>I assure you dear viewer, having this astronaut floating around in her underwear is essential to the plot!
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
>I assure you dear viewer, having this astronaut floating around in her underwear is essential to the plot!
>everything needs to be essential to the plot
why?
I just wanted to post this thread because I love Sandra Bullock's ass in Gravity.
it was the only memorable part of the movie
that's a man
when I saw this scene in a crowded theater I was on the right side of the screen and my head was turned completely to the left
I wouldn't even have jacked it to this in middle school. You guys are all sploogebrained gays.
I rewatched this recently and I fricking hated it this time around
As a person who enjoys science fiction I would like to inform everyone that Gravity was a horrible move. Thank you.
Maybe that's because Gravity isn't science fiction. It's science fact.
It absolutely is SF. Maybe it's on the harder side but it is SF.
How in the hell is it even remotely science fiction? Because it takes place in low orbit? It literally doesn't even take place in actual space.
>How in the hell is it even remotely science fiction?
It is fiction, and it is set in a spaceship. Just because it is more realistic than Star Trek doesn't mean it's not SF. Look up Hard Science Fiction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
This is 2023 not 1923. Get with the times.
I don't necessarily consider it anything but I still know what it's not.
I dunno man, "It's plausible" still doesn't mean it's not science fiction. The technology that is at the disposal of the heroine is still not readily available to 99.999% of humanity. Best I can say is it's a thriller survival drama set in a hard SF setting.
I'm saying it's not science fiction because literally nothing is fictional about the science. As I understand maybe thats not true. But a movie is not science fiction just because it takes place in space let alone low earth orbit. Maybe in 1923 but not 2023
That's fair but science fiction is the only genre that explores humanity's place in the world in the face of advanced technology. I mean of course satellites and space stations are a reality but that doesn't mean you interact with them on a daily basis. If a film is set in an airplane (a technology that most people have experience with) I'd not consider it SF, but spaceships are still not a routine part of the human experience, which is why it should still be SF.
It's also literally not a spaceship either
Doesn't matter what you call it honestly, it's not readily accessible to most of the audience.
>it's not readily accessible to most of the audience.
What in the world does that have to do with anything? How is that in anyway a reasonable criteria?
That is what makes it SF for me at least. Because SF is based on making the viewer think about humanity's existence alongside technology that is outside of their daily existence.
So what about Das Boot? How is that not a science fiction movie according to your criteria?
That's a false equivalence, Das Boot is already a war film, it doesn't need additional labels to classify it.
But for the sake of argument, no, Das Boot describes the experiences of sailors in war, and there are more sailors in the world than astronauts.
>because there are more sailors in the world than astronauts.
Have you heard of the term goal post moving before? First your criteria was technology now its just very general industry professions. How many people have ever been on a submarine before? I'll venture a guess of 0.0001% of people. That's not your criteria anymore?
That's a fair point but honestly, no, Das Boot is a film about war, not technology. It's just a bad faith argument to call it SF.
The Abyss, meanwhile, is definitely a SF film.
All those random explosions and obvious bullshit is not real.
Yeah that means it's a movie not a documentary. It doesn't mean it's science fiction.
What do you consider it? An action movie? It is set in space. That is sci-fi. We can say sci-fi action movie, but it is clearly sci-fi.
Scifi doesn't equate to "removed from reality". Why do morons think this?
stfu redditor
You think that is gratuitous?
It's le heckin homage
At least they had her floating unlike Ripley.
>I assure you dear viewer, having K Stewart running around in her underwear for half the movie is essential to the plot!
I assure you dear actors, carefully protecting and carrying a bunny plushie pretending it's a really bunny is essential to the plot
>doesn't CGI a real bunny and the characters look more unhinged
>complaining about whether or not a woman in her underwear is necessary to the plot
Some of you zoomer bastards have never watched an Andy Sidaris film and it shows.
Who is complaining, Patrick?
Gravity is one of the shitty pseud tier movies I've ever seen. Went into it thinking it would be Sci Fi kino but it was just fricking generic garbage. Think Do people actually like this?
Is everyone purposely being moronic ITT? That scene was representing her rebirth, she couldn’t possibly more clearly resemble an embryo
How can she be an embryo when she's a grown woman? I mean, they're moronic and all, but still technically grown
feetsies
It’s visually representing a baby in a womb. The whole movie is about rebirth and is full of natalist visual symbology.
At first she’s secured on the shuttle like an egg in the fallopian tube, but then she gets detached (ovulation). Then a sperm attaches to her (conception) in the form of Kowalsky. Once he sends her to safety at the ISS she gestates in the womb. Then she goes to tiangong where she takes a landing craft back to the surface (while a Buddha statue is in the cabin). There, she steps out of the amniotic fluid of the swamp and she takes her first baby steps on land having been reborn.
Trying to invoke the question of whether a scene/image is "necessary" is the mark of the midwit
>>I assure you dear anon, having this shit thread floating around on the catalogue is essential to the board!
Reminder there's no ventilation in space stations - all the body odor and braps and whatnot stay in the atmosphere forever. It's an awkward secret no one wants to talk about.
I can think of worse things than being in an air tight, sealed room with a farting Sandra Bullock.
Just think, Ripley had been running around for days in the same outfit, sweating hard, no showers, so stinky. Then she gets in that tiny lifeboat and disrobes. That cabin would have been pungent.
What if she was menstruating too haha
>What was the point of this character
>What was the moral
Do you think your parents wished they didn't have a moron they'd have to care for indefinitely
>Movie ends with what is basically humanity entering the dark ages as communication links around the globe are destroyed and access to space is completely cut off by a debris cloud that could potentially last for hundreds of years
It was great she lived and all but that earth is fricked
Its significance is stupidly, blindingly obvious. NOTE HOW SHE’S FLOATING, IN FETAL POSITION. Imagine getting filtered by the director of Harry Potter 3