audience. It makes me uncomfortable, which is a weird thing for a film without hard subject to talk about.

Still I don't mind if Gravity wins some hefty awards - maybe this will influence other commercial films, when it comes to editing and cinematography: long takes, slow cutting (shaky cam with fast, abrupt cutting drives me sick).
Simple mind - simple pleasures...

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11258
  • Respect: +1503
Re: Gravity
« Reply #95 on: October 27, 2018, 11:49:32 PM »
+2
Finally got around to this. One of the most overrated films I’ve ever seen. I think it’s actually kind of a bad movie. Caveats: I acknowledge there can be separate value in the theatrical experience, especially for this one, which I missed out on. And it’s technically amazing.

But wow. What a terrible script. Nearly every line of dialogue made me cringe, and the acting (even Ed Harris’s!) did not do much to salvage it. From the start, it was an extremely cold experience. The metaphors really reached a breaking point (spoiler) when Sandra Bullock curled up in a fetal position for her rebirth, complete with umbilical cord, and they held the shot soooo long. Yikes.

So basically I felt nothing. Waited patiently for the movie to end so I could watch behind the scenes features.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

wilberfan

  • The Ultimate Boon
  • ***
  • Posts: 472
  • Respect: +233
Re: Gravity
« Reply #96 on: October 28, 2018, 12:22:34 AM »
0
Finally got around to this. One of the most overrated films I’ve ever seen. I think it’s actually kind of a bad movie. Caveats: I acknowledge there can be separate value in the theatrical experience, especially for this one, which I missed out on. And it’s technically amazing.


Yeah, I paid Top Dollar to see this in it's opening days in Mega-Laser-IMAX at the Chinese Theater (whatever it was called at the time) and was rolling my eyes pretty hard pretty early.   (I have some Neil Degrasse Tyson/Space Nerd tendencies, and some of the Clooney space caroming early on looked completely unrealistic to me.  Took me completely out of the movie.)  Audibly groaned at the 'fetus' scene, too.   Yeesh.
"Trying to fit in since 2017."

Just Withnail

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1667
  • Respect: +498
    • Truls Krane Meby's website
Re: Gravity
« Reply #97 on: October 28, 2018, 07:27:27 AM »
0
SPOILER

Clooney floating into space, to his death: "You should see the sun shining on the Ganges."

So funny.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2018, 01:08:56 AM by Jeremy Blackman »

Jeremy Blackman

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 11258
  • Respect: +1503
Re: Gravity
« Reply #98 on: October 29, 2018, 01:08:32 AM »
+1
SPOILERS

Clooney floating into space, to his death: "You should see the sun shining on the Ganges."

So funny.

Honestly when I heard that line I hoped I'd misheard it.

And yeah, wilberfan, I did notice some suspicious physics and some plot holes. When Sandra's foot is barely holding onto the ropes and Clooney is about to be pulled away, the physics just do not make sense. One tug would have pulled him back. They clearly wanted to make a "hanging from the cliff" scene (complete with "let me go so that you may live" dialogue).

And it reaaaally makes no sense that Sandra Bullock, a medical doctor, is there. From what I understand, the premise is this: She invented this imaging device for medical use, and since she invented it, she gets to install it on the Hubble. Um, what? So in order to abide by this bizarre "inventor must install their invention" rule, NASA trained a doctor to be an astronaut.
"Hunger is the purest sin"

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy