PDA

View Full Version : Interstellar (2014)



Pages : [1] 2

Watashi
11-05-2014, 08:07 AM
https://s.yimg.com/cd/resizer/2.0/FIT_TO_WIDTH-w480/93adf4cc94ee6641c38e9cb64706ab f5cf528229.jpg

Watashi
11-05-2014, 08:09 AM
This is a pure Nolan move. It won't convert the haters or alienate his rabid fanbase. All of his quirks are on full display here.

I'll still take this guy over 99% of active genre filmmakers

Dukefrukem
11-05-2014, 01:15 PM
Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor

Pop Trash
11-05-2014, 02:51 PM
Is the score oppressively WHOOOOOMP-y?

Dukefrukem
11-05-2014, 02:53 PM
Apparently Warner Bros and Paramount traded rights- Inception distribution rights for South Park and Friday the 13th.

Weird.

Pop Trash
11-05-2014, 02:56 PM
Apparently Warner Bros and Paramount traded rights- Inception distribution rights for South Park and Friday the 13th.

Weird.

I've noticed Warner now has blu-ray rights for most (all?) of Paramount's back film catalog.

Barty
11-05-2014, 05:55 PM
Is the score oppressively WHOOOOOMP-y?

It's actually much differently. It's main theme is based around a pipe organ, and its very Philip Glass like.

megladon8
11-05-2014, 07:31 PM
So can someone please answer my question about whether or not IGN spoiled the movie with their headline?

Does the wormhole send them back in time?

Watashi
11-05-2014, 08:01 PM
Don't worry about it and watch the movie.

transmogrifier
11-05-2014, 11:45 PM
Scanning the Rotten Tomatoes blurbs, I see quotes like this:

"[Nolan is] one of Hollywood's few true remaining visionaries, and he's only getting warmed up."

and

"Nolan's creativity has reached new levels with this latest achievement."

and

"We need far-reaching artists like Nolan, since, as they say, Earth without art is 'eh.'"

I just don't get it. Christopher Nolan?

megladon8
11-06-2014, 01:27 AM
Yeah he makes pretty great movies.

Morris Schæffer
11-06-2014, 06:33 AM
Scanning the Rotten Tomatoes blurbs, I see quotes like this:

"[Nolan is] one of Hollywood's few true remaining visionaries, and he's only getting warmed up."

and

"Nolan's creativity has reached new levels with this latest achievement."

and

"We need far-reaching artists like Nolan, since, as they say, Earth without art is 'eh.'"

I just don't get it. Christopher Nolan?

He's the best of the best when it comes to crowd-pleasing cinema so perhaps the critics are indirectly thinking that between Nolan and Michael Bay, the choice is simple.

transmogrifier
11-06-2014, 10:22 AM
Far-reaching, creative, and visionary describe very few directors; they certainly do not describe Nolan.

quido8_5
11-06-2014, 11:46 AM
Far-reaching, creative, and visionary describe very few directors; they certainly do not describe Nolan.

I haven't seen the film yet, but among popular directors working today he's far and away one of the most visionary. Dude's not Malick; however, that's not the ilk these critics are comparing him to.

Skitch
11-06-2014, 12:42 PM
Far-reaching, creative, and visionary describe very few directors; they certainly do not describe Nolan.

You may not like him, but The Prestige, Momento, and Inception are far from the middle ground of mediocre cinema. Or are you just trolling?

Kurosawa Fan
11-06-2014, 12:57 PM
I haven't seen the film yet, but among popular directors working today he's far and away one of the most visionary. Dude's not Malick; however, that's not the ilk these critics are comparing him to.

I feel like you're conflating "visual" and "visionary." In what ways do you believe Nolan is pushing the boundaries of cinema, or altering the landscape with his films? I can think of very few visionaries (two names that spring to mind are James Cameron and maaaybe QT) and Nolan sure isn't one of them.

transmogrifier
11-06-2014, 01:20 PM
You may not like him, but The Prestige, Momento, and Inception are far from the middle ground of mediocre cinema. Or are you just trolling?

So by saying he is not far-reaching, creative, or visionary is, by your way of thinking, "an inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic message with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion?" (Thank you, Wikipedia).

Dukefrukem
11-06-2014, 01:33 PM
Skitch he's not trolling. He's just a hipster.

Skitch
11-06-2014, 01:33 PM
So by saying he is not far-reaching, creative, or visionary is, by your way of thinking, "an inflammatory,extraneous, or off-topic message with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion?" (Thank you, Wikipedia).

Nah, it was the "certainly" part, as though anyone who would disagree is "obviously" wrong.

megladon8
11-06-2014, 04:40 PM
I think it can most definitely be argued that Nolan pushes the boundaries of big release commercial movie making. Admittedly clunky dialogue aside, he tries to tell stories that give the audience something to chew on, which is a huge step over many/most of his peers.

Neclord
11-06-2014, 04:52 PM
I assumed trans' opinions on Nolan were a bit more common around here than this thread is making them appear to me.

Dead & Messed Up
11-06-2014, 04:59 PM
Christopher Nolan? More like Christopher No-thanks.

Henry Gale
11-06-2014, 06:01 PM
I'm not sure how much I want to glance at this thread for the moment since I'm seeing it in 70mm IMAX tonight and want to bask in it all as freshly as possible.

But, oooouuwee!

megladon8
11-06-2014, 06:09 PM
I assumed trans' opinions on Nolan were a bit more common around here than this thread is making them appear to me.

I think he's about 50/50 around here.

quido8_5
11-06-2014, 06:11 PM
Far-reaching, creative, and visionary describe very few directors; they certainly do not describe Nolan.


I feel like you're conflating "visual" and "visionary." In what ways do you believe Nolan is pushing the boundaries of cinema, or altering the landscape with his films? I can think of very few visionaries (two names that spring to mind are James Cameron and maaaybe QT) and Nolan sure isn't one of them.

Eh, his visuals are okay, but not what I believe sets him apart (that would be James Cameron's strength). The easiest argument for him would be to review his oeuvre. His debut is precocious and challenging, his second film is told backwards (and pulls it off), he helmed one of the most successful franchises in film history, followed it with a psychological thriller and now is behind (from what the reviews are saying) a sci-fi film that is equally ambitious and personal.

More importantly, though, is Nolan's persistence in picking compelling and challenging subject matter, then bringing his craft to make them work. His films are as fully realized as any blockbusters made in the last decade, without sacrificing subtlety (most of the time).

Watashi
11-06-2014, 06:23 PM
The fact that anytime a new Nolan film comes out, it generates a lot of divisive discussion and his placement among the great directors showcases he is not some run-of-the-mill director.

Dukefrukem
11-06-2014, 07:18 PM
I assumed trans' opinions on Nolan were a bit more common around here than this thread is making them appear to me.

Nope (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?1453-Match-Cut-Directors-Consensus-Christopher-Nolan&p=114596&viewfull=1#post114596).

Dukefrukem
11-06-2014, 07:21 PM
The fact that anytime a new Nolan film comes out, it generates a lot of divisive discussion and his placement among the great directors showcases he is not some run-of-the-mill director.

This, I mean look at our Inception thread (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?1869-Christopher-Nolan-s-quot-Inception-quot-(We-re-giving-up-on-spoiler-tags)). It's 1,831 replies long.

The Dark Knight is 2,827 (http://matchcut.artboiled.com/showthread.php?26-The-Match-Cut-Xtreme-Crocheting-Thread-(and-The-Dark-Knight)).

They're by far the two most discussed movie son this forum.

D_Davis
11-06-2014, 08:26 PM
Batman is one of the most discussed topics on the Internet.

Dead & Messed Up
11-06-2014, 08:36 PM
Do you guys want to discuss Batman again?

I have some thoughts.

Skitch
11-06-2014, 08:41 PM
We'll have plenty of Bat discussion again soon enough.

Dukefrukem
11-06-2014, 08:43 PM
Hey Irish rated this. Where is he?

transmogrifier
11-06-2014, 11:38 PM
Nah, it was the "certainly" part, as though anyone who would disagree is "obviously" wrong.

That's certainly a weird position to take for an extremely common expression used in discourse to indicate the extent of the speaker/writer's certainty of their own personal convictions ("I'm certainly not buying him a fucking present," or "Well, he is certainly not here, the bearded weirdo"), or sometimes as mere emphasis (as in this sentence, or "That is certainly an interesting Halloween costume, if your intention was to look like a slightly retarded man-child on crack"), rather than a direct challenge to all people that hear/read it that they are wrong. But by all means, feel free to interpret it in a novel way to maximise your indignation. It looks like a fun game.

Skitch
11-07-2014, 12:09 AM
Interpreting what people are trying to say, in order to understand their position, is called conversation. This is more difficult on the internet due to lack of tonal inflection. Yes, words have multiple meanings.


But by all means, feel free to interpret it in a novel way to maximise your indignation. It looks like a fun game.

Ah, so you are trolling. Nevermind me then. Carry on.

transmogrifier
11-07-2014, 12:11 AM
I assumed trans' opinions on Nolan were a bit more common around here than this thread is making them appear to me.

But my opinion (as expressed here, anyway) is that he is not far-reaching, creative, or visionary. I don't think David Fincher is any of those either, and I like him just fine.

