Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

jcsoulinger

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The entire premise is irrelevant... OK, that works for some people I guess. Then why bother claiming scientific accuracy at all?

I just don't think it matters the earth is ****ed is the point. Caines character also made reference to nitrogen levels being too high which is becoming a real problem in reality right now. Maybe this and the blight are responsible it matters little to me. There are far more glaring mistakes in regards to the scientific accuracy of the film which others have alluded to surrounding the black hole.

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

But we haven't met any aliens, and we haven't had a nuclear war. However, we have had famines from blight. You are saying two things we have never experienced are more feasible than one thing we actually have experienced on multiple occasions?

We have much experience of blights, enough to know they are localized and temporal. They simply cannot cause a worldwide permanent destruction of all plant life.
To the best of our knowledge an all out nuclear war could quite possibly do this.
We don't know anything at all about aliens, therefore if they were to turn up here they could kill us all. Seeing as we appear to be well able to kill ourselves, this would be obvious.
So, yes, correct, either of the other two explanations would be more believable than "blight".

Dan_Solo

jcsoulinger wrote: »

I just don't think it matters the earth is ****ed is the point. Caines character also made reference to nitrogen levels being too high which is becoming a real problem in reality right now. Maybe this and the blight are responsible it matters little to me. There are far more glaring mistakes in regards to the scientific accuracy of the film which others have alluded to surrounding the black hole.

Fair enough, I just find this plot device (a McGuffin?) to be equally silly.

bren2001

PhiloCypher wrote: »

A lot of these echo my own thoughts

http://www.hitfix.com/comedy/13-baffling-questions-interstellar-refused-to-anwswer

Ill be honest, a lot of those questions are easily answered.

Squeedily Spooch

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So you expect the same realism and thoughtful storyline in a Nolan movie as there is in Transformers?
If you insist!
I'm still wondering why they bothered paying for a scientific consultant though.

You could always actually watch the film? you're trying to dissect a plot point in a movie you haven't even seen. The reason for them going into space isn't important past what we're told, mankind is on it's way out is enough of a premise.
It wasn't important or explained why people couldn't have kids anymore in Children of Men, and that didn't hurt the film one bit, or why the sun was dying in Sunshine.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

We have much experience of blights, enough to know they are localized and temporal. They simply cannot cause a worldwide permanent destruction of all plant life.
To the best of our knowledge an all out nuclear war could quite possibly do this.
We don't know anything at all about aliens, therefore if they were to turn up here they could kill us all. Seeing as we appear to be well able to kill ourselves, this would be obvious.
So, yes, correct, either of the other two explanations would be more believable than "blight".

Hold on a minute, you haven't seen the movie? Why are you arguing about something you haven't seen?

Goldstein

Boy, time is not this film's friend. Debating physics or the finer plot points is pointless with this one as that would be completely missing the elephant in the room. The story was weak to begin with and incredibly disjointed. Just because the story uses interesting props it still underachieved with how it used them. Parts are satisfying to watch if retreading well trodden tropes in science fiction but most of it just has you wondering who in their right mind signed off on the script. It feels like something that was heavily rewritten and the essense of the film was lost in all the changes in direction. Over 2 and a half hours and yet feels like it was cut to ribbons with huge jumps in parts. Can't believe I'm saying this about a Christopher Nolan science fiction outing but it was kinda boring and overly melodramatic.

It's not even in Nolan's top 5 and that's a huge disappointment.

I wouldn't fancy sitting through that again.

constitutionus

kind conflicted with this one.

on the one hand i really enjoyed it and im glad i went. its undeniably emotionally powerful and i love how the time distortions allowed for the convayance of the effect of actual interstellar travel i.e your pretty much leaving your life behind as everyone else ages ahead of ya. if we ever do get to the stage of having virtual speed of light ships anyone using one will basically be going on a one way trip from the world they knew as what theyll come back to will be radically different

the scene with cooper just watching his backlog of messages alone was fantastic.

but i have to say i thought the stuff in the black hole jumped the shark. i know WHY it was done but it just felt like **** to me. also at 3 hours i cant see myself going to see this again.

theres ALOT in this thats great, but the sum of its parts just doesnt seem to create something i can honestly see the vast majority of me mates wanting to go and see . as i can see em thinking its too arty by films end.

that said weirdly i can see this as a highbrow date movie

visually i cant fault it. it looks amazing and they do a great job realising their near future world and the preformances are grand.

but like other i had a fecking nightmare with the sound. i was at screen 1 in the IMC in tallaght and there was whole sections of dialogue on earth i couldnt make out, let alone when they got to space. i dont know enough about sound to say what it was but IMO the soundtrack deffo drowned out the dialogue at times along with some mad bass effects at apparently random times for no real reason i could see.

at a stab i'd give this a personal 8 out of 10.

its the type of film im glad theyre still trying to make and it works as a good film about the enviorment as much as about space travel. . but i can see joe soap looking forward to a good sci/fi film giving it a 5 as theyll feel they got conned into a flim about matthew mconaughey and his kid.

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you haven't seen the movie? Why are you arguing about something you haven't seen?

Please point out to me which thing I have said have been invalidated by this fact? Will the plot and story change if I see it? I haven't commented on the sound or acting or visuals.
Strawman much?
I might catch it later. I was just wondering if it was worth the effort of seeing in the cinema. Guess not.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please point out to me which thing I have said have been invalidated by this fact?
Strawman much?
I might catch it later. I was just wondering if it was worth the effort of seeing in the cinema. Guess not.

You aren't wondering if it is worth seeing or not. You have deliberately picked a side and are critiquing the movie from assumptions. I know the premise of Lord of the Flies, and I have heard reviews, but I have never actually read it. Therefore, I would never attempt to debate it with those who have read it.

Interstellar is complex, and being familiar with parts does not give you a thorough understanding of its entirety. There are subtle themes at play and like any Nolan film, all parts must be seen in the fashion he has presented them to get a full understanding of what he is trying to say.

Why, why would you spend time arguing about a film you haven't seen? If you want to ask questions, sure; go for it. But, don't attack a film for x, y, and z when you haven't even seen it. Utterly baffling.

Snake Plisken

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm happy you asked. And even more glad didn't assume which way I'd answer...
Yes, I would accept those reasons. They would make sense. "blight" is no more believable than any of the physics in the movie. In fact it is less so. At least the physics can say an actual expert made a stab at them.

Jesus I wish people would just suspend believe and enjoy the movie for what it is without having to nit pick every damn thing about the movie!

Amalgam

3.. 2.. 1.. TARS plushies for sale on Etsy.

I loved this film. I feel like I've been to a rather energetic and charismatic religious service..

TARS keyring, TARS bottle opener..

Snake Plisken

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Please point out to me which thing I have said have been invalidated by this fact? Will the plot and story change if I see it? I haven't commented on the sound or acting or visuals.
Strawman much?
I might catch it later. I was just wondering if it was worth the effort of seeing in the cinema. Guess not.

Your just trolling if you haven't even seen it!

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

Why, why would you spend time arguing about a film you haven't seen? If you want to ask questions, sure; go for it. But, don't attack a film for x, y, and z when you haven't even seen it. Utterly baffling.

I'm not arguing about anything.
I've told you why I'll catch this movie some time or other but I'm not exactly gagging to see it. The premise is ridiculous and the plot is contrived emotion trumps logic schmaltz.
Unless the whole internet is lying about this movie's plot and story, if so well done guys, you got me.

Dan_Solo

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Your just trolling if you haven't even seen it!

Oh yes, because it's easy to roar "your troll" compared to actually disputing what I said, which would seemingly be beyond you.
Goodbye.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The premise is ridiculous and the plot is contrived emotion trumps logic schmaltz.

