Jump to content

Gravity (Movie)

Zacho

By Zacho
in The Lounge

 Share

Recommended Posts

Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)

Now Idk if there is anything known about Gravity's story yet, but I've been wondering. How can they justify/explain the ISS deorbiting? So I've been thinking. In the trailers it appears as if only small modules are falling back in. Which brings me to a question.

.. when we deorbit the ISS.. will it come down in one piece? Or will we send people up ( by reviving the shuttle as it appears in the movie ) to deconstruct the ISS and deorbit it a module at a time? The later makes more sense to me. Because if the entire ISS deorbits as is over the ocean.. that's a big, messy strewn field. And it only takes a tiny chunk of metal to ruin a fishermans day lol. They'd have to cordon off the entire ocean... ( I'm guessing it'd be the Pacific )

So sending down smaller chunks seems more logical which brings me back to the movie. In Gravity.. what if "STS 157" is up there doing just that? Taking appart the ISS and deorbiting modules? Then something goes wrong... What I don't know. This debris field that hits them has to be suddenly created. ( in the deorbit process maybe something goes wrong and there's a collision ) Because we track all this debris and those astronauts wouldn't have been caught in it to begin with.

So the reentry scenes could be modules that already made the burn. ( maybe they gotta fix retropacks to the modules )

It's a long shot, but I'd like to think that if this director had the ambition to make a movie like this he would've done his homework. Wether itd be my theory there or something else I just hope that this movie isn't for the brain dead explosion junky. I want a smart movie.

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted (edited)

Just to clarify, it seems the Shuttle program hasn't been revived in the movie. The script has been written at least 4 years ago, and the director wanted to work with concepts of spaceflight familiar to people. Basically, the whole project shutdown was ignored when it happened. In Gravity's universe, Space Shuttle is still existing, and nothing I've seen looks as if the story is positioned in future or past time. It's about today or near future, perhaps few years in advance.

ISS as it appears in the trailers is in trouble. Soyuz is docked to it and its parachute is out. That's certainly a huge problem. ISS solar panels look awful. Whether all this is because of the debris, I don't know, but it looks as if ISS has been abandoned and Tiangong is the main used station.

I don't think anyone will deconstruct ISS. Strapping each module to a rocket to deorbit it would be too expensive. The reentry is powerful enough to rip it apart.

If we ignore the solar panels and the girders holding them, Mir was actually not much smaller than ISS.

http://historicspacecraft.com/Diagrams/S/ISS_Size_Comparison_1200x700_RK2011.jpg

Mir deorbited without problems, although the press made a global panic about it. :huh:

I think Dr. Stone uses Soyuz, which might be stuck to ISS, to deorbit the whole structure. After all, we see her riding the thing at one point in the trailers.

I've watched the interview with two astronauts about this movie and they said they were really surprised about the accuracy of everything. There are more and more serious voices saying this movie will serve as a turning point for the downward path the SF movie industry has taken. Something to remember, indeed.

I'll try to write a short post as soon as the movie is over. I'm watching it tommorow. :)

Edited by lajoswinkler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Motokid600

Motokid600

Posted
Posted (edited)

I like yours better lol. Should be interesting. Out of curiosity how did they predict the strewn field of mir? More so.. how do they go about making sure there is noone near it? Because I'd imagine the ISS debris would rain over a significant area. ( what ever is left of it. )

Edited by Motokid600
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted

Well the Pacific ocean is a large area and lots of it contains no inhabited islands. The only people there are on various boats which get warning to go away. If they chose to ignore it... it's their fault. Mir reentry was in the news for a long time before it actually happened. I remember it quite vividly. I think there were even daredevils heading towards the area, and Taco Bell offered a free taco for every USA resident in case their floating targets gets hit.

It was a huge thing and it was a bit over a decade ago. Perhaps it seems like ancient history because year 2001 was at the start of the broadband boom. The internet community was very active at the time. There were funny memes and all that stuff but no one called it "memes" and things were a lot less forced. Youtube didn't exist and the only social media populated by dipsh*ts were blogs. Nowdays with Facebook and Twitter (for the latter I have absolutely no interest) it's all so hyperhyperhyper share like tag hashtag geez...

OK that was a small rant, let me continue with the topic. :P

ISS debris would not be significantly larger and more numerous than Mir's. ISS looks huge but in fact most of its surface are solar panels which will burn up completely. Only the toughest parts of the modules will survive. Not everything will fall down at significant speeds. Some stuff will rain down in flakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted

DMR is when you convert regular movie to IMAX. Gravity was originally filmed for IMAX.