Dukefrukem
11-07-2014, 12:12 AM
That's certainly a weird position to take for an extremely common expression used in discourse to indicate the extent of the speaker/writer's certainty of their own personal convictions ("I'm certainly not buying him a fucking present," or "Well, he is certainly not here, the bearded weirdo"), or sometimes as mere emphasis (as in this sentence, or "That is certainly an interesting Halloween costume, if your intention was to look like a slightly retarded man-child on crack"), rather than a direct challenge to all people that hear/read it that they are wrong. But by all means, feel free to interpret it in a novel way to maximise your indignation. It looks like a fun game.

Who talks like this?

Winston*
11-07-2014, 12:21 AM
I think 'creative' describes a lot of directors.

transmogrifier
11-07-2014, 03:01 AM
I think 'creative' describes a lot of directors.

Depends how you define it, really. For me, creativity is finding new ways to deliver old concepts, but in a manner that is truly effective and engaging on either an intellectual or emotional level. It is just one part of being a director though and not a fatal omission by any means.

Rhythm and pacing
Visual coherence
Plot delivery
Working with actors
Visual stylisation
Themes and subtext
Mise en scene
Atmospherics
Working with music
Creativity
Technical proficiency
etc.

I might be harsh on Fincher in the creativity department - the time lapse and the audio collage in Zodiac are (relatively?) unique ways to depict the passing of time, for example. Fincher's strength is that his juxtaposition of shots (I.e, shot selection + editing) is as smooth and graceful as it is possible to be.

eternity
11-07-2014, 05:15 AM
I swear you Nolan defenders are watching different movies or are part of some absurd conspiracy.

Watashi
11-07-2014, 05:25 AM
I swear you Nolan defenders are watching different movies or are part of some absurd conspiracy.

I just like good movies. I don't cling on to directors.

I'd be the first person to admit if Brad Bird made a terrible film.

Watashi
11-07-2014, 05:26 AM
I'd be the first person to admit if Brad Bird made a terrible film.

Oh, and if anyone responds to this with "he already did," I'll fucking cut you.

TGM
11-07-2014, 06:23 AM
... Holy shit this movie was intense. Christopher Nolan succeeds where he's always strived but never quite been able to achieve before now in terms of emotion. Interstellar is the most emotionally stirring tear jerker not just of Nolan's career, but probably of the whole damn year at that. Just, wow...

megladon8
11-07-2014, 05:51 PM
I swear you Nolan defenders are watching different movies or are part of some absurd conspiracy.

How I feel about Godard!

Dukefrukem
11-07-2014, 07:18 PM
I swear you Nolan defenders are watching different movies or are part of some absurd conspiracy.

How I feel about Malick!

PS- The last time I posted something like this I was told to shut up and labeled my opinions of films disingenuous.

#ineverforgetamatchcutdiscussi on

TGM
11-07-2014, 07:54 PM
Between last year's Gravity and this year's Interstellar, these movies about space are gonna give me a freaking heart attack.

Henry Gale
11-07-2014, 08:40 PM
Many a thought. Point-form seems like the easiest way for me to sort at least some of them out.

- Tremendous, with some sufficient hiccups and questionable tendencies along the way, most of which made right by how it lands its awe-inspiring and mostly just beautifully ballsy third act ventures. Similar to my thoughts of Gone Girl as a Fincher work, this probably isn't the best Nolan film, but it's the most Nolan film he could seemingly craft. It's him as an artist turned up to 11, warts and all, but with his strengths on display as much as ever.

- Now that I've actually seen it, I can much better process where it's going awry for people. It's so wide-eyed and unshakably sincere that I almost can't blame it for being so adamantly sure of its own aspirations, but I really wonder what it would take for some to get on-board with its ambitions unless it was simply another film.

- As much as I love Nolan and have liked all of his films to date, I tend to find his films always play more clinically efficient than emotionally. Here, something is starkly different. It might be that boldly sincere sentimentality or its key focus on the key family dynamic, but all I know is within the first hour there was at least one major scene Cooper's goodbye paired with the launch sequence. that might've hit me harder than anything he'd delivered as a director to date. And the film wasn't done with the throat-lumping there. Not by any stretch.

- A recent Zimmer score I have no reservations with! His Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, and to a lesser extent his Inception work, all have some very effective themes that I thought ended up being repeated to a point where the connective cues paled in comparison. Here, he locks into a unique, spellbinding groove and never really lets up, with beautiful variations along the way.

- Hoooooolllyyyy shit, those 65/70mm bits look sensational in IMAX, to the point where their 35mm blow-up process made the rest of it almost look ugly in comparison. (Too much artificial sharpness and false contrast. If you've seen The Dark Knight Blu-ray, you can get a sense of what I mean since it used its IMAX master as the transfer's source.) Even just the detail in the early farm shots made my jaw drop. By the time it got to the wormhole voyage it was like I'd died and ventured beyond the cinematic infinite. I can't recommend seeing that way enough, no matter how much it may cost you.


How I feel about Malick!

And this is probably Nolan at his most Malick-y! Some sun-soaked and nature-assisted shots of Chastain looking gorgeously wistful made me wonder if Terry himself ghost-directed some second-unit days.

D_Davis
11-07-2014, 09:07 PM
How I feel about Malick!

PS- The last time I posted something like this I was told to shut up and labeled my opinions of films disingenuous.

#ineverforgetamatchcutdiscussi on

#dukefrukemgate

Dukefrukem
11-08-2014, 06:52 AM
I didn't think i could love a movie more than Inception.

transmogrifier
11-08-2014, 08:32 AM
I think I fucked up, because I intended to see Interstellar, but wound up going deaf instead.

Clunky and cloying for the most part, though with the some effective sequences here and there. The only emotional moment that works is the bit after getting off the first planet, the rest is just predetermined pieces falling into place.

The score was actually pretty good in isolation, but it is overused and way, way too bloody loud.

Acting barely makes an impression (Topher Grace with a tire iron the funniest bit of the film, though it was unintentional - the film is mostly humourless, making the groan-worthy bits with TARS even worse).

Some good ideas on a scene by scene basis, poor execution overall.

Peng
11-08-2014, 12:34 PM
It aims big so the missteps are a little more glaring this time (to me anyway, so I guess you could call me a "defender" of his). Strangely, it still feels kind of rushed at 3 hours, and a certain character that exists to propel the film into the third act can't seem to stop sprouting his motives... on and on.

BUT, I still love the big ideas, the visuals that come with them, and his literal sensibility as usual. And he has a fully developed emotional fulcrum to base them on for the first time. I generally love Nolan's films, but he's such a cold director, despite the occasional emotional moments (closest would be Dawe's death in The Dark Knight, and that is more out of its significance than because of the character). The main relationship here though is really affecting, even downright heartbreaking at times, and that smoothes over a lot of flaws for me.

Dukefrukem
11-08-2014, 01:56 PM
I do agree with trans on one thing- way too loud. There were two scenes in particular that turned into jump scares because of this. The deadbolt cutting scene and the Matt Damon death scene. Was anyone else surprised that Matt Damon was in this? I hadn't heard he joined the cast.

TGM
11-08-2014, 07:36 PM
Nah, they kept him well under wraps. His addition was a surprise, so much that I'd encourage you to put that in a spoiler tag.

Dukefrukem
11-08-2014, 07:59 PM
Done. And Nah you weren't surprised?

TGM
11-08-2014, 08:03 PM
Done. And Nah you weren't surprised?

Oh no, I was surprised. In fact, for the first minute or two, I wasn't even entirely yet convinced if it was actually him, or some other actor who happens to resemble him. :P

My reaction was literally like: "Wait, is that...? ... no, no it can't be... ... ... ... OH SHIT, IT IS HIM!"

Dukefrukem
11-08-2014, 11:30 PM
Oh no, I was surprised. In fact, for the first minute or two, I wasn't even entirely yet convinced if it was actually him, or some other actor who happens to resemble him. :P

My reaction was literally like: "Wait, is that...? ... no, no it can't be... ... ... ... OH SHIT, IT IS HIM!"

That was exactly my reaction.

Pop Trash
11-09-2014, 04:07 AM
I just don't know about this. I feel like Nolan doubled down on everything Nolan-y but then brought an extra amount sturm und drang to it all. Ultimately it was too much jerk and not enough tears for me. Since it's a Nolan movie of course everything needs to be explained and reexplained but this time it is through a Texas drawl and Zimmer's score blasted to 11. His score isn't 'whoompy' thankfully but -maybe it was just my theater- goddamn was it loud.

Plotwise I haven't even begun to unpack if it's just a bunch of bullshit or not but I'm kinda leaning towards 'yes' at this point.

I agree with The Dissolve's review that it should be seen and seen in a theater, but that doesn't let it off the hook by any means.

Haterz can hate but Gravity worked much better for me both emotionally and thematically.

transmogrifier
11-09-2014, 04:31 AM
That's the thing about the plot to movies like this - the ultimate resolution is usually a bunch of quasi-mystical nonsense that can be interpreted a million ways. And that can be part of the fun if the movie is accomplished enough to suck you in and make you care about the nonsense. Interstellar doesn't do that, and so I found most of the third act annoying and rather arbitrary. The whole "love" angle just came across as a lazy safety net to explain away any pesky errors in logic.

The movie would have been much better dropping what happens after they get off the final planet entirely and just dealing with loss and regret and the clinging on regardless. Totally different movie, of course, but one that I'd have enjoyed more.

Pop Trash
11-09-2014, 07:55 AM
What do you do if you have to take a shit in the fifth dimension?

