oh man
oh jeeez
after watching this I noticed the whole thing looked a bit off so I rewatched a clip from the movie,
it has not aged well I can tell you that much.
Yeah I don't know why everyone praised the cg when it came out. I thought it looked off a the time.
The movie came out like two years ago. In theaters it looked fucking gorgeous. It aged fine, it just probably doesn't look good in a 480P Youtube player. I'm sure with a good TV and on Blu-Ray it would look great still.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48791722]Yeah I don't know why everyone praised the cg when it came out. I thought it looked off a the time.[/QUOTE]
I don't understand why people praised the movie at all.
When I watched it in theaters I thought the cg looked fine (which I now realize is false), but tbh the movie was just kind of bleh overall.
I liked the movie because it was a popular movie that focused on a realistic view of spaceflight instead of sci-fi stuff. As far as cg goes, from a technology perspective it was a pretty cool movie that did some things that im not sure other movies have done, I think it looked great, but you can still tell its cg. The best possible CG is the kind where you cant tell its CG, Gravity was close but not quite there.
Half of everything in Gravity wasn't even CG iirc.
[QUOTE=mecaguy03;48792019]I liked the movie because it was a popular movie that focused on a realistic view of spaceflight instead of sci-fi stuff. As far as cg goes, from a technology perspective it was a pretty cool movie that did some things that im not sure other movies have done, I think it looked great, but you can still tell its cg. The best possible CG is the kind where you cant tell its CG, Gravity was close but not quite there.[/QUOTE]
Lmao that movie couldn't be further from realistic.
the cg does not look that bad, i don't get what you guys are on about. the cinematography is the problem because it was clearly filmed from angles and movements with 3d primarily in mind.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48792179]Lmao that movie couldn't be further from realistic.[/QUOTE]
the physics were highly questionable sure
but it certainly nailed the motif of helpless and stranded realism
probably one of the few movies in recent years that actually had me feeling somewhat anxious
If it weren't for the zany camera angles and smoothed out robot-like character movements it would have looked pretty convincing. I don't think it was an issue of technology so much as it was an issue of technique, a lot of the unrealism came from the animation and physics not being *quite* right.
Questionable physics or not, if I stuck a lump of coal up my ass I would have shat out a rough diamond by the end of that movie
[QUOTE=aznz888;48792256]the physics were highly questionable sure
but it certainly nailed the motif of helpless and stranded realism
probably one of the few movies in recent years that actually had me feeling somewhat anxious[/QUOTE]
Speaking of realism, can someone explain to me how such a depressed person (Sandra Bullock's character), who doesn't even want to live anymore, was even allowed on a space mission ? The movie was almost more about her depression, than it was about an astronaut trying to survive against all odds. She probably hanged herself after she returned home.
Looks like the person who edited the scene was lazy and used a shitty BR rip, I've seen enough of those to spot the messed up colors.
Or maybe its youtube doing something, either way it doesn't look right.
2001: a space odyssey will always be the perfect example of a space movie with realistic zero gravity and captivates the feeling of being lost in space perfectly. Gravity is a piece of shit in comparison.
Interstellar is fucking awesome though.
The details are not necessarily realistic but a lot of the motifs in the movie are, thats what I mean by realistic, of course the details are not going to be 100% realistic in just about any movie.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48792179]Lmao that movie couldn't be further from realistic.[/QUOTE]
If you are talking about the details, yea sure there are things that are unrealistic, but a lot of the overarching things are realistic. Things like they came up there on a shuttle to work on the hubble space telescope, and they visit space stations that look like real space stations, and they fly spacecraft that look like real spacecraft.
[QUOTE=dannass;48792627]2001: a space odyssey will always be the perfect example of a space movie with realistic zero gravity and captivates the feeling of being lost in space perfectly. Gravity is a piece of shit in comparison.
Interstellar is fucking awesome though.[/QUOTE]
I tried watching 2001 again after reading the books and holy dang I was bored shitless
[QUOTE=Maloof?;48793176]I tried watching 2001 again after reading the books and holy dang I was bored shitless[/QUOTE]
It's not for everyone. It's VERY artsy and 70% of the people i have watched it with have fallen to sleep while watching it. I have watched it 7 times and analyzed the shit out of it. But yeah, you need to be very high to get into it it seems. Not that i advocate that shit, But i was very not sober in that period of my life. But it still stands as a masterpiece in my eyes.
[QUOTE=dannass;48792627]2001: a space odyssey will always be the perfect example of a space movie with [B]realistic zero gravity[/B] and captivates the feeling of being lost in space perfectly. Gravity is a piece of shit in comparison.
Interstellar is fucking awesome though.[/QUOTE]
you mean like people stumbling around while walking ~in zero-g~?
or just commenting on the neat depiction of centripetal force gravity simulation or the free floating scenes?
gravity was a pretty eh movie, but it did a decently realistic pass on its physics, with a couple of glaring errors (intentional or otherwise)
[QUOTE=Em See;48793264]you mean like people stumbling around while walking ~in zero-g~?
or just commenting on the neat depiction of centripetal force gravity simulation or the free floating scenes?
gravity was a pretty eh movie, but it did a decently realistic pass on its physics, with a couple of glaring errors (intentional or otherwise)[/QUOTE]
You know kubrick made the movie sets to move in a sircular motion to simulate how artificial gravity inside a space craft would've looked like? He also used actual scientificaly accurate parts in the set to back up the logic behind it. And if you're thinking about the woman walking all wobbly with the service tray, she was wearing shoes that attached her to the floor using magnets(in the movie universe ofc) Of course you would walk wobbly ~in zero-g~ using those. Smartass.
[QUOTE=thrawn2787;48792179]Lmao that movie couldn't be further from realistic.[/QUOTE]
Please explain why then
[QUOTE=dannass;48793316]You know kubrick made the movie sets to move in a sircular motion to simulate how artificial gravity inside a space craft would've looked like? He also used actual scientificaly accurate parts in the set to back up the logic behind it. And if you're thinking about the woman walking all wobbly with the service tray, she was wearing shoes that attached her to the floor using magnets(in the movie universe ofc) Of course you would walk wobbly ~in zero-g~ using those. Smartass.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I do; the techniques he used for those shots were amazing and plenty are down right genius. I'm not questioning that, much like I'm not questioning the themes of 2001 and how well it drives them home ([I]especially compared with something like Gravity[/I]).
Rather, I'm talking about the results -- what we see on the screen, in terms of realism, when compared to Gravity.
In 2001, during all of the ~zero-g~ scenes, we're subverting it entirely with either centripetal force (which I feel was done very well, and working it into the scene was fantastic) or magnetic bootytoots (not very convincing imo). The free floating exceptions like Frank's EVA and HAL's deactivation are great, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it the most realistic of depictions.
after re-reading your original post though I noticed you're not calling its realistic depictions of zero-g perfect or anything, so dw
[QUOTE=cdr248;48791844]I don't understand why people praised the movie at all.
When I watched it in theaters I thought the cg looked fine (which I now realize is false), but tbh the movie was just kind of bleh overall.[/QUOTE]
I agree with "movie was bleh"
I disagree with "CGI was bad"
[QUOTE=Em See;48793555]Yeah, I do; the techniques he used for those shots were amazing and plenty are down right genius. I'm not questioning that, much like I'm not questioning the themes of 2001 and how well it drives them home ([I]especially compared with something like Gravity[/I]).
Rather, I'm talking about the results -- what we see on the screen, in terms of realism, when compared to Gravity.
In 2001, during all of the ~zero-g~ scenes, we're subverting it entirely with either centripetal force (which I feel was done very well, and working it into the scene was fantastic) or magnetic bootytoots (not very convincing imo). The free floating exceptions like Frank's EVA and HAL's deactivation are great, but I wouldn't go as far as to call it the most realistic of depictions.
after re-reading your original post though I noticed you're not calling its realistic depictions of zero-g perfect or anything, so dw[/QUOTE]
They were velcro shoes and given how slowly and carefully she had to walk to maintain contact with the ground I feel that 2001 did a stellar (hohohoho) job of depicting zero g environments
i actually thought the video's gonna involve moonbase alpha
[QUOTE=Maloof?;48793657]They were [B]velcro shoes[/B] and given how slowly and carefully she had to walk to maintain contact with the ground I feel that 2001 did a stellar (hohohoho) job of depicting zero g environments[/QUOTE]
Oh ok thank you! Now i feel like a dumbass.
[QUOTE=Anglor;48793514]Please explain why then[/QUOTE]
Half of the plot of the movie (transiting between the different stations) relies on gravity not existing. If it was realistic they'd basically have been stranded with the wreckage of the shuttle.
Took me a while to figure out you guys were complaining about the CG for Gravity and not Star Trek.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;48793176]I tried watching 2001 again after reading the books and holy dang I was bored shitless[/QUOTE]
I watched it once without having much clue what it was going to be, and i was actually very intrigued by how different it was from anything else I'd watched.
I liked it.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=SeamanStains;48794198]Half of the plot of the movie (transiting between the different stations) relies on gravity not existing. If it was realistic they'd basically have been stranded with the wreckage of the shuttle.[/QUOTE]
what does that have to do with the existence of gravity?
that's more of a position problem, isn't it?
[QUOTE=Lordgeorge16;48795523]Took me a while to figure out you guys were complaining about the CG for Gravity and not Star Trek.[/QUOTE]
For a late 80s TV show I'd say that TNG's cgi has held up reasonably well.
[editline]30th September 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=dannass;48792627]2001: a space odyssey will always be the perfect example of a space movie with realistic zero gravity and captivates the feeling of being lost in space perfectly. Gravity is a piece of shit in comparison.
Interstellar is fucking awesome though.[/QUOTE]
Gravity was boring as hell and imo Interstellar failed to deliver on multiple levels.
It tried to be hard sci fi/space exploration epic/philosophical/emotional film and imo, did not succeed in any of those categories. What resulted was a awkward mess in which nothing felt cohesive. From a visual/technical standpoint I have no problem with it. However, I think it's terribly written and is probably one of the worst films that Nolan has had his hand in and I don't understand the praise. From beginning to end it's just hokey as fuck and without any emotional or philosophical hook to excuse its short comings.
MOON was much less ambitious and wasn't as 'deep' (lol) as Interstellar but I felt it to be much more emotionally engaging since the actors performances/characters had a little bit more subtlety than Interstellar's whiny-baby cast.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
