Gravity versus Interstellar

When INTERSTELLAR was released there was a lot of talk in my city ( Bombay in India ) as to how it totally outclassed and eclipsed GRAVITY , because the setting of interstellar ( that of time travel to distant galaxies ) was so grand in comparison to Gravity . Gravity's setting was relatively modest , as it was not much beyond the reach of the earth and the earth was always in sight in the movie . Also the length of Gravity was only half the length of Interstellar . Interstellar had the name of Christopher Nolan on it .

But now that the dust has settled or rather the hype has gone down , I think it is time to reassess the Gravity versus Interstellar debate .

I now feel ( now that I am out of the effect of the hype created around Interstellar ) that both movies are equally good . The end of interstellar seems somehow contrived and a little ' too much ' at least to me . Gravity seems more believable and less of science fiction compared to Interstellar , whose science fiction seems too way out of reach to me at least . This not to bring down Interstellar in any way , but I would like Gravity to get equal respect too .

It's a good thing that Gravity is half the length of Interstellar. Interstellar was good for what it was but had no business being 3 hours long. The entire second act was an episodic waste of time that didn't move the plot forward at all. It's kind of hard to sit through very often. Of course, the counter to having too much plot is not having enough plot, which describes Gravity fairly well. I think both are overrated, but Gravity is the one I'm more likely to watch again.

I've only seen Gravity so I didn't vote, but I can only assume that Interstellar is better.

Even though both are space odysseys I think we are comparing apples to oranges. Gravity os a small comfined story that just happens to take place in the vastness of space. Interstellar is a large sweeping, grand story. Gravity's story only has immediate implications for three people. Interstellar for all of known life. Gravity, while unrealistic, is still grounded in the universe we live in. Interstellar is science fiction.

All that being said I prefer Gravity by a long shot. I could understand people feeling the other way though. It is a much smaller, less complicated story.

__________________
Letterboxd

I only have seen Interstellar! Liked it on the technical point of view, a lot of great adrenaline fueled moments, but a horrible script, Nolan style.
I have to watch Gravity, but I'm not too curious.

I reviewed both films. So go read my reviews

Gravity was edge of your seat excitement with amazing space scenes, especially in the theater.

Interstellar had a lot going for it and almost was a modern master piece but failed on a few easy to fix script points, also unneededly long.

Bigger Cauron fan, so I'll vote Gravity, but I like both a lot.

Seen both, and Gravity is WAY better.

__________________
Fear and Loathing in MoFo... The Gunslinger 45's Top 50 Favorite Films

In the 10 Ring: Gunslinger45's reviews

I like Interstellar better, if only because it's more cinematic and has more moments of wonder.

One can't really complain about the script in Interstellar when that of Gravity is far from great in the first place.

To me there's a huge space between them.

I would say Gravity by several miles. Though I like some aspects in Interstellar for a pure entertainment point of view, while it's also pretty good on a technical level, but not nearly as out-of this-world-great as Gravity was on a technical scale.

I see what you did there.

Anyway, back on topic. I want to expand. I don't deny that Gravity doesn't have a perfect script. But I'm someone who is more focused on the direction and craft than on the script. Certainly a better script would have elevated it, but I think the script more or less suffices. That sounds weird, I'm not saying script isn't important at all - I mean, if that guy who wrote Scream 3 wrote Gravity, no doubt it'd be a disaster. The reason I'm okay with the script for Gravity though is because it's simple. Anyone who has read my garbage knows I love simplicity in cinema, and Gravity is a striking example of why. To me, Cauron took a very basic and average, flawed script and made a mammoth of a film with it. You can say it's crap if you want but when it came out it astonished people. There's a reason for that. Cauron is a master craftsman, and when he has a good/great script he makes masterpieces of cinema - for example, Children of Men and Y Tu Mama Tambien, and yes, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (one of the greatest fantasy films ever made. You heard it here first folks). With a less-than-great script, his films still often showcase his brilliance (though I haven't seen some of his earlier stuff).

Anyway, as an aspiring director I have this idea in my head where I would basically take a script from a trashbin, find the worst script I can find, and try make a decent film out of it. I have another idea where I make a film without a script at all. Just start shooting with a group of actors and make up the story as we go along. I think both would be interesting experiments and could lead to interesting results if they don't fall apart entirely (which is very possible, if not likely). But it would be a test of will and talent to see if I could do it.

Hopefully my point comes across, though. As a viewer and a filmmaker I'm less focused on scripts than I am on craft, atmosphere, mood, etc. Maybe it means I'll make terrible films, but whatever, I'll have a blast doing it.

This all probably makes me come off as a delusional lunatic spouting nonsense, but I don't deny that's the case.

That's interesting Howard Hawks sort of did what you just said. He told his friend Ernest Hemmingway that he could take the worse story that Hemmingway wrote and make a great movie out of it. And he did, To Have and Have Not (1944)

That's awesome. Both those "experiments" have probably been done before in some capacity or variation - off the top of my head, I know Mike Leigh's process starts without a script, though he develops one as they rehearse. I had another example but forgot. Anyway, definitely nothing new, and I'm inspired by those previous examples.

I've seen To Have and Have Not, and I remember enjoying it quite a bit. So hey, maybe finding success with that kind of process is possible. Of course, we're talking about the "worst" story written by Ernest Hemmingway - no doubt still better than anything written by a number of writers.

...Very true!... This is kind of interesting....One of Hemmingway's best stories was made into a rather mediocre movie The Snows of Kilimanjaro (1952), that one was directed by two directors I've never heard of.

I just didn't understand interstellar. over my head.

Voted for Interstellar really didn't like Gravity that much

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

Love is quantifiable !! What a load of horse ****.
I couldn't roll my eyes any harder at how stupid interstellar was.

And yeah you can definitely complain about the script! I just did.

I went Gravity because Interstellar went a bit loopy in the end. I like both, but Gravity didn't have the ridiculous ending that Interstellar did.

__________________
"You, me, everyone...we are all made of star stuff." - Neil Degrasse Tyson

https://shawnsmovienight.blogspot.com/

Interstellar by a mile. Gravity is crap.