Neclord
11-09-2014, 09:57 AM
While I think there's a good amount of stuff here that could stand on its own visuallythat tesseract stuff was blowing my mind, and there are a couple poignant moments, I don't think Nolan's capable of this very delicate act of pivoting an SF tale on such raw sentimentality and power of love stuff. I can imagine Spielberg's version maybe pulling that off, but in Nolan's technical and exposition-y hands it just seems really hard to swallow. But a sliiiight yea I guess.

eternity
11-09-2014, 09:43 PM
What do you do if you have to take a shit in the fifth dimension?

This more or less explains it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yx4GKoFBtos

[ETM]
11-09-2014, 11:30 PM
I can imagine Spielberg's version maybe pulling that off

Oh, GOD no. We've seen it already.

And yeah, I really, really liked this. And I think I like TARS better than transmogrifier at this point. Certainly more fun at parties.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 03:40 AM
I liked this a lot, but doesn't it have a rather enormous plot hole?

If the assistance of an advanced form of humanity is required to ensure the survival of Earth-dwelling humans, then how did they come to be in the first place?

Am I missing something here?

Pop Trash
11-10-2014, 05:41 AM
I liked this a lot, but doesn't it have a rather enormous plot hole?

If the assistance of an advanced form of humanity is required to ensure the survival of Earth-dwelling humans, then how did they come to be in the first place?

Am I missing something here?

They who? Earth-dwelling humans?

Spinal
11-10-2014, 05:48 AM
They who? Earth-dwelling humans?

How can humanity be saved by creatures that could only have evolved by humanity being saved in the first place?

Pop Trash
11-10-2014, 06:05 AM
How can humanity be saved by creatures that could only have evolved by humanity being saved in the first place?

I'm not quite sure if I'm following but there seems to be a closed loop in time that begins around the time the movie begins and loops into the future where future humanity created the wormhole to 'save' themselves. It's a bit mindbending but the 'bootstrap paradox' seems to apply here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootstrap_paradox


Or for an erudite example that scene in Bill & Ted where future selves leave the keys by the prison cell so past selves can sneak the old dead dudes out.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:49 AM
I'm still not getting this. Tell me where I go wrong here:

Time and space can be manipulated.
Humans at Cooper's stage of development are unable to effectively manipulate time and space.
However, if humans survived long enough, they would be able to manipulate time and space.

The only way to survive the extinction event is for humans to manipulate time and space.
The only way for humans to evolve long enough to manipulate time and space is to survive the extinction event.

How do both problems suddenly get fixed? Where is the point in which both of these become possible?

Neclord
11-10-2014, 07:02 AM
Temporal causality loops don't make sense, there's really no reasoning about it. I agree that it's frustrating.

Pop Trash
11-10-2014, 07:03 AM
But humans are able to manipulate space & time initially yeah? Cooper and Amelia go through the wormhole that dropped them out into the galaxy following the other astronauts who did the same.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 08:17 AM
But humans are able to manipulate space & time initially yeah? Cooper and Amelia go through the wormhole that dropped them out into the galaxy following the other astronauts who did the same.

But again, the wormhole is there because of the highly evolved humans that shouldn't exist because they should have died in the extinction event. It's the cart before the horse.

SirNewt
11-10-2014, 09:04 AM
I don't want to shit on this because I really enjoyed it but...

Worrying about temporal causality loops in a film that reasons by analogy that love like gravity is a force that transcends time is a bit like drinking yourself to death with cheap liquor to save some money, what's the point?

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 12:39 PM
I don't want to shit on this because I really enjoyed it but...

Worrying about temporal causality loops in a film that reasons by analogy that love like gravity is a force that transcends time is a bit like drinking yourself to death with cheap liquor to save some money, what's the point?

There was a quote in the movie about this that i hated so much- it's easily the most pretentious thing of 2014.

Brand: Love is the one thing that transcends time and space

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 01:43 PM
http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/ovhksy5qlesslilfebpv.png

Spinal
11-10-2014, 03:41 PM
I didn't really mind the love stuff. That totally made sense to me. However, I think the other thing I brought up is a fairly significant problem that makes me like the film a bit less.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 03:49 PM
I didn't really mind the love stuff. That totally made sense to me. However, I think the other thing I brought up is a fairly significant problem that makes me like the film a bit less.

Do you have the same problem with Terminator and Terminator 2?

Spinal
11-10-2014, 03:49 PM
And the chart doesn't address my question. It just outlines the info from the film which I understood just fine.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 03:50 PM
Do you have the same problem with Terminator and Terminator 2?

No, because there it's used to change the future, not to ensure a future that has already happened.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 04:12 PM
No, because there it's used to change the future, not to ensure a future that has already happened.

No they didn't. ;

In terminator, John Conner sends Reese back in time to have sex with his mom so he could be born.

In Interstellar they send mcconaughey into space to find the answer to the equation (save the world) to send mcconaughey into space.

If anything, you should have more of a problem with the Terminator logic because they don't actually end up changing anything. Judgement Day still happens.

In Interstellar they change the fate of the population of Earth in Murph's timeline.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 04:36 PM
I haven't seen Terminator in over a decade, so I'm not too interested in the details of that series at this time. The response to my question shouldn't be "don't worry about it" or "other films are worse". Remember, I liked the film. I want this issue to be resolved for me. But, as far as I can tell, it's got a major logical problem.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 04:39 PM
It's not a major logical problem. It's a paradox. The screenplay was written around that idea. It's intentional.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 04:44 PM
OK, so I guess I just don't like the movie as much as I thought I did.

Pop Trash
11-10-2014, 05:01 PM
Don't all (or most) timetravel movies deal with that 'bootstrap paradox?'

It seems like you have timeline 'A' where Cooper doesn't get shot out to space, doesn't visit other planets and doesn't go back in time to get stuck in the fifth dimension to tell his daughter (and his past self by proxy) to go to the NASA center and humanity dies out OR you have timeline 'B' where he does all that and creates an infinite time-loop but you have a big chicken/egg scenario. OR you have timeline 'C' where some other shit happens and Cooper and Murph survive or they die or whatever. Time is infinite.

Russ
11-10-2014, 05:27 PM
I liked this well enough (mixed), but can't help but think how much better this would have been as a 10 or 12 part miniseries on HBO.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 05:39 PM
Don't all (or most) timetravel movies deal with that 'bootstrap paradox?'


Most other films do a better job of explaining how humanity developed the technology and then went back in time to cause problems and paradoxes. In this film, time travel should not be possible in the first place because humanity should have had no way to evolve past this extinction event.

Pop Trash
11-10-2014, 05:59 PM
Did anyone else think the Matt Damon subplot was unnecessary? I still don't really get what the hell he was trying to do or why that was there. It's like Nolan saw Sunshine and thought he would steal the worst part of that movie's plot.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 06:07 PM
Did anyone else think the Matt Damon subplot was unnecessary? I still don't really get what the hell he was trying to do or why that was there. It's like Nolan saw Sunshine and thought he would steal the worst part of that movie's plot.

Yes. I would argue that Damon would have fully known that it would be possible for his mission to be a one way trip before his freak-out. I doubt NASA would send someone with a low mental capacity. However, you could also argue that they had very small pool of candidates to pick from to begin with and they were dealing with what they had.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 06:09 PM
Most other films do a better job of explaining how humanity developed the technology and then went back in time to cause problems and paradoxes. In this film, time travel should not be possible in the first place because humanity should have had no way to evolve past this extinction event.

Minority Report has this problem too. So does Terminator (as I already mentioned). So does Looper. So does Hot Tub Time Machine.

I mean, what are you looking for here?

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:16 PM
Did anyone else think the Matt Damon subplot was unnecessary? I still don't really get what the hell he was trying to do or why that was there. It's like Nolan saw Sunshine and thought he would steal the worst part of that movie's plot.

That part worked for me. I thought Nolan was trying to make a point about the factors that make heriosm challenging and the factors that make heroism possible.

Damon's character wasn't heroic, as much as he was arrogant. He always thought that his planet would be the one selected. Once he realized that is wasn't an option, he had nothing to cling to but self-interest. On the other hand, Cooper was driven to do extraordinary things through love and a desire to save his kids. Love drove him on and helped him find the courage to be heroic.

This is why I don't mind Hathaway's love speech. It outlines the film's major theme, which I think is the film's strong suit, as it has a big emotional payoff.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:18 PM
Minority Report has this problem too. So does Terminator (as I already mentioned). So does Looper. So does Hot Tub Time Machine.

I mean, what are you looking for here?

I'm not sure what else to say here except, no, they don't. I don't want to get into outlining the plot details of multiple films I haven't seen in the past year.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 06:25 PM
I'm not sure what else to say here except, no, they don't. I don't want to get into outlining the plot details of multiple films I haven't seen in the past year.

Yes they do. Someone else help?

I've already said the Terminator example.

Minority Report Example:
Tom Cruise being setup by Precrime Director is impossible. There's no way they would have got Cruise to see the images laid out on the bed without the ball dropping (heh) to begin with. He never would have made it to that point.

Looper:
Joe shoots himself to change the course of history... His future self would never exist, he would never have gone on the mission back through time, and would never would have ended up in the field.

Hot Tub Time Machine:
Jacob's father is Lou who slept with his mom in the past after they traveled through time... paradox city

Barty
11-10-2014, 06:35 PM
Spinal is right that on the surface it appears to be a huge plot hole...however...

It's entirely plausible humanity still survived, at least in some capacity, the changing of the Earth even without the wormhole. If we call the movie events timeline B, and the same events that happened to the ancestors that put the wormholes there timeline A, basically Timeline A had to leave the Earth in some capacity, probably to a huge loss of human life, and survived probably with great hardship.

Thousands, if not more years later, they have evolved into these 5th dimensional beings, and not forgetting the genesis of where they came from, they use their gravity technology to put the wormhole there in the past to giver their ancestors in Timeline B a fighting chance to live and guide them, so that humanity can transcend to the 5th dimension in time, but this time without a huge loss of life.

It's almost a species level concept of "love conquers all" that is embodied in Cooper and Murph. The future humanity hasn't forgotten their ancestors, and the sacrifice they have made, so they are moved with compassion to try and save their ancestors from the hardship they evolved from, by essentially shortcutting their journey with the wormhole.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:37 PM
Duke, you're missing my point entirely.

Yes, contradictions can happen once you have a time machine and start playing around with the timeline. However, in this film, the development of time travel is placed sooooo far off into the future that it should not be attainable by the humans who are experiencing an extinction event.

These are not minor details. This is the major foundation upon which the whole plot hinges.

Russ
11-10-2014, 06:38 PM
Time travel paradoxes work much better in material that takes itself less seriously (ie., comedies and genre efforts). When incorporated into an epic narrative that showcases a lot of hard science, it tends to stick out like a sore thumb and, as Spinal notes, tends to work against the parts of the film that are logical and effective.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 06:42 PM
Duke, you're missing my point entirely.

Yes, contradictions can happen once you have a time machine and start playing around with the timeline. However, in this film, the development of time travel is placed sooooo far off into the future that it should not be attainable by the humans who are experiencing an extinction event.

These are not minor details. This is the major foundation upon which the whole plot hinges.

I'm looking at the timeline I posted on the last page and I don't see it as being so far off in the future. Was there a countdown on when exactly the earth would uninhabitable that I missed?

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:43 PM
Spinal is right that on the surface it appears to be a huge plot hole...however...

It's entirely plausible humanity still survived, at least in some capacity, the changing of the Earth even without the wormhole. If we call the movie events timeline B, and the same events that happened to the ancestors that put the wormholes there timeline A, basically Timeline A had to leave the Earth in some capacity, probably to a huge loss of human life, and survived probably with great hardship.

Thousands, if not more years later, they have evolved into these 5th dimensional beings, and not forgetting the genesis of where they came from, they use their gravity technology to put the wormhole there in the past to giver their ancestors in Timeline B a fighting chance to live and guide them, so that humanity can transcend to the 5th dimension in time, but this time without a huge loss of life.

It's almost a species level concept of "love conquers all" that is embodied in Cooper and Murph. The future humanity hasn't forgotten their ancestors, and the sacrifice they have made, so they are moved with compassion to try and save their ancestors from the hardship they evolved from, by essentially shortcutting their journey with the wormhole.

I agree with you that this is possible. However, it's unfortunately not something that is addressed in the movie and so it's hard to fully embrace it. The film clearly presents us with a 'do-or-die' scenario. So, I'm taking it at its word.

D_Davis
11-10-2014, 06:44 PM
Isn't it OK, in a thread about the film, to not have to include everything in spoiler tags?

I can understand spoiler-tagging stuff in a thread not dedicated to the film, but in the main thread people should be able to discuss the film at hand without using spoiler tags.

Barty
11-10-2014, 06:45 PM
In fact, thinking on this more, it's likely that somehow in the Timeline A events, Murph and Cooper are the ones who are directly responsible for saving humanity. But, unlike the film events, never had resolution between their two characters because perhaps Cooper died on a mission to try and get humanity off the planet (speculating here of course)

Murph probably did eventually figure a way to harness gravity, eventually, and was able to get a small number of humans off the planet, adrift in space, surviving enough for them to eventually evolve into the 5th dimension. That would explain the great lengths the 5th dimensional beings go through to reunite Cooper and Murph.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:48 PM
I'm looking at the timeline I posted on the last page and I don't see it as being so far off in the future. Was there a countdown on when exactly the earth would uninhabitable that I missed?

They said that Murphy's generation would be the last. Where was time travel developed? And how?

Russ
11-10-2014, 06:48 PM
Barty, I like that theory a lot. However, like Spinal, i ain't buying it due to Nolan's complete and total lack of transparency when it comes to the narrative. I think he just F'ed up.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:50 PM
In fact, thinking on this more, it's likely that somehow in the Timeline A events, Murph and Cooper are the ones who are directly responsible for saving humanity. But, unlike the film events, never had resolution between their two characters because perhaps Cooper died on a mission to try and get humanity off the planet (speculating here of course)

Murph probably did eventually figure a way to harness gravity, eventually, and was able to get a small number of humans off the planet, adrift in space, surviving enough for them to eventually evolve into the 5th dimension. That would explain the great lengths the 5th dimensional beings go through to reunite Cooper and Murph.

Again, this is interesing speculation. But it's not in the movie.

Barty
11-10-2014, 06:51 PM
I agree with you that this is possible. However, it's unfortunately not something that is addressed in the movie and so it's hard to fully embrace it. The film clearly presents us with a 'do-or-die' scenario. So, I'm taking it at its word.

True, it does. But as Cooper says, "We'll find a way, we always have." It just happens that a wormhole to a stable planet is a much easier way to do it.:lol:

In Timeline A, they did find a way, an incredibly hard way that involved much hurt and loss. I would venture to guess they used the frozen embryos of Plan B and launch a small human colony into space, adrift, just hoping to survive.

It's all speculation of course, but Nolan does like to leave things up to the imagination, and not explain certain plot points.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 06:51 PM
Isn't it OK, in a thread about the film, to not have to include everything in spoiler tags?

I can understand spoiler-tagging stuff in a thread not dedicated to the film, but in the main thread people should be able to discuss the film at hand without using spoiler tags.

Yeah, you're probably right. Just trying to be cautious.

Barty
11-10-2014, 06:53 PM
Barty, I like that theory a lot. However, like Spinal, i ain't buying it due to Nolan's complete and total lack of transparency when it comes to the narrative. I think he just F'ed up.

I think Nolan reaallly likes to leave things up to the audience to figure out. I doubt, on a production this big and something this close to him, this didn't cross his mind.

Barty
11-10-2014, 07:00 PM
The harnessing of gravity seems to be the key to human surviving. So regardless of whether humanity had the wormhole to go through and find a planet, as long as they figure out how to get those massive space stations into space they can at least survive in space.

What happens in the movie is very similar to that scene in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home where Scotty gives the Plexicorp Owner the formula to Transparent Aluminium. Bones tells Scotty he could be altering the future by giving the owner the forumla, and Scotty replies, "How do we know he didn't invent it anyway?" Well, in the novelization, Scott does know he invented it, and is basically just giving him a shortcut.

That's what happens in the movie, Murph would have discovered how to harness Gravity eventually, too late to save most people, but just enough to survive. Now with TARS data relayed by Cooper, she has her Eureka moment much earlier in the timeline, and of course with the wormhole, they can now save most of humanity.

Russ
11-10-2014, 07:01 PM
I think Nolan reaallly likes to leave things up to the audience to figure out. I doubt, on a production this big and something this close to him, this didn't cross his mind.
I agree it's a (hopeful) possibility, but it's hard to give someone who displays a clockwork tendency to so explicitly hammer so many points home, the benefit of the doubt.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 07:05 PM
The harnessing of gravity seems to be the key to human surviving. So regardless of whether humanity had the wormhole to go through and find a planet, as long as they figure out how to get those massive space stations into space they can at least survive in space.

What happens in the movie is very similar to that scene in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home where Scotty gives the Plexicorp Owner the formula to Transparent Aluminium. Bones tells Scotty he could be altering the future by giving the owner the forumla, and Scotty replies, "How do we know he didn't invent it anyway?" Well, in the novelization, Scott does know he invented it, and is basically just giving him a shortcut.

That's what happens in the movie, Murph would have discovered how to harness Gravity eventually, too late to save most people, but just enough to survive. Now with TARS data relayed by Cooper, she has her Eureka moment much earlier in the timeline, and of course with the wormhole, they can now save most of humanity.


This dramatically lowers the stakes that the film has set up. Even if it makes it more plausible, it doesn't make it a better film.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 07:07 PM
And you would have to accept that most of the information you are receiving through meticulous expository dialogue is not in fact actually true.

Barty
11-10-2014, 07:11 PM
This dramatically lowers the stakes that the film has set up. Even if it makes it more plausible, it doesn't make it a better film.

Yeah, I can see that. But, on one hand you have survival of a small number of humans while everyone else on earth suffocates and dies horribly, or survival by all of humanity and hope for a new Earth right around the corner. I would still say that's dramatically compelling.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 07:12 PM
Yeah, I can see that. But, on one hand you have survival of a small number of humans while everyone else on earth suffocates and dies horribly, or survival by all of humanity and hope for a new Earth right around the corner. I would still say that's dramatically compelling.

The journey to get there would be pretty dramatic too (which is what we sees).

Barty
11-10-2014, 07:15 PM
I like the scene where the Hans Zimmer music is really loud and the spaceships are spinning.

Dukefrukem
11-10-2014, 07:22 PM
I like the scene where the Hans Zimmer music is really loud and the spaceships are spinning.

What's your rating of this?

[ETM]
11-10-2014, 07:46 PM
Special relativity allows for the existance of bootstrap paradoxes under certain conditions. It sure is one of the most far-out concepts in the film, but the science as it is laid out throughout the film allows for it.

Melville
11-10-2014, 08:41 PM
;528680']Special relativity allows for the existance of bootstrap paradoxes under certain conditions.
Since spacetime isn't curved in special relativity, that doesn't sound right.

The bootstrap paradox isn't actually paradoxical in general relativity. It's completely consistent with the only way time travel could work in the theory. There would be no notions of "timeline A" or "timeline B"; there's only ever one timeline, and nothing can ever be changed. I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know if that removes Spinal's concerns.

Spinal
11-10-2014, 09:04 PM
This all makes a lot more sense when shouted hysterically by Doc Brown in a thunderstorm.

Fezzik
11-12-2014, 12:43 AM
I think Nolan is starting to lose me.

This was well made, and well intentioned, but I feel that it goes completely off the rails when it shifts from what had been a film steeped in hard science (even if much of it is theoretical) turns to new-agey pseudoscience at the end.

If it wasnt such a serious film, it would not have bothered me as much, but holy hell it completely ripped me out of the film and completely diminished it for me.

For those asking, YES the score was way too loud. I even made a point to tell the customer service at the theater about it, and they said that they've received multiple complaints about it but that the film or the print was designed that way. So freaking frustrating. Because of it, we missed several lines of dialogue.

And here again, most of the emotional moments fell completely flat for me. Other than the drive away / launch (which was pretty masterful, and makes the rest of the "heart tugging" moments more frustrating.

I got tired of the "spot the famous person" casting thing that Nolan keeps doing, and when Matt Damon showed up, I was like "really?"

His entire subplot was as subtle as a sledgehammer and I felt most of it could be cut out completely.

I agree, by the way, about the whole how could we place the wormhole if we had to be saved to place the wormhole problem - in a film that doesn't seem to take itself SO seriously, it wouldnt bother me near as much, but in this one, it stands out pretty glaringly.

In short, its typical Nolan: Well written for the most part (except for a couple of absolute groaners), gorgeous visually, but at the end of the day, it leaves me cold. Acting was adequate, not fantastic.

It gets a yay from me because it does have several good moments and good attributes, but its a VERY mixed yay because of all the frustrating negatives.

Spinal
11-12-2014, 01:08 AM
I didn't really pay attention to who was in this film before I saw it. So Hathaway was just as surprising to me as Damon was.

Pop Trash
11-12-2014, 04:38 AM
http://popwatch.ew.com/2014/11/07/interstellar-plot-explained/

Ezee E
11-12-2014, 06:24 AM
Absolutely loved it. Seeing it on the "real" IMAX screen was an experience.

The science talk gets close to being a bit much, but the movie pushes the idea of providing for your kids' future and the idea of exploration so much that I didn't really think about the science at all until I read this board. It was strong enough that I even got pretty emotional watching it, which almost never happens.

If this movie remained exploring planet to planet, I would've been fine with it. Each landing and the venture out led to the unexpected. Going into the wormhole and the black hole had me gripping my seat like I did in Gravity. It certainly didn't feel like three hours.

transmogrifier
11-12-2014, 07:34 AM
I felt every second of the three hours. Nolan is still not very good at constructing a scene that involves dynamic movement; the movie staggers along and doesn't find any rhythm, racing through some parts, slowing to a crawl in others. Also, I don't really care about the logic of the time travel presented here because the movie is unable to convince me why I should care in the first place.

Someone mentioned performances; Caine totally phones in his performance. He couldn't have looked more bored.

Fezzik
11-12-2014, 12:23 PM
This all makes a lot more sense when shouted hysterically by Doc Brown in a thunderstorm.

To be fair, doesn't everything?

Spun Lepton
11-12-2014, 06:12 PM
Well, I had plans to see this tonight, but I hadn't done my research on the film, since I usually like to go in with as little info as possible. But, upon discovering the near-3-hour runtime, my friend and I cancelled for something less daunting.

Personally, after the 3-hour King Kong debacle, I have little to no interest in sitting in a theater for 3 hours for anything. It's going to have to be a movie that makes me lose my mind with anticipation. And as much as I enjoy Nolan's voice, this is not that movie. (Talk to me again when The Infinity Wars begins.)

So ... looks like this will be a rental.

Spinal
11-12-2014, 06:40 PM
Interesting. I find it much easier to watch a 3-hour movie in the theater than I do at home. Time goes by so much faster when I don't have distractions.

Lazlo
11-12-2014, 06:49 PM
Yeah, I'm with Spinal. At the theater it's a much more contained event. No temptation to check my phone, no roommate walking through the living room, the screen is your only focus. And nothing about Interstellar drags. It does not feel like a three-hour movie. Given the visual and narrative scope of the movie and the emotional resonance, I'd say you're doing yourself a great disservice by not seeing it in a theater. It just can't feel the same.

Dukefrukem
11-12-2014, 06:54 PM
Agreed

Spun Lepton
11-12-2014, 07:01 PM
All right, well ... it's not going to happen on any given weekday. I have Thanksgiving week off, I may have time to see it then.

Henry Gale
11-12-2014, 11:30 PM
Yeah, as times goes on it feels like whenever I end up watching a movie longer than 2 1/2 hours at home, it ends up being doled out in multiple sittings, and I force myself to justify it in my head as an unofficial miniseries of sorts.

So for that alone, I completely agree with you guys about the theatre experience in general, but it also helps movie also looks and sounds fucking fantastic with the big screen facilitating its sheer spectacle, visceral atmosphere and general emotional journey of it completely consuming you uninterrupted for its runtime. I paid the full 20 bucks to see this in the IMAX 70mm and I don't regret it one bit. (Only Canadians might understand this, but this and then Nightcrawler helped push my Scene points to a free movie this week, and I might just use that to see this again on that same screen before it goes away.)

Ezee E
11-13-2014, 01:22 AM
Couldn't imagine this or Gone Girl on a small screen.

I definitely need to see this on the 70 MM screen at least once more.

Don't understand the pacing problem on this one. I felt Dark Knight Returns dragged, but not this.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 11:54 AM
I agree with you that this is possible. However, it's unfortunately not something that is addressed in the movie and so it's hard to fully embrace it. The film clearly presents us with a 'do-or-die' scenario. So, I'm taking it at its word.

My impression was that the humans on the new planet populated by Hathaway's character are the ones that developed into the beings that placed the wormhole near Saturn and the tesseract inside of the blackhole. That is the group of people that absolutely survived the extinction event. It's also why Cooper needs to go to her at the end.

As Cooper says when in the tesseract, these beings can not help directly because they can not pinpoint a specific moment in spacetime. They drew him there in order to communicate the information to his daughter which would save more lives in the present world earth.

Of course that sort of hand wavy 'beings can not pinpoint' line that the entire plot hinges upon sort of falls apart when you realize that they placed the wormhole at a specific moment in the past and closed the tesseract (presumably so he could be discovered) immediately after he completed his task.

Dukefrukem
11-13-2014, 01:07 PM
I like both Barty and Q's theories here. The impression I had was simply the people on Cooper Station put the worm hole there and that it was somehow a closed loop paradox where one can simply not occur without the other. (the Terminator scenario). But these other two are much more believable.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 01:29 PM
Also, this film borrows liberally from Greg Bear's Eon and Eternity.

Dukefrukem
11-13-2014, 02:07 PM
I esp like #9.


1. If you can poke through a tesseract and touch books, why not just write a note & pass it through.
2. Stars vastly outnumber Black Holes. Why is the best Earthlike planet one that orbits a Black Hole
3. Who in the universe would ever know the titles of all their books, from behind, on an bookshelf.
4. How a pickup truck can drive with a flat tire among densely planted corn stalks taller than it.
5. If wormholes exist among our planets, then why can't one open up near Earth instead of Saturn.
6. Gotta tell you. Mars (right next door) looks waay safer than those new planets they travelled to.
7. If you crack your space helmet yet keep fighting, the Planet's air can't be all that bad for you.
8. Can't imagine a future where escaping Earth via wormhole is a better plan than just fixing Earth.
9. In this unreal future, they teach unscientific things in science class. Oh, wait. That is real.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 02:55 PM
I esp like #9.

1. He is influencing gravity at a previous time by moving the books, matter itself can not be transmitted through time.
2. As a narrative device to lose a lot of time.
3. People who organize their books alphabetically.
4. Cars can drive with flat tires. The risk is only destroying the tire. There was a man who engage in a high speed chase with four flats.
5. Mostly just as homage to 2001 I would imagine.
6. We still don't know if there is enough water on Mars to sustain life. They didn't know before visiting those planets if they were habitable or not.
7. The planet's air isn't bad for him. It's just too cold and can't sustain life.
8. They can't solve the issue of the blight. A pathogen is destroying all the food.
9. Indeed.

Dukefrukem
11-13-2014, 02:56 PM
I'm pretty sure for #7 they said the air on the planet was toxic.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 03:27 PM
I'm pretty sure for #7 they said the air on the planet was toxic.

Ok, but toxic does not mean immediately lethal.

Lazlo
11-13-2014, 04:32 PM
Ok, but toxic does not mean immediately lethal.

Yeah, I think it was said you could breathe it for a few minutes and be alright. Tyson's issue is probably with the amount of breathing you'd do in a fight like that, thus decreasing the amount of time it'd be safe to breathe that air.

Spinal
11-13-2014, 05:15 PM
My impression was that the humans on the new planet populated by Hathaway's character are the ones that developed into the beings that placed the wormhole near Saturn and the tesseract inside of the blackhole. That is the group of people that absolutely survived the extinction event. It's also why Cooper needs to go to her at the end.


