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

DoYouEvenLift

Good interview with Christopher Nolan and Kip Thorne

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/metaphysics-of-interstellar/

PhiloCypher

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

I'm just trying to discuss the movie..
So many people just shout "plot hole" without saying what they are.

I know and I was just pointing out that for every one person who wants to debate point for point your issues with the film, there are two others telling you to shut up and enjoy it or leave the thread to those that do.

Ole Rodrigo

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Good interview with Christopher Nolan and Kip Thorne

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/metaphysics-of-interstellar/

THORNE: For me the thing I most wanted was that the film have real science embedded in it—a range of science, from well-established truths to speculative science. This is what we wound up with. And I’m just so pleased

Sounds like Kip Thorne is preparing for a career in politics :pac:

DoYouEvenLift

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Good interview with Christopher Nolan and Kip Thorne

http://www.wired.com/2014/11/metaphysics-of-interstellar/

Wonder what the part at the very bottom is about, 'More space, time and multiple dimensions. Coming 11/20'

Deco99

What were the plotholes? I got bored by the predictable story, who didnt see matt damon doing an event horizon/sunshine astronaut gone bad? Three planets and the first two are duds, its like house two incorrect diagnosis before finding the cure. Least enjoyable film ive seen in ages, since Terminator salvation maybe

DoYouEvenLift

http://www.soundworkscollection.com/videos/the-sound-of-interstellar

mrpdap

An impressive production but, that, without hesitation was the worst film I've ever endured.
Characters were totally flat and dull, really didn't care what happened to any of them.

the_monkey

Full soundtrack here :

stunning stuff

Adamantium

The thing about science fiction is that the best stuff is often the cheapest e.g Twilight Zone episodes. (because genuine sci-fi is a niche as hell market, this balances out)

There's a movie called Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)about the first worldwide AI being brought online that I watched on Youtube a few years ago and it has to the most underrated/fantastic, stolen from sci-fi film of the last half of the 20th century and it was made for half nothing


To the people who remark on the visuals, we have near photorealism for the past few years in Hollywood, so maybe we're reaching a point where CGI infested movies will see diminishing returns and they'll have to by default focus on story. We're seeing the same thing happen in videogames where diminishing returns mean the more "real" you make something the harder it is to make the actions/behaviour live up the mannequin, it's a screwed place and there is no going back once the tech gets better and will cost more than ever to make a simple sci-fi movie. Thousands of people employed who rely on directors to use CGI in their movies just to keep these server farms liquid

Looper and Her were fantastic movies might I add, but even they cost a tonne in comparison to the earlier counterparts from 30-40 years ago.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but there'll likely be an implosion in a few years time (50/50)

srsly78

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

What were the plot holes that ruined it for you?

Once causality goes out the window there is little point discussing plot.

DoYouEvenLift

Adamantium wrote: »

The thing about science fiction is that the best stuff is often the cheapest e.g Twilight Zone episodes. (because genuine sci-fi is a niche as hell market, this balances out)

There's a movie called Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)about the first worldwide AI being brought online that I watched on Youtube a few years ago and it has to the most underrated/fantastic, stolen from sci-fi film of the last half of the 20th century and it was made for half nothing


To the people who remark on the visuals, we have near photorealism for the past few years in Hollywood, so maybe we're reaching a point where CGI infested movies will see diminishing returns and they'll have to by default focus on story. We're seeing the same thing happen in videogames where diminishing returns mean the more "real" you make something the harder it is to make the actions/behaviour live up the mannequin, it's a screwed place and there is no going back once the tech gets better and will cost more than ever to make a simple sci-fi movie. Thousands of people employed who rely on directors to use CGI in their movies just to keep these server farms liquid

Looper and Her were fantastic movies might I add, but even they cost a tonne in comparison to the earlier counterparts from 30-40 years ago.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but there'll likely be an implosion in a few years time (50/50)

In movies, maybe. In TV, more than likely not anytime soon. TV continues to be all about the story and I think visual effects becoming better and cheaper to do will only make the quality and experience more immersive than ever as they can now have scenes that just 10 years ago would never be expected to be on television, like Game of Thrones' battle of blackwater and the ice wall battle. I never preferred TV shows over movies even though TV allows for much more detailed storytelling and attachment to characters until the last few years when shows began looking like something you could expect to see in a cinema, but then again that's only for shows that are receiving movie-like budgets from top networks but in a few years more networks will be able to pull off similar for cheaper. Can't wait for whatever shows we'll be seeing with the rise of cheap streaming services like Netflix and the growing size of TVs themselves.

orubiru

Memnoch wrote: »

When an average and weak film like interstellar gets so highly lauded it shows just how far mainstream cinema has fallen.

If you're feelings are hurt because people didn't universally like a film you think they should have then go cry elsewhere.

