Page 7 of 10
Re: All is Lost (J.C. Chandor, 2013)
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 7:53 pm
by matrixschmatrix
Well, yes, in that it's an effect, and not a force- it would still act as described, as far as I know. I'm assuming that if the line was moving, Tyson just missed it, as I did. It does seem like an odd thing not to make clear, but there was a lot happening in that movie, but it also seemed like the movie worked really hard to get the physics right everywhere else, so I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt on what would otherwise be the sole glaring that's-not-how-null-gravity-works issue in it until I get to rewatch it (Bullock's hair aside, which seems negligible to me.)
Re: All is Lost (J.C. Chandor, 2013)
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:11 pm
by jindianajonz
swo17 wrote:I'm no science expert but
I'm just working from Tyson's comment "In zero-G a single tug brings them together." Also, the one thing that I remember my high school physics teacher telling me constantly was that centrifugal force is a myth. For whatever that's worth.
You are correct, a tug would bring them together, but if their overall momentum is still moving them away from the station (due to the centrifugal force or because their momentum wasn't completely arrested; i.e. Bullock was still moving, just very slowly) and Bullock isn't firmly attached to the station in someway, the force would pull her off the station completely, then they'd collide in the middle, and then they'd very slowly drift away from the station.
Overall, my impression from my single viewing of this movie is that the viewer isn't given enough information on what exactly is happening in the scene to conclusively say whether it is accurate or not. Though if we are supposed to believe that the momentum of the collective Bullock/Clooney system hasn't been fully arrested by the tethers and they are still slowly drifting, then Cloony did fall away much too quickly.
Re: All is Lost (J.C. Chandor, 2013)
Posted: Mon Dec 09, 2013 8:22 pm
by swo17
I agree that these moments under discussion "feel right" when watching the film. I don't know if Tyson failed to take anything into consideration when he made his comments. My point was more just that if his points (taken at face value) are valid, and the movie wanted to correct for them, it would have to throw out some pretty major plot points in the process.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:15 am
by solaris72
As far as the matter of orbits goes-
I simply accepted that this was set in a fictional world where they're still using the MMU (which was only used in 1984) but already have the Chinese space station (which won't launch until 2020), and insofar as it is a fictional world, I have no issue suspending disbelief regarding the orbital altitude of various objects in this fictional world.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Fri Jan 17, 2014 12:25 pm
by manicsounds
Quite a long selection of extras on the blu-ray. As usual, no commentary from Cuaron though.
- Collision Point: The Race to Clean Up Space (22:28)
- "Aningaaq" Short Film (06:53)
- Aningaaq Introduction (03:18)
Mission Control: (Total 106:33)
- It Began With A Story (16:21)
- Initial Challenges: Long Shots And Zero G (10:12)
- Previsualizing Gravity (11:38)
- The Hues of Space (10:41)
- Physical Weightlessness (07:48)
- Space Tech (13:02)
- Sandra and George: A Pair in Space (09:37)
- Final Animation (15:01)
- Complete Silence (12:13)
Shot Breakdowns: (Total 36:45)
- Behind the Visor (06:50)
- Fire in the International Space Station (05:42)
- Dr. Stone's Rebirth (07:54)
- The Sound of Action in Space (07:55)
- Splashdown (08:24)
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:15 pm
by warren oates
There's a slightly different listing of extras on the
Blu-ray.com announcement page, the most intriguing of which is "
Gravity: Silent Space Version." Anybody know anything about this? Is it just a version of the film without music, as some posters on that thread suggest or is it something altogether more radical?
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:18 pm
by swo17
Apparently the score has just been replaced with the one from Vertigo.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Jan 21, 2014 1:14 pm
by manicsounds
warren oates wrote:There's a slightly different listing of extras on the
Blu-ray.com announcement page, the most intriguing of which is "
Gravity: Silent Space Version." Anybody know anything about this? Is it just a version of the film without music, as some posters on that thread suggest or is it something altogether more radical?
