or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take - Page 12

post #331 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

All life and death concerns are to be dealt with in the horror thread eek.gif Especially death....biggrin.gifeek.gif
Yeah, that.wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post


I don't want to compare the use of music and this "no sound in space" in Gravity vs. 2001 because the two movies are radically different. I find the music of Gravity very inventive, and most importantly, very effective. 2001 is a masterful contemplative movie, Gravity is an masterful action movie. Does Gravity convey the sensation of being lost, total loneliness, the incredibly hostile and terrifying environment that is space? Yes. I think so. Does it have to do it in a 100% realistic way? Not at all - at least to me (yet its attention to detail has to be recognized as well). As long as I "feel" this emotion, I don't care. I look at it this way, Gravity is already very close to "the reality of space" in many ways, but if it was more realistic, it would also be less artistic. smile.gif
+10000000
post #332 of 738
I have to admit, I paid for and enjoyed a D-Box motion seat last week when I saw Gravity. Although not very popular here, the result I noticed was that D-Box motion seating added greatly to the sense of immersion for this particular film.

I cranked the D-Box intensity to the maximum and simply lifted my feet from the floor and my arms from the armrests. The seat was going through low speed and low intensity oscillations that were synchronized with the slow "camera movements" on screen and these resulted in a sense that one was floating - about as convincing an illusion as I have ever felt from D-Box, and uniquely appropriate for a simulation of zero gravity. It would seem that one's posterior is not particularly sensitive with respect to detecting small slow movements.

Having read about how the actors were placed into lighting frames and the cameras were moved to change the perspective, while entire spacecraft interiors were inserted by CGI, I now understand that this is part of the illusion of this film. It is very well done, and in fact the best D-Box experience I have had, far exceeding the jolts and accelerations one gets in a typical action film, which were present but only at those most intense moments when the actors were pummeled by debris or experiencing collisions.

One thing that actually happens in micro-gravity environments that no attempt was made to simulate in Gravity was that fluids tend to redistribute through the body, accumulating in different spots than in a one gravity field. Simply compare a picture of an astronaut who has been in space a week or more to that same person on Earth, and note how bloated the faces get. Of course, neither Bullock nor Clooney would have wanted this particular detail of reality, since both are skirting middle age (49 years and 52 years respectively). But this would be another example of where the filmmakers were either unaware of or deliberately chose to avoid ultra-realism in favor of recognizable and familiar faces. The two star's faces are in fact those of people long in one gravity and with that acceleration in a consistent direction towards their chests.

The deliberate departure from reality to create a work that is still more convincing than would be a completely technically accurate production has a long tradition in SF movies and television - and one that the various Star Trek productions probably took well over the top, as I remember wincing on occasion. It seems to me that such choices were made in this movie to accommodate the expectations of a general audience, and not those of SF super-geeks.
post #333 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I certainly don't.

I don't want to compare the use of music and this "no sound in space" in Gravity vs. 2001 because the two movies are radically different. Gravity a "space thriller drama" while 2001 offers some thoughts about the human condition and our tiny place in the universe in a very poetic way. To me, these two movies are a mesmerising experience, but for different reasons. And l love both, but for different reasons. I do recognize that in some places, the music in Gravity plays the same role as sound effects, but the truth is I have no problem with it. But I'll maintain that it's far from being its only purpose. Maybe that's because I have both classical and electroacoustic background but as a musician (don't get me wrong I'm not bragging, just saying why I like this music smile.gif), I find the music of Gravity very inventive, and most importantly, very effective. I can still listen to this album and it's still music, not "cheap stingers", whooshes and all that stuff. I think the problem, or should I say difference is that some would have preferred an ultra-realisitic result in Gravity, while others, myself included, don't mind the compromises made by the filmmakers. I think there's a limit to the "immersive experience" concept, because ultimately we're still watching movies comfortably seated, regardless of what our characters have to endure onscreen. 2001 is a masterful contemplative movie, Gravity is an masterful action movie. Does Gravity convey the sensation of being lost, total loneliness, the incredibly hostile and terrifying environment that is space? Yes. I think so. Does it have to do it in a 100% realistic way? Not at all - at least to me (yet its attention to detail has to be recognized as well). As long as I "feel" this emotion, I don't care. I look at it this way, Gravity is already very close to "the reality of space" in many ways, but if it was more realistic, it would also be less artistic. smile.gif

I totally agree with you that the two movies are radically different. I have read several posts on the two Gravity threads decrying the comparison between the two movies and insisting people stop trying to compare the two movies with regard to story, the filmmakers' intentions and so on...but I have yet to read a single post by anyone making any such comparison between those two movies. My only reference to 2001 on either thread has been with regard to whether the use of CG improved on the sense of "being there" in outer space, of being cut loose in outer space vs the non digital methods employed in 2001 and whether or not the filmmakers actually met the challenge they seemingly set up for themselves with that opening graphic; to create an action movie in outer space honoring the "no sound in space" premise and without resorting to a soundtrack that either inserts foley sound in outer space or replaces it with music to create the same effect on the audience. On the latter count, there is only one scene in 2001 that I referenced where a filmmaker actually did produce an action scene with a silent explosion, no foley and no musical stinger replacement for foley.

Both references to 2001 were very specific, were more than pertinent to the subject matter and the opening posts of the threads on which they were posted and neither of them made a comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey as a movie, its story or its themes that Gravity "should have been", was "trying to be like but failed" or any such thing. I think somewhere along the line a highly sensitive poster objected to any reference whatsoever to 2001 as though that kind of comparison had been made and everyone rushed to buy into it as though that were the case. But it isn't. There are no such posts as far as I have seen.
Edited by hitchfan - 10/17/13 at 8:19am
post #334 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Sheesh, stop with all the defensiveness already.eek.gif
This isn't life or death around here (regardless what some might think.wink.gif)

wow, oink. What a protected and serene life you must lead if you think anything that has transpired between me and, say, Josh Z has been treated as a matter of life or death. LOL!
post #335 of 738

If you are never going to watch this movie, what difference does it make how the director chose to use background music? What motivates one to argue for days on end?

post #336 of 738
biggrin.gif

Don't worry, oink, iamian, and Aliens, it has been duly noted and is now a matter of record that each of you thinks Gravity is the greatest movie ever made and created the greatest cinematic experience of your lives. We've all read your many posts asserting as much.

However, for those of us who only felt it was an ok movie with a couple of moments here and there, nothing about it could generate a life or death argument.
post #337 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tack View Post

So, even though it's impossible to quote the instances that you refer to, some may not find it hard to come to the same conclusions as Josh.

Oh, I can quote the instance:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1162552/shaky-cam/60#post_16841742
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

With extremely rare exception, there have been virtually no memorable lines of dialog uttered on the screen, no memorable suspense sequences, rousing final stand-offs, gripping dramatic moments, fascinating character and thematic developments, etc., etc., etc. produced in films for decades.

Of course, hitchfan will start lying now, claiming that he never said that, or that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented his words. I invite anyone (who is not hitchfan) to follow the link and read his full quote in context, and then provide me with an alternate interpretation for his words.
post #338 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

whether or not the filmmakers actually met the challenge they seemingly set up for themselves with that opening graphic; to create an action movie in outer space honoring the "no sound in space" premise and without resorting to a soundtrack that either inserts foley sound in outer space or replaces it with music to create the same effect on the audience.

Does the opening text say that there will be no music on the soundtrack during the space scenes? Have the filmmakers claimed that was ever their intention somewhere? Or have you arbitrarily decided that music on the soundtrack is OK in 2001 but not OK here, simply as a way to justify your dislike of the new movie?
post #339 of 738
One unpleasant aspect of the particular IMAX theatre I saw Gravity in was that there was a rather bright ceiling light that was turned on inside the projector room which was annoying the crap out of me. I'm not sure if it just happened to be my seat that had line of sight in such a way as to interfere with my peripheral vision, but it was definitely noticeable to me (and not in a good way). I was just wondering if anyone had similar experiences.
post #340 of 738
Arguing with some of the local denizens is, as I have said on numerous occasions, like trying to nail jello to a wall.
post #341 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Oh, I can quote the instance:

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1162552/shaky-cam/60#post_16841742
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan 
With extremely rare exception, there have been virtually no memorable lines of dialog uttered on the screen, no memorable suspense sequences, rousing final stand-offs, gripping dramatic moments, fascinating character and thematic developments, etc., etc., etc. produced in films for decades.
Of course, hitchfan will start lying now, claiming that he never said that, or that I have misinterpreted or misrepresented his words. I invite anyone (who is not hitchfan) to follow the link and read his full quote in context, and then provide me with an alternate interpretation for his words.

As I pointed out the first time I publicly spanked you for fabricating a point I never made and an opinion I never held, nothing about that observation (which was evidenced by many a list of such elements on this forum at the time, by others, not me, and on AFI Greatest Movie lists up until then), supports the contention that "there have been virtually no worthwhile movies made since 1970."

Nice try. But your one and only quote for a very, very low standard of evidence to prove you are not a liar...has proven you are a liar, Josh.

You see, one can still like a movie and think is good even though it does not contain particularly memorable elements. In fact, a movie can CONTAIN one or more memorable elements and still not be particularly good. Too nuanced for you? Maybe this will help. This year's The Butler is a good movie. I liked it. But it does not contain any of those memorable elements. I liked Argo quite a bit last year and The Artist the year before. Said so on this forum. Yet the elements I listed in that quote you cited are nowhere to be found in any of them, imo.

Keep trying.

Meanwhile, just because you wish we could burn every copy of every movie ever made except Gravity so we can only see that, your favorite movie of all time, over and over again and nothing else, there is no reason I must agree with you about it. Get over it. We don't all love it without qualification as you do, Josh.
post #342 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Does the opening text say that there will be no music on the soundtrack during the space scenes? Have the filmmakers claimed that was ever their intention somewhere? Or have you arbitrarily decided that music on the soundtrack is OK in 2001 but not OK here, simply as a way to justify your dislike of the new movie?

I used the word "seemingly" for a reason. Why do you think they decided to begin the movie by assuring us there is "no sound in space"? A movie, by the way, that has home theater owners champing at the bit to upgrade to a sound system that catches and produces all of that "no sound" in a dozen or more additional speakers placed everywhere around the theater except outside the front door...
post #343 of 738
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post
biggrin.gif

Don't worry, oink, iamian, and Aliens, it has been duly noted and is now a matter of record that each of you thinks Gravity is the greatest movie ever made and created the greatest cinematic experience of your lives. We've all read your many posts asserting as much.

However, for those of us who only felt it was an ok movie with a couple of moments here and there, nothing about it could generate a life or death argument.

I, actually think it was a good movie that kept me on the edge of my seat for the whole duration, and I think that's what most people here are saying.

post #344 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by iamian View Post

I, actually think it was a good movie that kept me on the edge of my seat for the whole duration, and I think that's what most people here are saying.

Nonsense. Anyone who has read yours, oink's, Aliens' and Josh Z's posts know very well you each have an over-the-top, unqualified love for Gravity and hate every other movie someone might dare to compare it to.
post #345 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Why do you think they decided to begin the movie by assuring us there is "no sound in space"?

The opening text says so or something like "no sound can travel in space". But it never implies or even remotely suggests that "no music will travel in this movie". wink.gif ...How and why music was used was a creative choice on their part. But the film stays true to the text that warns us at the beginning.

...I should add that I did love the movie, I don't particularly think it's the best thing since sliced bread, but I thought it was indeed spectacular, with amazing cinematography and camera work. And I'll also admit that one of the things that drove me into the film in the first place was Sandra Bullock smile.gif I've always loved both the actress and well, her lol.
Edited by Morpheo - 10/17/13 at 11:00am
post #346 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

The opening text says so or something like "no sound can travel in space". But it never implies or even remotely suggests that "no music will travel in this movie". wink.gif ...How and why music was used was a creative choice on their part. But the film stays true to the text that warns us at the beginning.

Well, it also doesn't say, "no sound travels in space...except through space suit gloves and helmets." wink.gif

So I guess I still have to wonder why they felt compelled to mention it at all when so many other outer space movies don't even bother.
post #347 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Well, it also doesn't say, "no sound travels in space...except through space suit gloves and helmets." wink.gif

So I guess I still have to wonder why they felt compelled to mention it at all when so many other outer space movies don't even bother.

Because space suits gloves and helmets is not "space". As we already covered this a few pages ago, sound can travel where there's air. And there's air inside their suits, so the muffled vibrations heard as they touch something is very plausible. The audience hear what they hear, and it's not some random lightsaber sound, it's the vibrations of what they're physically in contact with.
post #348 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Why do you think they decided to begin the movie by assuring us there is "no sound in space"?

To explain to uneducated viewers why there will be no diegetic sound effects in the space scenes, which they may expect given the use of sound effects in countless other space-based sci-fi movies, including supposed docu-dramas like Apollo 13. This has nothing at all to do with whether there will be a non-diegetic musical score in those scenes.

