The GRAVITY Reviews Declare: GRAVITY Grabs You, Pulls You In, And Never Lets Go.

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

REPLY TO THREAD
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 10 October 2013   #31
Originally Posted by DutchDimension: The studio wanted her more perky I suppose, for fear of the audience disliking the protagonist from the get go. Those meddling suits eh?


Not sure if there's a connection, but the movie is making good money and it's far from over.
This certainly did not sound like a 300+ million blockbuster on paper in 2010.
__________________
Tamas Varga
 
Old 10 October 2013   #32
Originally Posted by Laa-Yosh: Beyond unlikely, considering how VFX intensive the entire movie is. Any new shots would almost certainly require more CG work, it's not just editing together material differently because the material does not exist yet.

Well the changes were based on an audience test sceening. Not cut/changed early on. So those shots must have been pretty near finished for that...(at least one can hope).
 
Old 10 October 2013   #33
Just got to see it, and it's really a great immersive experience. It's tense. Actually the most frightening sequences aren't the big chain explosions but when they drift and slowly but barely miss that piece of rope or whatever to grip on.

On the downside (slighlty), I also though clooney was a bit too caricature of himself. Like he's about to turn back and say : What else?

One question I have : Is Bullock full CG body when in the ISS ?
 
Old 10 October 2013   #34
Originally Posted by circusboy: Well the changes were based on an audience test sceening. Not cut/changed early on. So those shots must have been pretty near finished for that...(at least one can hope).


Not only that, but if they release the previs version of the film, that would also presumably reflect the earlier more-Cuaronesque version mentioned.

The DP mentioned they were talking about including that as an extra for home video, and apparently the previs movie is so good his own daughters thought that WAS the finished movie when he showed it to them.

Visually, up until the re-entry, I found the movie visually very close to perfect, better than I could have imagined in many places in terms of complexity. But the re-entry flame stuff just looked like any other CG to me, really standing out badly. They seriously needed to consider doing that part with practical fire elements or some kind of streaked light photography, the luminosity was just not there. All of a sudden it looked more like RED PLANET than 2001 or THE RIGHT STUFF, and I just know that ain't right.

Even so, I thought it was a really good try, and it is heartening to see that there IS an audience for this kind of thing. I just wish it had been slower paced at times and that they had turned the damn score off for two-thirds of the movie, because I wanted more SILENCE! I knew (unfortunately) that I wasn't going to get CHILDREN OF MEN 2, but I also figured I wasn't going to see SPEED IN SPACE, which is what it dipped into a couple times.

But I figure I'm going to need to see this a bunch more times theatrically (something I haven't done since the first MATRIX), because the visual splendor of things colliding and tearing apart was just so damned compelling. I haven't been so pulverized by a movie's visual spectacle since I was 7 and saw 2001 in L.A (well, lemme qualify, APOCALYPSE NOW was another one.)

Between 95% of this and the CG baby in CoM, Framestore is definitely up there with DNeg at the top of the VFX pile right now (not including ILM because their work seems to be all over the place at times in terms of quality, though I grant some of that might be due to bad calls by directors.)
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 10 October 2013   #35
Originally Posted by EricM:

One question I have : Is Bullock full CG body when in the ISS ?


No. From a story on thecredits.org

This is to say nothing of the individuals who built Bullock’s wire-rig harness for her sequences inside the International Space Station, which was a 12-wire rig that had to be molded to fit her body exactly, with three wires attached to computer controlled servomotors. Bullock’s motions required on-set puppeteers, who helped smooth out jerkiness with joysticks.
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 10 October 2013   #36
Originally Posted by trevanian: No. From a story on thecredits.org

This is to say nothing of the individuals who built Bullock’s wire-rig harness for her sequences inside the International Space Station, which was a 12-wire rig that had to be molded to fit her body exactly, with three wires attached to computer controlled servomotors. Bullock’s motions required on-set puppeteers, who helped smooth out jerkiness with joysticks.