This is a very interesting idea. But it still doesn't solve the timeline issue. How does Cooper get to Hathaway's planet in order to help populate it without the benefit of the 5th dimensional beings? How long would it take to develop into 5th dimensional beings starting from scratch? By that point, how would anyone even remember what Earth was or care to go through the trouble of altering history?

Spinal
11-13-2014, 05:33 PM
Assuming Cooper was not needed for repopulation, (since the eggs were all fertilized, yes?) we then have to believe that Hathaway was able to birth all these babies without assistance on a strange planet. I'm still struggling to find a throughline here that is not absolutely ludicrous.

And this is from someone who completely bought every minute of Inception.

Pop Trash
11-13-2014, 06:12 PM
Inception works because it's dealing with lucid dreaming. Worlds that literally only exist in the imagination. This movie falls apart because you have Nolan dealing with hard science spouted as instruction manual dialogue that then turns really woowoo by the last act.

Spinal
11-13-2014, 07:11 PM
Inception works because it's dealing with lucid dreaming. Worlds that literally only exist in the imagination. This movie falls apart because you have Nolan dealing with hard science spouted as instruction manual dialogue that then turns really woowoo by the last act.

I think I agree with Walter Chaw (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2014/11/interstellar.html) when he says, "It's a fairly shitty science-fiction movie, but as a metaphor for love it's kind of great."

This is why I would defend the love angle because I think the better film lies in that direction.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 07:38 PM
Yeah, I think it was said you could breathe it for a few minutes and be alright. Tyson's issue is probably with the amount of breathing you'd do in a fight like that, thus decreasing the amount of time it'd be safe to breathe that air.

My impression was more that he was losing air out of his mask and therefore didn't have enough oxygen rather than that he was breathing particularly harmful toxic air.

Dukefrukem
11-13-2014, 07:44 PM
Shitty science fiction movie? Hyperbole.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 07:46 PM
This is a very interesting idea. But it still doesn't solve the timeline issue. How does Cooper get to Hathaway's planet in order to help populate it without the benefit of the 5th dimensional beings? How long would it take to develop into 5th dimensional beings starting from scratch? By that point, how would anyone even remember what Earth was or care to go through the trouble of altering history?

It doesn't really matter if he gets there or not. She would be capable of restarting the species on her own. It's just better if he's there because he loves her or some shit. So whether he succeeds or not the 5th dimensional beings exist. It also doesn't matter how long it takes because once you are one time is less of an issue for you. The real problem is why do the 5th dimensional beings decide to give the rest of their species a life line only at the last possible second rather than at an earlier time. The answer is plot conceit. Your last question has no real answer except some mumbled nonsense about love. Furthermore if they can't pinpoint exact moments in time how do they choose him and set in motion a cascading series of events which depend so necessarily upon him.

Spinal
11-13-2014, 07:48 PM
Shitty science fiction movie? Hyperbole.

I personally wouldn't have used the word 'shitty'. 'Unsatisfying' perhaps. The basic point stands.

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 07:48 PM
Assuming Cooper was not needed for repopulation, (since the eggs were all fertilized, yes?) we then have to believe that Hathaway was able to birth all these babies without assistance on a strange planet. I'm still struggling to find a throughline here that is not absolutely ludicrous.

And this is from someone who completely bought every minute of Inception.

She only has to birth a couple times and it grows exponentially from there. She's also a doctor and has plenty of tech to help her give birth. I can suspend disbelief for that.

Spinal
11-13-2014, 07:51 PM
She would be capable of restarting the species on her own.

Seems like they should have picked someone with birthing hips.

Ezee E
11-13-2014, 09:39 PM
Yeah, reading the science of it all on this board is interesting and all, but not at all why I liked the movie. Chaw's line is pretty good, and it's what will have me coming back for a second viewing.

I couldn't possibly even give you a theory on how life remains sustained. There's around 60-80 years of events that occur that aren't in the movie. Cooper is 125 when he's rescued, isn't he?

Qrazy
11-13-2014, 10:26 PM
Yeah, reading the science of it all on this board is interesting and all, but not at all why I liked the movie. Chaw's line is pretty good, and it's what will have me coming back for a second viewing.

I couldn't possibly even give you a theory on how life remains sustained. There's around 60-80 years of events that occur that aren't in the movie. Cooper is 125 when he's rescued, isn't he?

I like how Nolan inverted his cathartic moment in Inception (father/son deathbed) with Cooper coming to his daughter's deathbed here.

number8
11-14-2014, 07:53 PM
I'd read about all the sound problems, so I was expecting that, but didn't notice any. All the dialogue are clear, score wasn't loud at all. It was perfect, really.

The only technical issue was that it kept losing focus every time the reel changed and it took a few seconds to refocus. Hey, is film projection a dying art or something?

Skitch
11-14-2014, 07:55 PM
I am teetering precariously somewhere between "decent flick if you don't take it as seriously as it wants to be taken" and "f*** this movie and its stupid f****** face, but good score". I need to think on it a day or two. I really have to pee now.

Lazlo
11-14-2014, 08:06 PM
I'd read about all the sound problems, so I was expecting that, but didn't notice any. All the dialogue are clear, score wasn't loud at all. It was perfect, really.

The only technical issue was that it kept losing focus every time the reel changed and it took a few seconds to refocus. Hey, is film projection a dying art or something?

The only sound issues I noticed were during Cooper's dream at the beginning. Couldn't hear what was being said over the radio as he was crashing, but I figure that's intentional. Just meant to give you the sense of a chaotic moment in the cockpit. The rest of the mix was spectacular.

I didn't notice any focus issues on reel changes (didn't notice reel changes at all) but some of the 35mm footage was rather soft and had color grading issues. I gather that's a result of how the 35 is blown up for the IMAX prints. Still find that switch kind of jarring, especially when it's done in the middle of a scene. Had the same reaction with The Dark Knight Rises. Every time it would go back to 35 my heart would sink a super-small amount like, "No, wait, stay pretty!"

Spinal
11-14-2014, 08:11 PM
I didn't have trouble with the loud music. But I did have a little trouble understanding McConaughey's mumbling from time to time.

TGM
11-14-2014, 09:21 PM
So I caught a second viewing, this time in Imax. And I noticed the music was significantly louder this time around, but I personally loved this. The sound was physically making my body rumble right along with the movie, which made it all the more immersive. I will say that on a second viewing I didn't get quite as emotional during the more emotional moments, but I had a hell of an easier time keeping up with the plot this time around, and damn if this thing wasn't just as intense and at times overwhelming.

And god damn that spinning spaceship scene, and what with the spinning hallway in Inception, too, what is with Nolan and these ridiculously epic spinning scenes in his movies?

number8
11-14-2014, 10:36 PM
Anyway, I found that for a movie so secretive before its release, this contains absolutely no surprises narrative-wise. I pegged the "ghost" being Cooper and that the NASA coordinates came from himself almost immediately and thought it was intentionally telegraphed, but when the reveal happened, the movie acted like it was supposed to be a huge shock. So that threw me off a bit. I ultimately didn't mind, though, because bootstrap paradox stories have always been my favorite time travel stories. La Jetee is a big one, Bill & Ted has a lot of gags set up around this idea that things can magically happen in the present as long as you promise to set it up in the future once you have the time machine, and the "Blink" episode of Doctor Who basically provides the final word on Spinal's issues with it.

There's something I love about the idea of a time loop that has no discernible point of origin. Things just be. In other words... Anything that can happen, will happen. :P

Skitch
11-14-2014, 10:44 PM
Completely agree with your spoilered bit, 8! And same for me. I guessed it immediately.

Spinal
11-14-2014, 11:33 PM
There's something I love about the idea of a time loop that has no discernible point of origin. Things just be. In other words... Anything that can happen, will happen. :P

I don't find that to be very satisfying when it comes to the creation of a narrative and I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to have an issue with it. Extraordinary things happening are only extraordinary if they happen within certain parameters. You may as well have got to the end of the story and had the world saved by an enormous friendly dragon. Because why not? And then I would have people on the internet coming up with elaborate theories about how an enormous friendly dragon was actually technically possible according to the film's interpretation of Murphy's Law or some such silliness. It's a cheat and a lie and it's not good writing.

Skitch
11-15-2014, 11:56 AM
I liked this a lot, but doesn't it have a rather enormous plot hole?

If the assistance of an advanced form of humanity is required to ensure the survival of Earth-dwelling humans, then how did they come to be in the first place?

Am I missing something here?

I'm catching up on the thread. I'm quoting the initial question of this rabbit trail because its before the spiral. :)

From my perspective...the characters in the film (at that moment) only speculated that the "they" was future-humans. As I see it, its impossible because of reasons you go on to post after this post. Unless the filmmakers are categorically saying future-humans placed the wormhole, I am going to assume it was outside (i.e. alien, non-Earth human, other) help. I go on to assume the characters in the film would leap to a similar conclusion after the trip through the fifth dimension.

EDIT: Also, I've heard some people say that the future-humans were spawned from Hathaway's plan B planet. Also impossible, as her planet was also on the other side of the wormhole.

But I've only seen it once so I could be wrong. If I am, then I call plot hole.

Skitch
11-15-2014, 12:11 PM
4. Cars can drive with flat tires. The risk is only destroying the tire. There was a man who engage in a high speed chase with four flats.


AND, the vehicle they were driving had dual back tires, only one was blown. Face on you, Neil! :D

I've decided to come down on the pro side of this. I also had a hard time hearing dialogue over the booming score, a lot of the space stuff was shot too close up to comprehend what was going on...but I'm still thinking about it and breaking it down. I'm sure a home viewing will be kinder to my questionable moments.