Obviously.
Edited by Josh Z - 10/17/13 at 11:26am
post #349 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

As I pointed out the first time I publicly spanked you for fabricating a point I never made and an opinion I never held, nothing about that observation (which was evidenced by many a list of such elements on this forum at the time, by others, not me, and on AFI Greatest Movie lists up until then), supports the contention that "there have been virtually no worthwhile movies made since 1970."

Nice try. But your one and only quote for a very, very low standard of evidence to prove you are not a liar...has proven you are a liar, Josh.

You see, one can still like a movie and think is good even though it does not contain particularly memorable elements. In fact, a movie can CONTAIN one or more memorable elements and still not be particularly good. Too nuanced for you? Maybe this will help. This year's The Butler is a good movie. I liked it. But it does not contain any of those memorable elements. I liked Argo quite a bit last year and The Artist the year before. Said so on this forum. Yet the elements I listed in that quote you cited are nowhere to be found in any of them, imo.

Keep trying.

Does anyone else buy this bunk? No one who's followed your posting history, I'm sure. You have a consistent record of voicing your distaste for any and all movies made in the last 30 to 40 years. You can try to deny that all you want, but anyone who's ever interacted with you can recognize it.

There was never, for even one moment, a possibility of you liking this movie, and you know it.
Quote:
Meanwhile, just because you wish we could burn every copy of every movie ever made except Gravity so we can only see that, your favorite movie of all time, over and over again and nothing else, there is no reason I must agree with you about it. Get over it. We don't all love it without qualification as you do, Josh.

This just speaks to your own reading comprehension issues. I haven't even seen Gravity yet, and I have not once in any post in this (or any other) forum expressed an opinion as to whether I liked or disliked this movie I haven't seen.

Nice straw man attempt, though. Next time you want to "out" me on something, it will help to quote something I've actually said, the way that I've directly quoted you.
post #350 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Nonsense. Anyone who has read yours, oink's, Aliens' and Josh Z's posts know very well you each have an over-the-top, unqualified love for Gravity and hate every other movie someone might dare to compare it to.

Except I haven’t seen Gravity and haven’t given an opinion. biggrin.gif My posts have had to do with the Hubble and subsequent telescopes, and information given in various interviews about the movie. I hope to see it within the next week or so. I have high expectations but I also know that can often be a recipe for a letdown.
post #351 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

To explain to uneducated viewers why there will be no sound effects in the space scenes, which they may expect given the use of sound effects in countless other space-based sci-fi movies, including supposed docu-dramas like Apollo 13. This has nothing at all to do with whether there will be music in those scenes.

Obviously.

But if the music used to replace the sound of explosions and debris contact is as loud as it is in this movie and, in Atmos equipped theaters, coming at the audience from separate directions in order to give the impression of debris and explosions coming in from different directions, not merely as music to enhance the drama of the moment, then music has been used by the filmmakers in the same way more conventional foley techniques are used. This is one of the noisiest outer space movies ever made, famous now for how the sound comes at the audience from all directions if seen in the ultimate theatrical environment. I really don't think it is nit picking to point out the filmmakers' setting it up as though we were going to see a movie where explosions would be as silent as, for example, that one scene of a silent explosion in 2001, were likely attempting to mislead more than to educate.
post #352 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

You 2 guys can get a little heated with each other and it comes close to nastiness sometimes.

At the end of the day, we're all family around here.wink.gif
LOL.
OK, I call shenanigans on this.
Hitch, I never said "Gravity is the greatest movie," far from it.
Please re-read my original review and you will notice I didn't consider it " the greatest cinematic experience of" of my life.
REALLY????rolleyes.gif
That's some serious rhetoric.

It's lunch time, go crack a cold one.tongue.gif

Don't try to hide from it, oink. No re-writing of recorded history here. It is clear from everything you've posted about Gravity that you think it is the greatest movie ever made and all other movies are garbage by comparison, so dare not to compare even so much as a frame of it to another, lesser movie.
post #353 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Except I haven’t seen Gravity and haven’t given an opinion. biggrin.gif My posts have had to do with the Hubble and subsequent telescopes, and information given in various interviews about the movie. I hope to see it within the next week or so. I have high expectations but I also know that can often be a recipe for a letdown.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

OK, I call shenanigans on this.
Hitch, I never said "Gravity is the greatest movie," far from it.
Please re-read my original review and you will notice I didn't consider it " the greatest cinematic experience of" of my life.

