[worry]

I suppose Nolan had to get dialogue going after the fact to make up for all the dialogue you can't make out during the fact cuz of the blaring music.

[McLovin]

His next project is called WHOOM. It's actually Bob & Carol & Ted & Alice, but edited so every time one character opens his/her mouth, the Inception WHOOOOOOOM comes out. It's supposed to be a meditation on the secondary nature of speech to communication. Or possibly a meditation on driving you straight up the fucking wall.

[polishgenius]

So, after all the dire warnings, given that for Nolan's previous two films I was the naysayer in these topics, I was rather surprised to find myself enjoying it rather a lot. The only thing that actually bothered me was the concept of him physically beating out the message from the Tessaract- it looked bad, and it felt silly, and it reminded me uncomfortably of Superboy punching the universe. It also felt a bit like it was only there because 2001 had a weird bit at the end too - I noticed someone criticising QT for comparing it to 2001, but given the film was clearly trying so hard to be this generation's Space Odyssey, I think it's a fair comparison to make. But it didn't ruin it for me.


I didn't have a problem with the pacing, I thought it was fine. I didn't have a problem with the sillyness of most of the science- at least it was consistently silly, which is what I really ask for from a story. I didn't have a problem with Matt Damon, or the soundtrack (although it did overwhelm the dialogue in a couple of moments), or Coop surviving, or much of anything about it really. The son turning into a dickhead just to manufacture a bit of false drama was annoying, but a tiny note.

And it looked awesome. As a spectacle it's superb. The docking scene was fantastic, too.


Probably having low expectations going in helped, as did seeing it in IMAX (my first time at IMAX not in 3D, and it was a good film for it). It's not a great film, but I'm definitely in the positive camp.

[LinearPhilosopher]

A Demon Llama!, on 09 November 2014 - 08:19 PM, said:

I was also kinda confused and didnt really like that the singularity would just spit him out unharmed. And I dont know if a human would be able to survive entering a black hole or at what point he would just be torn apart.

If a species can create a tessaract that allows a human to interact with a different space time, and can create and maintain a wormhole for several decade, do you honestly think it's any larger stretch that they can move a human to a specific point in time?

And yeah the gravity would have torn him apart, however,these are aliens who are playing loose with the laws of physics as we understand them so it's not that big of a stretch. Once you start messing with physics here and there, it allows other physics defying feats to become more acceptable, or even, internally consistent.

Also i didn't really notice the soundtrack. I tend to just get immersed in movies so i don't notice it (unless it's yoko kanno , basil poledouris or ennio morricone). Overall, came in with expectations would be good (not great or amazing) and i was delighted. I quite enjoyed the movie (matt damon felt forced with the whole space incident). I also enjoyed how it did a good job of taking known physical concepts and incorporating them into the story.


mini rant to those whining about scientific accuracy:
You don't watch science fiction for scientific accuracy, you watch sf so if they incorporate it into the work, what they do with it. How is it incorporate into the work (something in the background, or something key to the narrative) and whether or not it can bring out some interesting scenarios which may be used to lead one to ask certain questions about , well anything really. My intro to philosophy course had a packet of short stories, all of them sci fi, as they created scenarios that allowed to explore topics in a depth you can't do ordinarily.

This post has been edited by BalrogLord: 21 November 2014 - 08:30 PM

[polishgenius]

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

mini rant to those whining about scientific accuracy:
You don't watch science fiction for scientific accuracy, you watch sf so if they incorporate it into the work, what they do with it.

No, that's why you watch sci-fi. It isn't why everyone watches sci-fi.

[LinearPhilosopher]

polishgenius, on 21 November 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

mini rant to those whining about scientific accuracy:
You don't watch science fiction for scientific accuracy, you watch sf so if they incorporate it into the work, what they do with it.

No, that's why you watch sci-fi. It isn't why everyone watches sci-fi.

yet to my knowledge there isn't a single one thats scientifically accurate. From doctor who to x files to star trek. So if that's your reason to watch SF than automatically your entire enterprise is doomed to fialure before it even begins. Which makes no sense, given that watching SF is a leisure activity.

[Illuyankas]

Your reasoning is why the genre of hard sci fi obviously doesn't exist, and Stephen Baxter et al are just dreams.

[LinearPhilosopher]

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 21 November 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

mini rant to those whining about scientific accuracy:
You don't watch science fiction for scientific accuracy, you watch sf so if they incorporate it into the work, what they do with it.

No, that's why you watch sci-fi. It isn't why everyone watches sci-fi.

yet to my knowledge there isn't a single one thats scientifically accurate. From doctor who to x files to star trek. So if that's your reason to watch SF than automatically your entire enterprise is doomed to fialure before it even begins. Which makes no sense, given that watching SF is a leisure activity.

Illuyankas, on 21 November 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

Your reasoning is why the genre of hard sci fi obviously doesn't exist, and Stephen Baxter et al are just dreams.

Nothing wrong with my reasoning sir. If you pay attention to the highlighted part i explicitly laid out my assumption. If there's a flaw in my base of knowledge im perfectly willingly to accept that as a very real possiblility. But there's no flaw in my reasoning.

[polishgenius]

I think the flaw in logic came when you apparently decided to categorise a whole genre and all its fans when your knowledge of it is fairly obviously quite limited.

[McLovin]

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 09:38 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:56 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 21 November 2014 - 08:51 PM, said:

BalrogLord, on 21 November 2014 - 08:21 PM, said:

mini rant to those WHOOOOOOOOOM

No, that's WHOOOOOOOOOM

yet to my knowledge WHOOOOOOOOOOOOM

Illuyankas, on 21 November 2014 - 09:24 PM, said:

Your reasoning is WHOOOOOOOOOOM

Nothing wrong with WHOOOOOOOOOOM.

Fixed.

WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM.

[LinearPhilosopher]

polishgenius, on 21 November 2014 - 10:33 PM, said:

I think the flaw in logic came when you apparently decided to categorise a whole genre and all its fans when your knowledge of it is fairly obviously quite limited.

Nah. The argument itself is sound. I merely started with a bad premise, maybe even purposely so.

[Whisperzzzzzzz]

I think that anyone who thought the movie was about love as a fifth-dimensional or suprahuman force missed some of the movie. Anne Hathaway's speech was her belief; it wasn't incontrovertible. Just like in MBotF, characters have beliefs that may or may not be true, and it's up to us to puzzle them out (Mann's stuff on the human survival instinct was in much the same vein). As Coop explicity says to Murph early on, science is about taking theories, getting data, and creating conclusions. There was no data to support Brand's view. None. I don't think Nolan would be so gung-ho on science, only to flip completely halfway through his film.

It wasn't love that saved the humans, except as a solely human artifact that is a component of what drives us. But, we also can't be sure that it was Uberbeings From The 5th Dimension either (though it's more likely than love), as the only exposition we have on that is from TARS, whose truth setting is only 90%, which Nolan highlighted earlier in the film.

Additionally, I found the scene where Coop is catching up on 23 years of missed messages super emotional. One of two times I cried during the film.

One thing that was so dumb: "We still love dead people. There's no utility in that, therefore love is a universal force!!!1!1"

EDIT: Oh, and there was one large thing I didn't understand. So, solving the equation gave them the key to harnessing gravity. And then they built some ringworld stations. But ringworld stations rotate to create gravity, so what did they need the equation for? They've already shown they know how to create gravity from rotation (e.x. on the Endurance station), so I'm really not sure how the equation ended up saving humanity, when what we see of their salvation was already wholly within their power to create without the equation.

EDIT2: Just to be clear, I fucking loved it. There were some scenes I didn't really like, but they didn't ruin it for me. I also thought the visuals were magnificent, especially in the tesseract. I think we can all agree that, regardless of the relative mundanity of Coop's morse coding across time and space, the tesseract itself was insanely cool looking.

This post has been edited by Whisperzzzzzzz: 23 November 2014 - 04:56 PM

[Tru]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 23 November 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

I think that anyone who thought the movie was about love as a fifth-dimensional or suprahuman force missed some of the movie. Anne Hathaway's speech was her belief; it wasn't incontrovertible. Just like in MBotF, characters have beliefs that may or may not be true, and it's up to us to puzzle them out.

It wasn't love that saved the humans, except as a solely human artifact that is a component of what drives us. But, we also can't be sure that it was Uberbeings From The 5th Dimension either, as the only exposition we have on that is from TARS, whose truth setting is only 90%, which Nolan highlighted earlier in the film.

Additionally, I found the scene where Coop is catching up on 23 years of missed messages super emotional. One of two times I cried during the film.

