mavity (2013)

THMRK · 25 Nov 2013 at 17:21

NeilFawcett said:
There were some very long "single takes" in the film - be they faked/CGI'd. Anyone know how long the longest "single take" was? Must have been several minutes at least?

I'm fairly sure that opening shot is the longest. Clocks in at about 15 or 16 minutes I think. I might be wrong though.

That opening shot is breathtaking.

THMRK · 25 Nov 2013 at 17:22

Tummy said:
I didn't think the opening scene was one shot I thought it was just very smart edits.

Slightly off topic but if you're interested in single takes, try watching a film called Russian Ark (D. Aleksandr Sokurov, 2002) which is a filmed in a single take .

Link.

Yeah it definitely was one shot. A feat that is significantly easier to achieve when said shot is almost entirely CGI...

Tummy · 25 Nov 2013 at 18:19

THMRK said:
Yeah it definitely was one shot. A feat that is significantly easier to achieve when said shot is almost entirely CGI...

Do you have a source for it being one shot?

THMRK · 25 Nov 2013 at 18:34

Tummy said:
Do you have a source for it being one shot?

In this interview from the man himself: http://www.wired.com/underwire/2013/10/center_of_gravity/

From a visual effects guy that worked on the film (the film actually has 156 shots in total, which is quite low): http://io9.com/5901286/alfonso-cuar...ally-does-begin-with-a-17+minute-opening-shot

Also here: http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/movies/2013/10/06/mavity-tracking-shot/2909295/

And if that's not enough, his entire oeuvre is replete with tracking shots. It's kind of one of this "things".

Tummy · 25 Nov 2013 at 18:49

I'm aware an almost trademark of his oeuvre is long, tracking shots. It's just a professor had mentioned that it was not one long shot in the same way, for example, Russian Ark is

.

ChocolateStarfishRammer · 25 Nov 2013 at 18:52

Is it just the Visual element as to why this is being raved about so much?

I don't feel particularly fussed about seeing it so if its not ground breaking visually (Avatar wise) then I'll wait for Bluray.

Tummy · 25 Nov 2013 at 18:54

I thought the sound was equally as impressive as the visuals. I will also say, that this is one of the very limited number of films I would recommend to be viewed in 3D on a big high quality screen with good audio, it will not have nearly the same impact on a television or home cinema set up, no matter how good it is.

apatia77 · 26 Nov 2013 at 08:38

Saw it in 2D, though it was really good. 8/10

Yaayuh! · 26 Nov 2013 at 08:42

Great 3D film, one of the few that works. 8/10

V-Spec · 26 Nov 2013 at 09:35

Really enjoyed it, saw it at the BFI imax in 3d, had me on the edge of my seat the whole way through.

Pretty damn terrifying too,

Greboth · 26 Nov 2013 at 09:59

I still can't make my mind up about this film, I enjoyed it for the visual effects, the sound and it really highlighted how extreme it is in space. As an actual film, a story, I can't help feel it was a bit weak. A sort of fictitious Apollo 13 but with not such a good story.

Vonhelmet · 26 Nov 2013 at 23:02

I've just seen it. It was great. Unbelievably tense throughout. I saw it in regular 3d. I could have lived without the 3d. I'd have preferred IMAX, for the sake of the bigger screen, but you can't have everything. The sound was really good.

cu3ed · 27 Nov 2013 at 23:20

I cant get past the physics of why Clooney's character still had momentum, I cant work that out.

Apart from that, brilliant film.

MrMarvelous · 28 Nov 2013 at 00:11

Is this as good as everyone says it is?

Does it have any themes like Sunshine or is it a totally different movie? I've not looked up any trailer so I literally don't know anything about this.

Vonhelmet · 28 Nov 2013 at 00:40

MrMarvelous said:
Is this as good as everyone says it is?

Does it have any themes like Sunshine or is it a totally different movie? I've not looked up any trailer so I literally don't know anything about this.

Totally different.

Astronauts in space working on the Hubble space telescope get hit by debris from a satellite that got blown up which destroys their shuttle. They have to try to survive in space.

Sunbed · 28 Nov 2013 at 08:46

Did anyone else think the trailer was so awful in comparison to the film? When I try and get my friends to see the film, they always say "but the trailer looks.. meh". I have to agree with them. It's annoying because I don't like people missing out on exceptional films like this.

SoliD · 28 Nov 2013 at 08:48

Saw this last night, fantastic film, the music/sound was absolutely perfect and the way you felt so tense at times, with the serene calmness in between these sections meant it was actually a bit of an up and down film, but worked so well. I saw it in 3D and it was really good in places, but some bits I thought you didn't especially need it, really wish I had seen it at Imax though.

physichull · 28 Nov 2013 at 13:16

cu3ed said:
I cant get past the physics of why Clooney's character still had momentum, I cant work that out.

Apart from that, brilliant film.

Same.

Wish I'd seen it at an IMAX cinema though

NeilF · 28 Nov 2013 at 13:26

cu3ed said:
I cant get past the physics of why Clooney's character still had momentum, I cant work that out.

Apart from that, brilliant film.

I've watched the film twice now, and this scene proved a weak spot both times for me.

When Bullock gets caught up on the cables on the ISS, you can clearly see she picks up some centrifugal force. ie: She's spinning around the ISS slowly on the end of the cable. You can also see this force is risking pulling her leg free of the cable.

Now when Clooney joins in on the end of this cable, he adds yet more mass/force pulling on the end of it, and further risks Bullock's leg coming free. A couple of shots at this point don't seem to suggest there's centrifugal forces anymore, but we'll assume they're still slowing spinning around the ISS on the end of the cable. So this explains the force we see "pulling" at them.

Now none of this is problem.

What IS a problem is Clooney letting go would NOT return Bullock to the ISS, as it shows happening! It makes no sense and is completely impossible.

As I've said before my preferred scene would have been Clooney pulling himself up their tether so the two of them are face to face, and then he gives his sacrifice speech, undoes the tether and then PUSHES Bullock as hard as he can back towards the ISS. This would have changed her direction of travel back towards the ISS, and propelled Clooney away.

Fixed!

cu3ed · 28 Nov 2013 at 13:38

NeilFawcett said:
I've watched the film twice now, and this scene proved a weak spot both times for me.

When Bullock gets caught up on the cables on the ISS, you can clearly see she picks up some centrifugal force. ie: She's spinning around the ISS slowly on the end of the cable. You can also see this force is risking pulling her leg free of the cable.

Now when Clooney joins in on the end of this cable, he adds yet more mass/force pulling on the end of it, and further risks Bullock's leg coming free. A couple of shots at this point don't seem to suggest there's centrifugal forces anymore, but we'll assume they're still slowing spinning around the ISS on the end of the cable. So this explains the force we see "pulling" at them.

Now none of this is problem.

What IS a problem is Clooney letting go would NOT return Bullock to the ISS, as it shows happening! It makes no sense and is completely impossible.

As I've said before my preferred scene would have been Clooney pulling himself up their tether so the two of them are face to face, and then he gives his sacrifice speech, undoes the tether and then PUSHES Bullock as hard as he can back towards the ISS. This would have changed her direction of travel back towards the ISS, and propelled Clooney away.

Fixed!

Ahh right..so...

If I watch the scene again carefully I should see the stars moving in the background, the space station moving/ spinning in this case etc causing the momentum in BOTH of them?..that certainly makes sense, but would have liked an "obvious" angle displaying that, only because they worked so much in using half way realistic physics.And yes, that "ending" for him would have made so much more sense.