After all that, she ends up
on what looks like a deserted island, becoming the next Castaway?
shareIt wasn't a deserted island, it was a lake in Central-Asia.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
She's on land. How do you know where she is? That it's not deserted?
shareHer reentry path went over the Caspian Sea, so she ended up in a continental area, somewhere in Central Asia. Central Asia has a lot of lakes. Furthermore, it's not an island; I have no idea where you got that idea. Also there was a cabin in the background went she got up on her feet. And NASA had noticed her module entering the atmosphere and had located her, so they were going to arrange for a rescue team anyway.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
There is no way of knowing where she came down as the clues in the film itself are paradoxical.
While for most of the film, you can see where they are in orbit by matching known features seen below on Earth, Coastlines, Cities, etc... Trying to determine an orbit out of them is impossible as the orbit zig zags and backtracks, even completely reverses itself at times.
Compounding this problem is that the film changes from CGI of real geography and terrain for the orbital parts... to completely fictional CGI for the reentry... It is impossible to match Reentry sequences to real world locations because they don't exist.
And adding even further to the problem... Even though she should be somewhere in Asia based on last KNOWN and recognizable ground terrain... the overlapping radio calls when NASA was trying to contact her in the end... includes American Country Music and American Radio Commercials. Not something you'd hear broadcasting over a radio in Asia.
About the only thing you got right is that yes... there was an occupied Cabin, with lights and woodsmoke from a Chimney. So Not deserted, but hardly pinpointed in Asia.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
I think the terrains seen during the reentry sequences are based on real world locations, but because the module (and the "camera") is much closer to Earth now, these features are just much smaller than the more recognizable features that were shown much earlier in the movie, and hence they are much harder to identify on a world map. It's not, say, the recognizable "boot-shaped" coastline of Italy that has to be identified, but rather some (relatively) small lake or river bed in (supposedly) Central-Asia, which means we'd have to be zoomed in quite closely into Google Maps while systematically scouring the whole region bit by bit, while also taking into account that the features in the movie may have been distorted due to the viewing angle; a nigh-impossible task. (And there's the possibility that the imagery is not from Central-Asia, but from a different part of Earth.)
I don't know if it's that far-fetched that radio-calls from NASA to the module could be somehow received in Central-Asia and that, in that case, they would be overlapped with frequencies broadcasting American Country Music and American Radio Commercials. Apparently there exists something like a worldwide network of American military broadcasters (called AFRTS) for command information as well as for entertainment (American Forces Network, AFN) for American servicemen and women who are stationed abroad.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Forces_Network
Maybe it's possible that NASA was sending its radio calls with the help of AFRTS, over a frequency that overlaps the frequency band over which the AFN is broadcasting its (American) entertainment programs? I don't know how that works, I'm not in the military nor a broadcast/communications engineer, and I'm also not American; since you are (or were) in the Navy, you probably know this stuff better than me.
But put in other words: if NASA was using American (worldwide military) broadcasters for their communication to their just-returned astronaut, rather than local (Asian) broadcasters, then it seems only logical that their calls would be overlapped with frequencies airing American music programs and American commercials, rather than local (Asian) music programs and commercials. Of course this is still not proof that she landed in Asia (because the same would also apply to, say, South-America or Europe or wherever), but point is that she didn't necessarily land in/near North-America, and that Asia is still plausible.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
I don't know how that works, I'm not in the military nor a broadcast/communications engineer, and I'm also not American; since you are (or were) in the Navy, you probably know this stuff better than me.
And you dont find your lecturing me, A veteran, on the existence of AFN/AFRTS... a bit presumptuous?
You are correct though. On your not being a broadcast engineer. Your entire basis of argument is completely unfounded. That isn't how radio transmission and reception works. What you propose simply isn't reality.
I think the terrains seen during the reentry sequences are based on real world locations, but because the module (and the "camera") is much closer to Earth now, these features are just much smaller than the more recognizable features that were shown much earlier in the movie, and hence they are much harder to identify on a world map. It's not, say, the recognizable "boot-shaped" coastline of Italy that has to be identified, but rather some (relatively) small lake or river bed in (supposedly) Central-Asia, which means we'd have to be zoomed in quite closely into Google Maps while systematically scouring the whole region bit by bit,
It's nice that you "think" it's based on real world locations, but the FACT is that its pure CGI.
