|
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Gravity
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 10-13-2013 02:31 PM
quote: Stu Jamieson
Some cinematic licence is expected, of course, but given that Cuarón strives so hard to look authentic, these lapses are mildly disappointing nonetheless. The film's final act, in particular, stretches credibility to near breaking point, thus foiling Cuarón's attempt to deliver a masterpiece.
I agree with this 100%. They could have kept it much more realistic and still made the same movie. The problem is that for somebody that has a lot of knowlege about space travel, these unnecessary leaps into complete unrealism hurt the movie.
Some simple things like instead of having the Hubble being serviced near the ISS, they could have been doing some kind of repair on the ISS or working on a fictional module to add to it. The eenie meanie miney moe method of flying the capsule was also preposterous.
I didn't need the movie to be 100% scientifically accurate like Space Station 3D, but it could have been kept much more realistic and still delivered the sense of terror of the situation.
For the ending, they could have also added a more Apollo 13 like solution instead of what they did.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mike Blakesley
Film God
Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-19-2013 09:52 AM
quote: Bobby Henderson
The only benefit of watching a movie in a IMAX digital theater: 3D is brighter. That's it.
Well now having seen the movie in my own theater (with Dolby 3D and a 4kw Ushio bulb in an NEC 2000 projector) I can say that ours is just as bright as the Imax we saw in Boise. Maybe they are not using a dual-projector setup there?
quote: Marcel Birgelen
It seems to be very hard to create stories that depict technology in a realistic manner. I don't really know a single sci-fi movie that I would consider to be 100% "technically accurate", but that's probably were the fiction part comes in.
The reason sci-fi movies aren't more technically accurate is because they're supposed to be entertainment, not documentaries. There was an article about this when "Apollo 13" was coming out. Tom Hanks said that if they tried to make it 100% accurate, the audience would be asleep before the mishap ever happened. Thus most of the technical jargon is axed, scenes are consolidated from several similar scenes, etc.
quote: Jim Cassedy
Technically, this movie should have been a silent picture since, as everyone knows, there's no sound in outer space.
When watching "Gravity" for the second time, I paid a lot more attention to this thought. It's really kind of amazing how they do the whole movie without really using much in the way of sound effects. Instead, you hear what the astronauts would hear (accompanied by dramatic music of course). This movie is a lot more pleasant to listen to than a lot of action movies because you don't have the constant crashing and bashing sounds.
quote: Brad Miller
I did not care for the music score in this. I understand the intention, but I found it more "musical noise" than music.
I think that was the point. Since they didn't have regular sound effects, the music score was really doing double duty. It's certainly not going to sell as a soundtrack album but I thought it was effective in the movie.
I liked the movie a whole lot better on the second go-round. I think it could have been partly because we were in a regular sized theater and I could take in the whole picture more easily, but I think mostly it was because I paid more attention to the emotional side of the story this time. The first time I wasn't really tuned in to that part of it and more concentrating on the action and adventure. I wonder if people who don't like this movie or find it too predictable might be doing the same thing I did...not getting the whole picture, so to speak.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-20-2013 05:58 PM
quote: Mike Blakesley
Well now having seen the movie in my own theater (with Dolby 3D and a 4kw Ushio bulb in an NEC 2000 projector) I can say that ours is just as bright as the Imax we saw in Boise. Maybe they are not using a dual-projector setup there?
I'm pretty sure you've seen a dual-projector setup, otherwise it would be a rather unique IMAX setup ![[Wink]](wink.gif) .
Usually, brightness is one of the bigger advantages of the digital "reïncarnation" of IMAX, compared to venues of similar size. They're actually doing almost everything possible to make it bright: silver screens with lots of gain, dual projectors (both are running in 3D and also in 2D mode) and old-school linear polarization, rather than more sophisticated solutions like circular polarization (RealD and others), shutter glasses (there have been IMAXes with shutter glasses) and color spectrum filters like Dolby3D.
Brightness is often hard to judge in an objective way. The lack of proper masking will have a huge impact on the perceived brightness and your cinema probably has proper movable masking, also your screen is probably a whole lot smaller than those maxed-out Digital IMAX screens.
quote: Mike Blakesley
The reason sci-fi movies aren't more technically accurate is because they're supposed to be entertainment, not documentaries. There was an article about this when "Apollo 13" was coming out. Tom Hanks said that if they tried to make it 100% accurate, the audience would be asleep before the mishap ever happened. Thus most of the technical jargon is axed, scenes are consolidated from several similar scenes, etc.