Wow. Through the power of osmosis you have absorbed all that Interstellar has to offer without seeing it.

I know there are people in the world who have already made up their mind about something before actually experiencing it, and they go to great lengths to find information and collaboration in order to justify their pre-determined stance, but I never really experienced it until now. Not only have you managed to argue(debate) about a movie you have never seen, you have adopted to views of those who fit yours, used their information to fight your case for many hours, and still manage to decide upon the film's plot with one sentence. In all this time, you could have seen Interstellar for yourself and come up with your own conclusions based on that experience. I assure you, this movie is not for you.

Back on topic; I have decided to go see this again next weekend with my brother (he is big into his Sci-fi and plays a lot of Kerbal Space Programme), so I reckon he will enjoy it. Oh, and I have started reading 'A Brief History of Time', can anyone suggest any other material on the topic of space travel? Preferably something easier to read than content written for people with PhDs in Theoretical Physics

Dempsey

I enjoyed that film, it wore thin at the 5th dimension stuff but I'd give it a pass because there was a lot to praise about the film. The acting from MMC was very good, I dare say better than dallas buyers club.

That_Guy

Snake Plisken wrote: »

Jesus I wish people would just suspend believe and enjoy the movie for what it is without having to nit pick every damn thing about the movie!

I appreciate that film, like many things, is subjective but if you intentionally sit through a film actively looking for flaws you'll find them.

Not a good way to watch a film at all in my opinion.

I appreciate it for what it is anyway. Minor things bugged me but are easily overlooked in a film that contains 90 per cent of brilliant moments.

PhiloCypher

That_Guy wrote: »

I appreciate that film, like many things, is subjective but if you intentionally sit through a film actively looking for flaws you'll find them.

Not a good way to watch a film at all in my opinion.

I appreciate it for what it is anyway. Minor things bugged me but are easily overlooked in a film that contains 90 per cent of brilliant moments.

I'd be like you in that I'll overlook a helluva lot of little things if I like the film as a whole, but as beautiful as this looked, as great a crier as McCounaghy is, it just didn't hold together for me as well Nolans previous works. And as such I find it harder to overlook it's flaws. Sorry if that annoys people.

Squeedily Spooch

PhiloCypher wrote: »

I'd be like you in that I'll overlook a helluva lot of little things if I like the film as a whole, but as beautiful as this looked, as great a crier as McCounaghy is, it just didn't hold together for me as well Nolans previous works. And as such I find it harder to overlook it's flaws. Sorry if that annoys people.

Nothing wrong with that at all, least you've seen the movie :pac:

pixelburp

Well it seems even Nolan himself is aware that he's held to a unique standard of criticism compared to his peers:

Christopher Nolan wrote:

To be honest, I haven’t read whatever holes people are trying to poke so I can speak to the validity of it. My films are always held to a weirdly high standard for those issues that isn’t applied to everybody else’s films—which I’m fine with. People are always accusing my films of having plot holes, and I’m very aware of the plot holes in my films and very aware of when people spot them, but they generally don’t. But what were some science issues people had with the film? That was Kip’s domain.

It's just a snippet from a generally whistlestop interview, and while he doesn't suggest he's annoyed by the criticism, he's certainly aware of it. As he has become more popular and his films touched on geek / pop culture sacred cows, he was always going to open himself up to more granular levels of criticism. Not sure though his films have been entirely without holes here and there

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/10/christopher-nolan-uncut-on-interstellar-ben-affleck-s-batman-and-the-future-of-mankind.html

Snake Plisken

That_Guy wrote: »

I appreciate that film, like many things, is subjective but if you intentionally sit through a film actively looking for flaws you'll find them.

Not a good way to watch a film at all in my opinion.

I appreciate it for what it is anyway. Minor things bugged me but are easily overlooked in a film that contains 90 per cent of brilliant moments.

