Originally Posted by hitchfan
I concur and said as much in the earlier thread on this same movie. In fact, I said it about the much praised trailer when that first hit the 'net long before the release of the movie. I thought the trailer sequence looked like a cartoon then and think most of the movie looks like a cartoon now. 2001's effects masters made the image of Earth from space look much more like a real thing that exists in the real Universe. Gravity makes it look like a pretty image of Earth. A pretty CG image.
And there is no comparison to the sense of loneliness and loss associated with the potential plight of either one of Gravity's characters vs the sight of Poole spinning wildly and un-tethered into the deep dark emptiness of space in 2001. On a tactile, audience identification level, 2001's sequence wins hands down. Moreover, Poole was a character we weren't even suppose to have much regard for on a humanistic level in that movie!
The biggest problem I had with Gravity, besides the pamphlet thin plot and blah, non-engaging dialog when they did speak, was that they couldn't even bother to get the science right. For instance, if a piece of debris had breached something like the space shuttle, the damn thing would have explosively decompressed like popping a balloon, and what would have been left of the astronauts would have been blobs of floating goo. George Clooney and Sandra Bullock's space suits must have been made of alien-like titanium because they hit enough sharp pieces to have shredded any normal suit and would have been dead many times over.
The film's a demo for Atmos and CGI and that's it, sorry to say. And this is after finally seeing it in Atmos after all the buzz about the mix. It could have been the particular Harkins Theater I was at, but it didn't seem like they used the height speakers much during most of the film. The Dolby Atmos intro used them dramatically to simulate a rainstorm, so I know they were working. The mixers did, however, utilize most of the wall surround speakers for anchoring sounds off screen or for panning around the room and that was really, really cool. So much more engaging and cocoon like with this type of 3D sound field. I loved the use of directionalized dialog and wish more movies would do this. It wasn't distracting either (even when they steered the dialog into the sides and rears), just more hyper-realistic.
If any of these new formats come to the home theater environment, the common place comment of "oh don't worry, the surrounds don't have to timbre match or even be from the same brand or model line" has to end and end quickly. You ABSOLUTELY
want matching, wide-frequency-range surrounds with monopolar characteristics, especially for object audio.
And the biggest relief I had was it was shown in Atmos... in 2D only at this theater. They can keep Dolby Atmos and the upcoming DTS MDA format, and drop 3D for all I care.Edited by Dan Hitchman - 10/10/13 at 10:25pm