Probably just an option to watch the movie with a DTS-HD Master Audio 0.0 track.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:48 pm
by domino harvey
warren oates wrote:There's a slightly different listing of extras on the
Blu-ray.com announcement page, the most intriguing of which is "
Gravity: Silent Space Version." Anybody know anything about this? Is it just a version of the film without music, as some posters on that thread suggest or is it something altogether more radical?
Whatever it was, it was dropped from the Blu-ray
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:51 pm
by Movie-Brat
domino harvey wrote:warren oates wrote:There's a slightly different listing of extras on the
Blu-ray.com announcement page, the most intriguing of which is "
Gravity: Silent Space Version." Anybody know anything about this? Is it just a version of the film without music, as some posters on that thread suggest or is it something altogether more radical?
Whatever it was, it was dropped from the Blu-ray
That's too bad. It would have been interesting to see it without the sound.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:16 pm
by mfunk9786
Speaking of interesting, I'll be curious to see the first few impressions/reviews of the film on this forum from those seeing it for the first time on Blu/DVD - I think of it as such a theatrical experience (to say the least - I've only seen it in 3D IMAX) that I wonder how it's going to translate to home viewing for people who skipped it in the theater altogether.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Tue Feb 25, 2014 11:30 pm
by domino harvey
I just saw it earlier today and thought it was the best film of the year (so far-- seven years on and I'm still updating my 2007 list!). So, translates all right on my end
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:12 am
by Movie-Brat
mfunk9786 wrote:Speaking of interesting, I'll be curious to see the first few impressions/reviews of the film on this forum from those seeing it for the first time on Blu/DVD - I think of it as such a theatrical experience (to say the least - I've only seen it in 3D IMAX) that I wonder how it's going to translate to home viewing for people who skipped it in the theater altogether.
About that, I only saw it in 2D. But at one point, it really felt like I was in one of the space stations so it just seemed to me I didn't need to see it in 3D or IMAX. I still got the same effect.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:37 pm
by domino harvey
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 6:55 pm
by Movie-Brat
Whoa, go Sandra.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:29 pm
by Black Hat
Domino did you watch it in 3D or 2D at home?
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:31 pm
by domino harvey
2D, I don't have a 3D set-up
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:46 pm
by swo17
Considering how much you liked it, you should really see it in a theater in 3D IMAX if you still can because Sandra Bullock needs more money or something.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:57 pm
by domino harvey
I only see films that need to be seen on as big a screen as possible in theatres. Like Philomena
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:08 pm
by mfunk9786
It really is a different level of immersion though, just the right match of the film's setting with screen size and sensible 3D effects. I am wondering if I'll ever bother to watch it again just because I'll want to remember the film through the lens of those planetarium-like experiences being locked in a room with its vast setting (or lack thereof, open space, etc)
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:13 pm
by Black Hat
Mfunk brings up good points that I for the most part agree with. Where I differ is that I'd definitely would want to watch it again in 2D and see what how it holds up in that format. I do hope Cuaron wins the director prize, he really earned it.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:18 pm
by domino harvey
I hope Gravity wins everything, as my favorite film in a given year never wins Best Picture. Though I wouldn't want to read anything on the internet in the days following when all the self-righteous outrage over 12 Years a Slave losing renders all forms of written electronic media unreadable.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:21 pm
by Black Hat
I'm rooting for that outcome as well but I've already resigned myself to 12 Years A Slave winning best picture. I think Cuaron has a shot for director though.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:06 am
by hearthesilence
I'd vote for Gravity, but honestly, I'm not that passionate about any of the nominees this year, or really any film that was eligible for Best Picture this year except Leviathan. (And when has a documentary ever been nominated for that?)
I liked enough of 12 Years to get behind a win - I don't think it's a great film, but it has enough brilliant and powerful moments to make it a solid second choice for me.
Re: Gravity (Alfonso Cuarón, 2013)
Posted: Fri Feb 28, 2014 12:20 am
by Black Hat
I'd agree there as well. 2013 was a strange year for movies in that I think it was a good one but it was more about consistency, a depth of field rather than being top heavy with anything that's going to go down in history. Maybe Gravity has a shot at that but I don't think it's legacy will be borne out by how good a film it was but rather what films it influences.