LATEST NEWS

1

Leterrier had a chance and he blew it. Now this? "It's about a father who has to search for his lost child as the world stops spinning and Earth begins to lose its gravity." What studio head thought that sounded good? The science people are gonna rip it apart.

Xerxex on Jun 15, 2010

2

Idk it sounds interesting at least but Louis is a bum.

Rashad on Jun 15, 2010

3

Yeaaaah, agreed xerx.

Cody w on Jun 15, 2010

4

You got that right Xerxex. But I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't a bit curious. The whole "lost child" thing ruins it for me, but we'll see.

Cracky on Jun 15, 2010

5

Rediculous. Earth wouldn't lose gravity if it stopped spinning. Why do hollywood films have retarded pseudo-science ideas? Is this the intelligent design people getting involved? What is going on?

jimminy on Jun 15, 2010

6

Whaaaaaaa? Earth stopping the spin... ok, we saw something similar in 2012, but... losing gravity? Why can't they make up something like a science experiment gone wrong, anti-gravity lab blowing up and affecting the whole planet, the Earth getting hollowed out by a black hole... a thousand ideas that could explain losing gravity without making up something that's basically kicking Newton in the balls.

Luis M on Jun 15, 2010

7

Sounds like a big game of Marco Polo, but in the air instead of in the water...I wonder if people will be using giant fans to propel themselves around or if they'll just burp like in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

peloquin on Jun 15, 2010

8

Sounds epic. Of how epically stupid it is. Since the centripetal force counters the action of gravity (example: try to spin a bucket full of water, in a full circle, you won't get wet), in the absence of earth's spinning rotation, we would get _heavier_, not floating around weightlessly. Plus, if Earth stopped spinning around itself (it would still actually spin, around the sun, like the moon around the Earth), we would get other serious problems, with one side of the earth always facing the sun (overeating), and one side in perpetual dark (freezing). This would cause very strong winds, at a global scale, caused by the temperature differential between the two sides of the Earth (the one facing the Sun vs. and the dark side one). Not even counting with what could happen with the oceans on the sun side (might boil, if given enough time), or with life itself... Advise to screenwriters: don't be pretentious while tackling concepts loosely based on science, without knowing the basics - at least google "gravity", for ones sake. Since this is not a comedy, it's so stupid it's ridiculous. Originality: F Stupid: A+

Fox on Jun 15, 2010

9

^ That sounded like something Sheldon would say on Big Bang Theory :op

peloquin on Jun 15, 2010

10

that plot description left me thinking - WTF? i'm not sure who would have greenlit such a bizarre idea. it might work.........i guess.............but i have my doubts.

beavis on Jun 15, 2010

11

Fox, if you stopped and actually READ the article (instead of skimming it) you'll notice that it says the Earth begins to lose it's gravity. It didn't say the Earth permanently lost it's gravity--it may very well pick up again at the end of the movie, gravity could fluctuate...there are many possibilities. Besides, movies don't have to be entirely realistic (example: The Day After Tomorrow, another Universal film). Instead of passing an extremely premature judgment on a movie that likely isn't even in pre-production yet, why don't you go and find a group of people with even less self-esteem and imagination than you to pout with.

Nada Nuff on Jun 15, 2010

12

Nada Nuff, I'm with Fox. It's a stupid idea, it's bad physics, and the plot device could be built around a far more interesting and less retarded conceit.

jimminy on Jun 15, 2010

13

so can we find out about it if and when it happens Thank You

Jimmy Love on Jun 15, 2010

14

There's a right way and wrong way to disagree with someone regardless of if it's in person or on the net. Nada Nuff just demonstrated how attacking someone personally for their opinion is the most childish way to get your point across. If you want to have a conversation with someone then state your belief, find some common ground, and ask questions. If you just want to belittle them and feed your arrogance then by all means insult them and use caps to make it seem like you're yelling.

peloquin on Jun 15, 2010

15

... on the other hand, this is nothing new to Hollywood (like in the GI Joe movie, with ice that sinks in seawater)...

Luis M on Jun 15, 2010

16

OK, I have an even cooler idea, what if the whole earth transforms into a monopoly board? you know with terrains divided just as the properties, and all buildings turning into monopoly buildings, giant aliens making their moves, with giant figures, affecting ALL our lives, etc, etc, ooooohhh, how creepy right? Is THIS the kind of brainstorming they do now in Hollywood? God, save us...

Wylles on Jun 15, 2010

17

@ 16... You need to come up with something more original, that movie is already in development with Ridley Scott at the helm ;o) https://www.firstshowing.net/2009/11/12/monopoly-movie-concept-was-inspired-by-alice-in-wonderland/

peloquin on Jun 15, 2010

18

#11: Troll, if you actually read your books instead of skimming them, used your head to think instead of looking for food, or google to find more than babytroll porn, you would know that the Earth's rotation is already slowing down as we speak, has it has been since bilenia. Here, watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD3P_l2sZFI. Felling dizzy? Don't worry, it's just your head filled with hot air.

