The Centre Of Gravity

I posted recently about the movie Gravity and asked which format you preferred seeing it in - 2D or 3D? Here I pick out some of the many responses to my question.

Related content

Gravity

An Announcement

Comments

This entry is now closed for comments.

  • Comment number 18. Posted by Elizabeth Wood

    on 4 Dec 2013 20:47

    As an opportunistic cinema goer….'I have time, I'm near the cinema, what starts in ten minutes?", I saw Gravity on a small screen at Eden Court in Inverness. It was 2D and the best choice of seats was about 10' from the screen. Who needs IMAX eh? Anyway, I left disappointed. There were simply too many implausible scenarios for me to happily suspend my imagination for the duration of the film. Also, Sandra Bullock's character annoyed me with her infinite Aah aah aah aah aah aah's. I can only imagine that the experience of viewing on a large screen and in 3D must have been stunning enough to have excused the rather one dimensional plot.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 18: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 18: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 17. Posted by Seahorse

    on 30 Nov 2013 22:48

    Saw it in 3D as I couldn't match the 2D timings. Left disappointed with 3D as always with the blurry dark version of the film with the obligatory OMG it's coming out of the screen moments. I still fail to understand what it is supposed to add and look forward to it's death and it's next appearance in the 2030s...

    Enjoyed the film, flaws and all as well as the nods to other films which was a nice touch. Thought Sandra's face looked like it had had one face lift too many, which is a real shame though perhaps not much of a surprise.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 17: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 17: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 16. Posted by Gwendolen89

    on 30 Nov 2013 13:23

    I saw it in 2D at my local, tiny cinema and still found it an incredible film, and highly immersive. I think it helps, (regardless of screen format), when the audience behaves themselves! In the end, if the screen is larger than your tv, the room is dark and the sound is up high then you should be fully capable of immersing yourself.
    Recently though, this little 2-screen place has had a refurb and had digital technology installed. They had put money aside during this modernisation to install 3D. But they decided to do a survey of their regular customers and the overwhelming response was people were just not interested in having 3D at their little local. So, they used that money to purchase proper air-conditioning -- a much wiser investment for a cinema if you ask me!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 16: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 16: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 15. Posted by L Sheppard

    on 30 Nov 2013 12:12

    I took my nine month old son along to a parent & baby screening of Gravity (in 2D) as I thought it would be worth seeing on the big screen. I'm not sure I cold have coped with 3D and trying to entertain baby at the same time!

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 15: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 15: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 14. Posted by Lornholio

    on 27 Nov 2013 10:29

    I'm an English speaker living in France and last week had the choice to see the original English version of Gravity in 2D or a French dubbed 3D version. 2D in English was the decision but I wish we had seen the 3D French, despite my average level of spoken French (no English subtitles) and dislike of any dubbed films. In 2D it was visually excellent, but not quite good enough to overpower the film's flaws. Still a good watch, but I feel in 3D I would have had a better experience.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 14: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 14: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 13. Posted by Brian - New Forest

    on 26 Nov 2013 14:16

    Now that the backlash has begun, we can at least see that we always had a name for it:

    Anti-gravity.

    (not here all week, but don't make the waitress suffer for it...)

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 13: 3
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 13: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 12. Posted by Mendo Shutaro

    on 26 Nov 2013 13:02

    Gravity wasn't made in IMAX, and as such, when blown up to a full size IMAX screen, looks very soft and almost out of focus. It's not a good way to see it at all.

    As for 3D, the glasses are heavy, the light loss is annoying, the polarising light septation looks ridiculous, and it adds nothing to the story. At least Gravity had much less cardboarding than usual - compared to the trailer for The Hobbit 2 (which looks like a pop up children's book) - it at least looks like real life.

    All of this is a distraction though. Gravity was a single action sequence repeated many times over, filled with terrible nonsensical science, and needlessly stuffed with religious nonsense. It also made scientists look like idiots, which is a deeply offensive thing to do.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 12: 1
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 12: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 11. Posted by Dr Locke

    on 24 Nov 2013 17:21

    I seem to have killed the Poppins thread (where's everybody gone?); let's see what happens here.

    It hit me this afternoon just why Gravity was so good in 3D, and just why most 3D films aren't. Basically it's all about parallax. We need depth vision to locate moving objects in three dimensions. What this means is that, in terms of attention, your depth vision is only really switched on when you need to locate something moving relative to something else; the rest of the time the world might as well be flat, and you experience it as more or less flat (try shutting one eye while you're reading a book or watching TV, or indeed reading a blog post; you won't see much difference). Watching a film in 3D switches on your depth vision all the time. It feels distracting because it is: it's literally distracting your attention from the drama you're watching and focusing it on this thing moving relative to that other thing.

    Now, in what situation would you actually want to attend to "this thing is moving relative to that other thing" more or less all the time? In space, that's where - in a situation where there's no fixed point to anchor on, and the basic setup is that everything is moving relative to everything else. And that's why you don't get the Viewmaster effect (flat images on stacked planes) because you can't parse the picture in front of you into foreground, scenery and backdrop: it just looks as if everything's moving relative to everything else.

    I think Gravity is a one-off: Cuarón hit on the perfect technology for a space film and the perfect setting for 3D. Gravity is the first great 3D film, and it may be the last.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 11: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 11: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 10. Posted by Ben Scriven

    on 24 Nov 2013 13:19

    GRAVITY is not a 2D film.

    Every element of this film has been engineered to favour 3D…. AND IT WORKS PERFECTLY!

    THIS FILM PROVES that, to make a 3D movie, the subject matter and film making style must be adapted specifically for it.

    1) Subject matter is geared towards the 3D experience.
    They're in space - white objects against a black background with the stars all the way off in infinity.
    Using a situation with the biggest depth of shot imaginable is perfect for 3D. The objects are literally floating in front of you with no background information to confuse your brain.

    2) Editing style is slow and the movement is done 'in camera'.
    It's no coincidence that the first shot is 17 minutes long depicting a traumatic event. On an animalistic level, with hunting/danger awareness and all that stuff, this perfectly hijacks your attention without your brain having to deal with cuts. You can easily track the object until the trauma is over. After that , you're hooked. With standard 2D films adrenalin would be injected by fast edits and shaky camera. Gravity does the opposite.

    I am not a 3D nut. I completely stand alongside the 2D crew. To date 2D is by far the most dynamic way to tell a multitude of stories. But I hope Gravity is recognised as the first mega budget narrative film to favour 3D film making rather than impose the 3D tech onto familiar 2D film making conventions.

    GRAIVTY is the 'Blair Witch" of 3D.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 10: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 10: 0
    Loading…
  • Comment number 9. Posted by chris

    on 24 Nov 2013 13:00

    I choose this to make it my first experience of 3D. I hated it. Go back to your original position, Mark.
    on 3D, it is a distraction. I don't want things floating towards me and it stops engaging with the film. I then saw it again in 2D, which is the way to see it. On the film, 3 stars at best. Some hokey Hollywood, maudlin touches.

    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of positive ratings for comment 9: 0
    • This entry is now closed for comments. Number of negative ratings for comment 9: 0
    Loading…
More comments

More Posts

Previous

Next