That's exactly my point, I didn't go to watch Star Wars or Close Encounters just so I could go hey hold a minute where is the scientific proof of this or ask why are the aliens coming here! I just went to be entertained and enjoy the wonderful images that talented filmmakers had put up on the cinema screen, this movie took me back to my childhood going to see those movies in the local cinema. Maybe I'm in a minority on here but I think this will be considered a classic in years to come.

johnny_ultimate

A plot synopsis - and I have to confess, the trend of reductively dismissing a film's plot in a sarcastic sentence is a pet peeve of mine - or comments online are in no way even a rudimentary way of judging a film. I'm going to be a pretentious so-and-so here and say that film is a medium that's all about mood, feeling, the almost indescribable sensory response to what's on screen. Yes, narrative factors into that too, but it's only one factor in an improbably complex cocktail. A barebones, familiar, even ridiculous plot can, with the proper script and direction, be an extraordinary cinematic experience.

As a matter of fact, the best moments in Interstellar are a great example of that - they're the ones when the poetics of the performances, score, editing, visuals, design, themes etc... combine. They're when you forget any leaps of logic or silly exposition its taken to get to that point and just get lost in the cinematic fluency of it all. Sadly, those moments were rarer than I would expect from a Christopher Nolan film, but there's quite a few of them nonetheless. And while it's very easy indeed to criticise the script and plotting, it's harder to deny that it's a big screen treat - Nolan is a director who truly paints films on the canvas of a cinema screen. Film is a storytelling medium, but far above that it's an audio-visual one too, and dismissing a film on the basis of reading about the plot online is IMO equivalent to judging a painting having had a cursory glance at the paintbursh.

Adamantium

I saw this a few hours ago, most of the time I sat with my mouth again and again opened at how Nolan had somehow let a studio make a 165 million dollar arthouse/astrophysics/metaphysics film that had talking heads discuss relativity and minutae of blackholes, without obvious villians or wars to a mainstream dumbed down audience. The man has balls of steel. Yes there is probably too much intellectual stuff going on, but god damn when is that ever said of a mainstream movie like this. It's often said that Inception is a dumb movie loved by people who want to feel smart, but there is zero such accusation here, this is heavy thematic material that was bordering on the metaphysical and yes even zany. It is worth seeing for that alone.

As a nut of all things space and sci-fi, there was stuff that was even flying over my head and I expected a few walkouts but not one person did. Everybody was just transfixed, that last act in the 5th dimension is something unheard of in blockbusting since well....2001.
I expected a ton as tis ton of ****e comments from the plebs (sorry I don't really think

Incredibly emotional film and in many ways, it feels like Nolan's first one to truly connect to, as if it really personal to him, there is genuine wonder.

Did anyone feel some some influences/allusions to the reimagined BSG? the 12 astronaut sent through the wormhole
(also noticed Leah Cairns (Racetrack) was Casey Afflecks wife)


Also Young Murphy was an incredible actor, if I ever have a daughter I want her to be as cute as that one.

I'm not blind to its flaws, of which there are quite a few, but my god this is how you use the cinema.

Hans Zimmer does his best work since Gladiator imo in here. That cathedral organ never got old, despite the fact the cinema was so ill equipped to handle and it sounded like a wall of crackling noise.

One of the best moments I've ever had in cinema was the first scene when they're chasing the drone through the cornfield at the beginning, the combination of music, imagery(father, daughter, sun) is almost tear inducing.

Calibos

Prometheus all over again for me I'm afraid.

I should have known tbh when several people here said words to the effect of, "Plotholes, Whatever! Suspension of disbelief! What about that cinematography though Man!......".

Deja Vu!

The same assumption by some people that the naysayers obviously didn't understand the science and saw plot holes where there were none. Au Contraire, Its those who understand the science the most comprehensively that see it for the mess it is in the science department. Not the physics of wormholes or Blackholes or time dilation I'll grant you but every other scientific plot premise in the movie.

