Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Gravity

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Gravity (Page 6)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Author

Topic: Gravity

Brad Miller
Administrator

Posts: 17775
From: Plano, TX (36.2 miles NW of Rockwall)
Registered: May 99

posted 10-28-2013 12:50 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
One guy last night told me he thought the ending was "stupid."

It was. There was simply no reason to re-tell us the name of the movie we were watching at the end. [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Chris Slycord
Film God

Posts: 2986
From: 청주시, 경북도, South Korea
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 10-28-2013 01:09 PM

That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 10-28-2013 01:43 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I think some of this might have been caused by the high praise and lavish attention that's been heaped on this movie, not just by critics but by articles in magazines and so on. The movie's great, but not the best movie in the history of the world -- but people are expecting that due to over-hyping.

That's why I tend not to read too many reviews before seeing a movie. If your expectations are too high, it can practically only disappoint.

Still, many movies I now view as "the greatest ever" didn't start as such. A really great movie still needs to "mature", at least with me. I would never call a movie the greatest ever after seeing it just once or even twice.

quote: Brad Miller
It was. There was simply no reason to re-tell us the name of the movie we were watching at the end.

That seems to be popular. Avatar for example, did this too. Actually, it didn't even tell us what movie we were watching until right at the end.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.

Man on the Moon rolled the end credits right before the actual movie started. [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 10-28-2013 03:39 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
The movie's great, but not the best movie in the history of the world -- but people are expecting that due to over-hyping.

This is why I wait for the home release on many movies. That way I can wait for people to shut the eff up about it and I can enjoy it in peace.

quote: Chris Slycord
That's less stupid than having the rating tag play after the credits are completely over, though of course they did that too.

The ratings tag at the end of movies was invented for two reasons: to drag across the floor in platter houses and to slap the bottom of the projector for 30 seconds as the reel spins down in changeover houses. With digital, you're supposed to add some compression artifacts to the end tag after you ingest it.

| IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000

posted 10-28-2013 04:47 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
One guy last night told me he thought the ending was "stupid."

I hope it doesn't turn out to be her father! [Razz]

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 10-28-2013 05:13 PM

Saw it yesterday at the AMC formerly known as Rave. First digital 3D (RealD) I've seen and everything they say about dimmness is true.
Trailers were played 2D before the show and they were dim, unevenly illuminated and fuzzy. In short, everything I've come to expect out there. The feature was, however, sharp where it was supposed to be. Is that a function of running it in 3D?

The movie itself worked until (spoiler alerts)

the appearance of George Clooney's ghost. Then it is just piling on the obstacles for her to overcome in the heroic dedicated way, complete with a tribute to Gus Grissom screwing the pooch.

Do have to congratulate the director for not being afraid of long takes, especially in what is essentially a chase movie. Even if the long takes were computer generated, they added to the tension and disorientation of space.

Great movie? No. 3/4's fun. Sure.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 10-29-2013 12:40 PM

Alfonso Cuarón seems to be a fan of long takes from a single camera. He put a couple of impressive ones into Children of Men. The best was an urban street battle sequence near the end of the movie. I don't know if there was some CG help involved, but the shot covered a bunch of distance through streets and buildings. The shot looked very seamless.

| IP: Logged

Manny Knowles
"What are these things and WHY are they BLUE???"

Posts: 4247
From: Bloomington, IN, USA
Registered: Feb 2002

posted 10-31-2013 03:51 PM

Bobby, there is at least one "edit" (maybe a morph) in that "long take" you're talking about -- watch the lens suddenly clean up when they go inside the building and up the stairs.

For me, the mind-blowing take was the one inside the car.

Having said that, I actually find myself taken OUT of the movie when directors pull these kinds of stunts -- that's all they are, IMHO. At some point, I start to wonder about the MAKING of the movie. Thus, the characters and story take a back seat and the suspension of disbelief is ruined.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-01-2013 08:14 AM

Yeah, the action sequence inside the car (with a bunch of stuff going on outside) was very impressive. But I knew that scene in Children of Men utilized multiple cuts and a good dose of CGI/effects compositing to realize.

I figured the street battle sequence had at least a "morph" or two (or several) to piece together that whole tracking shot. I found that shot to be a little more realistic since the camera was merely following alongside people on foot. A car interior is a very cramped space to get all the shot coverage you need in an action sequence.

Long shots like these are indeed directorial stunts. It's another matter whether the viewer likes them or not. I think those types of shots are pretty cool since they're so very rarely used. They require a hell of a lot of hard work in terms of planning and "choreography" when shooting them.

I suppose it's artistically bad in terms of unbroken shots calling attention to themselves. OTOH, it's a refreshing change from all the rapid fire edits, shaky cam and other style over substance directorial clip art we're beaten over the head with by so many other movie makers.

Children of Men (and Gravity) have had a somewhat unfair advantage in being able to use CGI and compositing applications to create what looks like long unbroken shots.

Old school "analog" movies that did unbroken shots all on film, getting all the action in camera with no post production tricks, are arguably even more impressive. Orsen Welles' noir classic, Touch of Evil set the gold standard for the long unbroken tracking shot with its opening scene.

| IP: Logged

Martin McCaffery
Film God

Posts: 2481
From: Montgomery, AL
Registered: Jun 99

posted 11-01-2013 10:37 AM

Touch of Evil certainly is the gold standard for film.

