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

Dan_Solo

e_e wrote: »

Why do people expect reality from works of imagination?

I don't think any of these issues would arise, or certainly be voiced so loudly, if this movie wasn't apparently aiming at some sort of realism? They hired an astrophysicist as a consultant after all and seem to have made a deal about how the wormholes would really look like that etc.

catallus

I liked this, but t'was no Under Siege.

I must admit I was getting impatient after the first 40 mins "Why aren't we in space yet?!! i kept shouting and everyone told me to shut up.

But when we got into space it was pretty good.

Nice story wrapped in a sci-fi spectacle.

I was a bit confused by Matt Damon's character's motives for doing what he did, but then I forgot that because all of the other stuff was confusing too.

I liked this film.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think any of these issues would arise, or certainly be voiced so loudly, if this movie wasn't apparently aiming at some sort of realism? They hired an astrophysicist as a consultant after all and seem to have made a deal about how the wormholes would really look like that etc.

You know it's all a theory, right? We haven't actually proved any of this yet, so it has to fall in line with some sort of possible fiction. Even the idea of gravity is still a theory, we haven't actually proved it. So applying realism to something we can't prove makes no sense.

A Neurotic

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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 wrote: »

@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.)

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think any of these issues would arise, or certainly be voiced so loudly, if this movie wasn't apparently aiming at some sort of realism? They hired an astrophysicist as a consultant after all and seem to have made a deal about how the wormholes would really look like that etc.

Dan_Solo

A Neurotic wrote: »

jpg

Again no actual counterargument presented.
Me FTW!

FlyingIrishMan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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?

Those are facts, not opinions.
Having an opinion about something, and having an interest in something are two different things. I won't be seeing them because I don't have an interest in them, not because I think they are bad, I haven't seen them so I couldn't possibly know that and would never think to get into arguments about movies I've never seen.

Falthyron

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Again no actual counterargument presented.
Me FTW!

To be honest, it's getting quite sad now. For the sake of the price of a ticket, you would prefer to come on here and debate with people who have actually seen the movie. If you are incapable of forming your own opinion and have to rely on others, then what exactly are you contributing to this thread? You are only trolling. You have nothing to contribute because you haven't seen it.

There is a thread on Star Wars Episode 7, nobody has seen that, would you mind 'contributing' over there please? Or if you do eventually go see Interstellar so you can realise your own pre-formed opinion, you are more than welcome to come back and continue your attack on the film. This is not back-seat moderating, but I (and I think others) are being irritated by your ignorant trolling now.

eviltimeban

Dansolo, you can be sure of the facts but not the feeling. I don't know what Love Rosie is, I'm pretty sure I'm not going to see it if its some kind of romantic comedy or something. But Interstellar I knew I was going to see as it was a) set in space and b) directed by Christopher Nolan. Like I was sure I was going to buy the Pink Floyd album because a) I like Pink Floyd and b) see a).

However you cannot argue the relative merits of film or album without seeing or hearing it first. I can't say "the Pink Floyd album is shi*te" because Andy Gill said it was, or because I don't like the song titles, or the cover, or the fact that Roger Waters isn't on it. None of those give me any idea of the content. I have to hear it before I can form an opinion and comment regarding the merits of the album.

Same with the movie. You know the facts; you know that some critics say it is good, some bad; there are plot holes inherent; you have taken issue with certain aspects of the story or casting. But you haven't SEEN it. So you don't know if it is "good" or "bad", using your own judgement.

You can comment on it all you like, but go and see it if you really want to know.

Dan_Solo

@eviltimeban
At least you appear to have noticed that I haven't said whether this movie is good or bad, so we have one spotter's badge awarded.
What I very clearly (though not clearly enough for some) said that my reading of this movie's reviews show there are too many problems with it for it to be very high on my must watch list.
Will watch some time.

Dan_Solo

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Those are facts, not opinions.
Having an opinion about something, and having an interest in something are two different things. I won't be seeing them because I don't have an interest in them, not because I think they are bad, I haven't seen them so I couldn't possibly know that and would never think to get into arguments about movies I've never seen.