Fox on Jun 15, 2010

19

Ok concept, terrible director

Dan W on Jun 15, 2010

20

I'm still wondering why women would NOT BE ABLE to wear bras in a low/nil-gravity environment....

Joe on Jun 16, 2010

21

WTF?! The earth cannot lose gravity unless it also lost mass! and I thought the plot for The Core was bad...

Metatasian on Jun 16, 2010

22

@ peloquin: It's interesting that you would consider my reply an attack. It was far less biting that Fox's, which was ridiculously below the belt--even though it was aimed at the filmmakers. An opinion is an opinion, but people made the same accusations about other movies. like the aforementioned The Day After Tomorrow. Movies which were created merely to entertain, not to educate. For him to grandstand with such a reply is arrogant. I had no intention of starting a conversation, I was leaving a reply. If I really wanted to "attack" him you'd know it. And I only used caps on one word, because I don't know how to italicize. Therefore I'll assume that last sentence wasn't directed at me.

Nada Nuff on Jun 16, 2010

23

@ 18: Hey, thanx for helping me prove my point. Maybe one day you'll figure out this site is for discussion of movies, not a place for you to try and wow people with your pseudo-scientific filler.

Nada Nuff on Jun 16, 2010

24

#23: The Pajiba site, editor and viewers along, already beat the crap of this pseudo-concept so hard it hurts, and the concept of this movie is the very definition of pseudo-science, not what people have said here. And guess what, that site is also about movies. Thanks for being crapping this topic with your troll filler, and greeting us with your knowledge about, well, nada.

Fox on Jun 16, 2010

25

Hey, in the upcoming Avatar: The Last Airbender movie several of the characters can control fire, water, earth, etc. at will. Perhaps Fox can quote (or at least provide a link to) something that proves this is impossible. Because we all know that suspension of disbelief is a myth--we absolutely, positively have to believe that everything presented on-screen is factual in order to enjoy and discuss it.

Nada Nuff on Jun 16, 2010

26

^ there's a difference between pseudo science and fantasy. Pseudo scientific films needs to be somewhat grounded in reality so the viewer can relate to the environment while fantasy films rely on character development to draw the viewer in and introduce them a to a new world. I'm with Fox on this one. Read up on the pioneers of abstraction vs realism, there are a lot of rules to follow which were developed by the Lumiere brothers and Melies at the dawning of the film industry. Most stories have a mix of both elements, but depending on which side they lean towards will change the amount of belief the audience have for what they're seeing. The same concept is applied to digital characters and crossing the uncanny valley. If it's a full CG cartoon you can suspend your disbelief and watch the story for the pretty world created, and if it's actors in a realistic setting you can relate them to your own life setting. It's the same concept with story writing whereas if you decide the film will take place in a world we relate to then you need to follow the laws of that world to an extent or the audience will laugh in disbelief while if it's an entirely fantastical setting then you're not bound by any rules, but the characters must be relatable.

peloquin on Jun 16, 2010

27

Elfs and fireballs are cool. There's no need to link anything here :3 Movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, The Last Airbender, Matrix, etc., are not grounded with our universe, they have their own set of rules (the force, magic, the elements, a computer simulation), in which, it's pretty plausible that the laws of physics could be different than the ones we observe in our universe, even if impossible as far as we know, and thus, the suspension of disbelief works, because we already know that that stuff is not real. We focus not on the background, but on the foreground, the characters - they are the ones who have special abilities or skills, an almost impossible task to achieve, etc., even if the environment is also fantastic. If, in 'Gravity', we changed the scenario from earth to a barren planet in a unknown universe, we could even a plot for a Riddick movie, which is a fantasy, not a science-fiction movie. Hell, gravity is all messed-up in Avatar, with those halleluya mountains - but that is a fantasy movie, not hard sci-fi (besides, you only wanted to watch cool stuff in 3D, at least i did). Why im I so critic about Gravity then, or at least this concept (which may have nothing to do with the final plot)? It's because it's the same plot over and over again, like beating a dead horse: "epic" [natural disaster] happens, [father, boyfriend, mother] searches for [wife, girlfriend, son], and survivors live happy forever. If it's the Earth, our Universe, our set of rules, at least do it right (scientifically), or go all the way and give a pretty good explanation (aliens did it, even if it's impossible, instead of Earth's deciding to take a nap for a while). Most of the times, its not fun for me, not only because disaster movies are a scientific mess, but also because they aren't fantasy, just a roller-coaster of random events. Characters are filler in these kind of movies, as we only want to see things smash in pieces.