I watched it in IMAX 3D as it was intended to be watched.

Might be the most natural looking 3Ds I've ever seen. No forced 3D stuff.

The effects are stunning. Sandra's acting is superb. George's not really.

I'm still driving home so I can't type a lot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
czokletmuss

czokletmuss

Posted
Posted
DMR is when you convert regular movie to IMAX. Gravity was originally filmed for IMAX.

I watched it in IMAX 3D as it was intended to be watched.

You learn something every day. I guess I'll watch it in 3D too than :)

Might be the most natural looking 3Ds I've ever seen. No forced 3D stuff.

The effects are stunning. Sandra's acting is superb. George's not really.

I'm still driving home so I can't type a lot.

So it lives up to the hype? Gosh damn it to heck, I can't wait to see this movie!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted (edited)

There are numerous "errors" in the movie, but some of them, like the large jetpack delta v, can be explained as "better jetpack" or they're too unimportant to complain about. As a guy that is really strict with these things, stuff like exaggerated jetpack delta v didn't bother me at all. You really have to struggle to see all that. It's not obvious at all.

I'm home now, after driving across the country so I can now write a short review for people here. I still won't spoil anything and I recmmend others they don't do it at least a week in advance. After that, use "spoilers alert" in bold red to warn others. This is truly a movie that can be heavily spoiled, unlike stupid blockbusters that have obvious scenario. This doesn't have, and it really surprised me with the plot.

But let's talk about the special effects. The "Hollywood science" remark does not hold water because this is one of the most scientifically accurate movies ever made in the entire history of movies.

The motion of the characters and the objects is almost flawless and only in rare occasions you can see it's artificial if you pay close attention and understand some things about CGI. People responsible for this movie respected the Newton's laws and a significant portion of the movie is based on the characters' struggle to move around. It's not boring at all and it really lets you care for them because it's often brutal. People are getting hurt and by all means, PG-13 is a justified mark. Don't bring kids to the cinema. There are gore elements.

3D is, as I've said, of extreme quality. Nothing is forced as in that hyped Avatar. There is no ghosting, and sometimes you think the debris is going to hit you in the face. That, plus few instances of tools floating around, are the most intense 3D moments and that's the way it should be. 3D is a tool, not a purpose.

I could compare the suspense with the graph of global warming. It goes up and down, up and down, but overall, it's going up. The characters are constantly in a struggle for survival with certain pauses, but it only gets worse. Most people would cry in despair if they can't get home.

The acting is really amazing and I think Bullock should get an Oscar for this. She managed to take a character from the script and turn it into a real, simple woman who is just loosing it as she gradually goes to a kind of psychosis because of the huge stress involved.

Clooney was too Hollywood, but maybe it's because his persona is stuck with such image IRL. I'm not sure if this was his intention, but I'd say he really could've done this with less "cool". The situation the characters are in is grave danger. It's death coming through the door, and he's all super rational and shows no fear even after his "jetpack" is empty. That is not what would happen with real people, but ok, it's not a big deal. Sometimes his behaviour is like a slight comic relief which adds a new hill in the whole rollercoaster.

One thing that was really impossible are all the stars in the sky. Even when the Sun is in view (and it's a bit yellow, which is not the actual case because it's white), you can see lots of stars. I think Cuarón wanted to leave the stars in order to give the audience a sense of motion. We can't experience tumbling, so if we see only black sky, it's not a big deal. With stars, it can give you a sense of disorientation, just like dr. Stone experiences.

The sounds are almost entirely physically accurate. No bull**** from the trailers. Honestly, you don't hear anything but them talking, and occasional dull thump, which is sound transmitted through the suit when they impact the station. This alone lifts Gravity towards the peak where Odyssey 2001 is at.

Oh, and the music. You hear the soundtrack which purpose is to freak you out. So there is lots of silence, but also lots of loud and powerful sound to kick your ears in the nuts.

The enormous hate towards Bullock in youtube comments is completely unjustified. The whole movie is not "her screaming and gasping". Her character is not well developed as in usual Hollywood movies only because there are not much opportunities for that to happen, but when they occur, we see that she is a very sad person.

Indeed, the movie is a metaphor for her transformation. It's simply a masterpiece.