I never commented on other people's opinion of the movie though did I? I said MY opinion was there were too many FACTS I found I didn't like about this movie so it's one to watch later, not a must see now.
MM and AH usually annoy me in movies wouldn't help.

Shiraz 4.99

I saw this in Screen 1 in Carlow last night, perfect sound imo, huge screen & no problems at all with dialogue.
There were 20 things I could nitpick if I wanted but Nolan's bravery meant I didn't focus on them.
In the hands of a lesser director this story would have been diluted into far more Hollywood type fare, throw in a few Aliens & lasers, pew pew pew & we got a winner.
Thankfully this never happens, even the potential for a love interest between the 2 leads is ignored.
The black hole bookcase sequence has proved the most divisive element of the film, I thought it was visually superb, the future 5th dimension humans creating a 3D world explanation was a bit head scratching but no more confusing than the end of 2001.
If you buy into the premise & science here you are greatly rewarded, I applaud Nolan for taking such risks.
A great return to form after the hugely disappointing phoned in TDKR.

Overall, 9/10

johnny_ultimate

Can we please get back on track now? This kind of petty back and forth makes for horrible reading. Thanks.

orubiru

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I don't think any of these issues would arise, or certainly be voiced so loudly, if this movie wasn't apparently aiming at some sort of realism? They hired an astrophysicist as a consultant after all and seem to have made a deal about how the wormholes would really look like that etc.

I reckon that they did this, or at least made such a show of it, because of the backlash that came with Gravity getting such good reviews. Gravity is a stunning technical achievement and seeing it in 3D on the massive screen was a wonderful experience. Most critics would agree with this. So many people waded into it for not being accurate or realistic and I feel like the marketing folks behind Interstellar would surely be aware of this.

A lot of people simply don't want to experience art. They want to deconstruct it, find the flaws and then put themselves in a position where they are "above" the artwork being presented. Some folks react badly when they feel they don't "get" something. With every new release there are thousands of people waiting to say "emperors new clothes".

You say Interstellar isn't high on your watch list and I think that's sad to be honest. It's not the best movie I've seen this year but it's certainly one of the most intriguing and thought provoking. Honestly, I don't think you'll see anything more interesting this year.

Certainly, after making all these posts, if you went to see it in IMAX you would find it to be a very rewarding movie experience.

cloud493

I wish I'd seen it imax now, even cineworld imax.

orubiru

Dan_Solo wrote: »

@eviltimeban
At least you appear to have noticed that I haven't said whether this movie is good or bad, so we have one spotter's badge awarded.
What I very clearly (though not clearly enough for some) said that my reading of this movie's reviews show there are too many problems with it for it to be very high on my must watch list.
Will watch some time.

The movies reviews are mostly positive though. I have found almost all negative reviews of this film are very subjective, as opposed to the more objective reviews which tend to be positive.

Objectively, Interstellar is a solid movie with extremely high production values and a ton of ambition.

As a subjective experience, of course, we will all have a different opinion.

Someone like yourself, someone who clearly likes to debate movies and likes to get "into it" with other people on the pros and cons of certain films, would probably take more from this film than most. It seems weird to me that you be so passionate about the topic while at the same time denying yourself the experience of being able to watch it, take it all in, and then come up with your own review.

Just saying, why not step away from the thread and go watch the movie?

Amalgam

Exactly a week to go to the release of the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.

Slated for release on the 18th, as far as I can tell.

I thought there was a nod to Philip Glass in some scenes, in any case, I can't wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(soundtrack)

http://www.hans-zimmer.com/index.php?rub=disco&id=1256

Falthyron

Amalgam wrote: »

Exactly a week to go to the release of the Original Motion Picture Soundtrack.

Slated for release on the 18th, as far as I can tell.

I thought there was a nod to Philip Glass in some scenes, in any case, I can't wait.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_(soundtrack)

http://www.hans-zimmer.com/index.php?rub=disco&id=1256

I have been forced to contend with only this track to keep me going until then:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXrGu_TB8F4

It really takes off at the 3 minute mark, I believe that is the scene in the movie where Cooper has to synchronise the rotational velocity of the Endurance with the shuttle. Great scene!

eviltimeban

cloud493 wrote: »

I wish I'd seen it imax now, even cineworld imax.