Fox on Jun 16, 2010

28

^Sounds like we're on the exact same page :o) I look forward to reading more of your comments.

peloquin on Jun 16, 2010

29

@26: "There are a lot of rules to follow which were developed by the Lumiere brothers and Melies at the dawning of the film industry." You lost me there. I don't believe there are any "laws" anyone has to follow, and while the majority of films probably adhere to these said rules, there are undoubtedly exceptions. In the Back to the Future trilogy, the "psuedo-science" is that a person's existence carries on even though they remove themselves (or their parents) from time. An obvious impossibility, but people accept it. No one called foul when the in-movie explanation was given. There were no "rules"--the filmmakers knew what type of movie they wanted and built it on that. As soon as Marty broke up George and Lorraine, he should have disappeared immediately. When he traveled to 2015, Marty should have been long-lost, because he "skipped over" 30 years of his life. But we found Marty living as a 47 year old man instead, as if he'd never left. Again we suspend out disbelief and enjoy it anyway. In Sunshine the ludicrous premise is that a nuclear explosion will reignite our dying sun from the inside, even though the power given off by the sun dwarfs any such explosion. It's a sci-fi film, but people forget about the small details and watch it for what it is. In Gravity the filmmakers want to present our Earth and say that the slowing of the Earth results in a loss of gravity. Absurd, perhaps, but that's the picture they want to paint. For someone to come in and crap all over it because it's not feasible is hypocritical and nitpicky. Depending on how hard you want to search, you could find problems in any sci-fi movie. BTW, Star Wars and The Matrix have been classified as sci-fi on some sites, so others must have a more liberal view of the term than you do. Personally I just accept a movie for what it is without trying to squeeze it into a genre, but if you insist on calling Star Wars a fantasy film, please, list 10 true sci-fi films below and I'll happily show how they are no different from Gravity when it comes to taking liberties with reality.

Nada Nuff on Jun 16, 2010

30

Your missing my point, the two schools of thought I referenced above had opposite ways of making films which still apply today. Every single move nowadays has elements of both, but it's like a scale and if one side is too heavy then the audience laughs at the concept and has trouble engaging the material. It has nothing to do with genre and in your Back to the Future example we're introduced to a bizarre world with the simple fact that time travel exists and it's the characters we relate to and not the setting. This is typical in any sci fi film and it has to be for people to believe it. The more absurd the concept, the more believable the characters have to be. In the Matrix, Neo was plucked out of reality and shown this whole other way of thinking which we accept because we're taken on the journey with him. If that film started out in Zion then we would have been lost an questioning everything as laughable science. I'm not saying that this film won't work, I'm just saying that for it to work they have to do a damn good job of explaining the world they live in using plausible examples based around a central character we can relate to. Sunshine didn't adhere to any of these principles because that was complete fantasy, same with Avatar. Being "nitpicky" has to do with story structure which I've taken many courses on. Go to wikipedia and look up some of the original films made by the Lumiere's and Melies; specifically A Trip to The Moon and Exit from the Lumiere Factory which are radical opposites and created this spectrum I've been describing. This concept is basic knowledge for any film maker who wants to draw in an audience. Sometimes to figure out these concepts which have been expanded upon throughout the decades you need to go back to the beginning when these exact same discussions we're having right now were first poking their head into cinema. Kind of like when you rule on a precedent in court. I hope that helps clear up what I was saying.

peloquin on Jun 16, 2010

31

This concept is so ridiculous I don't even know where to begin. I mean, if anything, superman 1 taught us that if the earth stopped spinning time would stop!

anon on Jun 16, 2010

32

#6 said it all in just one sentence: there are many plausible ways, fantastic or with science behind [yet to be proven wrong, because we don't have enough data], that picking precisely one cause that is plain wrong, shows that whoever had that idea didn't research it at all (the science path), or didn't think about more interesting ways, even if it had nothing to do with science as we know (pseudo-science, fantasy), showing in a strike, lack of knowledge and imagination. I've read much better alternatives here, by anonymous fellows. The anti-gravity lab is a great idea, even if there's isn't such a thing as anti-gravity. To be more clear: - we are yet to prove that anti-gravity, light-speed travel or time machines (for example) are impossible, since science may find a away to achieve these goals; likewise, going to the moon was though impossible at one time; - yet, we can prove that gravity a function of mass not a body's rotation, so this cannot be used as a scientific cause; it's plain wrong. There is another way, which is not explaining the cause at all, leaving the viewer to think about how it happened. The Road (2009), did it beautifully, because the characters and their present day are all the matters (spoilers ahead, sort of): "The clocks stopped at 1:17. A long shear of light and then a series of low concussions." That lack of effort on this concept, should be above any critic? Here, I've read to many better alternatives to the cause of the loss of gravity, that boggles me how much time was invested on this "concept".

Fox on Jun 16, 2010

33

Sam Worthington can play the father and the lost daugter both. So, when dads find the daughter, presumably just in time for the world to finally stop, do they and everyone just float off into space together and die? Nice premise for a film - Find your daughterr int ime to die with her.

Mitch on Sep 29, 2010