Also, the movie didn't take almost 6 days to unfold . I totally agree that movies aren't documentaries and for good reasons. Still, I would really like movies that take themselves seriously, to portray stuff in a more accurate way. It's not really a point I'm making in regards to this movie, because it did so many things right, to not be constantly nitpicking on the remaining flaws, but more in a general sense.
quote: Mike Blakesley
When watching "Gravity" for the second time, I paid a lot more attention to this thought. It's really kind of amazing how they do the whole movie without really using much in the way of sound effects. Instead, you hear what the astronauts would hear (accompanied by dramatic music of course). This movie is a lot more pleasant to listen to than a lot of action movies because you don't have the constant crashing and bashing sounds.
When I first saw the trailer, I was worried about this aspect, because that one does have all the explosions and crashing sounds in outer space. But the sound mix reminded me a lot of 2001 A Space Odyssey, one of the very few other movies that is very true to the nature of sound in space.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 10-21-2013 09:10 PM
Liked it, didn't love it. Some of the physics were questionable. The 3D was surprisingly good (and this is from someone who doesn't really like 3D).
This was my first experience with Lie-Max (at the AMC/Loews Boston Common theatre). I was underwhelmed. Theirs was a conversion from the biggest house in a multiplex. Basically, they took out the first few rows of seats and installed a taller screen without masking. It looks nothing like a "real" Imax screen, and has an aspect ratio of roughly 2:1 (which is hard to guess, as the screen is curved). The movie filled the screen, so there was either extra height information in the "Imax" version or the edges were cropped. Having the screen fill more of one's field of view sounds like a good thing, but really isn't, especially with 2K ![[dlp]](graemlins/dlp.gif) in which the pixels are visible and distracting from the front half of the auditorium. The 3D effect was good and the picture was bright (this system used two projectors), but both of these can be said of many venues. The sound system was nothing more than what one would find in a good 35mm house (actually, they had regular JBL surround speakers on the walls...nothing Imax specific...not sure what was behind the screen). It was good, but not amazing. The real 15/70 Imax sound systems that I have heard have all completely blown away what would be found in a good 35mm house. This system was not in that category.
So, basically, Lie-Max is OK, but not amazing, and is certainly not worth $18.50. For the most part, it really just does what any good cinema should be doing. It looks and sounds nothing like 15/70 Imax and should never have been given the same name. I feel badly for the people who are running real Imaxes who need to compete with these venues.
In this AMC house, they even played the same crappy commercials (on a small LCD video projector) that they play in their regular houses before the show.
The sound mix appeared to be standard 7.1 or 5.1 and had no information in the "voice of God" channel that Imax uses (do the Lie-max houses even have this?). Maybe someone else can comment on whether or not this is the same mix as in the 35mm and non-Imax DCP versions of the movie.
Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 10-22-2013 04:17 AM
quote: Scott Norwood
The movie filled the screen, so there was either extra height information in the "Imax" version or the edges were cropped.
Either this must be the first scope D-IMAX installation I've heard of (doubtful), or this was a serious screw-up.
quote: Scott Norwood
The sound mix appeared to be standard 7.1 or 5.1 and had no information in the "voice of God" channel that Imax uses (do the Lie-max houses even have this?). Maybe someone else can comment on whether or not this is the same mix as in the 35mm and non-Imax DCP versions of the movie.
Most Digital IMAX installations don't have the height channel and I doubt there is a single IMAX DCP that actually uses it.
quote: Scott Norwood
Also, what is the deal with Imax 3D glasses? Why are they still using linear polarizers? And why are they not doing disposable glasses?
That's part of the experience: If you avoid tilting your head ever so slightly, you're more part of it .
From what I've been told, those linear polarizers are more efficient and result in a brighter picture.
quote: Joe Redifer
From what I've heard conversion auditoriums just leave up the old surrounds. Not sure why. Maybe to give the impression that something wasn't taken away?
Simple: Because it costs extra money to remove them and obscure the spot where they've been mounted?
But yeah, those "old" JBL speakers are not being used for an IMAX presentation. Maybe they're still being used for something else, like 35 mm presentations, but that's highly doubtful.
quote: Joe Redifer
Is one not supposed to be throwing away IMAX 3D glasses? I always have. Is this bad? I make it a policy to never return 3D glasses to a theater's bin. It seems morally wrong to give them back when I paid extra for the ticket.
No, you're not . Those glasses are rentals and being paid for by the exhibitor. In most Digital IMAXes I know they're actually collecting them afterwards.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic