did anyone not enjoy watching the movie Gravity?
- Thread starter SamGomez
- Start date
I dont think i will go see it... I read the premise.. and think it a bunch of B S
the story is so flawed.. along with the special effect
Here is a little hint... the space station.. and every thing other object in space.. has a orbital speed base on there orbits hieght
in this story ..some satalight dabret is orbiting the earth . every 90 min.. and saposidly. after damaging the space suttle. .. will come a round again in 90 min to strick again. this time the space station.
well the space station in not standing still.. its is orbiting also..
i .and is in a higher or bit. .. it should be up anothef 50 to 100 km then . so it would be out of the path of tha dabrie.
If they were both at the same altitude .. then they would betraveling at ghe same speed..and never catch up
As for the charators.. astronuats are a sertan bread.. they are picked . because they accept the risk.. they think quickly.. and they dont panick..
Yes space objects.. and dabrie do colid.. but unlikely to do it again on the next orbit.
because of orbital wabel.. which put each orbit . on a slitly diffrent path .
The whole story to crap..
...
the story is so flawed.. along with the special effect
Here is a little hint... the space station.. and every thing other object in space.. has a orbital speed base on there orbits hieght
in this story ..some satalight dabret is orbiting the earth . every 90 min.. and saposidly. after damaging the space suttle. .. will come a round again in 90 min to strick again. this time the space station.
well the space station in not standing still.. its is orbiting also..
i .and is in a higher or bit. .. it should be up anothef 50 to 100 km then . so it would be out of the path of tha dabrie.
If they were both at the same altitude .. then they would betraveling at ghe same speed..and never catch up
As for the charators.. astronuats are a sertan bread.. they are picked . because they accept the risk.. they think quickly.. and they dont panick..
Yes space objects.. and dabrie do colid.. but unlikely to do it again on the next orbit.
because of orbital wabel.. which put each orbit . on a slitly diffrent path .
The whole story to crap..
...
Science aside, you pretty much have to suspend your beliefs when you see any movie. If I were to go to watch a movie for its scientific accuracy, I'd be watching a BBC documentary or a lecture by a noted scientist.
It had virtually no plot and no story, and no character development. But what it did have was to put you on the edge of your seat for the entire 90 minutes and give you an experience of how forbidding space is to human beings. Ultimately, it was a thoughtful and thought-provoking social commentary on our times as we look ahead to the future, and I think it did that very well.
It had virtually no plot and no story, and no character development. But what it did have was to put you on the edge of your seat for the entire 90 minutes and give you an experience of how forbidding space is to human beings. Ultimately, it was a thoughtful and thought-provoking social commentary on our times as we look ahead to the future, and I think it did that very well.
Basketball-playing hobbits probably doomed to failure ...You mean there's no such thing as Hobbits and basketball playing dogs?
I'm going to hope that English is not your first language and not fix all your spelling mistakes. I do however have to fix your physics mistakes. You are assuming that they are orbiting in the same plane (ie a plane intersecting the earth at the equator). If they are different planes (perhaps one is in a polar orbit) they could have the same orbital radius and speed but could conceivably cross paths at a fixed period.
Last edited:
I'm not buying your physics your English is good though too many variables for Clooney to be able to calculate if their orbital planes are different once you add in the Soviet Station. I could also have done without the ham fisted frog symbolism at the end
That is a generous assumption, for those spelling errors are so conspicuous they could only have been made by someone who was drunk or out of their mind.
The movie was 1.5-2 hours of Sandra bullock floating around trying to get back down to earth. I knew it might be cheesy but i had a gift card with 6.50 left on it. So the movie only cost me about 3.00. I do have to say Sandra bullock has a decent body for a woman her age
Looks like a mess of a movie to me... I've heard tell its "super stressful" to watch, but I don't know how interesting it can really be... I mean honestly, there's a lady floating around in space... How much can seiously happen?
Saw it and liked it.
Visually, in Imax and 3D it is simply stunning.
The back-story is superficial and pointless. The movie is essentially a story of survival and I don't need to know her back story to know why she is struggling for air. There are a LOT of flaws in science and logic, but they were things I could overlook at the time that I couldn't do with a movie like The Heat, for example. The "woof woof" scene, however was laughably stupid and the ending also sucked, but then I prefer realism.
Performances were good. The real stars are the technology they used, the lighting and scenery. Bullock will probably get a nomination because that what Hollywood does. My vote for best actor would be the Indian astronaut or Ed Harris.
Visually, in Imax and 3D it is simply stunning.
The back-story is superficial and pointless. The movie is essentially a story of survival and I don't need to know her back story to know why she is struggling for air. There are a LOT of flaws in science and logic, but they were things I could overlook at the time that I couldn't do with a movie like The Heat, for example. The "woof woof" scene, however was laughably stupid and the ending also sucked, but then I prefer realism.
Performances were good. The real stars are the technology they used, the lighting and scenery. Bullock will probably get a nomination because that what Hollywood does. My vote for best actor would be the Indian astronaut or Ed Harris.
I tend to agree with this. I enjoyed it mostly for the visual spectacle. It's a stunning looking film. I got to see it in AVX and wish that I had seen it in IMAX (wasn't in IMAX at the Riverport in Richmond and didn't feel like driving out to Langley for the IMAX). And I also really enjoyed Clooney's work in the movie.
reminds me of an old spider robinson book ......its title eludes my wee brain ........the joys of experimentation of low or zero gravity sex.......love to give it a go
The special effects are wonderful, the acting great but the plot is not really feasible IMO. Last half of the movie was not to my liking. That said see it for the effects and acting. Sandra will get an Oscar for it.
