Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Tue Sep 30, 2014 9:23 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Gravity (2013) 
Author Message
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Wrong again.. Yes, I have a problem with the first two. Simply to scare the audience? That's the most unsophisticated form of filmmaking. Goading a viewer like a 5-year old. This is the End is a retarded, unfunny movie, more concerned with special effects and high octane montages than with laughs. If you actually want to have an argument, pick a better movie to defend.


I just used two recent examples. It doesn't matter what movies I used. A horror movie is ultimately made for no other reason than to scare the audience. A comedy is made for no other reason than to make the audience laugh (for the love of god don't let ken come in here and try to explain the classic shakespearean meanings of comedy and tragedy, everyone knows what I'm saying). One can argue the techniques used to accomplish those goals (I can be scared due to shock value, "boo moments", the actual horror of realizing what I'm seeing and thinking about how that applies to my life, etc) but the end result is one that was designed to achieve that specific goal: me being scared.

MGamesCook wrote:
You're also wrong about Jaws. Spielberg goes out of his way to call your attention to the techniques being used. He wants you to THINK about the way the film is being made.


Well, that movie spawned the term "Blockbuster," and it seems you hate almost every blockbuster these days. And I don't get the notion that Spielberg wants me to "think" about the way the film is made. Hell, he wanted to film it a different way. He wanted to show the audience the shark...he just ran over budget and out of time. Had he not been forced to do what he did, that movie wouldn't be the same. They also created a theme park ride out of that movie at Universal Studios and Disney World. Jaws is the very definition of movies you complain about today.

MGamesCook wrote:
And it's not just because of peoples' reactions. It's because I know the movie is a piece of shit. How do I know? Because the people who love it are promoting it as such! Find me the critic who has called it a cerebral, complex work full of ideas about human existence. That critic does not exist!


Ok, just to clarify...if all of these critics were still raving about the movie, and giving universal praise, but instead of saying: "What a thrill ride...it's the biggest technical achievement in film that I've ever seen", they said "what a cerebral, complex work that will make you wonder about the human condition"...

you would be first in line?


Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:01 am
Profile
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2208
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Quote:
No movie, and I mean NO MOVIE, has the right to be that shallow. No good movie at least.


Didn't you like Resident Evil: Retribution? That movie is as shallow as you can get!


Thu Oct 03, 2013 5:50 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I don't know how I got the reputation as the guy who layers in a pile of spurious arguments to avoid the core issue, but I would certainly agree that if a comedy isn't making you laugh, it's probably not doing its job. Same for horror and playing on your fears.

I would also agree that artistic works--or, at the very least, movies--are in the business of making people feel things. Yeah, they can inspire thought, and that's a testament to the numerous levels on which good art works, but really, there needs to be some change in the way you feel. I'm not saying it isn't art if it doesn't do this, but this is a big part of the value of art we're talking about here: its capacity to communicate on a level that words cannot. It should get you in the feelings first. The thought comes later, and for some people, not at all.

Especially movies, the most sensory and experiential of storytelling media.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Thu Oct 03, 2013 6:19 am
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Boom...self pat on the back for calling this one, although I think it was pretty obvious.

Here is my favorite tomatoes excerpt:

Peter Travers

"Gravity into a thing of transcendent beauty and terror. It's more than a movie. It's some kind of miracle."


Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:20 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Quote:
Ok, just to clarify...if all of these critics were still raving about the movie, and giving universal praise, but instead of saying: "What a thrill ride...it's the biggest technical achievement in film that I've ever seen", they said "what a cerebral, complex work that will make you wonder about the human condition"...

you would be first in line?


Maybe. But then it would be a different movie, wouldn't it?

Quote:
I would also agree that artistic works--or, at the very least, movies--are in the business of making people feel things. Yeah, they can inspire thought, and that's a testament to the numerous levels on which good art works, but really, there needs to be some change in the way you feel. I'm not saying it isn't art if it doesn't do this, but this is a big part of the value of art we're talking about here: its capacity to communicate on a level that words cannot. It should get you in the feelings first. The thought comes later, and for some people, not at all.


I disagree on one single point. The bold part. I think the thought comes first, then the emotions. I don't think there can be any feelings without thoughts. Feelings come from thinking about the story, thinking about what the story implies, etc. Not to say that all viewers will think about it long after the movie, but during the movie, thoughts should be flying.


Quote:
Didn't you like Resident Evil: Retribution? That movie is as shallow as you can get!


Not quite. It's structurally unorthodox and formalistically fascinating. I only ever saw it in 2D, but the symmetrical sets and intricate structure of the facility has a psychological resonance. It's really a great, clever metaphor for Hell, with them rising to the surface at the end. There is fascinating visual stuff in that movie, including slick, creative use of slow motion. The best part is that Anderson isn't overly concerned with showing the audience a "good time." He's making the movie he wants to make, and expects an audience to be patient and curious with it. And that's a correct mentality for a filmmaker to operate under. Not, "I want to entertain the masses at all costs." No movie has the right to be that shallow, no matter which genre or how deep into the bargain bin you have to dig to get it. And it's really not right to talk about movies that way. It's hedonistic and vain.


