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

pixelburp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

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.

It's not really,

given the film established the reality of its universe within the very first scene, it just proceeded to itself perform the various stages of a classic magic trick, using cinematic misdirection to make the viewer look for alternative explanations, using our own presumptions against us. Hell iirc a voice-over practically openly tells the viewer they're about to be tricked themselves.

From the get-go there was a smoky, penny-dreadful feel from the movie, with little scenes such as Tesla's field of lightbulbs giving the film a distinct sense that this was a Victorian world steeped in the macabre, not too far from the realms of the unnatural.

To me, the (false) revelation just acted as a tragic underlining of how desperate a man Angiers had become in his pursuit to one-up Christain Bale's Borden, going to supernatural lengths to achieve what was, for Borden, a fairly simple trick. the fiction of the device turned out to be broadly unimportant compared with the message it was meant to convey.

jones

Dan_Solo wrote: »

It's like Gandalf turning up in Die Hard and saving everybody.

Now there's a film i'd like to see

Mitch Connor

Japandamo wrote: »

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.

The tech and knowledge used to build skynet starts with the mangaled wreckage of the terminator from the first movie. So without the first terminator there is no skynet, without skynet there is no terminator, according to the T1/T2 story arc. T3 may have changed what skynet was though, can't remember.

orubiru

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.

Yes!

People seem to think in movies like this that the directors or writers haven't spotted it themselves. Yet, scientists proposed 5 dimensions back in the early 1920s. The idea has been around for ages.

The idea of the Bootstrap Paradox has existed in fiction since the 1940s.

It only looks like a paradox to us because we experience time linearly. We see that events lead to each other and that time ticks away from a starting point to an end point. If time is just one "block" though... I dunno.

I guess, the story is designed to make you think. You are not necessarily supposed to understand.

Maybe that's a problem people have with these movies. Not saying that people are not capable of thinking just that a lot of times people do not want to think and there is a backlash against movies that incorporate something that's a little "out there" into their plot.

Search for "Novikov Self-Consistency Principle" if you want to read up on some interesting debate on the topic of time paradoxes.

the_monkey

Overall view of the film anyway :




*damn it ! , why have I only seen this gif now ???!!!

Riensen

Not quite as awesome as inception, but still a great movie!

the_monkey

Riensen wrote: »

Not quite as awesome as inception The Prestige, but still a great movie!

FYP :P

DoYouEvenLift

Wonder what Nolan will do next and when he'll be starting. Hopefully DiCaprio or Bale will be the leads again.

Theboinkmaster

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wonder what Nolan will do next and when he'll be starting. Hopefully DiCaprio or Bale will be the leads again.

To be fair whatever about the film McConaughey was excellent.

the_monkey

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Wonder what Nolan will do next and when he'll be starting. Hopefully DiCaprio or Bale will be the leads again.

Whatever happens, Micheal Caine and Hans Zimmer will probably get a heads up

DoYouEvenLift

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

To be fair whatever about the film McConaughey was excellent.

Of course, the guy's a deserving Oscar winner and is a top tier actor. I'd actually like to see Jared Leto be a lead actor in a big movie too.

the_monkey wrote: »

Whatever happens, Micheal Caine and Hans Zimmer will probably get a heads up

Haha Michael Caine said he doesn't even read the scripts before accepting them anymore, if it's from Nolan he said he just instantly agrees to do it

bullvine

Nolan should do a Bond that would insane.

Valmont

I read Arthur C Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey last month and Nolan borrowed a lot more from it than a cursory glance would suggest. I don't think it detracts from the film which I enjoyed but it does mean it doesn't break any new ground whatsoever. I had hoped with mankind's recent timid pokes into our solar system we would get something a bit more...inspiring! Four out of five regardless as it was thoroughly enjoyable.

FortuneChip

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Of course, the guy's a deserving Oscar winner and is a top tier actor. I'd actually like to see Jared Leto be a lead actor in a big movie too.

Jared Leto you say...
Time travel, eh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IA7002Z5MI0

Goodshape

Valmont wrote: »

I read Arthur C Clarke's 2001: A Space Odyssey last month and Nolan borrowed a lot more from it than a cursory glance would suggest.

I haven't read the book but I've all but purposefully studied 2001 the film. An awful lot of Interstellar felt, to me, like someone trying to explain what we saw happening in 2001 – with a few details changed and all needlessly wrapped up in sentimentality and heavy-handed preaching about saving the planet.

Both films received a signal from deep space, went looking for it, fell into a wormhole, transcended time and space and ultimately revealed a possible evolution of the species. Everything else in Interstellar was just Hollywood guff, and 2001 simply took it's sweet time with what it had.

The major difference was that Interstellar beat you over the head with facts, half-facts, and just plain old excessive exposition, whereas A Space Odyssey opted for "show don't tell" – almost always the better option, imo.

But it's basically the exact same story.


Having said that... I must read the book!

Mister Vain

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

I'd actually like to see Jared Leto be a lead actor in a big movie too.

He needs to stop messing about with 30 seconds to mars because he is very good actor. He was brilliant in The Dallas Buyers Club.

DoYouEvenLift

Mister Vain wrote: »

He needs to stop messing about with 30 seconds to mars because he is very good actor. He was brilliant in The Dallas Buyers Club.

Yeah, but can't really expect him to drop his music either, I'd say all that's kind of his side passion project he does in his free time and I think his brother's actually in the band too so he probably feels like he has to do it to keep it alive. Seriously talented guy though.

5uspect

Goodshape wrote: »

I haven't read the book but I've all but purposefully studied 2001 the film. An awful lot of Interstellar felt, to me, like someone trying to explain what we saw happening in 2001 – with a few details changed and all needlessly wrapped up in sentimentality and heavy-handed preaching about saving the planet.

Both films received a signal from deep space, went looking for it, fell into a wormhole, transcended time and space and ultimately revealed a possible evolution of the species. Everything else in Interstellar was just Hollywood guff, and 2001 simply took it's sweet time with what it had.

The major difference was that Interstellar beat you over the head with facts, half-facts, and just plain old excessive exposition, whereas A Space Odyssey opted for "show don't tell" – almost always the better option, imo.

But it's basically the exact same story.


Having said that... I must read the book!

The book was written in tandem with the movie, so it's not your usual adaptation. It's loosely based on a short story Clark submitted to a BBC writing competition years earlier and was completely ignored.

That said, the book is much more descriptive as to what is actually going on.

JohnDaniels

bullvine wrote: »

Nolan should do a Bond that would insane.

This is the worst move I could possibly imagine. While his Batman film's were very good I already feel a large part of his career has been wasted on them and thinking of him getting sucked into another franchise monster feels like a massive loss to cinema. Truth be told I yearn to see him back making stuff that doesn't have to pander to blockbuster audiences.

Roquentin

JohnDaniels wrote: »

This is the worst move I could possibly imagine. While his Batman film's were very good I already feel a large part of his career has been wasted on them and thinking of him getting sucked into another franchise monster feels like a massive loss to cinema. Truth be told I yearn to see him back making stuff that doesn't have to pander to blockbuster audiences.

you have to give to take in life......he does those blockbusters so the producers will let him make a more serious film......its a good system.... scorsese had to do the same

JohnDaniels

Roquentin wrote: »

you have to give to take in life......he does those blockbusters so the producers will let him make a more serious film......its a good system.... scorsese had to do the same

I'm all for some give and take and understand generally if lucky as a director on this scale 'you get one for me and one for you' sorta thing. Nolan hasn't got that in any shape or form. His last couple of films have certainly been different to mainstream type blockbusters but they exist in a weird middleground. Nolan I imagine is acutely aware that in ways he is making a bubble gum flick that needs to retain the attention of a blockbuster type audience. It's here that I think Inception triumphed hugely in bringing a smart Hollywood blockbuster to the masses which also left the more discerning viewer satisfied. I don't think he manages that marriage with this latest effort.

One for him would be giving him a pile of cash and saying make whatever the **** you want and we don't care how much money it loses. I could be wrong but it feels very much like Nolan is straddling the need for a big budget movie to be successful while trying to explore more interesting themes and topics than the generic blockbuster. That isn't to say the two can't work together but IMO that should be something left to audiences to decide after a film comes out, than something for the director to worry about while making his vision. It feels like Nolan is far too aware of the need for his movies to garner huge audiences.

Roquentin

insomnia was very good as was the prestige

JohnDaniels

Roquentin wrote: »

insomnia was very good as was the prestige

As are Memento and Following. All though made before his move to the Batman franchise apart from the Prestige which was in the early days. Since 2006 his output has been blockbusters. Hardly one for me one for you. Now maybe this is what Nolan wants to be doing but as I said it feels like those blockbusters aren't being made solely on his terms. Even at that it doesn't stop me from pining for the director output of his early days which made me such a fan. Maybe I just need to realise he no longer makes the type of films which drew me to him as a director.

