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

pixelburp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

It's not an entirely unreasonable suggestion that if you're going to debate the merits a movie's particulars, it helps if you have first seen the film and are in a position to debate from knowledge of the whole, not secondhand opinions and preconceived bias. You seem curiously obsessed with the notion of 'story and plot' being some trump card above and beyond any other facet of the medium; Johnny_ultimate put it quite elegantly about the language of cinema being more than just a shorthand to visualise a plot. If that was the case you'd probably be better off watching TV!

And still not sure why you bring up screensize, if indeed that's a reference back to my previous comments (otherwise I'm even more full of myself than I thought, the handsome genius that I am). It's not about raw dimensions, it's about the nature of the canvas being used to express - yes - the whole of the story.

To quote Mr. Ultimate:

... 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.

Mizu_Ger

Saw this on the iSense screen in Blanchardstown last night and it was LOUD!! Probably the loudest thing I've ever been to in the cinema (Batman Forever is the only other film I ever remember as being too loud). The score wasn't very subtle. It went for the wall-of-sound technique a lot.

On the film itself, I'm on the fence. There is some much going on that it's something I'd need to watch again on a small screen to digest the details better. The use of time slowing down reminded me of Inception a lot. The similarities to 2001 are obvious, but afterwards I felt like watching Contact again.

CathyMoran

I do get the bit about that a parent should never have to see their child die - I want my children to have long and happy lives but it would break my heart if anything happened to them.

I will buy the blueray special edition of this when it comes out next year some time I am guessing and I will show it to my young children but I will split it into sections - both of my children love the idea of the stars and it is something that I am glad to encourage and I feel that this movie will help instil a sense of wonder in the universe for them.

Dan_Solo

pixelburp wrote: »

It's not an entirely unreasonable suggestion that if you're going to debate the merits a movie's particulars, it helps if you have first seen the film and are in a position to debate from knowledge of the whole, not secondhand opinions and preconceived bias. You seem curiously obsessed with the notion of 'story and plot' being some trump card above and beyond any other facet of the medium;

I'm not saying it's the only part of a movie, but for a movie that is claiming a certain level of "realism" (e.g. the astrophysicists being cited as supporting certain elements) I would expect it to be at least passable, instead of being told the plot and story never mattered anyway when the multiple fundamental flaws are exposed.
Once again, I have never contested that indeed it could be the most amazing visual, aural and even emotional cinematic experience in history, in which case I guess I'll be sorry I waited for the BR edition.

Mickeroo

Is there really people criticising a film they haven't seen here or am I picking things up wrong? Could only happen with a Christopher Nolan film I suppose.

ThisRegard

Goldstein wrote: »

Haha, good to see Nolan is a fan of Event Horizon!

The scene and explanation was identical ! A very under rated film I think, Event Horizon that is.

DrumSteve

ThisRegard wrote: »

The scene and explanation was identical ! A very under rated film I think, Event Horizon that is.

Its a phenomally underrated film, probably the best sci fi horror of the last 20 years.

brevity

ThisRegard wrote: »

The scene and explanation was identical ! A very under rated film I think, Event Horizon that is.

Yup, love Event Horizon as well. Almost laughed out loud when they explained the black hole.

Mickeroo

What was the Event Horizon reference? Must have missed it, I haven't seen it in years but always had a soft spot.

Amalgam

Sorry if it has been linked already.. but some users are the embodiment of the following link.

waterfordwhispersnews.com/2014/11/07/asshole-friend-to-pick-apart-movie-interstellar-tonight-just-to-be-different/

Again, loved the film. Narratives that could have been woven into just about any type of film. The science fiction was as much a coathanger, amusing to see certain posters chin stroking from their elevated viewpoint..

eviltimeban

I'd hate to not enjoy movies the way some people here don't enjoy movies.

pixelburp

Mickeroo wrote: »

What was the Event Horizon reference? Must have missed it, I haven't seen it in years but always had a soft spot.

During the exposition of how wormholes work, the explanation using a piece of flat paper and poking two holes either end before folding it together, was exactly the same as a similar scene in Event Horizon.

FlyingIrishMan

Calibos wrote: »

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

Half of those things are part of the fiction. It's sci-fi, you let yourself believe the rules that is crafted for the movie. I don't know why you guys are getting so hung up about the blight, it's like the easiest part of the movie to let yourself believe. Massive blight comes and spreads to all crops other than corn. It probably wouldn't happen in real life, but this is fiction.

We have to assume there aren't any, and there aren't any wormholes to them so it would take a lot lot longer to get there. Longer than the people on earth have.

Climate Change is a real problem, eventually it'll be too far past the point of return.

Fuel efficiency. Why waste a huge portion of their fuel leaving earth in their shuttle, when they can save it all for other planets and launch on the side of a rocket. Hardly expect them to be able to launch from the side of a rocket on other planets..

For someone who is too smart for this movie, all of those were easily explained, especially the last one. Stop nitpicking at tiny things, it's a horrible way to watch movies.
Especially science fiction movies. People always complain that they want a good, new ambitious sci-fi movie. When they get one they rip it to shreds for every tiny little thing.

orubiru

Elessar wrote: »

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.

I does make sense though.