Wow, hitchfan's really batting 0.000 today.
Quote:
You 2 guys can get a little heated with each other and it comes close to nastiness sometimes.

At the end of the day, we're all family around here.wink.gif

Hitchfan is the crazy uncle who harrasses everyone else at family reunions about how things were so much better in his day, before all these damned kids today with their My-Phones and hippity hop music started ruining the world.
post #354 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But if the music used to replace the sound of explosions and debris contact is as loud as it is in this movie and, in Atmos equipped theaters, coming at the audience from separate directions in order to give the impression of debris and explosions coming in from different directions, not merely as music to enhance the drama of the moment, then music has been used by the filmmakers in the same way more conventional foley techniques are used.

Most human beings over the age of, say, 5-years-old can tell the difference between sound effects and music in a movie.
post #355 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

Except I haven’t seen Gravity and haven’t given an opinion. biggrin.gif My posts have had to do with the Hubble and subsequent telescopes, and information given in various interviews about the movie. I hope to see it within the next week or so. I have high expectations but I also know that can often be a recipe for a letdown.

Sorry, not buying it, Aliens. You have written countless times how perfect a movie Gravity is and how you cannot even stomach watching any other movie for the rest of your life.

Please don't run from the irrefutable truth of this. We've all read what you wrote about it.
post #356 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

I really don't think it is nit picking to point out the filmmakers' setting it up as though we were going to see a movie where explosions would be as silent as, for example, that one scene of a silent explosion in 2001, were likely attempting to mislead more than to educate.

Well it is kind of nitpicking because this is not a film about 'splosions in 36.3 discreet surround. These moments occur but there are also more than a few quiet, and even silent, moments in the film, and they are the most chilling.


P.S: I don't want to speak for oink, but he even called it a chick flick;) not exactly synonym of the greatest film ever made.
post #357 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But if the music used to replace the sound of explosions and debris contact is as loud as it is in this movie and, in Atmos equipped theaters, coming at the audience from separate directions in order to give the impression of debris and explosions coming in from different directions, not merely as music to enhance the drama of the moment, then music has been used by the filmmakers in the same way more conventional foley techniques are used. This is one of the noisiest outer space movies ever made, famous now for how the sound comes at the audience from all directions if seen in the ultimate theatrical environment. I really don't think it is nit picking to point out the filmmakers' setting it up as though we were going to see a movie where explosions would be as silent as, for example, that one scene of a silent explosion in 2001, were likely attempting to mislead more than to educate.

Dude.. I am getting sick of you beating the proverbial dead horse that is "music used for dramatic effort". Pray summarize WTF is your point of distaste about this movie, and be done with it!

The salient selling point about this movie was not the realistic depiction of lack of sound heard in space. The director also did not say "the protagonist astronauts in space don't hear any music during intense space debris collisions". The ordeal of surviving a space mission gone wrong is the central theme of the movie. Not the advancement of CGI imagery or sound effects compared to physical props used in some phucken movie decades ago.

What Kubrick used in 2001 was great to tell that kind of languid story, but it would look like the arse of an ass if the events of GRAVITY were to be told using those techniques. I can't imagine anyone would argue there was a better way to tell THIS particular story at the CURRENT or previous state-of-the-art.
post #358 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Most human beings over the age of, say, 5-years-old can tell the difference between sound effects and music in a movie.

Most human beings over the age of 5 are willing to watch a movie other than Gravity every now and then. But your total obsession with it as the greatest movie you've ever seen and how we all must agree with you is really childish, Josh.
post #359 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Don't try to hide from it, oink. No re-writing of recorded history here. It is clear from everything you've posted about Gravity that you think it is the greatest movie ever made and all other movies are garbage by comparison, so dare not to compare even so much as a frame of it to another, lesser movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Sorry, not buying it, Aliens. You have written countless times how perfect a movie Gravity is and how you cannot even stomach watching any other movie for the rest of your life.

Please don't run from the irrefutable truth of this. We've all read what you wrote about it.
OKAY, NOW I get what you're doing.biggrin.gif
My apologies....I didn't realize you were just funning us.

In the future, tip us off when you go into this mode and we won't take your posts seriously (use the "wink" icon, for example).
post #360 of 738
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

Most human beings over the age of 5 are willing to watch a movie other than Gravity every now and then. But your total obsession with it as the greatest movie you've ever seen and how we all must agree with you is really childish, Josh.

He hasn't seen it yet.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion › Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take