Thu Oct 03, 2013 4:45 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Do any of you ever get the feeling that you know more about 18th century French poetry than cook knows about movies? I do, and I can't speak a lick of French.


Fri Oct 04, 2013 11:04 am
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
roastbeef_ajus wrote:
Do any of you ever get the feeling that you know more about 18th century French poetry than cook knows about movies? I do, and I can't speak a lick of French.


Wow, you've really resorted to some clever argument here.


Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:03 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 9:42 am
Posts: 283
Location: NJ
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Saw it, liked it, and still think Sandra & George were the wrong people for the jobs. Too much baggage.

Plus, honesty, the whole thing was a bit excruciatingly ridiculous. Even with suspension of disbelief, it was a bit overboard.

But I am a sucker for space, so I still liked it. In 3D even... Loved the end too....


Sun Oct 06, 2013 5:43 pm
Profile
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
mrguinness wrote:
Saw it, liked it, and still think Sandra & George were the wrong people for the jobs. Too much baggage.

Plus, honesty, the whole thing was a bit excruciatingly ridiculous. Even with suspension of disbelief, it was a bit overboard.

But I am a sucker for space, so I still liked it. In 3D even... Loved the end too....


Even though it's set in space, this is not a movie about space travel, which separates it from pretty much every other member of the genre, including even Apollo 13. Cuaron captures the awe of space and the emptiness of space, but I think his story misses out on the mystery of space. And a little more plot wouldn't hurt.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:44 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 426
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
Even though it's set in space, this is not a movie about space travel, which separates it from pretty much every other member of the genre, including even Apollo 13. Cuaron captures the awe of space and the emptiness of space, but I think his story misses out on the mystery of space. And a little more plot wouldn't hurt.


Have you seen it yet? I didn't love it at all, but I'm not sure your accusation here is quite fair. I'm certainly not going to argue that there's much plot at all to this, but there's an element of the mystery and majesty of space in Clooney's characterization.

[Reveal] Spoiler:
His death is easily the best scene in the film for me -- he's spent a ton of his life in space and is grateful, in the grand perspective, that his life gets to end there, after a final good act of getting Bullock to the station. I think that's a pretty good approach to giving space the awe it deserves -- something he specifically makes note of several times.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 6:57 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Neil deGrasse Tyson--the thoroughly excellent astrophysicist, science popularizer, and friend of Superman--recently saw Gravity. He then cataloged its numerous scientific errors on his Twitter account.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 10:18 pm
Profile
Second Unit Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 12:07 pm
Posts: 377
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Ken wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson--the thoroughly excellent astrophysicist, science popularizer, and friend of Superman--recently saw Gravity. He then cataloged its numerous scientific errors on his Twitter account.


Of all reasons for him to dislike Titanic, he was mad that the stars weren't in in their proper places in the night sky, so he got James Cameron to fix it for the BluRay release.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:34 pm
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Yes, he is quite the Hollywood gadfly. I love him to death.

He also harangued Jon Stewart for the globe in the Daily Show logo that spins in the wrong direction, so in the next episode that Dr. Tyson appeared on, they shot a one-off, zero dollar alternate opening of a hand spinning a globe in some random office with a handheld camera.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Sun Oct 06, 2013 11:47 pm
Profile
Assistant Second Unit Director

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 6:34 am
Posts: 162
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Ken wrote:
Neil deGrasse Tyson--the thoroughly excellent astrophysicist, science popularizer, and friend of Superman--recently saw Gravity. He then cataloged its numerous scientific errors on his Twitter account.


He also thoroughly enjoyed the film.


Thu Oct 10, 2013 9:48 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:35 am
Posts: 2101
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
I figured it was in an alternate universe where the inclinations of the orbits of the Space Station and Hubble Space Telescope were the same and didn't worry too much. [An aside: the Space Station as originally proposed would have had an orbit inclined at the same angle as the Telescope--namely the latitude of Cape Canaveral--but it was put in a higher inclination orbit to accommodate the Russians. It takes a lot more fuel to change the inclination of your orbit than to change its altitude.]