I must say that the script is highly exaggerated in the terms of the actual danger in orbit. Kessler syndrome is blow out of every proportion because it happens in a very short time, and its efficiency is absolutely fantastic. In reality, it would take a considerable amount of time before one orbit is ruined.

If by any means you have access to IMAX 3D and enough money, go. This movie will enter history and try to make yourself a part of it. I've spent quite a bit of money to to this, and I don't regret it at all. In fact, I'm going to see it again in a regular 3D cinema because it's just so awesome.

After me and my buddy went home, I got to play KSP on his awesome computer. All details on high, and there was no visible loss of framerate. I've never seen Kerbin looking so lovely before. So I had a great time yesterday. :)

I will write a review using this post, probably at imdb.com.

Edited by lajoswinkler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nikolai

Nikolai

Posted
Posted

Yes, they ignored orbital mechanics difficulties, but that's because without doing that, you have no movie. If the disaster that kicks the movie off actually happened, there'd be no survival story. Everyone would be done. The end. No movie.

If you want to write a survival story like this, in other words, there are certain things you need to make more convenient than real life. This isn't something that's true of, say, TIE fighters banking, or firing the Icarus II at the Sun to get it to hit the Sun. Those latter ones are simply details that they got wrong and which don't serve the story in any way.

I think I'm also more forgiving of errors in Gravity because it's obvious that they were so danged careful to get the physics right where they could in many places(*). All I ask for is an acknowledgement in that regard. It's like the fact that I find a transporter with "Heisenberg compensators" more satisfying than a transporter used without any acknowledgement of the physics that would make a transporter impossible. It's like the writers are saying, "Look, we know this is a problem; but we need it for the story we want to tell, so we'll just agree that it's hard and move on, okay?".

---

(*) And yeah, even so, a nitpicker could find a few things wrong that they didn't have to get wrong. I don't think they get in the way while you're watching the movie, though YMM obviously V.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Shifty

Mr Shifty

Posted
Posted
Yes, they ignored orbital mechanics difficulties, but that's because without doing that, you have no movie. If the disaster that kicks the movie off actually happened, there'd be no survival story. Everyone would be done. The end. No movie.

Saw it last night. Movie was great, beautiful, very worth seeing. Orbital mechanics were awful though: wrong in almost every particular. The microgravity and reaction physics were realistic and spectacular. Visuals amazing -- maybe the most beautiful film I've seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Shifty

Mr Shifty

Posted
Posted
I'm home now, after driving across the country so I can now write a short review for people here...

<snip>

Great review. Pretty much captures what I thought about the film, though I was slightly less enamored of Bullock's character's arc. I thought it would have been better to just have the movie be about astronauts trying to survive this disaster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted (edited)

It's true about the orbital stuff, it was really dumbed down. I expected something like "let's burn retrograde twice to lower our orbit and catch the target", but then again, we don't know how far was dr. Stone thrown. It seems she was thrown pretty much towards the space, away from Earth, which would be, in KSP language, one of those blue maneuver arrows. Normal and antinormal. :)

I wholy agree, if someone got thrown into different orbit like that, he'd die. What the characters in the movie do is simply over the top, such as the scene (also in trailer, so I'm not spoiling) when she ensures her stability with a fire extinguisher. That would be really tough and would probably end up with more spinning. :)

Thanks, Mr Shifty. The movie might be better in the realistic sense with your proposition, but remember that this is a movie. It's about art, too. There simply has to be a buildup and catharsis in some way (good or bad), and indeed, there is a huge catharsis, purification of the main character (still not spoiling, lol). Cuarón respected the art part as well as almost every bit of reality. He is truly an artist and I just hope he'll get a bunch of Oscars for this. Fingers crossed.

Oh I forgot to add that ISS and Tiangong and HST are all in close vicinity, which is not the actual case, but without that little white lie, the whole script would fail apart.

Edited by lajoswinkler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lajoswinkler

lajoswinkler

Posted
Posted (edited)

This is a post containing weak spoilers and is intended for users that have already seen the movie.

spoilers ahead, in #FAFAFA coloured font:

I've just found out that Cuarón has made a kind of "satellite" film called "Aningaaq". Aningaaq is that guy Stone is "communicating" with on the radio, an Inuit who doesn't understand her, while she doesn't understand him. For me, one of the most emotional parts of the movie, especially when you hear his baby.

I have no idea where to see this short movie. I guess it will be screened on movie festivals throughout the world. Just search for the name on Google, you'll find plenty of info about it, some even spoiling it.

Edited by lajoswinkler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...