I didn't go into the cinema looking for plot holes. My time is precious to me. I enjoyed the film up to the point. And the plot holes were part of what spoiled the experience.

Accept the opinions of others for what they are and move on.

Nonsense. The existence of a plot hole in a movie is not a matter of opinion. There's either a plot hole in the film or there is not.

If you can't expand on what you mean by "plot holes" then I would put it to you that it's because you don't actually know what a plot hole is. You just say "oh I didn't like it because of all the plot holes" because that's the kind of thing that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Many of the things I am hearing people gripe about in this movie are not plot holes at all. For example, "why didn't they just send the robots".

"Why didn't they just... blah blah blah?" Folks, this kind of thing is not a plot hole.

For example, if they had gone down to Mann's planet and he just started trying to kill them off with no explanation at all well that would be a plot hole. Mann's actions wouldn't make sense from all that we've already been told about him. This is why they make it clear, almost from the moment he wakes up, that something is not quite right with Mann.

Or, lets say before they go to the "wave" planet nobody in the entire movie has even mentioned time dilation and when they return 23 years have passed but they just go on with the movie with just "23 years have passed... OK, next planet!"... that would be a plot hole.

Is there any point in this movie where the motivations of the characters are not clear? Is there any point where the reasons why things are happening are not explained?

The main criticism of this movie should be that there is way too much exposition.

It's so weird to hear people constantly talking about plot holes in a film that goes so far out of it's way to ensure that there are no plot holes. One of the main downsides to this movie is that it spends so much time explaining what's going on to it's audience yet you have the same audience shouting "look at all the plot holes!".

The problem seems to be that as soon as a movie is marketed as "smart" or people find out "it has a twist" a large percentage of the audience need to feel like they have outsmarted or figured out the film.

In Looper, for example, "why don't they just transport them back to the middle of the ocean to kill them".

In LOTR, "why don't they just give the ring to the eagles to fly over the volcano and drop it in".

One. Because there would be no movie if they did that.
Two. Because there would be no movie if they did that.

So, let's hear it, what plot holes did you see in this movie?

candy-gal1

Actually really liked this movie, not what I was expecting at all, went to see it on a whim tbh!
A little drawn out in places, and a tad predictable storyline wise imho, but other than that I was pleasantly surprised by it, even after seeing the trailer a few times before its release :rolleyes:

tok9

Got around to seeing this last night in the BFI. Was in row C so I'd say just it was a bit close to the screen.. Ideally would have preferred to be 4-5 rows further back. But it was fine.

Like other Nolan film's, I was always enthralled, visually impressed and loved the soundtrack which is all made better with how it looks on an Imax screen. Some of the shots in space just looked incredible.

It's a movie that I feel I have to mull over. As I came out wondering how I did feel regarding the final act which generally means I liked the movie a lot but at the same time I don't think I would hold it up as Nolan's finest movie (which isn't an insult really considering his filmography)

I would highly recommend going to watch the movie in a cinema.

orubiru

Adamantium wrote: »

The thing about science fiction is that the best stuff is often the cheapest e.g Twilight Zone episodes. (because genuine sci-fi is a niche as hell market, this balances out)

There's a movie called Colossus: The Forbin Project (1970)about the first worldwide AI being brought online that I watched on Youtube a few years ago and it has to the most underrated/fantastic, stolen from sci-fi film of the last half of the 20th century and it was made for half nothing


To the people who remark on the visuals, we have near photorealism for the past few years in Hollywood, so maybe we're reaching a point where CGI infested movies will see diminishing returns and they'll have to by default focus on story. We're seeing the same thing happen in videogames where diminishing returns mean the more "real" you make something the harder it is to make the actions/behaviour live up the mannequin, it's a screwed place and there is no going back once the tech gets better and will cost more than ever to make a simple sci-fi movie. Thousands of people employed who rely on directors to use CGI in their movies just to keep these server farms liquid

Looper and Her were fantastic movies might I add, but even they cost a tonne in comparison to the earlier counterparts from 30-40 years ago.

I don't know where I'm going with this, but there'll likely be an implosion in a few years time (50/50)

I agree with you (and HER is an amazing movie, good call!) but on the other hand you have people criticizing when the movie tries to introduce a concept like "love" into a film with a lot of effects.

I can see why people object to things like the seemingly "Hollywood" love angle but why should explaining things like love in the same context as we'd explain gravity etc be off limits for a screenwriter? Kind of makes sense that our "soul", if such a thing exists, would not be restricted to 3 dimensions in the same way that out bodies are. I guess that we do have 4 dimensional movement through our ability to remember, predict and dream. So why shouldn't Brand discuss love?

Also, it's the characters opinion. If a character in a film holds an opinion that we don't agree with does it automatically make the idea pathetic or lame or whatever? We're not obligated to agree. Even when Cooper concludes that it's his love for his daughter that allows him to send messages back in time to her... WE don't have to agree with that.