_________________
Evil does not wear a bonnet!--Mr. Tinkles


Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:49 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Interesting article about Gravity from Govindini Murty

I personally enjoyed reading:
Quote:
This is why Gravity feels so real, for we experience reality as a seamless, continuous field all around us (only truncated by the blink of an eye, as Walter Murch has pointed out). We naturally see in 3D, as Ridley Scott said when promoting Prometheus: "When you put on those [3D] glasses, it reminds your brain of how you really see." Gravity's use of long, continuous 3D shots and seamless digital melding of objective and subjective perspectives (such as when the camera travels from the outside of Dr. Carter's helmet to inside it) highlights this sense of immersion and realism

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Fri Oct 18, 2013 4:02 am
Profile WWW
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1743
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
unwindfilms wrote:
Interesting article about Gravity from Govindini Murty

I personally enjoyed reading:
Quote:
This is why Gravity feels so real, for we experience reality as a seamless, continuous field all around us (only truncated by the blink of an eye, as Walter Murch has pointed out). We naturally see in 3D, as Ridley Scott said when promoting Prometheus: "When you put on those [3D] glasses, it reminds your brain of how you really see." Gravity's use of long, continuous 3D shots and seamless digital melding of objective and subjective perspectives (such as when the camera travels from the outside of Dr. Carter's helmet to inside it) highlights this sense of immersion and realism


Yes, but since when is that the measurement of a film's quality? Was The Godfather considered great because it felt like you were really there at Connie's wedding?


Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:32 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 9:04 am
Posts: 2490
Location: Lancashire, England.
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:
unwindfilms wrote:
Interesting article about Gravity from Govindini Murty

I personally enjoyed reading:
Quote:
This is why Gravity feels so real, for we experience reality as a seamless, continuous field all around us (only truncated by the blink of an eye, as Walter Murch has pointed out). We naturally see in 3D, as Ridley Scott said when promoting Prometheus: "When you put on those [3D] glasses, it reminds your brain of how you really see." Gravity's use of long, continuous 3D shots and seamless digital melding of objective and subjective perspectives (such as when the camera travels from the outside of Dr. Carter's helmet to inside it) highlights this sense of immersion and realism


Yes, but since when is that the measurement of a film's quality? Was The Godfather considered great because it felt like you were really there at Connie's wedding?



Well yeah, kind of.

The Godfather does very well at putting you in "the family". It's how we get perpsective of Michael's corruption.

_________________
... because I'm a wild animal


Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:48 am
Profile
Producer
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 6:26 pm
Posts: 2157
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
Film is an experiential medium. Its main advantage over other forms of delivering narrative fiction is that it can engage your senses much more directly. Let's get that out of the way right now.

If Gravity has me convinced of anything, it's that it isn't enough to just make a movie in stereoscopic 3D (native or post-conversion; it doesn't really matter) and say "Boom. You're more immersed." There has to be something about the subject matter and the imagery that is foreign enough to our experience that the filmmakers can bring it closer to us by engaging our stereoscopic faculties.

Perhaps being at a wedding doesn't qualify, but leaping into angular freefall over the Earth is pretty damned foreign to my experience. For me, the sight of Earth hanging in stereoscopic parallax over my head was well worth the surcharge and the giant glasses*. That was a central image of the movie that I couldn't get away from: that sense of size, that sense of distance, both of which were unequivocally enhanced by the 3D effect.

For the most part, I find 3D in movies not just unnecessary, but intrusive. Gravity stands apart for me. It isn't Avatar, where the shallow focus of the cinematography and the blandness of the subject matter left me thoroughly disengaged. It isn't like a dozen other 3D movies that either look like a pop-up book or make so unremarkable a use of the 3D that you don't even notice it. It was put to good use. It raised my level of engagement in the movie. It helped me to feel things. I'm not sure how else I can explain why, unlike any other movie, the 3D in Gravity worked for me.

-

*I have a fairly large cranium, so if the glasses feel big on me, they're pretty gigantic.

_________________
The temptation is to like what you should like--not what you do like... another temptation is to come up with an interesting reason for liking it that may not actually be the reason you like it.


Fri Oct 18, 2013 5:59 am
Profile
Assistant Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2012 5:22 pm
Posts: 775
Location: Hobart Australia
Post Re: Gravity (2013)
MGamesCook wrote:

Yes, but since when is that the measurement of a film's quality? Was The Godfather considered great because it felt like you were really there at Connie's wedding?



In regarding to your comment, I found this quote from Govindini Murty in another article of her:

Quote:
Obviously the use of 3D alone does not take the place of good characters or good stories - but then who would argue that the use of Technicolor in the '30s, or wide-screen formats in the '50s, or computer-generated imagery in the '90s was intended to replace good storytelling? They weren't, and the point is that filmmakers used these expanded cinematic tools to spectacular effect in movies from Gone With the Wind to Laurence of Arabia to Toy Story.

And today's filmmakers will use the expanded tools offered by 3D technology to tell amazing new stories - stories uniquely suited to conveying the dizzying pace of technological change in our world.


Cheers

_________________
The pen is truly mightier than the sword
The Joker (Batman - 1989)


Fri Oct 18, 2013 6:19 am
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 82 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr