The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I very much enjoyed this movie.

It values theme over character or story.  So you might hear criticisms of the story being thin or the characters lacking depth.  But you need to see this film in the theater, in 3D.

I don't even like 3D, but I heard that this is the best.  And it is.  It's the best use of 3D in any film ever made....ever.  Space just lends itself to that.  And because there is no "ground" to set the camera on, the movement of the camera to utilize what would normally be gimmicks, come off as much more genuine.

This film looks incredible, particular the opening shot -- 17 minutes without a cut, running footage, no sound in space....incredibly ballsy and impressive.

Bring an extra butthole, you're going to clench the first one out and need a replacement.

I heard it was slow, boring and not that good.

I heard it was a downer.   ;D

(I'll be here all week, and don't forget to tip your waitress)

To your pun/point, shouldn't it be called No Gravity?

Great movie. Not boring, not slow...beautiful scenery as the Earth rotates behind the characters, going from day to night.

It is none of those things.  It's only 90 minutes, too, which is nice.

It's actually been kind of a funny movie for me in that I hear more about what was wrong than whether it was good or bad.

Why didn't her hair float in space when everything else did? Why wasn't she wearing a diaper? Why wasn't she wearing a cooling suit under her space suit? Why did astronaut Clooney have to explain oxygen deprivation to Doctor Bullock? Why were the satellites orbiting opposite than what they usually do? How does the Hubble and Chinese space station appear in the same sight?

I haven't seen it but I have seen several articles and spoken to a couple of people who brought these things up. I know most movies require a suspension of belief but I guess because this is a supposed scientific movie people expect it to be more accurate. I mean ... would they cast a Robin Hood that didn't even attempt to have an English accent?

Kevin Costner comes to mind but maybe he tried and it was just terrible.

No ... he didn't even try. That is what I was referring to. He got as lot of criticism for it but the movie was pretty successful regardless.

I haven't seen the movie.

I think most people are willing to accept suspension of belief on what the movie requires to work and that are explained, but not on details that don't.

This would not be limited just to scientific movies.  For example we will accept that time travel is possible.  But when Marty goes back to 1955 in Back to the future and plays a musical instrument that was first made in 1957, people point that out.  Why?  Because the plot would have still worked if they used a correct prop. 

I'm too much of a space nerd to properly enjoy it. It was just packed full of impossibilities and things that just wouldn't happen 

Follow-up to the movie -

The other side of the conversation:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/gravity-spinoff-watch-side-sandra-657919

^^^ That was a pretty cool little short, even without seeing the movie first.

I never understood this.  The movie is so authentic in what it does that it's held to an unrealistic standard (that no other movies are held to) in the areas where it takes liberties for storytelling.

I saw someone complaining on a message board that when Sandra Bullock takes off her space suit, she's not wearing a diaper.  Really? 

I have not seen the movie and I agree some things are nitpicky (diaper) but seriously, is there any plausible explanation as to why a medical doctor is the one working on that equipment? I cannot see any scenario where I can put aside reality that much.

The explanation they gave was that it was her specific equipment -- and I thought she was a medical research scientist...not a surgeon or anything.  And is that completely realistic?  Probably not.  ...but nothing that affected my ability to suspend disbelief.

Maybe she's not that kind of doctor. :) (Big Bang Theory reference)

^^^ My understanding was she was a medical doctor (maybe in research as Dave mentions) but none of that qualifies her to have anything to do with the Hubble Telescope which is what she was working on from my understanding of the story.

maybe she was crosstrained . .for the same reason they tried to launch a school teacher into space on challenger

According to a plot summary, she's a mission specialist.  She was specifically sent on the mission to service a medical research device on the Hubble.

I'm cool with her being up there for whatever reasons... I just don't see why they had to say a medical research device was installed on the Hubble "Telescope" (which is pointed away from Earth at all times)... They could have easily said its <insert random satellite name here> ...

I liked the movie, regardless of the few very small mistakes that we should just let pass ...

I was disappointed. Nice visuals but not very good otherwise.