I'm glad I didn't if the reported sound issues are anything to go by!

PhiloCypher

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.

This is the crux of the problem for me, I could forgive a lot if the film had stuck it's landing but it just doesn't for me. For several reasons, one of which I acknowledge may be particular to me.

A) Like I said this could be particular to me but I've always had trouble transferring my emotional investment across multiple iterations of the same character. Now over the span of a tv show this can often be remedied as in the case of Liam Mcintyre taking over from the late Andy Whitfield in spartacus . (initially Liams Spartacus pining for Sura had rang hollow for me as, for me, it was Andy who had lost the love of his life, but over the course of two seasons Liam really grew into the role and by series/characters end I'm not afraid to admit I teared up.) Unfortunately a film doesn't have the time to get you re-engaged and as such the further in distance and time Coop traveled from his daughter the less engaged I became. This wasn't helped by the fact that they decide for Chastains character to take a decades long hump with her dad and not message him, leaving us with a string of messages from a barely sketched son he doesn't even ask about on his miraculous return. Which brings me on to my second problem.

they try and have their cake and eat it, rather then have Coop nobley sacrifice himself for his daughter/species (yes I know he actually attempts this by falling into the blackhole) he manages to not only succeed with plan A but plan B too while also surviving to make good on his promise he'd come back to Murph. Sorry but that's a bit too neat for me, any cartharsis from completing that circle could have been much more effectingly made by Chastains murph's realising her Ghost was Coop all along rather then them actually meeting again in person.

Calibos

Falthyron wrote: »

You know it's all a theory, right? We haven't actually proved any of this yet, so it has to fall in line with some sort of possible fiction. Even the idea of gravity is still a theory, we haven't actually proved it. So applying realism to something we can't prove makes no sense.

Oh My. Did you just say Gravity is 'Just a Theory'! You do realise the connotations that phrase carries with it. Not doing your side any favours.

Falthyron

Calibos wrote: »

Oh My. Did you just say Gravity is 'Just a Theory'! You do realise the connotations that phrase carries with it. Not doing your side any favours.

I am not on any 'side'.

Right now, on this planet, in a given circumstance, we can record a downward force exerted on all objects and we have called this force 'gravity'. From what I understand, we have attempted to link mass and velocity with this force (gravity). But, we only have our own planet and the experiences on it to theorise what we understand about this force. On another planet, with different variables or even new variables that we are unaware of, this force might behave differently, right?

Apart from all of that, there is still a chance that at some point a person will let go of an object and it won't fall. We can't exactly rule that out, so it remains a theory. I am guessing that we can't unequivocally rule out every possibility in our understanding of gravity, so it must remain a theory for the time being. Correct me if I am wrong though as I am coming at this from my own understanding.

catallus

I let go of a balloon once and it went up. It didn't go down, it went up. QED.

orubiru

Falthyron wrote: »

I am not on any 'side'.

Right now, on this planet, in a given circumstance, we can record a downward force exerted on all objects and we have called this force 'gravity'. From what I understand, we have attempted to link mass and velocity with this force (gravity). But, we only have our own planet and the experiences on it to theorise what we understand about this force. On another planet, with different variables or even new variables that we are unaware of, this force might behave differently, right?

Apart from all of that, there is still a chance that at some point a person will let go of an object and it won't fall. We can't exactly rule that out, so it remains a theory. I am guessing that we can't unequivocally rule out every possibility in our understanding of gravity, so it must remain a theory for the time being. Correct me if I am wrong though as I am coming at this from my own understanding.

I don't want to sound rude and I don't have time to debate or "correct" your understanding.

I would only say that you need to develop your own understanding.

What you have said is not strictly "incorrect" and as a sort of thought experiment or a meditative exploration it is quite interesting (we can only assume that objects will fall as we never rally "know" anything).

Gravity isn't just a theory. OR if gravity is a "theory" then life itself, our personal experiences, must also be classified as "theory".

From my perspective, right now, your existence is a theory. I'm sure you would disagree. Or would you?