Its not a Deep movie, Its insulting.

I generally don't judge sci-fi on its science unless in its promotion I am told its 'based on real science man, with real scientists advising the production even!!"

To one of the recent posters defending the science.... We don't have a Nitrogen problem like the movie, you're thinking of the greenhouse gases C02 and Methane.

[EDIT]Just saw Adamantiums post.

It's often said that Inception Interstellar is a dumb movie loved by people who want to feel smart

FlyingIrishMan

Calibos wrote: »

Prometheus all over again for me I'm afraid.

I should have known tbh when several people here said words to the effect of, "Plotholes, Whatever! Suspension of disbelief! What about that cinematography though Man!......".

Deja Vu!

The same assumption by some people that the naysayers obviously didn't understand the science and saw plot holes where there were none. Au Contraire, Its those who understand the science the most comprehensively that see it for the mess it is in the science department. Not the physics of wormholes or Blackholes or time dilation I'll grant you but every other scientific plot premise in the movie.

Its not a Deep movie, Its insulting.

I generally don't judge sci-fi on its science unless in its promotion I am told its 'based on real science man, with real scientists advising the production even!!"

To one of the recent posters defending the science.... We don't have a Nitrogen problem like the movie, you're thinking of the greenhouse gases C02 and Methane. I rest my case

So you understand the science better than Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse who both complemented the science behind it? Pretentious much?

Which part of the science did you find unbelievable?

Calibos

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

So you understand the science better than Stephen Hawking and Neil DeGrasse who both complemented the science behind it? Pretentious much?

I'd imagine they are talking about the theoretical physics of wormholes, Blackholes and Time dilation which I said I didn't have a problem with.

What did they have to say about the nitrogen consuming blight, floating glaciers, terraforming a new planet in another galaxy no less (What? No habitable or terraformable planets amongst the 200 Billion stars in our own galaxy?) it somehow being easier than re-terraforming earth(ie. fixing it), why their spacecraft needs to be lofted into orbit atop a Saturn V multistage rocket and yet can reach escape velocity under its own power from a planet they say had gravity 40% greater than that of earth? etc etc

jcsoulinger

Calibos wrote: »

To one of the recent posters defending the science.... We don't have a Nitrogen problem like the movie, you're thinking of the greenhouse gases C02 and Methane.

[EDIT]Just saw Adamantiums post.

I was not thinking of green house gasses, I recently read that our over use of nitrogen was polluting our oceans its not seen as a major problem now but could be in the future. And I wasn't defending the science my point was that it didn't matter how the earth became uninhabitable just that it did.

Elessar

I can't say whether I liked or disliked this film. So much in it. I loved MMs performance and the young murph's character. But the payoff in the end was abysmal.

It's like "Oh hey Murph you're now 90 and about to die. I've missed you growing up and all your life and everything. Well ok see ya later!" *flies off into space again*.

Does. Not. Compute.

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

Wow. Through the power of osmosis you have absorbed all that Interstellar has to offer without seeing it.

I know there are people in the world who have already made up their mind about something before actually experiencing it, and they go to great lengths to find information and collaboration in order to justify their pre-determined stance, but I never really experienced it until now. Not only have you managed to argue(debate) about a movie you have never seen, you have adopted to views of those who fit yours, used their information to fight your case for many hours, and still manage to decide upon the film's plot with one sentence. In all this time, you could have seen Interstellar for yourself and come up with your own conclusions based on that experience. I assure you, this movie is not for you.

Again, incapable of contesting anything I actually posted. Just a "you are this sort" and "you sort do this sort of thing."
Is this movie itself transdimensional and the now well documented plot holes and logical disasters evaporate due to some magical effect of having a screen over X metres across?

TBH I did the same thing with Prometheus, and I came to that expecting far far more than of Interstellar. One peek at the online reviews showed it was story spaghetti. So I got it later instead of at the cinema.
Which was more than it deserved also... :-)