Qrazy
11-15-2014, 12:41 PM
I'm catching up on the thread. I'm quoting the initial question of this rabbit trail because its before the spiral. :)

From my perspective...the characters in the film (at that moment) only speculated that the "they" was future-humans. As I see it, its impossible because of reasons you go on to post after this post. Unless the filmmakers are categorically saying future-humans placed the wormhole, I am going to assume it was outside (i.e. alien, non-Earth human, other) help. I go on to assume the characters in the film would leap to a similar conclusion after the trip through the fifth dimension.

EDIT: Also, I've heard some people say that the future-humans were spawned from Hathaway's plan B planet. Also impossible, as her planet was also on the other side of the wormhole.

But I've only seen it once so I could be wrong. If I am, then I call plot hole.

Wut?

transmogrifier
11-15-2014, 01:22 PM
This movie is badly constructed. Why does anyone give a shit about the particulars?

Skitch
11-15-2014, 01:22 PM
Wut?

What?

As I understood it, the planet Hathaway was birthing plan B on was on the otherside of the wormhole. It would not have been possible for plan B to survive to continue the human race without the wormhole. Or am I wrong?

Edit: The post was meant in relation to who placed the wormhole, and my opinion that it could not be future-humans.

Skitch
11-15-2014, 01:27 PM
This movie is badly constructed. Why does anyone give a shit about the particulars?

Yes, we should stop discussing films.

Qrazy
11-15-2014, 01:52 PM
What?

As I understood it, the planet Hathaway was birthing plan B on was on the otherside of the wormhole. It would not have been possible for plan B to survive to continue the human race without the wormhole. Or am I wrong?

Edit: The post was meant in relation to who placed the wormhole, and my opinion that it could not be future-humans.

Ah, I see. It could still be future humans but you're right that avoiding both extinction points is dependent on Cooper's time loop.

transmogrifier
11-15-2014, 02:22 PM
Yes, we should stop discussing films.

Yes, that is my point.

number8
11-15-2014, 02:48 PM
I don't find that to be very satisfying when it comes to the creation of a narrative and I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to have an issue with it. Extraordinary things happening are only extraordinary if they happen within certain parameters. You may as well have got to the end of the story and had the world saved by an enormous friendly dragon. Because why not? And then I would have people on the internet coming up with elaborate theories about how an enormous friendly dragon was actually technically possible according to the film's interpretation of Murphy's Law or some such silliness. It's a cheat and a lie and it's not good writing.

I'd roll with it if they establish that dragons can time travel thus allowing the audience to expect a dragon to appear, like they did so with gravity in this movie's first act.

I do enjoy the absurdity of bootstrap paradoxes as a simple narrative exercise. It's the kind of time travel story where making sure the loop holds is more important than the dramatic reveal (in this case, making sure that the message that saves humanity doesn't fall outside the established parameters of gravity being the only thing that can travel through time, and connecting it with the father-daughter relationship). The simplest and most basic example usually used to describe it is this:

"A scientist wants to create a time machine. Suddenly himself from three days in the future shows up out of nowhere in a time machine and hands him the blueprint, allowing him to build one for himself. Three days later, the scientist travels back in time and gives the blueprint to his past self so he can build one."

Most films play around with that, and try to present it in unique situations. Like how the protagonist in La Jetee used future technology to fix his post-war present in order to turn it into the advanced future that has the technology he could go to. If I were to have an issue with Interstellar it's because it's such a standard example of this kind of narrative. I'm just having a hard time seeing this movie's use of the paradox as some kind of massive plot hole, is all.

Ezee E
11-15-2014, 05:21 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ex4Lrafig

One of the better movie themes in quite some time.

transmogrifier
11-15-2014, 10:52 PM
This movie is badly constructed. Why does anyone give a shit about the particulars?

Never post drunk, people.

TGM
11-15-2014, 11:07 PM
Went ahead and wrote a piece on this movie, for those interested: http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2014/11/interstellar.html

ciaoelor
11-16-2014, 01:14 AM
I can't talk about the science of it, but I can say that I wasn't totally impressed with Nolan's use of space. Save for the 5th dimension scene I didn't think this was totally worth seeing in IMAX, especially since the 35mm shots looked damn near bootleg quality. However I do understand that Nolan probably considered the fact that most people wouldn't be able to see the film in IMAX (while it's in theaters and especially when it hits video) so that could have been the reason why he didn't use the lower and upper areas of the frame that interestingly.

Like, is there a need to film characters talking in a truck in IMAX, except as a reprieve from the poor 35mm images?

Kurosawa Fan
11-16-2014, 03:21 AM
I'm stunned right now. This movie was a bloated, silly, unforgivably sentimental marathon. I was tempted to give it one star, but that would be unfair to the solid first hour or so. Everything thereafter is laughably bad.

Watashi
11-16-2014, 04:15 AM
I so called that.

Kurosawa Fan
11-16-2014, 04:28 AM
I so called that.

:lol:

You called me hating it? Where is this?

Watashi
11-16-2014, 04:39 AM
:lol:

You called me hating it? Where is this?

Oh, I just saw on Facebook that you were watching it, and said to myself, "Mike is going to hate this."

Kurosawa Fan
11-16-2014, 04:42 AM
Oh, I just saw on Facebook that you were watching it, and said to myself, "Mike is going to hate this."

Bah! You should have posted it on my Facebook page. I want evidence!

Seriously though, I really thought I might like this one. I'm no Nolan hater aside from his last two films.

Watashi
11-16-2014, 04:42 AM
Anyways, I thought the cornball sentimentalism was part of its charm. I even liked the "love transcends space and time" message and found it refreshing in an age of cold and pessimistic sci-fi films. I felt like the science and relativity jargon took backseat to the core father/daughter relationship which I connected to.

number8
11-16-2014, 02:50 PM
I thought the first act was easily the worst part. It all feels like it's written by some angry science nerd. I slumped in my chair with all the boo hoo we used to look up in the stars people are dumb and they don't care about spaaaace talk. Movie got a lot better once they passed the wormhole.

Kurosawa Fan
11-16-2014, 03:10 PM
I thought the first act was easily the worst part. It all feels like it's written by some angry science nerd. I slumped in my chair with all the boo hoo we used to look up in the stars people are dumb and they don't care about spaaaace talk. Movie got a lot better once they passed the wormhole.

Well, the dialogue in Nolan's latest films is almost always clunky and obvious. I was willing to forgive that. I thought the world-building, the establishing of his relationship with Murph, and the bedroom mystery were all well done.

Skitch
11-16-2014, 07:07 PM
I'm watching 2001: A Space Odyssey on bluray. Has there been another film that has set the bar this high for its genre? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I cannot conceive of a sci-fi film topping this when it comes to marrying philosophy, technical achievement, story, music...every angle of depth of this film is astounding.

Pop Trash
11-16-2014, 08:54 PM
I'm watching 2001: A Space Odyssey on bluray. Has there been another film that has set the bar this high for its genre? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I cannot conceive of a sci-fi film topping this when it comes to marrying philosophy, technical achievement, story, music...every angle of depth of this film is astounding.

Nope, but just going by 2014 films, Under the Skin did it much better than Interstellar.

Wryan
11-17-2014, 01:23 AM
This is remarkably wobbly toward the end and asks for Gargantua-sized suspension, yet there are several superb set pieces. The IMAX theater I saw it in definitely obscured some dialogue in places both loud and soft (including whatever the fuck Caine said as he was dying, though I got the gist of it), but the deafening crash of sound also created some powerful moments of tension and immersion. The experience I had sitting there as they barreled through the black hole was fantastic. I thought the acting was quite good for the most part, though this is the first time I came away rather unimpressed with Chastain, unfortunately. Most of the emotional stuff worked for me. Dunno about the Damon Stunt Casting.

EDIT: Ooh, I also loved when the movie just said, "We're about to do something incredibly scientifically complicated, so rather than explain it, we're just gonna fuckin' go." I felt like it did this a few times.

Ivan Drago
11-17-2014, 01:47 AM
EDIT: Ooh, I also loved when the movie just said, "We're about to do something incredibly scientifically complicated, so rather than explain it, we're just gonna fuckin' go." I felt like it did this a few times.

I felt like I needed more explanation, to be honest. I got the time travel, but not the metaphysics (harnessing gravity, for example), and the dialogue being unintelligible at times didn't help. I also thought the movie was really heavy-handed with its metaphors and its concepts (Caine reading the Dylan Thomas poem 4 times in 20 minutes did nothing for me). But the visuals were fantastic, the score was something new from Hans Zimmer, and Hoyte van Hoytema is a much better cinematographer than Wally Pfister. Overall, I dug this movie, but it's one of Nolan's weakest.

Wryan
11-17-2014, 01:52 AM
I felt like I needed more explanation, to be honest.

Oh, I agree. I was being sarcastic. :) I felt like these moments were too broad and mass-appeal-friendly. Also, I thought the robot humor was fine.

Bosco B Thug
11-17-2014, 05:33 AM
This was good. My friend who hates everything populist hailed it as the return of "an idealistic cinema" and "great science fiction to the big screen." I found it striking as a Midwestern sci-fi film, where Matthew McConnaughey is the ultimate progressive (surpassing even the superior public education system of the future, as well as his more childish antecedent, Roy Neary) and where the "best of humanity" are located on a single Dust Bowl farm and a tiny manned space mission through a black hole.