Kiith

I absolutely loved it. It wasn't perfect, and some of the pacing and dialogue (Power of Love and all that) wasn't great, but overall it was a fantastic experience. Will definitely see it again before i say any more, but it certainly didn't let me down at all...and i had pretty massive expectations for the movie. Film of the year imo.

Falthyron

orubiru wrote: »

I don't want to sound rude and I don't have time to debate or "correct" your understanding.

I would only say that you need to develop your own understanding.

What you have said is not strictly "incorrect" and as a sort of thought experiment or a meditative exploration it is quite interesting (we can only assume that objects will fall as we never rally "know" anything).

Gravity isn't just a theory. OR if gravity is a "theory" then life itself, our personal experiences, must also be classified as "theory".

From my perspective, right now, your existence is a theory. I'm sure you would disagree. Or would you?

I would agree with that if you are suggesting experiences are theoretical and lack tangible substance, is that what you mean? Also, the notion of subjectivity must be considered?

EDIT: I probably should have phrased my idea a bit more carefully. I should have said something more along the lines of: gravity in its strictest form, or as we understand it, is not exactly nailed down yet.

Ole Rodrigo

Falthyron wrote: »

You know it's all a theory, right? We haven't actually proved any of this yet, so it has to fall in line with some sort of possible fiction. Even the idea of gravity is still a theory, we haven't actually proved it. So applying realism to something we can't prove makes no sense.

I presume you're referring to the black hole and quantum gravity ? - if so, that's right. If you're referring to general gravity, well Newtonian physics and general relativity are pretty much unassailable at this point.

You can still apply realism however, because enough is already known to form the basis of reasonable hypothesis, which would be sufficient to maintain realism. Time travel is not taken seriously in theoretical physics ( except for time slowing down in regions of strong gravitational fields, and thus having a degree of time travel effect ). Worm holes are treated more seriously but if they do exist would be at a quantum level and would need to be enlarged and stabilized ( if its ever becomes possible ) to be of any practical use such as that depicted in the film.

orubiru

Falthyron wrote: »

I would agree with that if you are suggesting experiences are theoretical and lack tangible substance, is that what you mean? Also, the notion of subjectivity must be considered?

Yeah. Our experiences could be considered theoretical if someone wants to take it that far. I guess there is a tendency for people to pick and choose. Like maybe I want to believe that >> I << actually exist but I also want to say that the mechanisms that allow me to exist in this form, such as Gravity or Time or Evolution are "theoretical".

It's weird. It's pretty awesome to talk about. I think it's essential that we have thought provoking fiction like Interstellar to help us expand our ideas.

Falthyron

ror_74 wrote: »

I presume you're referring to the black hole and quantum gravity ? - if so, that's right. If you're referring to general gravity, well Newtonian physics and general relativity are pretty much unassailable at this point.

You can still apply realism however, because enough is already known to form the basis of reasonable hypothesis, which would be sufficient to maintain realism. Time travel is not taken seriously in theoretical physics ( except for time slowing down in regions of strong gravitational fields, and thus having a degree of time travel effect ). Worm holes are treated more seriously but if they do exist would be at a quantum level and would need to be enlarged and stabilized ( if its ever becomes possible ) to be of any practical use such as that depicted in the film.

Thanks for the information! I have started reading 'A Brief History of Time', but is there anything else you would recommend? Perhaps something more accessible than a university text book.

Falthyron

orubiru wrote: »

Yeah. Our experiences could be considered theoretical if someone wants to take it that far. I guess there is a tendency for people to pick and choose. Like maybe I want to believe that >> I << actually exist but I also want to say that the mechanisms that allow me to exist in this form, such as Gravity or Time or Evolution are "theoretical".

It's weird. It's pretty awesome to talk about. I think it's essential that we have thought provoking fiction like Interstellar to help us expand our ideas.

Exactly! And this is what I love about Nolan's films. He has started an intellectual debate on questions we should probably be thinking about. Thanks for the information! Are there any books you would recommend that discusses these ideas? Preferably something more accessible than a university text book.

eviltimeban

Falthyron wrote: »

gravity in its strictest form, or as we understand it, is not exactly nailed down yet.

With gravity we don't need to nail things down!