And while I get and understand what you are saying in regards to smaller terrain features rather than continental coastlines.... You're speaking to someone well versed in overhead imagery analysis.
I've even IDed this location (out of the whole planet) just from the video alone and using google Earth imagery only with all informatiin turned off.
https://youtu.be/V0FPqdsC8_Y
Its here...
16° 1′ 2″ N, 146° 3′ 31″ E
I am quite capable of locating very small features, not just something the size of an Italian "boot"
while also taking into account that the features in the movie may have been distorted due to the viewing angle; a nigh-impossible task.
The viewing angle was near ideal, being almost directly overhead for the shots in question.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
I wasn't lecturing you. I was merely proposing an idea. Since you're more versed in this subject matter, I was hoping that you would reply with an explanation why that idea would or would not work.
Am I wrong in thinking that the country music and American radio commercials in the scene might be broadcast by a network such as the AFN/AFRTS, and hence that their occurrence in the movie does not necessarily contradict a landing location that is far removed from the North-American continent?
I presented my ideas in rather simplistic terms and examples, because (a) other readers of this thread might then better understand the technical stuff that I'm getting at, and (b) English is not my native language and hence my knowledge of English falls somewhat short when it comes to particular jargon. I'm sorry if it came across as patronizing towards you, because that was not my intention.
The viewing angle of the large lake during the first half of reentry (of which you remarked, in an earlier thread, that it somewhat resembles the Aral Lake before it dried up) was not overhead. The final water surface in which Ryan Stone lands is shown in two shots; the second shot (right before it cuts to the landing of the capsule) is indeed almost overhead, and it looks like a lake in the shape of a "duck". But the first shot (I think shown directly before or after the parachute deployed) shows a bit more of the adjacent features and was not overhead, and in that shot it looked like it was not a lake, but rather a river in a mountainous area.
It's quite a feat that you could identify that small island as one of the Northern Mariana islands (although I suspect that you are at least a bit familiar with that region, which is probably an advantageous factor). I was merely saying that finding such a small feature requires a lot of zooming in and hence becomes a tedious job, which may explain why other fans of this movie (not you in particular) have not yet been able to identify the lakes during the reentry scene. And I think that a lot of fans (again: not you in particular) easily get the scale of the lake feature mistaken/incorrect. (For example: two of my contenders for the final lake are Lake Balkash, and Lake Toktogul, but those two lakes are of different scale, and I can't judge very well which scale is a closer match to what we see in the movie.)
I have not encountered any confirmation that the final geography features were completely made up and not based on actual real geography/locations (even if they were CGI). Care to point me to a quote or article?
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
She is representing the evolution of life and humans. It doesn't matter where she lands specifically. She landed where life evolved- in a mountainous lake in an isolated terrain. Her trip from space to the meteorite, to the lake and then to finally crawling and walking on land was a metaphor for the evolution of human beings. You must've missed it. But I'm sure you recall the baby in the womb with placenta rebirthing scene with her in space.
shareNo, I didn't miss it. I wasn't asking about the evolution theme. (Not exactly like Tree of Life.) But you say she's in an isolated terrain, while the other OP says there was a cabin in in the background. Which I was too dense to see. Anyway, good movie. I don't get all the hate, but people on imdb love to hate.
sharewhile the other OP says there was a cabin in in the background. Which I was too dense to see.To be honest, I hadn't noticed it myself either when I watched the movie in the theater; I read about it afterwards, somewhere on the internet (probably on this board). Bullock's body is blocking the view of the cabin, we can only catch a glimpse of the cabin for a fraction of a second when Bullock starts stumbling away from the shore, right before the scene cuts to a black screen with the movie title. Blink, and you'll miss it.
By the way, I'm not an "other OP". OP means "original poster" (or "original post") here on IMDb, which is another word for "Thread Starter" (or "Thread Starting Post"). This thread was started by you, so you and only you are the OP.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0 share
Oh, okay. What are you called then? a P, for poster? I don't know the lingo. Obviously. I see OP on posts and thought it was an abbreviation for "opinion." Ha!
