Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Gravity] wants to bring me down

124»

Posts

  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    This movie was goddamned amazing

    dzuc2en672pw.jpg
    VeldrinPlatyDuke 2.0Zilla360tuggaElvenshaeTam
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    minirhyder wrote: »
    So I have a question that's not really related to the movie as much as it's related to space.
    In fact I haven't seen the movie yet (will next weekend, probably).

    In the trailer Sandra Bullock is seen tumbling around in space. My question is, does she feel it? Does the vestibular system work in space?
    If she was tumbling around with her eyes closed, would it feel to her like she's standing still? And if she opened her eyes would that cause nausea since what her eyes are seeing (tumbling) and what her vestibular system is telling her (no tumbling?) don't match up?

    The best answer I can personally give is that the forces of circular motion would still act on the semicircular canals in the ear (the organ which detects rotary movements). The sensation of rotary movement is created when the fluid inside each canal moves, due to inertia, at a different velocity than the canal itself. I'm sure there's sites out there which can provide better, more specific answers.

    Since the detection of rotary movements is based on the inertia of the fluid, the feeling of disorientation will diminish over time if there is no change of movement. This is the reason why pilots might assume they're flying straight and level while their plane is actually banked.

  • VeldrinVeldrin Sham bam bamina Registered User regular
    minirhyder wrote: »
    So I have a question that's not really related to the movie as much as it's related to space.
    In fact I haven't seen the movie yet (will next weekend, probably).

    In the trailer Sandra Bullock is seen tumbling around in space. My question is, does she feel it? Does the vestibular system work in space?
    If she was tumbling around with her eyes closed, would it feel to her like she's standing still? And if she opened her eyes would that cause nausea since what her eyes are seeing (tumbling) and what her vestibular system is telling her (no tumbling?) don't match up?

    The best answer I can personally give is that the forces of circular motion would still act on the semicircular canals in the ear (the organ which detects rotary movements). The sensation of rotary movement is created when the fluid inside each canal moves, due to inertia, at a different velocity than the canal itself. I'm sure there's sites out there which can provide better, more specific answers.

    Since the detection of rotary movements is based on the inertia of the fluid, the feeling of disorientation will diminish over time if there is no change of movement. This is the reason why pilots might assume they're flying straight and level while their plane is actually banked.

    I love the part from this article about treatment of space motion sickness
    Three main countermeasures have been tried to prevent space motion sickness: 1) drugs, 2) pre-flight adataptation, and 3) preventing head motion by sitting still. Drugs have unfortunate side effects, including drowsiness and nausea. Pre-flight adaptation by exposing the astronauts to unusual motions before the flight have not proven effective yet. The best countermeasure so far is preventing head motion by sitting still, but this seriously impacts crew work schedules.

  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    Revoke Sandra Bullock's Oscar for The Blind Side

    Give it back to her for Gravity

    dzuc2en672pw.jpg
    Elvenshae
  • GustavGustav Registered User regular
    Dude
    I straight up lost it at the dog scene, and the following lullaby. Expected it to cut to black there so hard.

    But yeah, this movie really justifies its use of 3d. It was absolutely stellar to look at.

    VnZ7Xbt.jpg
    VeldrinDuke 2.0WybornGatsbyElvenshaeTam
  • minirhyderminirhyder BerlinRegistered User regular
  • YaYaYaYa Decent. Registered User regular
    how the fuck did they even make any of this movie

    OlivawElvenshae
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    Guys, Neil deGrasse Tyson just tweeted another critique of the physics in this movie, and then Bill Nye critiqued his critique

    QRK7dOP.gif
    PSN: GrahamCR | 3DS Friend Code: 4399-2068-5090 | Switch Friend Code: SW-7440-9863-2027
    pookaRainfallElvenshae
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    Grey Ghost on
    QRK7dOP.gif
    PSN: GrahamCR | 3DS Friend Code: 4399-2068-5090 | Switch Friend Code: SW-7440-9863-2027
    Speed Racerwebguy20YaYachiasaur11chrishallett83SirEtchwartsmiscellaneousinsanityVeldrinDuke 2.0OdinOne Thousand CableseddizherepookawanderingCalicaOlivawGatsbyRMS OceanicAnzekaytuggaRainfallElvenshae
  • miscellaneousinsanitymiscellaneousinsanity grass grows, birds fly, sun shines, and brother, i hurt peopleRegistered User regular
    I saw this finally! It did not disappoint.

  • Duke 2.0Duke 2.0 Time Trash Cat Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    YaYa wrote: »
    how the fuck did they even make any of this movie

    The shots where the camera pans into her helmet confused me for a moment before remembering that 90% of this movie is CG.

    Still theorizing how one would rig that sort of thing

    Duke 2.0 on
    VRXwDW7.png
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    I saw it in 2d while on holiday and want to see it in 3d. I checked my cinemas website yesterday and they only had one showing in 3d which was tonight and I couldn't go. I checked their website again today and it's showing every day of the week now. And the 2d is now being shown 4 times a day (which is a lot in my town, most films get 2 times at most).

    I watched it in 2d first because the film is only converted 3d, not filmed in 3d. Still was pretty intense, I bought black ball lollies to suck on but they usually ended up ground between my teeth almost immediately. I'd say it's a perfect film, not that it doesn't have flaws and "flaws" but love makes you blind.

  • TubeTube Administrator, ClubPA admin
    I'm really annoyed that the release of this in the UK is being delayed for such a long time.

    Hobnail wrote: »
    This forum has taken everything from me
    HermanomullyZilla360
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    Wait what?

    When do you guys get it?

    dzuc2en672pw.jpg
  • lirelentlirelent Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/386996821437861888

    I think this is a more important point than the direction of the debris. Also the orbital mechanics in a lot of places in this movie are kinda wrong. Still an awesome movie and well worth the trip to the Reading, MA IMAX.

    lirelent on
  • FishmanFishman Drink up, me hearties, Yo Ho! Registered User regular
    lirelent wrote: »
    https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/386996821437861888

    I think this is a more important point than the direction of the debris. Also the orbital mechanics in a lot of places in this movie are kinda wrong. Still an awesome movie and well worth the trip to the Reading, MA IMAX.

    Yeah, that was one of the things that distracted the fuck out of me.

    X-Com LP Thread I, II, III, IV, V
    That's unbelievably cool. Your new name is cool guy. Let's have sex.
  • minirhyderminirhyder BerlinRegistered User regular
    This movie summed up:
    Sandy cannot get a fucking break.
    Also, her legs. Like dayum.

    webguy20Olivawchiasaur11lirelentElvenshae
  • OdinOdin Registered User regular
    tumblr_muh2u7LvEd1r6ivyno1_500.jpg

    Duke 2.0Olivawmullychrishallett83GatsbyVeldrinZilla360YoSoyTheWalrustuggaElvenshaeHermano
  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    So, my brother in law (who granted is a bit of a know-it-all) seems to think there's a large plothole in the part where, spoilers obviously
    George Cloony's character let's go of Ryan because he's dragging her off the ISS. My inlaw seemed to think as soon as the cables snapped around Ryan's leg it should have yanked her and him back towards the station. Clooney quickly said why he needed to let go, but I couldn't hear it well because the scene went by super fast. I know this film is Astronaut approved, other than the "let's boost a few hundred miles over to the ISS" part. Was it the centrifugal force from the drifting ISS? Or was it just a mistake?
    My SO said the same thing, so we looked it up. Apparently your BIL is right. But hey, still a good movie!

    Jedoc wrote: »
    The GOP cares about babies until they're born, soldiers until they're in need of care, and families until they interfere with stockholder dividends.
    DE?ADDaMoonRulz
  • Grey GhostGrey Ghost Registered User regular
    Also that isn't a plot hole
    it's an error in the physics of the movie

    QRK7dOP.gif
    PSN: GrahamCR | 3DS Friend Code: 4399-2068-5090 | Switch Friend Code: SW-7440-9863-2027
    mullyCalicaGatsbyZilla360YoSoyTheWalrusRainfall
  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    I think that was the biggest, and only substantive error, which luckily did nothing to detract from my enjoyment.

    I thought the movie was amazing, and one of the most intense movie experiences I've ever had. I very much appreciated the moments of serenity to calm me down from all the stress.

    PSN: Kurahoshi1
    Olivaw
  • Duke 2.0Duke 2.0 Time Trash Cat Registered User regular


    Ahem

    VRXwDW7.png
    mully
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    A review of Aningaaq, a short film that is a part of Gravity's story and so should be avoided if you haven't seen Gravity. I very much agree with the reviewer's opinion that it should have been included as a post-credits film. I can't find it on the net so i guess I'm waiting til the bluray release of Gravity. Although, warning, it makes the scene it connects to sadder. Also warning, the review is the kind that talks about what happens, you know... spoilers, but given it's a short film who cares (not me).

    Zilla360
  • UnbreakableVowUnbreakableVow Registered User regular
    I didn't even know that existed

    I'll wait for the Blu-ray to pursue it though

    dzuc2en672pw.jpg
  • GatsbyGatsby Registered User regular
    Holy shit this movie

    DuxDuke 2.0
  • Penguin IncarnatePenguin Incarnate King of Kafiristan Registered User regular
    Without hyperbole, I think Gravity might be the best movie this year. It is almost certainly going to be my favorite movie this year.

    GatsbyVeldrinTamHermano
  • KharnorKharnor Registered User regular
    Calica wrote: »
    So, my brother in law (who granted is a bit of a know-it-all) seems to think there's a large plothole in the part where, spoilers obviously
    George Cloony's character let's go of Ryan because he's dragging her off the ISS. My inlaw seemed to think as soon as the cables snapped around Ryan's leg it should have yanked her and him back towards the station. Clooney quickly said why he needed to let go, but I couldn't hear it well because the scene went by super fast. I know this film is Astronaut approved, other than the "let's boost a few hundred miles over to the ISS" part. Was it the centrifugal force from the drifting ISS? Or was it just a mistake?
    My SO said the same thing, so we looked it up. Apparently your BIL is right. But hey, still a good movie!

    This was the one thing in the movie that annoyed me, mostly because it would be so simple to fix:
    Instead of those ropes getting caught on Bullock's leg, they could have slowly slipped off, leaving the two of them floating juuust out of reach of the ISS, and sloooowly drifting away from it. That way there's an actual reason for one of them to push the other back towards the ISS, with the bonus heart-attack-causing moment for the audience, seeing the rope slip off the leg and suddenly realising what that means.

    minirhyderZilla360Theodore FlooseveltGvzbgulCalicaRainfallElvenshaechiasaur11
  • Duke 2.0Duke 2.0 Time Trash Cat Registered User regular
    Without hyperbole, I think Gravity might be the best movie this year. It is almost certainly going to be my favorite movie this year.

    Why did this have to come out the same year as Pacific Rim

    These top movie of the year lists are gonna get divisive

    VRXwDW7.png
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    That's a great idea. My solution was
    to have the ISS slightly spinning
    but that is much simpler and uses space physics to good effect.

  • tuggatugga Makin' movies Makin' songsRegistered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    That's a great idea. My solution was
    to have the ISS slightly spinning
    but that is much simpler and uses space physics to good effect.

    I saw this this past weekend with my friend from school, we're both engineering majors so we were already asking questions regarding physics as soon as the movie let out
    The inclinations and altitudes of the different objects in space were the obvious ones, along with the orbital mechanics of how Bullock was just able to fly somewhere. I thought the movie was so beautifully shot and paced that I let these things slide as "plot devices" and not truly critical to the point of the movie.

    The other one was how come George Clooney had to let go. I figured there was a moment around the space station, as the ropes seemed rather long and even the slightest amount of rotation would've made the ropes taught. Other ideas i've seen were the ropes were elastic, and Bullock's and Clooney's weight on the end the "spring" was at equilibrium. I don't like this theory because it implies the system was at rest meaning Clooney wouldn't've floated away.

    If you consider the station to have a moment, then what Clooney was saying was right. Had she tried to pull him in, he would've gotten heavier as the moment would've increased, in turn increasing the tension in the rope.

    I really like NDT, but I think his critique of the science elements in this film went a little too far. They weren't making a goddamn documentary, it was a movie about being adrift in space and having very little options. And I think they pulled it off beautifully.

    Also the reentry scene had my jaw on the floor. Such beautiful.

    Duke 2.0Elvenshae
  • TaramoorTaramoor Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    People were talking about how the debris wouldn't have been enough to trigger the kind of spin that the shuttle was exhibiting.



    It looks like the spin starts at the same moment that Explorer stops broadcasting. Which would be the moment that the shuttle's hull is breached and all the oxygen floods out into space. I think there might be enough power from that to trigger the spin on the shuttle.

    Taramoor on
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    edited October 2013
    I liked it when
    Stone changed direction one last time by throwing the fire extinguisher away from her, even though I have to agree that the sequence was overall quite silly.

    Platy on
    Duke 2.0RainfallYoSoyTheWalrusElvenshae
  • minirhyderminirhyder BerlinRegistered User regular
    So the reentry scene
    where a piece of debris from the space station bumped the capsule and it was completely unaffected. Didn't space shuttle Columbia disintegrate on reentry because a single piece of shingling came off its wing and sent it into an uncontrolled spin, the resuling forces of which made it fall apart? How is that a fairly sizeable chunk of debris bumping the capsule did absolutely nothing to even alter its path?
    Yeah, I know semantics semantics and it's a movie not a documentary.
    But that moment bothered me just as much as George Clooney dying due to bad physics.

    Also where did the spoiler button go, do I really have to type out the tags myself now?

    rhylith
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    The Soyuz capsule uses a covering of elastic heat-shielding fabric which you can see in the movie. I guess we have to assume it wasn't breached by the strike.

    Hermano
  • PlatyPlaty Registered User regular
    Also, in the Columbia accident, the actual heat shield was damaged which wasn't the case in the movie (with the Soyuz heat shield facing earth).

    ElvenshaeDuke 2.0
  • Muddy WaterMuddy Water Quiet Batperson Registered User regular
    When Ryan is in the
    space station, there is a pen that is almost always floating somewhere near her.

    Nothing in this movie freaked me out as much as that pen did. Every time it was on screen, I was twisting in my seat worrying that she was gonna get stabbed in the eye.

  • Duke 2.0Duke 2.0 Time Trash Cat Registered User regular
    When Ryan is in the
    space station, there is a pen that is almost always floating somewhere near her.

    Nothing in this movie freaked me out as much as that pen did. Every time it was on screen, I was twisting in my seat worrying that she was gonna get stabbed in the eye.
    I thought the same every time the fire extinguisher was on screen

    VRXwDW7.png
    chrishallett83
  • TamTam Le Buggeur Risible Registered User regular
    was it a toaster that was making those little flames in the first space station? wouldn't a flame in zero G be perfectly spherical?

    but whatever, that's not that important
    to get all feelingsy for a second
    it was an amazingly edifying pleasure to see Dr. Ryan come alive through the course of the film

    Duke 2.0Hermano
  • GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
124»
Sign In or Register to comment.