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

Dan_Solo

pixelburp wrote: »

Spoiler texting for the benefit of those who haven't seen The Prestige yet, but that's an unfair claim given that

the very first scene in the film is a product of 'magic'. We learn the truth in reverse, in that manner of the fractured narrative that was quite common with early Nolan films, but imo you can't ruin a film whose entire premise depended on the notion of magic as a by-product of an invention by Nicholas Tesla

. It's like saying Jurassic Park was ruined by the dinosaurs!

There were plenty of other clever things in that movie that we thought couldn't be explained and they were by real world methods. The last one was just a step to far, there was no need to go to fantasy land and the movie would have been much better without it. We're not in Kansas anymore and the rest of the film is of no consequence really. It's like Gandalf turning up in Die Hard and saving everybody.

S.M.B.

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.

It's a bit of a coincidence that Fincher did something very similar for the opening scene of Gone Girl but it lasted about 4 minutes and he moved on after making his point.

I see little benefit in its use within Interstellar. I'm still not 100% sure how much the mix issues are fully within his control or not. Intentionally drowning out certain bits of key dialogue (and other random bits) adds nothing to the movie for me.

DoYouEvenLift

If Michael Caine's death scene is a scene you count as one of the hard to hear scenes then I think it may actually be more of an issue with how he was talking/acting in it because I saw it in an IMAX screen and the movie was made pretty much for them and every part of it sounded flawless except him talking in that scene, even with the sound setup in IMAX I found it difficult to hear, or more understand, what he was saying. Even the second time I didn't get it all and thought "fuking hell, I'll need to use subtitles for this when it comes out on bluray". Only other complaint about sound I'd make is how loud parts of it were but that'd just be part of the experience


Apparently Nolan likes to run through takes quickly and Michael Caine wouldn't be one for hanging around during scenes either so I'd imagine they only did a couple of takes of that and thought it was good then moved on and didn't realise the sound was the way it was. They finished filming early though so would've had time to reshoot so I'm probably wrong

S.M.B.

I found it a tad difficult to fully comprehend Caine in that scene but I put that down to the performance and not the mix. I do think Nolan could have gotten a different take but I can see the rationale in using the version that we see.

I also saw it in an IMAX and there were definitely times when the dialogue was drowned out by the score and sound effects/design. I posted earlier in the thread that these issues were raised by viewers who saw the movie in the IMAX theatre that Nolan himself frequented.

I am simply not buying the 'you didn't see it in its optimal environment' argument. I went out of my way to do so, forking out £20 for a ticket to see it as opposed to watching it for free on the largest Cineworld screen in the UK & Ireland.

Thargor

So much stupidity in this film, it was good but the plot holes and other nonsense prevented it from being great.

One thing that really annoyed me is that they had realistic technology at the start, Saturn 5 type rocket to get them into orbit, months of travel just to get to Saturn etc, but then after passing through the wormhole they can suddenly fly like the Millennium Falcon? Taking off like a Harrier and flying into space from a dead stop? (on a planet they said had 120% Earth gravity so its not that...). At one point when they were trying to figure out what to do on the blackboard and Matthew Mcconaughey says "Oh well I can loop us around this neutron star here... uh, no. And then that Cylon/Tumbler from Batman Begins looking ship just enters from orbit and hovers to a stop 3 feet from Anne Hathaway on the surface? Why did the scientists at home spent their lives trying to figure out antigravity when they were clearly building ships with the ability already? It definitely wasnt chemical propulsion.

Oh, and building the giant space station underground before you even know what the theory is that might someday let you build an antigravity engine to lift it into space? Again, no.

The whole sequence with the bookshelf, why? So dumb. And he sends all their black hole data back to a wristwatch using morse code, which she then grabs off the shelf and takes back to her lab where its still vibrating in morse code at her desk while she transcribes it, what? Why is any of this information being communicated like this by the future humans? Taking a bit of a risk that something would be missed arent they?

It was worth seeing in the cinema but Jesus every 5-10 minutes just as you're really getting into it, they slap you in the face to break the immersion: oh American schools are teaching that the Apollo missions were fakes now, oh without these 3 cereal crops humanity starves, oh its Fat Matt Damon, oh Anne Hathaway randomly declares love as the one thing that can break all known laws of physics. Stupid sh1t over and over and over again.

blatantrereg

Mister Vain wrote: »

I just watched the trailer for Europa Report, it looks interesting. I'll have to try and get it on DVD. Another one that looks good is Moon. Have any of you guys seen that one?

Europa Report and Moon are both very good.

Brock Turnpike

I enjoyed this a lot. Probably an 8/10 overall for me. I felt the first 45 mins or so were a bit underwhelming but from the point that they go into space onwards, I really felt it picked up considerably. A few small gripes, which have already been mentioned, the sound in some of the scenes meant it was hard to make out what was being said at times being a reoccurring annoyance. My biggest problem with it was the ending. I thought they pushed a bit too far in finding MM floating in space after the tesseract had collapsed in on itself/him.

This thread has reminded me that I must re-watch "The Prestige". I saw it the first time it came out on DVD but have only a vague memory of it.

Goodshape

Just watched Europa Report on the back of this thread's recommendations – loved it! Seemed to have everything Interstellar was lacking, really.

I'll +1 Moon too. Great film.

Calibos

Soon as we are told of Plan B, ie. the anti gravity Unified field equations to lift the Nasa Base/humanity on other large ships/stations into orbit I couldn't help but think straight away of Project Orion Project Orion was technically feasible and there were plans on the drawing board for City sized 8 million Ton craft. An Orion Vehicle of any size would never get off the ground figuratively because of environmental concerns from detonating all those nuclear bombs in the atmosphere. On a dying earth that you're leaving for good anyway?? Bombs away!! The Script writers should have went with Orion for plan B and had the gravity equation element of the story tie in with Wormhole creation instead.

gucci

the_monkey wrote: »

I was worried my wife wouldn't like it, normally she's not into Sci Fi ,
She hated 2001, hated Moon - can't stand the Alien films etc ...

She calls me a nerd for liking them ...

She just came along I think for the night off - anyway she ended up enjoying it more then me, and that I think is a sign of a f*cking A+ film,
getting people outside your usual audience to like it .

Haha my girlfriend wasnt overly convinced by the hype or trailers either, and I fully expected her to say she was bored by it afterwards, but she actually really enjoyed it too! Probably more than me!

I thought it was quite a good movie, if i was to score it i would probably give it a 6.5/10. I shared similar frustration to others with the sound and dialogue mix (we went to it in IMAX) but all in all it was a decent movie. I think it possibly tired too hard to be a very deep and meaningful event. when in reality it was just sci-fi on an epic scale.

Not sure if it was covered here I have flicked through a few pages but

Is the dream Cooper has at the start about a crash: was the plane/ship he was flying in and crashed the one that he got into at the end of the movie to go and save Brand? Or was I just trying to read way too much into it?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

Saw this at the weekend. Thoroughly enjoyed it. You need to suspend disbelief a bit and I'm sure the physicists were cringing in their seats but overall a fine Sci fi romp.

shedweller

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

Saw this at the weekend. Thoroughly enjoyed it. You need to suspend disbelief a bit and I'm sure the physicists were cringing in their seats but overall a fine Sci fi romp.

See, when you do sci fi on the big screen you have to compress it a bit. Otherwise you'd be bored beyond belief. Have you ever watched the ISS live on nasa tv? Snore fest. If all the actors in Interstellar behaved impeccably like astronauts do, we wouldn't have a movie.

The time dilation thing near the black hole does happen but you'd nearly be in the black hole for such a difference in times. You'd be ripped to pieces before you got that far in any case.
So yes, disbelief has to be suspended just a little. Probably a lot less than all the marvel nonsense maybe??
I believe the black hole was rendered pretty well, if astrophysicists are to be believed! So they're not all cringing in their seats!
I wasn't anyway. It was one of the few films i've come out from where i wanted to go straight back in and watch again. Gravity being the other. Just...wow!

shedweller

Thargor wrote: »

So much stupidity in this film, it was good but the plot holes and other nonsense prevented it from being great.

What plot holes? Yes, there were some issues with hard physics being "finessed" a bit but its a movie, not a college course.
So, the plot holes....

Dan_Solo

shedweller wrote: »

So yes, disbelief has to be suspended just a little. Probably a lot less than all the marvel nonsense maybe??

Haven't seen that argument here before.
Makes you wonder why they paid for an astrophysics consultant if the science isn't much better than X-Men...

Mitch Connor

leggo wrote: »

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Haven't seen that argument here before.
Makes you wonder why they paid for an astrophysics consultant if the science isn't much better than X-Men...

Two papers have been written on black hole theory based purely on computations and research into Black Holes done for this movie.

Dan_Solo

leggo wrote: »

Two papers have been written on black hole theory based purely on computations and research into Black Holes done for this movie.

So? Is one of them called "Love proven to be fifth dimension"?
The general relativity is actually the one bit people aren't complaining about. How to build spaceships when you can't build MRI machines would be more like it.

Mitch Connor

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Mitch Connor wrote: »

So? Is one of them called "Love proven to be fifth dimension"?
The general relativity is actually the one bit people aren't complaining about. How to build spaceships when you can't build MRI machines would be more like it.

No, it is about Black Holes.

As for the MRI bit.... you need engineers to build and maintain MRI machines, and similar; these people were being repurposed as Farmers. NASA, however, was still running as an underground op and their engineers were still being paid to build stuff.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

shedweller wrote: »

See, when you do sci fi on the big screen you have to compress it a bit. Otherwise you'd be bored beyond belief. Have you ever watched the ISS live on nasa tv? Snore fest. If all the actors in Interstellar behaved impeccably like astronauts do, we wouldn't have a movie.

The time dilation thing near the black hole does happen but you'd nearly be in the black hole for such a difference in times. You'd be ripped to pieces before you got that far in any case.
So yes, disbelief has to be suspended just a little. Probably a lot less than all the marvel nonsense maybe??
I believe the black hole was rendered pretty well, if astrophysicists are to be believed! So they're not all cringing in their seats!
I wasn't anyway. It was one of the few films i've come out from where i wanted to go straight back in and watch again. Gravity being the other. Just...wow!

I think you're agreeing with me. Just a small point. I know the time dilation (maybe not the right word) does occur at the event horizon of a black hole but the gravitational force at the event horizon is so strong that time essentially stands still. You would never be able to cross through a black hole for that reason. That's what I meant when I said the physicists might have problems with some things.

*note, I am not a physicist so am more than happy to be corrected on any of that.

Dan_Solo

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Dan_Solo wrote: »

No, it is about Black Holes.

As for the MRI bit.... you need engineers to build and maintain MRI machines, and similar; these people were being repurposed as Farmers. NASA, however, was still running as an underground op and their engineers were still being paid to build stuff.

Because black holes and general relativity aren't both astrophysics...:rolleyes:
Maybe NASA would have been better off making MRI machines or fixing the blight if they were the only people left on earth with technical and scientific skills...

Mitch Connor

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Because black holes and general relativity aren't both astrophysics...:rolleyes:
Maybe NASA would have been better off making MRI machines or fixing the blight if they were the only people left on earth with technical and scientific skills...

The blight was feeding on the nitrogen in the atmosphere - you think Nasa should have been capable of altering the atmosphere of the planet?

Dan_Solo

Mitch Connor wrote: »

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The blight was feeding on the nitrogen in the atmosphere - you think Nasa should have been capable of altering the atmosphere of the planet?

Why, do you think we can't do that right now?
Have you heard of global warming?

Mitch Connor

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Why, do you think we can't do that right now?
Have you heard of global warming?

You think global warming is equatable to removing all or large quantities of nitrogen from the atmosphere?

I'm not saying the movie is perfect - far from it. I'm not saying the story is perfect - far from it.

Like Nolans previous work it requires you to come up with your own reasons and explanations for things - which doesn't bother me too much.

Do I think NASA (or ANYONE) should have been able to stop/remove nitrogen in the atmosphere? Nope.

Do I think it is unreasonable in a society that is falling apart, dying and technologically regressing that MRI machines might not be available to the masses? No - but I do reckon if 'Coop' had been rich he'd have had access to it. I don't think MRI machines would stop existing - I reckon they would become something only the rich had access too - similar to the medical story line in Elysium.

Do I think the space flight capablities of their shuttle and colonisizing equipment was too far fetched given earlier showings in the movie - yep.

Do I think the book case ending was stupid - yep.

Do I think the 'Love' angle was stupid - yeah, a little, but it is a large part of the movie. Nolans love letter to love, and mainly parental love, so I can get past it. Also, Hathaways Love rant can also be seen just as that - a rant, rather than a realistic scientific explanation.

It has its problems, rather big ones, but I don't think everything in the movie is utterly wrong or inexplicable.

FlyingIrishMan

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So? Is one of them called "Love proven to be fifth dimension"?
The general relativity is actually the one bit people aren't complaining about. How to build spaceships when you can't build MRI machines would be more like it.

Love isn't the fifth dimension. Time being a physical place was. Love isn't a dimension at all, just a powerful force that connects people.

Have you even gone to see the movie yet?

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I thought gravity was the 5th dimension? Didn't coop use gravity from behind the bookcase to type the equation in morse code into the watch?

Japandamo

Whether or not 'Love' was a dimension or just a means of transcending time and space - it was still rubbish.

Coop enters a black hole and find that time has been set up as a three dimensional space, by them, which turns out to be us, or presumably him, seeing as he's the one with the love connection to Murph. Surely he'll have to go back to the black hole again and figure out how to manipulate time and gravity to a degree that he can make this three dimensional space for himself. And make a wormhole while he's at it.

Am I alone in thinking that it only made sense for there to be an outside force, an actual 'them', to have helped mankind out of their situation, because otherwise, as someone else said, for Coop to make it to the black hole, through the wormhole, he first has to get to the black hole, work out the quantum bits and pieces and create the wormhole.

I think that's what I'm trying to say, I've kind of confused myself :P

Mickeroo

Japandamo wrote: »

Whether or not 'Love' was a dimension or just a means of transcending time and space - it was still rubbish.

Coop enters a black hole and find that time has been set up as a three dimensional space, by them, which turns out to be us, or presumably him, seeing as he's the one with the love connection to Murph. Surely he'll have to go back to the black hole again and figure out how to manipulate time and gravity to a degree that he can make this three dimensional space for himself. And make a wormhole while he's at it.

Am I alone in thinking that it only made sense for there to be an outside force, an actual 'them', to have helped mankind out of their situation, because otherwise, as someone else said, for Coop to make it to the black hole, through the wormhole, he first has to get to the black hole, work out the quantum bits and pieces and create the wormhole.

I think that's what I'm trying to say, I've kind of confused myself :P

There was an outside force I think, Coop had nothing to do with the wormhole or putting the tesseract there from my understanding, the tesseract was placed there for him to use that's all.

The "them" were meant to be extremely advanced humans, evolved thousands possibly millions of years beyond us into beings that can exist within a 4th and 5th dimension.

The love stuff was just projection/babblling from the characters in the film imo.

the_monkey

PEople seem to get hungup on - how did they save humanity in the first place, it's like the Terminator

being developed on the CPU of the "first" T-800 - How did they make the very first Terminator ?

Answer is with the same CPU

- it's like a circle , it's just there , point the start of a circle -- you can't.

the_monkey

oops maybe spoiler tags on the Terminator reference ?

orubiru

donkeyoaty0099 wrote: »

I thought gravity was the 5th dimension? Didn't coop use gravity from behind the bookcase to type the equation in morse code into the watch?

You shouldn't think of it as Gravity IS the 5th dimension.

Think of it as Gravity exists in 5 dimensions.

When you look at a live image on a flat screen television, that image is 2 dimensional. The reality is that the objects on the screen actually exist in 3 dimensions.

What we perceive as gravity is a 3 dimensional representation of something that exists in 5 dimensions. With gravity, we only see the "tip of the iceberg".

We know that 3 dimensional objects cannot be sent backwards through Time BUT if Gravity exists in 5 dimensional space then it would be possible, from that 5th dimension, to manipulate gravity at different points time. Which is how he sends the messages.

He is using a 5 dimensional object (gravity) to overcome the problem of not being able to go backwards in time. Gravity can traverse space AND time.

If 5 dimensional objects can traverse time and space then the "love" thing makes sense in this context. What they are saying is that human understanding of our own emotions, our "souls", love or whatever you want to call it is restricted to our 3 dimensional view of the world. What if the "soul" of the feeling of "love" is just an imprint on our 3 dimensional world from a 5 dimensional object? If that were true then Love would also be able to traverse time and space.

What if we are not 3 dimensional beings but actually exist in 5 dimensions? The 3 dimensional part of us would only be able to get a sense of the 5th dimension, an imprint. A memory of someone long gone or the overwhelming emotion of being in love?

I thought it was a pretty interesting idea in the movie to say that what if WE are 5 dimensional beings but from this 3 dimensional perspective we just don't fully know it. We just see hints and clues. Maybe we don't even really "die", you know. Maybe we just shed our 3 dimensional perspective and see what we really are.

Japandamo

the_monkey wrote: »

PEople seem to get hungup on - how did they save humanity in the first place, it's like the Terminator

being developed on the CPU of the "first" T-800 - How did they make the very first Terminator ?

Answer is with the same CPU

- it's like a circle , it's just there , point the start of a circle -- you can't.

Umm...it's been a long, loooong, time since I've seen Terminator, but I thought

Skynet was created as an AI by humans, and it went along and made the terminator robots, and one of these was then sent back to kill the leading members of the resistance in their childhood, in order to make their conquest easier. They don't get sent back in order to create the first terminator, so there's no paradox there.

Open to correction on that, as I said it's been a long time.