Also, I really didn't "get" the evolution theme until I came on the board and read about it. Duh. Which is why I visit IMDb--to learn. To grow. To evolve, let's say.
But NOT...to be a hater.
Oh, okay. What are you called then? a P, for poster? I don't know the lingo. Obviously. I see OP on posts and thought it was an abbreviation for "opinion." Ha!Sorry, but I don't get your negative sentiment. I merely took the liberty to explain what "OP" means so that you could use it in the future. And I made no comment whatsoever on the topic of the "evolution theme", so why are you addressing me about it? (I don't even agree with user dgl93743 about his interpretation of that theme; but that's a thing for another thread).
Also, I really didn't "get" the evolution theme until I came on the board and read about it. Duh. Which is why I visit IMDb--to learn. To grow. To evolve, let's say.
But NOT...to be a hater.
Where was I being a hater?
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0 share
If you don't agree, can you explain why? I went back and viewed past threads on here, and several people extrapolated the same theory as to what it was, and what that scene was about. They explained it almost exactly in the same way. In addition, someone even said Cuaron himself stated that in an interview. While they didn't provide a link and theres no certainty, it appeared the writer of that post read that because they quoted it. However even if Cuaron did not explain that, it's still blatantly obvious that was what Lubezki's cinematography was hinting at.
You can view it shallowly or you can try to gather a meaning and message of the film, which is the triumphant evolution of life against the elements of nature from space to landing on earth, and then evolving into more complex organisms. The ending sort of summarized it up in a time lapse. It's really obvious when you see how they captured Bullock standing up and walking on land at the end, alone. The way they film it is purposeful, as are the preceding events. Maybe you are just not as familiar with evolution theory and the origins of life. I've studied it and have seen many documentaries about it so it was pretty obvious at the end.
Actually, this isn't as important, but you can even take it another step further, if you so choose. Who is she thanking on the beach at the end? Why does she say thank you to the ground? Why did they randomly decide to show the Buddha statue in the space shuttle as she headed toward earth in that havoc? Thank you was a representation of the power of "faith" in humanity's "evolution". Obviously, she had to have faith in not just herself but also in something "more". She sure wasn't thanking herself. So there you even get a hint at "faith's" role in evolution as well. Her faith saved her- she never gave up. She was thanking God.
Like I said, it's a thing for another thread. And if I had wanted to, I would already have replied with my stance in your other thread.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
Fair enough, but you clearly don't have an answer or solution that is interesting enough to share. It would probably be, the movie is shallow and superficial and has no depth or something like that, which is the easy cop out. Either way, youre ignoring what many people and the director himself from what Ive gathered have said so youre not only disagreeing with me, you are also disagreeing with the director and many other people who proposed the same interpretation.
shareIt would probably be, the movie is shallow and superficial and has no depth or something like that, which is the easy cop out.Sure bud. You assume I didn't like the movie and didn't see any deeper themes, merely because I answered the OP with only on-topic answers?
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0 share
I guessed, not assumed. I asked a question. you clearly aren't up for the challenge and your "disagreement" with me has just been proven wrong. While any filmmaker and work of art is open to interpretation, allowing any viewer to see what they want, and they deservingly have the freedom to do so, based on the evidence provided you cant deny anymore that that theme was what Cuaron was getting at. So while you chickened out to explain why you disagreed, I supplied you with evidence of what you disagreed with. Now, it is up to your ignorance to decide what you wish to believe.
shareyou clearly aren't up for the challenge and your "disagreement" with me has just been proven wrong. While any filmmaker and work of art is open to interpretation, allowing any viewer to see what they want, and they deservingly have the freedom to do so, based on the evidence provided you cant deny anymore that that theme was what Cuaron was getting at. So while you chickened out to explain why you disagreed, I supplied you with evidence of what you disagreed with. Now, it is up to your ignorance to decide what you wish to believe.More assumptions.
