Gravity better to see in 3D or IMAX version?

[cf-62]

I saw this on 3D IMAX yesterday. I thought the script was so-so, mainly because it stretches the limits of credibility reeeeeallly far, but it was the most engrossing sensory experience I've ever had at the movies. Also the first time in years I've been in a movie theater with no talking or texting or noise/distraction of any kind. Everyone was just completely transfixed.

I go to at least 1 movie a week - the behavior at Gravity was no different than any other movie we've seen in the past year.

[JohnGalt]

The last 3D movie I saw was Avatar and I didn't like it. The way the 3D forced you to focus on what it was "3D-ing" didn't sit well with my eyes/brain. So I wasn't going to see Gravity in 3D...I just wanted to see the IMAX version. Well, poor planning lead my girlfriend (who had the same experience in Avatar) and I to the only IMAX around not realizing that on some days they show Gravity in 3D and others they don't. Yesterday they did.

The skinny for me is: You should see it in 3D. It's a movie built for it. Since most of the shots use space as a background - i.e., darkness - there's nothing for you to focus on except what the 3D is focusing on. And some of the shots are incredible: the ISS exploding and the Northern Lights, in particular. The only scene I can recall that messed with my head some was the teardrop that floated away from Bullock's face. Anyways...I guess my point is that if you had a negative experience with 3D in the past, now is the time to give it another shot. It was a much different experience for me...and WELL worth it.

[cspan37421]

I saw Gravity 3D yesterday and frankly, I'm not persuaded that 3D is a must for this - or any - movie.

First, I can do without the fumbled bolts and tools floating toward the audience, or the occasional ball-point pen, blob of water, etc. That's 3D-as-gimmickry and I actually don't care for it. As technology and viewer experience, been there, done that, it's not that great once you've seen it before.

Second, there's the non-gimmickry thing of adding to depth of the moving image. It really didn't do it for me. Yes, there was a little more depth in the image, but the view through 3D glasses is always distorted somewhat and that, for me, negated any gain that 3D provided. If you saw Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope, you know that quite a bit of depth of image can be provided by camera perspective in 2D. One of the best space movies I've seen, Apollo 13, was in 2D. For both of those, the story carried the film.

I would need to see Gravity in 2D to fairly judge the necessity of 3D. Having only seen it one way, in 3D, all I can say is that I didn't notice anything in 3D that I felt I couldn't have lived without in 2D.

The movie held my attention and it had a decent amount of suspense. However, I did not think the story was that great. It was good, but far from great. The few Hollywood cliches didn't help it, but they were not the only things that knocked it down to just above average in my book.

[Zeke]

Will she get the burning spaceship back to earth???? Guess what the answer is. 3D was the only thing worth while.

[YmoBeThere]

Will she get the burning spaceship back to earth???? Guess what the answer is. 3D was the only thing worth while.

Spoiler alert?

[BD80]

Will she get the burning spaceship back to earth???? Guess what the answer is. 3D was the only thing worth while.

Unless they really screw with physics, I'm guessing the spaceship gets back to earth. The movie is entitled "Gravity."

[Zeke]

I thought the movie was probably worth seeing because of the 3D effects. You know 3D is so pronounced that it doesn't seem real. Strange - I walked out of the movie and looked at my surroundings and it didn't look "3D".

[Tommac]

Unless they really screw with physics, I'm guessing the spaceship gets back to earth. The movie is entitled "Gravity."

I wondered about the name of the movie and thought that "gravity" could also be describing the seriousness or graveness of the situation. Maybe the movie makers intended the name to mean both seriousness and weightlessness.

[Jim3k]

Back to the original question: Saw it this afternoon in IMAX 3D. I think the 3D part was fine, but the main thing is the IMAX screen. It is so huge and so clear it scoops you into it. For a movie, that is a great feat.

So, I recommend the IMAX version, assuming you are willing to spring for the premium priced ticket. As for regular 3D v. 2D, I'd skip the 3D.

The movie is certainly worth seeing. I know some people think Bullock should be an AA nominee. I have no problem with her being nominated. I doubt she would win, but she's better than simply excellent.

[sagegrouse]

I loved the movie. The space and zero gravity scenes are simply amazing -- especially when you consider the handicaps of filming on earth. And what follows is a quibble compared to the artistry and the acting by Sandra and George. The WaPo gives it four stars, and I tend to agree.

The guys just had to have max special effects, so they repealed Newtonian physics. It happened early, so it's not truly a spoiler. Debris from an exploding satellite is rocketing in the same orbit as our heroes. Uh, guys? Guys! Guys!! If space debris in orbit is going faster than other objects it can't be in the same orbit. Also, if a satellite explodes, the bits and pieces go in all directions, not just stay in orbit. And, BTW, space is really large, even orbital space, so the likelihood of debris pieces hitting a specific object are pretty small... and multiple pieces? Fuhgedaboutit!

sagegrouse

[Zeke]

I understand that a reporter,when interviewing the director, asked him how they filmed in space (They really do walk among us). The special effects were really good but the plot was --- not so much.

[DevilWearsPrada]

I understand that a reporter,when interviewing the director, asked him how they filmed in space (They really do walk among us). The special effects were really good but the plot was --- not so much.