Roquentin

JohnDaniels wrote: »

As are Memento and Following. All though made before his move to the Batman franchise apart from the Prestige which was in the early days. Since 2006 his output has been blockbusters. Hardly one for me one for you. Now maybe this is what Nolan wants to be doing but as I said it feels like those blockbusters aren't being made solely on his terms. Even at that it doesn't stop me from pining for the director output of his early days which made me such a fan. Maybe I just need to realise he no longer makes the type of films which drew me to him as a director.

in fairness he gave so much with the batman that he is gaining now with inception and interstellar......

he didnt even want to direct the third batman. inception had been in the draft room since memento i believe. i thought inception was really good.

DoYouEvenLift

Wonder what his input and how much of it there is for the new batman v superman movie as a producer, Hans Zimmers also doing the score and if Man of Steels is anything to go by that'll make it worth the cinema ticket cost alone

FlyingIrishMan

Neil DeGrasse talks about the 5th dimension part of Interstellar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Funny how someone with much much more knowledge on the subject is still able to enjoy it, yet people with only a more basic understanding can't let themselves enjoy it.

also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce24uorjGj0

doesn't talk about too much more, explains why there are tidal waves that huge [because the planet is close to a black hole, the waves would reach those heights], lists Contact as his favorite sci-fi movie.

shedweller

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Neil DeGrasse talks about the 5th dimension part of Interstellar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Funny how someone with much much more knowledge on the subject is still able to enjoy it, yet people with only a more basic understanding can't let themselves enjoy it.

Exactly. Yet other more earthly based movies get rave reviews! Seems to me some people just cant cope with some movies. Have to pick holes in them for whatever reason. Meh. I thought Interstellar really brought the concept of interstellar travel out in the open so people could see what its all about and its implications.
My 8-10 year old boys loved it and had many many questions to ask on the way home that evening! My 8 year old knows what a generation ship is ffs!! Knows about time slowing as you go faster etc etc. He didnt pick this up from movies aimed at 8 year olds i can tell you!
To the holes-in-the-plot lads i say go cry somewhere else. This was a fantastic film that promotes thought in people and may just inspire some to do greater things. Spending your time looking for and labouring over holes, however small, in the plot is simply wasting your precious time. Enjoy it for what it is and move on.

PhiloCypher

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Neil DeGrasse talks about the 5th dimension part of Interstellar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Funny how someone with much much more knowledge on the subject is still able to enjoy it, yet people with only a more basic understanding can't let themselves enjoy it.

also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce24uorjGj0

doesn't talk about too much more, explains why there are tidal waves that huge [because the planet is close to a black hole, the waves would reach those heights], lists Contact as his favorite sci-fi movie.

There's a difference between a scientist enjoying some of the scientific questions a film posits and him thinking it's a good film.

5uspect

Who says I can't be critical of a movie I enjoyed on a discussion forum?

DoYouEvenLift

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

Neil DeGrasse talks about the 5th dimension part of Interstellar.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Funny how someone with much much more knowledge on the subject is still able to enjoy it, yet people with only a more basic understanding can't let themselves enjoy it.

also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce24uorjGj0

doesn't talk about too much more, explains why there are tidal waves that huge [because the planet is close to a black hole, the waves would reach those heights], lists Contact as his favorite sci-fi movie.

100% this. Kip Thorne has an eBook explainingn the science for a lot of the supposed "plot holes" that some people even ITT thought made the movie bad. It seems like too many people are busy dissecting and assessing every little detail about movies nowadays as if they're selecting which should win a fuking Oscar. Everyone's a movie critic nowadays and nobody seems to want to do the one thing movies set out to be which is an escape for a couple of hours that you enjoy.


Example from the book:

Q: How does Cooper go from the Tesseract in the black hole, back to near Saturn?

A: From the book 'Science in Interstellar':
"With the quantum data safely in Murph’s hands, Cooper’s mission is finished. The tesseract, carrying him through the bulk, begins to close.
As it is closing, he sees the wormhole. And within the wormhole, he sees the Endurance on its maiden voyage to Gargantua. As he sweeps past the Endurance, he reaches out and gravitationally touches Brand across the fifth dimension. She thinks she has been touched by a bulk being. She has . . . by a being riding through the bulk in a rapidly closing tesseract. By an exhausted, older Cooper."

Also, the soundtrack is up on YouTube now if anyone wants to post it.