This thread isn't about you. I merely replied to the topics that the OP wanted to address.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0 share
Ah, hello:
Just found this on a google search.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/alfonso-cuaron-explains-the-darwinian-ending-of-gravity.html
I wasn't saying you were a hater. Just seems people on this site hate a lot. I also didn't say you were discussing the evolution theme. But someone brought it up when I posted my original question.
Also I was serious about not knowing what to call other people who comment on a thread. I was the OP. What are the other commentators?
Usually the other commentators in a thread are simply called "that poster" or "the other poster". Sometimes I refer to them by their screenname (such as "yurenchu" or "user yurenchu"). As far as I know, there's no abbreviation in use to refer to another poster here on IMDb.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
I thought "OP" was referring to a brand of clothing in the uSA in the early 1980's, and since we're discussing a scene that took place in the ocean😁
_______________
My iMDB profile http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4297325/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1
Seriously? I don't agree that this movie was an exploration of evolution. I'm allowed to disagree with your theories.
sharedid you see the article I provided? Search within here, you'll find it. You don't need to agree, but you wouldn't be disagreeing with me; you'd be disagreeing with the writer, director, and cinematographer too. But you're entitled to do that if you'd like.
share[deleted]
Here, Ill help you:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/10/08/alfonso-cuaron-explains-the-darwinian-ending-of-gravity.html
You can copy and paste it if it doesn't work.
There was a Cabin, clearly seen if only for a brief second as she stands up.
So not deserted.
As to location... the film is deliberately vague and impossible to know. Evidence within the film is contradictory (See my other post for details.)
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
No, the film is not deliberately vague at all, and if you knew Lubezki, the cinematographer, you would know that he is very specific and meticulous about scenes of "nature" he creates with his camera.
Right when she lands and comes up from underneath the surface, you'll notice a very specific selection of colors juxtaposed for that "environment". He opted for clouds (the sun wasn't present in the early days of earth) against green mountains in a "pond", or a lake if you choose, while the meteorites rained down as she looked above. He took you through a "time lapse" of evolution there, where life originated according to evolution- from space, arriving via a meteorite, evolving from simple organisms into the first kinds of complex organisms (fish and amphibians, the frog and small fish that swims by) to the first forms that comprised the evolution from ponds and lakes (4 legged creatures) to upright human beings walking on 2 legs. It's really pretty simple and obvious to see if you want to.
Also, on second thought, now that I know about the "cabin", why would they choose a "cabin"? Why that? A cabin would be the next symbolic representation of evolution. Once humans were upright, they didn't have the tech to build huge homes; simplistic domiciles like cabins were relatively the next step to "colonization". So there's that.
No, the film is not deliberately vague at all, and if you knew Lubezki, the cinematographer, you would know that he is very specific and meticulous about scenes of "nature" he creates with his camera.
Right when she lands and comes up from underneath the surface, you'll notice a very specific selection of colors juxtaposed for that "environment". He opted for clouds (the sun wasn't present in the early days of earth) against green mountains in a "pond", or a lake if you choose, while the meteorites rained down as she looked above. He took you through a "time lapse" of evolution there, where life originated according to.... YADA YADA YADA YADA...
WOW.. you're STUCK on the wrong thread.
You are still going on about something being discussed on another thread and has NOTHING TO DO WITH this thread.
We are not talking about "deeper meanings" or a "Timelapse of evolution" here... take that back to the other thread.
We are discussing her actual physical location of landing.
And yes... the actual physical location of landing IS deliberately vague.
She should be in Central Asia based upon the last known position prior to reentry However the landforms seen while she was under parachute correspond to no known geography and the radio transmissions are of a Country music station and American radio commercials.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water! share
Oh youre right. Sorry, wrong thread. Yes, I agree then, it is deliberately vague. You mentioned to review your posts somewhere and I mustve got the one I responded to confused. Sorry about that. No big deal. Right on!
shareI got the impression that it was rural Asia as well. But I think I read in the trivia section they filmed it in a lake in Arizona. So perhaps that was where the character landed in the film as well?
shareDon't confuse real world shooting location as being the same as in the films world location.
The two are not the same.
If it was meant to BE the same they would not have altered the look of the location to be something other than it is.
I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!
Hence my use of the word "perhaps."
share