One thing that was so dumb: "We still love dead people. There's no utility in that, therefore love is a universal force!!!1!1"

EDIT: Oh, and there was one large thing I didn't understand. So, solving the equation gave them the key to harnessing gravity. And then they built some ringworld stations. But ringworld stations rotate to create gravity, so what did they need the equation for? They've already shown they know how to create gravity from rotation (e.x. on the Endurance station), so I'm really not sure how the equation ended up saving humanity, when what we see of their salvation was already wholly within their power to create without the equation.

I think their goal was to keep certain element, the more fantasy/sci fi elements, a bit esoteric. So yeah, they did not really get very specific with how the equation saved the earth once done. I think the movie did lean towards the element of love being the "x-factor" that saved the earth, just in that when you fall into a black hole, where do you end up? Was there some being that caused him to be stuck in his own home? Or was it a love he had for his daughter? If it was some alein beings or force, then why there? How would they have known where to send him? I tend to discount the alien being thoery because I think it shows us that all of the evidence pointing to some alien 5th dimensional being was actually him, his influence, nothing more. Yet I understand they want us guessing and never clarify this. So is love some outside the box gravitational force that wills you to a certain place when you decide to enter a black hole? This is the part of the movie I found hardest to digest, when it really went fantasy on us. it is one thing to say:

Quote

"We still love dead people. There's no utility in that, therefore love is a universal force!!!1!1"

I can actually accept that as a reasonable theory or path of thought, but I can't apply it to science. However, when you enter a place no one can describe, (black hole) you gotta come up with something, and it added that great emotional element to the movie.

[worry]

Whisperzzzzzzz, on 23 November 2014 - 04:24 PM, said:

As Coop explicity says to Murph

"As _____ explicitly says to ______" could be the tagline for the entire movie.

Direct quote from the movie:
Child Actor: *cough cough* "By the way, I am not coughing for any plot-extraneous reason, but rather because of the dust coating every layer of our ever-worsening existence here on the farm. You see we are surrounded by dust as a byproduct of the crops dying everywhere, and so children of my generation are experiencing chronic respiratory issues. I am letting you know this on behalf of the Nolan Brothers, who just wanted to make sure that you, Jessica Chastain, my aunt the scientist who once lived on this very farm, understand exactly what I meant by *cough cough*."

[polishgenius]

I think they needed the equation to manipulate gravity to get the space stations, and all the surviving people, off-Earth, not to create gravity on the stations.

[A Demon Llama!]

Niel deGrasse Tyson and Interstellar. Nothing too in depth but can be interesting.

[Tiste Simeon]

I'm not like a lot of you guys. I can just sit back and be mindblown by a superb piece of cinematography. Yes the science wasn't up to scratch but hey its a scifi movie.

We saw it at the IMAX in Ashton and my word it was superb. The way it made you disorientated and the way the sound rumbled through everything just completely immersed us. My wife was even feeling a bit queasy after the passing through the wormhole scene. There is a lot to process and I can't wait for a second watch.

[amphibian]

I saw this movie on Friday evening in a mini IMAX and epecially after watching the NdGT video, I'm pretty ok with the silly science stuff. I quite liked most of the movie, although I thought the kid coughing thing was oddly handled.

I also am left with the lingering question of how exactly the gravity equation was solved (by the far future humans and/or aliens) and then relayed through a pilot's binary code workings in a sufficiently comprehensible form.

I'm also wondering why he didn't slide the tesseract further into the time stream to see if grown up Murphy was there - it wouldn't have delayed him much - that would have been more of a coherent plan than hoping a small girl notices a peculiarly ticking watch.

The space going parts were delicious, with a good helping of skipping the long tedious parts of calculations and hibernation.

[amphibian]

Pretty good sum up of Interstellar by Robert Mays, who saw it FIVE times over the course of a weekend: http://grantland.com...-tell-about-it/

The construction of the tesseract specifically for Cooper by the far future humans/aliens is one of the strangest things in all of science fiction. How many iterations of this must they have gone through to figure out that Cooper was the one and that linking it specifically to his daughter's bedroom/library was the right move?

This whole movie is really Alistair Reynolds-like and that I really like. It's ambitious, it's grand and it's ultimately a movie I like very much. Still probably won't win an Oscar.

[QuickTidal]

Considering what I thought of the film, this new review (Part 1) of the film http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70917 is spot bloody on for the problems I had with it....and even bring up a few new ones I'd not initially thought about.

Basically INTERSTELLAR is probably the MOST disappointed I've been in a film in the last decade, and from the sounds of it, Part 2 of the review is about the original script from 2008 and how none of the problematic shit that Nolan added when he came on board in existed back then...and the film could have been much better.