The most amazing long take from the early days of digital has to be Russian Ark
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318034/?ref_=nv_sr_1

A 99min take that goes through 200 years of history. Yes, it is a gimmick, but a quite spectacular one.

Honorable mention has to go to I Am Cuba for some of the most hilarious long takes.

Then, there are all those Warhol movies [Wink]

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 11-12-2013 10:31 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
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.

I saw Gravity in IMAX 3D last night, this would be the third time I have seen it, I saw it in UltraAVX with Atmos, regular AMC RealD and now IMAX 3D. I was invited to see it with promotional tickets.

I was kind of interested to see it in IMAX as I just recently saw an IMAX 15/70 museum feature two weeks prior and I was interested to see the comparison. The IMAX theatre I saw Gravity in is a former 15/70 purpose built IMAX venue that used to show the 40 minute IMAX features.

Overall, the best 3D was the IMAX theatre, it appeared to have the most depth. The image was also the brightest. The screen was about 60 feet wide. I like how the screen is closer to you in the IMAX venue.

For sound, all three theatres sounded good but I think this is because the sound mix for Gravity is a good one. Atmos provided the best sound experience.

After coming off a real 15/70 screening, it sounded to me like the Digital IMAX sound is a significant step down from the 15/70 venue. I saw Niagara Myths and Miracles and I was amazed a how good the older IMAX venue sounded, the sound was incredible. Compared to Atmos, the 15/70 sound system was still better.

For the lack of masking in scope presentations on the AVX and IMAX screens, the IMAX screen did not bother me as with glasses on I could not really tell that there was no masking. AVX I could easily tell that there was no masking. The less expensive ticket for the RealD presentation had real masking. Go figure?

In no way did the 2K resolution really bother me, this was no Dark Knight Rises and I knew that going in. Niagara Myths and Miracles looked good in 15/70 but not as good as Fighter Pilot and nowhere near as good as The Dark Knight or Dark Knight Rises. I was able to confirm that the prints of Niagara are new and new prints are stuck every six months or so. Niagara Myths and Miracles is shown on two different prints every other hour. The prints looked good in IMAX 70mm but not great, perhaps the printing process has an affect?

Where does this all leave me on my opinion? If IMAX could partner with Dolby Atmos I could accept the surcharge for the ticket prices. A combination of the IMAX image presentation and the Atmos sound would work for me. The sound of the digital IMAX compared to the 15/70 I recently watched was what I really noticed and the IMAX digital just does not sound as good.

All of the above leads me to believe that there is also a big mess in movie theatres today. We popped into one of the largest regular theatres at the same venue, and I could not believe one of the screens was showing a movie with out the bottom part of the masking. The AVX had no masking but had Atmos and the regular cheap theatres had masking. What a mess. A THX comeback would be perfect right now.

I also can't believe that someone at IMAX can't figure out that by keeping a select few theatres and showing the occasional 15/70 would keep lore, myths and incredible demand for those seeking the 15/70 presentations. After all, IMAX is living off what 15/70 created for them. I am still kicking my ass for not going to see Elysium in 15/70, that might of been the last Hollywood film I would ever have seen in the format and I didn't go.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-13-2013 09:57 AM

THX, or rather the original intent behind THX, needs to make a comeback big time.

Movie theater sound is so inconsistent from one auditorium to the next. If there is any consistency at all it seems to be in the form of bland, unimpressive audio in regular auditoriums and loud, boomy, slobbity-flobbity audio in premium priced auditoriums.

Too many movie theater chains are taking a McDonald's fast food approach to screening room design. They don't want to take the time and effort to design screening rooms properly so they have great acoustics. They don't want to go to the expense of installing the right kinds of sound system hardware, or the expense and effort of setting it up properly and maintaining it properly. There is a lot of variables that can make a movie theater sound really great or mediocre or really bad.

This crap so many are doing with projection and movie screens is making matters worse. I hate common width screens; they make "flat" movies bigger than 'scope movies.

I hate the new trend of trying to copy the IMAX screen look. It doesn't work. For one thing the screens don't have the scale of a true IMAX screen designed for 15-perf 70mm projection. They're just regular sized movie screens without all the necessary stuff to make them look finished -like masking, curtains, etc. That shit needs to stop. It looks like hell.
[Mad]

The theater chains doing IMAX-branded digital screens and other acronym labeled screens need to take an approach a little more like what Warren Theaters does with its IMAX branded screens:

Still, I don't like the sound systems in IMAX theaters. The sound systems in the original film-based houses may be powerful. But I've never liked the surround coverage. The digital-based IMAX theaters are worse in this regard.

IMAX needs to do something to reinvent its sound system and adapt to the changes that are coming with how movies are being mixed. Or they can cut to the chase and create a partnership with Dolby and start sticking Atmos into those auditoriums.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 11-13-2013 10:09 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
need to take an approach a little more like what Warren Theaters does with its IMAX branded screens

IMAX was actually opposed to the Warren IMAX theatre, after a long process, IMAX finally caved. So far the Warren IMAX is one of the most successful IMAX screens.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 11-13-2013 11:14 AM

The Warren IMAX screen in Moore, OK looks like a real movie theater rather than a big room with seats featuring a trampoline mounted on the wall.
[Razz]

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 11-13-2013 08:32 PM

Warren IMAX is supposed to be the largest IMAX screen in the United States. It looks pretty impressive from the You Tube videos. I think the largest IMAX refers to seat count and not screen size.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 9 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Printer-friendly view of this topic

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.