Actually, some parts of her body were later replaced with CG to compensate for things that ended up not quite working when all the pieces were brought together. I didn't work on that sequence, so I don't know the specifics, but I believe either one, or both of her legs were replaced in parts of the shot where she floats down the length of the ISS to radio Kowalsky.
Other shots received similar levels of CG replacement/enhancement/augmentation, including the lengthening of Sandra's legs and slimming down her thighs in the final shot. Hollywood vanity for ya.
__________________
"Even the Christmas vacation will be darkened by New Zealand scripts…"
~ J.R.R. Tolkien, The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, Letter 34
 
Old 10 October 2013   #37
Sounds like you guys deserve a co-credit for doing some of the work of her workout trainer then ...
__________________
"achievement is its own reward -- pride obscures it."

- Major Garland Briggs
TWIN PEAKS
 
Old 10 October 2013   #38
Quote: One question I have : Is Bullock full CG body when in the ISS ?


Like Ducth said, mainly the legs. Although we have a Bullock scanbody, we did a clean sculpt of her legs to fit to our animation mesh. I worked at her legs sculpt, at it was a big surprise how good they made the transition from real/digital legs...black magic.
__________________
www.josemlazaro.com
 
Old 11 November 2013   #39
Opening sequence - overwhelming. The rest - underwhelming. Once the effect of the effects had 'normalized' all that was left was a rather lame story imo. I don't know why but I thought I was in for something more profound than this.
__________________
Posted by Proxy
 
Old 11 November 2013   #40
Originally Posted by grrinc: Opening sequence - overwhelming. The rest - underwhelming. Once the effect of the effects had 'normalized' all that was left was a rather lame story imo. I don't know why but I thought I was in for something more profound than this.


I agree. The fetus sequence was a good example of trying to be profound, but overall it was a missed opportunity in that department.
__________________
LEIF3D.com
 
Old 11 November 2013   #41
The VFX, stunning, but the thing that made it scary for me was the sound, the real lack of sound in space, the build up with debris hitting the shuttle and you hearing no impact, no whizzing passed, the silent killer. Loved it.

Great film 10/10 for me, even with Clooney being too Clooney and Bullocks character having an unnecessary sob story... I just like her being a moody badass who's too professional for Clooney's bullsh*t.
__________________
Maxscript Made Easy...
http://davewortley.wordpress.com/
 
Old 11 November 2013   #42
Way too contrived for me. Ryan should've been bitten by a poisonous snake at the end.
__________________
If animation couldn't change the world, it wouldn't be such a Micky-Mouse place.
 
Old 11 November 2013   #43
Was blown away. It lives in a weird place between B-movie, blockbuster, and art house.
Yes, the plot is very simple but I am not sure the movie is as shallow as some people say. I was deeply sucked into the audio visual experience though and the frantic pacing leaves little room to reflect.
It's one of the very few movies in years that I want to see again.

Also, I found it rather refreshing to see a woman in her mid 40s as the lead character in a big budget action movie/thriller.

-k
 
Old 11 November 2013   #44
Leaving this here in case you haven't seen it yet:

'Gravity' Spinoff (Aningaaq): Watch the Other Side of Sandra Bullock's Distress Call (Exclusive Video)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e-sandra-657919
 
Old 11 November 2013   #45
Really, really enjoyed Gravity. Without question the most convincing and incredibly realised CG I have ever seen up on the big screen. Everyone at Framestore deserves to take the next year off.

Originally Posted by DaveWortley: Bullocks character having an unnecessary sob story....
Unnecessary? I would argue that was the backbone of the entire film.

I thought the film was absolutely perfect - I saw the story as Bullock's character dying when she shut down the oxygen & Clooney re-appears, the rest of the film being her journey toward the afterlife. My wife however saw it as a cut and dry happy Hollywood ending where she just makes it back to Earth, which I can't begin to process as it completely jars with how I saw it.
__________________
SKETCHBOOK
MDI
moonjam.com

Last edited by AJ : 11 November 2013 at 10:17 AM.
 
reply share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.