In a straight action film we don't have to bother with such issues. We are going from A to B and that's the end of it.

I think Her escaped a lot of criticism because it didn't get a lot of publicity. Cloud Atlas, for example, got trashed because it was marketed as that kind of "action" type film.

If they throw a lot of effects into a film then I think it encourages us to go into "look, don't think" mode. I find myself doing this all the time. Some movies provide an instant visceral experience and you know you are watching one of those films when there are like a billion moving parts on the screen. So you switch off and by the end you've either enjoyed the experience or you haven't and you move on.

Interstellar is sort of marketed as the big blockbuster movie of the year but at the same time it's trying to be the deep and profound movie you'd think and talk about for years. Maybe it's just not possible to be both?

ktulu123

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Definitely Hans Zimmers best since The Last Samurai/Gladiator for me. The "docking scene" music was originally thought to be on the deluxe edition called "imperfect lock" but that is not it. Hans has since said that they plan to release the track for free & he is just waiting to clear some things up with the record company. So it will hopefully be out soon

vidor

Not sure why I punish myself by going to another Nolan film but I probably deserved what I got, which was another walk-through from Michael Caine (amongst others), another predictable and needlessly bombarding score from the master of shítty scores Hans Zimmer, an attempt to pull heartstrings like never before, terribly wooden dialogue, and more. Can't say I was disappointed as it was pretty much what I expected going in.

TouchingVirus

ktulu123 wrote: »

The soundtrack is unbelievable. Definitely Hans Zimmers best since The Last Samurai/Gladiator for me. The "docking scene" music was originally thought to be on the deluxe edition called "imperfect lock" but that is not it. Hans has since said that they plan to release the track for free & he is just waiting to clear some things up with the record company. So it will hopefully be out soon

I concur entirely, so glad you mentioned The Last Samurai soundtrack The Interstellar OST is such a solid work, I've been listening non-stop since yesterday. The docking scene, when it's released, will be just as amazing as the rest. The organ gives me a chill every time

Sad Professor

As ktulu said, the docking scene music hasn't been released yet, but someone did a pretty damn good job of recreating it. It's not exact but as close as we're going to get until the official track is released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7eLSsTrbIOI

ktulu123

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I concur entirely, so glad you mentioned The Last Samurai soundtrack

It's my most listened to soundtrack, A Small Measure of Peace or Idyls End are my fav tracks. My fav's on Interstellar are probably: Mountains, Stay, Coward & detach.

Sad Professor wrote: »

As ktulu said, the docking scene music hasn't been released yet, but someone did a pretty damn good job of recreating it. It's not exact but as close as we're going to get until the official track is released.

Yup I meant to post that actually, fairly decent job of it that will do until we get the real one

Thargor

I dont understand the love for this films OST and I have nearly everything worth listening to by Hans Zimmer on my mp3 player, its very generic.

Bacchus

vidor wrote: »

Not sure why I punish myself by going to another Nolan film but I probably deserved what I got, which was another walk-through from Michael Caine (amongst others), another predictable and needlessly bombarding score from the master of shítty scores Hans Zimmer, an attempt to pull heartstrings like never before, terribly wooden dialogue, and more. Can't say I was disappointed as it was pretty much what I expected going in.

I know right!! Yet another sh*theap of a movie from Nolan to join his ranks of sh*theaps like The Prestige, Inception, Memento & the Batman trilogy. Don't get me started on Zimmer either, probably definitely the worst composer of his generation. Who does he think he is trying to use music to pull at the heartstrings. How they hell are these guys still working. Who even likes this cr*p. I guess there's a lot of masochists out there with money to burn. You're right too about Caine, what a nothing actor, didn't look like he was even trying... that's not what acting is about! What a sh*t piece of casting too putting that guy from Sahara as the lead! He's a Brendan Fraser wannabe.

ktulu123

Thargor wrote: »

I dont understand the love for this films OST and I have nearly everything worth listening to by Hans Zimmer on my mp3 player, its very generic.

It's a great thing that we can all have different opinions & tastes isn't it?

Thargor

Yeah but there's music like even recently with Man of Steel that you can instantly identify as Zimmer even if you didn't know it going into the film it still makes the hair on your neck stand up whereas this is more like the music you'd expect by some random producer in the trailer for a new Halo game or something, its nowhere near any of his classic stuff. Hearing at painfully loud volume in IMC Dun Laoighre probably didn't help my opinion.

the_monkey

vidor wrote: »

Not sure why I punish myself by going to another Nolan film but I probably deserved what I got, which was another walk-through from Michael Caine (amongst others), another predictable and needlessly bombarding score from the master of shítty scores Hans Zimmer, an attempt to pull heartstrings like never before, terribly wooden dialogue, and more. Can't say I was disappointed as it was pretty much what I expected going in.

the_monkey

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2014/nov/19/interstellar-comic-book-christopher-nolan-sean-gordon-murphy-absolute-zero

DoYouEvenLift

orubiru wrote: »

Nonsense. The existence of a plot hole in a movie is not a matter of opinion. There's either a plot hole in the film or there is not.

