Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*
Options
Comments
-
charlie_says wrote: »
Also there were a few bits where I couldn't make out the dialogue but they were few and far between, in fairness though to Nolan there has been much complaining about this in the Batman films and he really should sort this kind of thing out.
Not to get down on the guy (but **** it I will anyways)
If this is meant to be a sort of stylistic tick, he's one seriously pretencious director. There's a difference between having immersing an audience in straining to understand something (which is something I wish Hollywood would do more often) and not being physically hear the thing so that an audience can even get the basic information to understand in the 1st place. The problems with Nolan is I often feel they have this exhalted feeling in the media before hand and people love for **** that's not there. One wonders of the hammering of the music is just way of masking something.
Here's how you sound design that makes you lean forward, total immersion:#
David Fincher on the other hand is such a non BS in the way he works and the stories he tells, he makes masterpieces, that sort of shuffle off quietly in the media relative to Nolan and the man makes it look effortless (which it clearly isn't, the man works like Kubrick), there is little straining like there is with Nolan. It's hard to explain, but so obvious at the same time. If anybody could do a sci-fi film that gets under peoples skin, makng people uncomfortable, it's him. It rarely feels like he's imitating either. He has this strange chilled 80's almost Blade Runner like style that is sort of Kubrick reincarnated at times tackling a wide variety of ideas and doing so subversively you hardly notice it. I would be hesitant in calling anyone doing mainstream movies "a true genius", but whatever it is, he has it.
That is what is frustrating about Interstellar for me, is that having watched Gone Girl the week before in which nothing felt out of place. Everything was where it should be.
I suppose right now in Hollywood we fawn over the fact anybody makes a good sci-film (that isn't a franchise movie) when they were tumbling out over each other in the 70's, 80's and were cheaper to make and expectations lower.0 -
-
Adamantium wrote: »Not to get down on the guy (but **** it I will anyways)
If this is meant to be a sort of stylistic tick, he's one seriously pretencious director. There's a difference between having immersing an audience in straining to understand something (which is something I wish Hollywood would do more often) and not being physically hear the thing so that an audience can even get the basic information to understand in the 1st place. The problems with Nolan is I often feel they have this exhalted feeling in the media before hand and people love for **** that's not there. One wonders of the hammering of the music is just way of masking something.
Here's how you sound design that makes you lean forward, total immersion:#
David Fincher on the other hand is such a non BS in the way he works and the stories he tells, he makes masterpieces, that sort of shuffle off quietly in the media relative to Nolan and the man makes it look effortless (which it clearly isn't, the man works like Kubrick), there is little straining like there is with Nolan. It's hard to explain, but so obvious at the same time. If anybody could do a sci-fi film that gets under peoples skin, makng people uncomfortable, it's him. It rarely feels like he's imitating either. He has this strange chilled 80's almost Blade Runner like style that is sort of Kubrick reincarnated at times tackling a wide variety of ideas and doing so subversively you hardly notice it. I would be hesitant in calling anyone doing mainstream movies "a true genius", but whatever it is, he has it.
That is what is frustrating about Interstellar for me, is that having watched Gone Girl the week before in which nothing felt out of place. Everything was where it should be.
I suppose right now in Hollywood we fawn over the fact anybody makes a good sci-film (that isn't a franchise movie) when they were tumbling out over each other in the 70's, 80's and were cheaper to make and expectations lower.
Completely agree about Fincher, while he's had his own missteps and divisive films, when I first heard about Facebook: The Movie I groaned, yet it turned out to be one of the best films of the last few years. Wasn't a fan of Girl With The Dragon Tattoo but I thought Gone Girl was a brilliant mess. Zodiac is still his masterpiece imo.0 -
Some people are just better at writing about something than doing it. Look at Roger Ebert, amazing writer and deserving winner of a Pulitzer prize but the one screenplay he did write is far from a classic by any means.DoYouEvenLift wrote: »Why don't some reviewers just actually write movies? They criticise the smallest things in some movies and it makes you wonder why they don't go and write a flawless movie themselves lol? If you're capable of pointing out flaws in movies you should be capable of preventing them in one
I'll never understand the "well what movies have you written?!" defense though. You don't need to have made a movie to have an opinion on one, as a thread like this clearly shows.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Adamantium wrote: »Not to get down on the guy (but **** it I will anyways)
If this is meant to be a sort of stylistic tick, he's one seriously pretencious director. There's a difference between having immersing an audience in straining to understand something (which is something I wish Hollywood would do more often) and not being physically hear the thing so that an audience can even get the basic information to understand in the 1st place. The problems with Nolan is I often feel they have this exhalted feeling in the media before hand and people love for **** that's not there. One wonders of the hammering of the music is just way of masking something.
Here's how you sound design that makes you lean forward, total immersion:#
David Fincher on the other hand is such a non BS in the way he works and the stories he tells, he makes masterpieces, that sort of shuffle off quietly in the media relative to Nolan and the man makes it look effortless (which it clearly isn't, the man works like Kubrick), there is little straining like there is with Nolan. It's hard to explain, but so obvious at the same time. If anybody could do a sci-fi film that gets under peoples skin, makng people uncomfortable, it's him. It rarely feels like he's imitating either. He has this strange chilled 80's almost Blade Runner like style that is sort of Kubrick reincarnated at times tackling a wide variety of ideas and doing so subversively you hardly notice it. I would be hesitant in calling anyone doing mainstream movies "a true genius", but whatever it is, he has it.
That is what is frustrating about Interstellar for me, is that having watched Gone Girl the week before in which nothing felt out of place. Everything was where it should be.
I suppose right now in Hollywood we fawn over the fact anybody makes a good sci-film (that isn't a franchise movie) when they were tumbling out over each other in the 70's, 80's and were cheaper to make and expectations lower.
Nolan has never hid from his films taking inspiration from or "imitating" other films, in fact he speaks about it openly. Blade Runner, Heat, and Prince of the City for example being the inspiration for the TDK trilogy, so I'm not sure if it's something he can be criticised for.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adI-QnpYBT4
Advertisement