One of the ideas explored in the movie was that parents are the ghosts of their children's futures. In their case though she has aged and gone through her life, actually she will be the ghost of his future. I guess that she didn't want that and she didn't want him to watch her die.

The only person in the universe who has some kind of connection with Cooper at this point is Brand and we know that every hour he wastes will increase the time difference between them so he has to get going if he wants to find her.

I actually would have been pretty interested in seeing more of the aftermath. What would Coopers life be like once he was back with humanity etc.

Dan_Solo

Mickeroo wrote: »

Is there really people criticising a film they haven't seen here or am I picking things up wrong?

No, what we have is a lot of people repeating this very line because it apparently magically negates the points presented.
Anyway, I'll bow out and wait for it to come out for the telly in some fashion.

FlyingIrishMan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, what we have is a lot of people repeating this very line because it apparently magically negates the points presented.
Anyway, I'll bow out and wait for it to come out for the telly in some fashion.

Not seeing the movie negates all the points presented.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I'm not saying it's the only part of a movie, but for a movie that is claiming a certain level of "realism" (e.g. the astrophysicists being cited as supporting certain elements) I would expect it to be at least passable, instead of being told the plot and story never mattered anyway when the multiple fundamental flaws are exposed.
Once again, I have never contested that indeed it could be the most amazing visual, aural and even emotional cinematic experience in history, in which case I guess I'll be sorry I waited for the BR edition.

You haven't seen the movie.

Dan_Solo

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Not seeing the movie negates all the points presented.

No.

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

You haven't seen the movie.

So.

orubiru

Calibos wrote: »

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

How could they possibly take time out to explain all this in the movie though?

I think they had a few scientist folks come out and say "yes, some of the movie is realistic" so that people would stop getting hysterical over the realism, or lack of realism in the film. Basically saying "yup it's reasonably accurate so enjoy the film".

When they explain that the nitrogen is the reason that the Earth in becoming uninhabitable I wasn't inclined to remember my education or get straight on to google in the cinema.

Are there some people who are just incapable of enjoying any movie? Movies do not take place in reality.

OK, maybe if you go to watch a film like The Imitation Game you expect to see historical accuracy and realistically portrayed characters.

For Interstellar though? Come on. Does anyone seriously go into a movie like this ready to point out the "inaccuracies"?

brevity

For me, certain parts blur the lines between science fiction and science fantasy. Some parts have good science behind them, some are fiction or fantasy and that's fine for the story that's being told. If people are going to assume or nitpick then they are missing out on a very impressive movie imo.

Falthyron

orubiru wrote: »

For Interstellar though? Come on. Does anyone seriously go into a movie like this ready to point out the "inaccuracies"?

Some people manage to point out the inaccuracies without having seen the movie... :pac:

Dan_Solo

Falthyron wrote: »

Some people manage to point out the inaccuracies without having seen the movie... :pac:

Some people can read things on the internet. :pac:

bren2001

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Some people can read things on the internet. :pac:

Forming opinions based on other peoples opinions, great way to critique a movie. I should try it some time.

FlyingIrishMan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Some people can read things on the internet. :pac:

You can't form an opinion by reading other people's opinion.

david75

Ummm.... Yeah. I liked it. Convincing parts all round. Amazing and believable space stuff.

But the only thing I'm wondering about
can someone please explain the whole inside the black hole / event horizon /5th dimension part? That lost me completely

orubiru

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, what we have is a lot of people repeating this very line because it apparently magically negates the points presented.
Anyway, I'll bow out and wait for it to come out for the telly in some fashion.

I think you could make valid points about movies in general without having seen a specific film. To comment on a film you haven't actually seen seems a bit silly?

Movies are really more than just plot or realism. If you have a movie with interesting themes, impressive visuals, good soundtrack and top acting performances then you already have quite a lot to play with in your mind. There are a few layers, a lot of complexity and a lot of value in Interstellar.

Interstellar does have a pretty solid plot and it has been confident and firm in it's message since we saw the first posters and trailers.

If we are gonna argue over accuracy and realism then I don't know what to say. It's not a historical drama or an purely character driven story set in the "real world". It's science fiction and it deals with some things that are complete unknowns to most of us. What did you expect?

Should a movie like this have a "recommended reading" list that gets published a few months before the movie is out so that we can all study up on physics, storytelling techniques, creative writing tutorials, the technical aspects of movie making and the casting and acting processes?

As someone who likes movies (I assume that you do) what do you expect to get when you sit down to watch any given film? Would you look for specific actors that you like? Specific directors? Genres?

Nobody is obligated to like a particular film but there seems to be a lot of people out there who just want to tear apart every single thing that gets released.

e_e

Why do people expect reality from works of imagination?

Dan_Solo

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

You can't form an opinion by reading other people's opinion.

Is it my opinion that Anne Hathaway is in this movie? Or that there are spaceships in this movie?
Oh, so I actually can know things about a movie before I see it?
So you'll be going to see The Best Of Me and Love Rosie then because they could be brilliant and you couldn't possibly have an opinion on them before seeing, could you?

Dan_Solo

@orubiru
Agree totally. I know enough about this movie now that I know I'll watch it eventually, but no great rush. Like I cited with Prometheus earlier (which wasn't worth watching at all as that mess turned out.)