If you can't expand on what you mean by "plot holes" then I would put it to you that it's because you don't actually know what a plot hole is. You just say "oh I didn't like it because of all the plot holes" because that's the kind of thing that makes you sound like you know what you are talking about.

Many of the things I am hearing people gripe about in this movie are not plot holes at all. For example, "why didn't they just send the robots".

"Why didn't they just... blah blah blah?" Folks, this kind of thing is not a plot hole.

For example, if they had gone down to Mann's planet and he just started trying to kill them off with no explanation at all well that would be a plot hole. Mann's actions wouldn't make sense from all that we've already been told about him. This is why they make it clear, almost from the moment he wakes up, that something is not quite right with Mann.

Or, lets say before they go to the "wave" planet nobody in the entire movie has even mentioned time dilation and when they return 23 years have passed but they just go on with the movie with just "23 years have passed... OK, next planet!"... that would be a plot hole.

Is there any point in this movie where the motivations of the characters are not clear? Is there any point where the reasons why things are happening are not explained?

The main criticism of this movie should be that there is way too much exposition.

It's so weird to hear people constantly talking about plot holes in a film that goes so far out of it's way to ensure that there are no plot holes. One of the main downsides to this movie is that it spends so much time explaining what's going on to it's audience yet you have the same audience shouting "look at all the plot holes!".

The problem seems to be that as soon as a movie is marketed as "smart" or people find out "it has a twist" a large percentage of the audience need to feel like they have outsmarted or figured out the film.

In Looper, for example, "why don't they just transport them back to the middle of the ocean to kill them".

In LOTR, "why don't they just give the ring to the eagles to fly over the volcano and drop it in".

One. Because there would be no movie if they did that.
Two. Because there would be no movie if they did that.

So, let's hear it, what plot holes did you see in this movie?

There's actually a reason for that. Anyone who thinks a man who created an entirely new world and language for his stories only to have little details like that go unanswered is being silly.

tok9 wrote: »

Got around to seeing this last night in the BFI. Was in row C so I'd say just it was a bit close to the screen.. Ideally would have preferred to be 4-5 rows further back. But it was fine.

Like other Nolan film's, I was always enthralled, visually impressed and loved the soundtrack which is all made better with how it looks on an Imax screen. Some of the shots in space just looked incredible.

It's a movie that I feel I have to mull over. As I came out wondering how I did feel regarding the final act which generally means I liked the movie a lot but at the same time I don't think I would hold it up as Nolan's finest movie (which isn't an insult really considering his filmography)

I would highly recommend going to watch the movie in a cinema.

Lol man, I saw it in the Manchester IMAX screen which is only about a metre smaller than the BFI IMAX and I sat in row H the first time and row G the second time and even that felt a bit too close, row C must have been ridiculous.

FlyingIrishMan

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

There's actually a reason for that. Anyone who thinks a man who created an entirely new world and language for his stories only to have little details like that go unanswered is being silly.

What's the reason? :pac:

DoYouEvenLift

FlyingIrishMan wrote: »

What's the reason? :pac:

Something along the lines of the birds owed Gandalf a favour because he helped them before, and also the fact that the birds flying in would be totally obvious, they'd get spotted and attacked by the fellbeasts...anyone who makes even half an attempt to learn about the story would realise that, my cousins who are children even know this

vidor wrote: »

Not sure why I punish myself by going to another Nolan film but I probably deserved what I got, which was another walk-through from Michael Caine (amongst others), another predictable and needlessly bombarding score from the master of shítty scores Hans Zimmer, an attempt to pull heartstrings like never before, terribly wooden dialogue, and more. Can't say I was disappointed as it was pretty much what I expected going in.

Fair enough, but just out of curiosity what would be your idea of a 10/10 movie? What's your favourite movie of all time?

tok9

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Lol man, I saw it in the Manchester IMAX screen which is only about a metre smaller than the BFI IMAX and I sat in row H the first time and row G the second time and even that felt a bit too close, row C must have been ridiculous.

I was a little concerned when the trailers kicked off and there were a lot of quick cuts but once Interstellar started I was well adjusted to it.

At times it was actually pretty phenomenal. One scene in particular when Mann causes the explosion on Endurance. There is a scene where you see the shuttle at the center of the screen, debris coming towards it and over towards the right is Endurance spinning with the planet in the background.

It just looked absolutely amazing I thought.