WE went to see Gravity last weekend. And in 3D! The special effects were good, but I was expecting more with the plot. I heard about the same comments from the others in the theatre. Still glad we went, and saw the film on the big screen.

$13 in 3D in the Triangle

[sagegrouse]

I understand that a reporter,when interviewing the director, asked him how they filmed in space (They really do walk among us). The special effects were really good but the plot was --- not so much.

WE went to see Gravity last weekend. And in 3D! The special effects were good, but I was expecting more with the plot. I heard about the same comments from the others in the theatre. Still glad we went, and saw the film on the big screen.

$13 in 3D in the Triangle

I have no problem with the spare plot. I thought the characterizations were superb and believable, and the acting was -- well -- out of this world. "The Old Man and the Sea" had even less of a plot, and Hemingway won a Nobel Prize after it came out.

sagegrouse

[Wander]

Debris from an exploding satellite is rocketing in the same orbit as our heroes. Uh, guys? Guys! Guys!! If space debris in orbit is going faster than other objects it can't be in the same orbit. Also, if a satellite explodes, the bits and pieces go in all directions, not just stay in orbit. And, BTW, space is really large, even orbital space, so the likelihood of debris pieces hitting a specific object are pretty small... and multiple pieces? Fuhgedaboutit!

Google or wikipedia "Kessler Syndrome" when you get a chance. OK, you're right that the Kessler Syndrome chain reaction thing probably isn't 100% credible, but it's not so amazingly farfetched that it makes for a ridiculous plot point in a movie. There are some other things (most notably the idea that Hubble and the two space stations are within eyesight of each other on the same orbit), but as a sort-of space science person, I didn't really find anything here too horribly offensive scientifically, and at least a few astronauts agree that it was reasonably good. Actually, the only part that made me groan in its non-realism is the idea that two astronauts could be essentially meeting each other for the first time during a spacewalk. My biggest problem with the movie is that the main character is a little bit damsel-in-distress-y in the first third. But I really liked the film aside from that.

[Tappan Zee Devil]

A question for the cinemaphiles here....would Gravity to be better to see in 3D or IMAX ?

As a geophysicist who has spent the past 40 years interpreting gravity anomalies, I would say that 3-D is better than 2-D, although harder to model. I am not sure how to model an IMAX gravity anomaly,

[Wander]

As a geophysicist who has spent the past 40 years interpreting gravity anomalies, I would say that 3-D is better than 2-D, although harder to model. I am not sure how to model an IMAX gravity anomaly,

This must be the only sports message board out there where this could happen. What do you study? I do Moon gravity stuff (but only for 4 years, not 40!)

[Mabdul Doobakus]

I found the 3D IMAX experience to be pretty awe-inspiring. As other reviews have pointed out, that's probably the closest I'll ever get to actually being in space.

Strangely enough...I don't usually have a problem with 3D movies (apart from the fact that they're usually a waste of money), but I felt like I was on the verge of losing my lunch in the first five minutes or so. I had to look away from the screen more than once. The way the movie was filmed does a great job of simulating a feeling of weightlessness, which my sense of equilibrium is apparently not a big fan of.

I doubt whether this movie can have the same impact in 2D or on a regular screen. I guess I'll find out when I watch it again on TV in a few months.

[sagegrouse]

Google or wikipedia "Kessler Syndrome" when you get a chance. OK, you're right that the Kessler Syndrome chain reaction thing probably isn't 100% credible, but it's not so amazingly farfetched that it makes for a ridiculous plot point in a movie. There are some other things (most notably the idea that Hubble and the two space stations are within eyesight of each other on the same orbit), but as a sort-of space science person, I didn't really find anything here too horribly offensive scientifically, and at least a few astronauts agree that it was reasonably good. Actually, the only part that made me groan in its non-realism is the idea that two astronauts could be essentially meeting each other for the first time during a spacewalk. My biggest problem with the movie is that the main character is a little bit damsel-in-distress-y in the first third. But I really liked the film aside from that.

Here's the definition, courtesy of Wikipedia --

The Kessler syndrome (also called the Kessler effect,[1][2] collisional cascading or ablation cascade), proposed by the NASA scientist Donald J. Kessler in 1978, is a scenario in which the density of objects in low Earth orbit (LEO) is high enough that collisions between objects could cause a cascade—each collision generating space debris which increases the likelihood of further collisions.[3] One implication is that the distribution of debris in orbit could render space exploration, and even the use of satellites, infeasible for many generations.[3]

Yep, I agree that debris could clutter an orbit. My main problem was that the Russian satellite exploded and pieces at a high relative rate of speed threatened the other satellites in orbit -- highly unlikely because of the distances involved, but at least remotely possible. What isn't possible IMHO (where the H is silent) is that they returned 90 minutes later after another revolution. Uhhh, if an object in orbit accelerates to a higher speed, it goes to a higher orbit, or it reaches escape velocity and is no longer bound to earth.

sagegrouse

[throatybeard]

"Why 3D doesn't work:"

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-jou...ll-case-closed

[JasonEvans]

"Why 3D doesn't work:"

http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-jou...ll-case-closed

Despite some cool effects from 3D in Gravity, Hugo, Avatar, and a few animated films, I would not shed even the tiniest of tears if 3D were to be banned from film distribution at this point.

-Jason "look, we found something Throaty and I can agree upon in the movie biz!" Evans