Qrazy
11-17-2014, 01:15 PM
Nolan on the sound mix.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/christopher-nolan-breaks-silence-interstellar-749465

Mysterious Dude
11-17-2014, 01:51 PM
The music kind of annoyed me in The Dark Knight Rises. I recall a scene that was just dialogue between Bruce Wayne and Alfred, and thinking, "Does this scene really need music at all?" Somehow, it bothered me less during Interstellar; I guess I've just accepted that this is the way Christopher Nolan directs his movies now.

number8
11-17-2014, 04:16 PM
Nolan on the sound mix.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/christopher-nolan-breaks-silence-interstellar-749465


To check out how Interstellar is playing, Nolan said he has visited the TCL Chinese Imax Theatre and the Arclight Cinemas Dome in Hollywood and the AMC Loews Lincoln Square in New York.

Oh, so that's why I didn't have any sound issues. Maybe those of you who had problems should've went to see it in a theater personally tested by Nolan, duh. Problem solved.

Lazlo
11-17-2014, 05:01 PM
I saw it at two different theaters, one 70mm IMAX in Atlanta and another digital IMAX in Charlotte. No issues with either of them. The mix is certainly a little unconventional in design (more focus on front rather than surround placement of sounds, louder overall) and I'd wager we're seeing a lot of theaters pushed beyond the capabilities of their equipment. The level of quality from theater to theater varies wildly in this country. I've been in theaters that I've had to strain to hear low sound levels. Others have noticeable issues with damaged speakers. Projection quality varies from brightness to framing to focus due to either faulty, worn-out equipment or human error/inexperience/apathy so I'd imagine sound quality would suffer the same inconsistencies. Especially from a movie that pushes the amount of and intensity of so many sounds.

KK2.0
11-17-2014, 07:19 PM
I've watched it in conventional 2d and the sound was great, the use of music was a bit overbearing I agree



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9ex4Lrafig

One of the better movie themes in quite some time.

despite the music being beautiful, this piece brings the feels...

Wryan
11-17-2014, 07:51 PM
Also, what the heck were they standing on on the water planet? Are we to assume they had kickass science boots that let them walk "on" water? Or was the ocean floor just barely under the water there? If the latter, giant waves like that seem, uh, improbable.

Kurosawa Fan
11-17-2014, 07:59 PM
Also, what the heck were they standing on on the water planet? Are we to assume they had kickass science boots that let them walk "on" water? Or was the ocean floor just barely under the water there? If the latter, giant waves like that seem, uh, improbable.

It was the ocean floor, though Neil Degrasse Tyson said waves of that magnitude would be plausible considering the gravitation force that would exist on a planet orbiting a black hole.

Wryan
11-17-2014, 08:04 PM
Ah okay. Makes more sense.

Skitch
11-17-2014, 10:01 PM
And they said the were in the swell, I believe. I assumed the water was pulling back for the wave.

TGM
11-17-2014, 10:49 PM
How would everyone rank Nolan's filmography after this movie?

The Dark Knight
Inception
Interstellar
The Prestige
Batman Begins
Insomnia
Following
Memento
The Dark Knight Rises

Spinal
11-17-2014, 11:09 PM
1. Inception
2. Memento
3. The Dark Knight Rises
4. The Dark Knight
5. Interstellar
6. Following
7. Batman Begins

Haven't seen Insomnia or The Prestige

TGM
11-17-2014, 11:30 PM
Robin Williams is really good in Insomnia, but the movie's ultimately skippable. You should definitely check out The Prestige at some point, though, that one's especially good I thought.

Dukefrukem
11-18-2014, 12:09 AM
How would everyone rank Nolan's filmography after this movie?

The Dark Knight
Inception
Interstellar
The Prestige
Batman Begins
Insomnia
Following
Memento
The Dark Knight Rises

This is close.

Inception
The Dark Knight
Interstellar
The Prestige
Batman Begins
Insomnia
Following
Memento
The Dark Knight Rises

megladon8
11-18-2014, 12:43 AM
Bah! You should have posted it on my Facebook page. I want evidence!

Seriously though, I really thought I might like this one. I'm no Nolan hater aside from his last two films.


Really? I can't remember you liking any of his films. The closest was The Dark Knight which you adored on first viewing then hated on repeats.

Kurosawa Fan
11-18-2014, 01:23 AM
Really? I can't remember you liking any of his films. The closest was The Dark Knight which you adored on first viewing then hated on repeats.

The Batman film of his I hated on second viewing was Batman Begins. I believe I still enjoy TDK, though perhaps my memory is poor. Could be. I like The Following, Memento, Insomnia, and didn't hate Inception. I just think the final Batman film and this were pretty awful.

Spinal
11-18-2014, 01:32 AM
Can it be there's a Batman movie that I actually consider underrated?

Pop Trash
11-18-2014, 02:39 AM
Memento
Following
Inception
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Insomnia
The Prestige
Interstellar
The Dark Knight Rises

I guess I prefer his earlier, funnier movies.

Lazlo
11-18-2014, 02:42 AM
The Dark Knight
Interstellar
The Prestige
Inception
Memento
The Dark Knight Rises
Batman Begins
Insomnia

Ivan Drago
11-18-2014, 03:57 AM
1. Memento
2. The Dark Knight
3. Inception
4. Insomnia
5. Batman Begins
6. The Prestige
7. The Dark Knight Rises
8. Interstellar
9. Following

Ezee E
11-18-2014, 04:44 AM
****
Memento
The Dark Knight
Inception
Interstellar

***
Batman Begins
The Prestige

**
The Dark Knight Rises
Insomnia
Following

transmogrifier
11-18-2014, 09:42 AM
1. Memento



Massive gap

2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Inception
4. Insomnia
5. The Prestige
6. Interstellar
7. The Dark Knight
8. Batman Begins

1 is brilliant, 2-5 are all shrug-worthy good ("Yeah, they're okay," I say), 6-7 are meh, and the last is booooooring.

Dukefrukem
11-18-2014, 01:02 PM
Batman Begins gets a lot of hate- but it's the best origin story superhero movie. Not saying much? Nolan's quick cut / time passage works well here and I really enjoy the first half.

Peng
11-18-2014, 01:44 PM
The Dark Knight
Memento
Interstellar
The Dark Knight Rises
Inception
Insomnia
Batman Begins
The Prestige
Following

number8
11-18-2014, 02:04 PM
The Prestige, followed by Memento and then the rest are various configurations of cool. There's not really one I outright dislike.

Also people who like Dark Knight Rises more than Dark Knight are cool.

Dukefrukem
11-18-2014, 02:17 PM
Also people who like Dark Knight Rises more than Dark Knight are cool.

Why? Because it's the hipster way?

number8
11-18-2014, 03:45 PM
You gotta find a new joke, man. It's getting a bit Jeff Foxworthy.

Spinal
11-18-2014, 05:11 PM
Why? Because it's the hipster way?

I just like the writing better and got more out of the themes explored in the final film.

Skitch
11-18-2014, 05:59 PM
Top Tier - Memento, The Prestige, Inception

One hair away from top tier - The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises

Really damn good - Batman Begins, Insomnia

Impressive for first round - Following

Undecided at this time - Interstellar

Qrazy
11-19-2014, 12:34 AM
I don't really understand liking The Prestige but not Interstellar or vice versa. To me they have similarly absurd twists but twists which are thoroughly interwoven into the fabric of the film from the very opening shot. I guess The Prestige is more pessimistic perhaps that accounts for some liking one but not the other.

Skitch
11-19-2014, 01:44 AM
Well one is questionable logic and the other is magic, which requires no logic.

Lazlo
11-19-2014, 04:31 AM
Well one is questionable logic and the other is magic, which requires no logic.

Um, there's no magic in The Prestige.

Skitch
11-19-2014, 12:15 PM
Um, there's no magic in The Prestige.

Yes, but its easier for me to just roll with it when its not trying to cram science class down my throat.

Dukefrukem
11-19-2014, 01:12 PM
Um, there's no magic in The Prestige.

It's not science either.

number8
11-19-2014, 03:50 PM
I strongly disagree that stories about magic require no logic.

Skitch
11-19-2014, 04:27 PM
MAGIC! lol

TGM
11-19-2014, 06:23 PM
It's not science either.
Right. It's science fiction. ;)

Qrazy
11-19-2014, 06:48 PM
Frankly even Inception asks that you massively suspend your disbelief as to what a fundamentally ridiculous notion it is to go to sleep within a dream and climb deeper into the subconscious.

Fezzik
11-19-2014, 07:00 PM
Frankly even Inception asks that you massively suspend your disbelief as to what a fundamentally ridiculous notion it is to go to sleep within a dream and climb deeper into the subconscious.

My issue with Interstellar (unlike Inception or The Prestige) is that its entire premise and plot development is crammed with hard science from the get go (again, even if some of it is theoretical) and then makes a strange WTF-level right turn into anything but once it hits act three.

The other two films' premises were never about science. They were about fantasy. They stayed fantasy, even if they touched on some scientific ideas. Interstellar started out as a science fiction film and became something else near the end.

Also, the writing was cringeworthy in places, and I usually really like the writing in Nolan's films.

TGM
11-19-2014, 07:33 PM
My issue with Interstellar (unlike Inception or The Prestige) is that its entire premise and plot development is crammed with hard science from the get go (again, even if some of it is theoretical) and then makes a strange WTF-level right turn into anything but once it hits act three.

The other two films' premises were never about science. They were about fantasy. They stayed fantasy, even if they touched on some scientific ideas. Interstellar started out as a science fiction film and became something else near the end.

Also, the writing was cringeworthy in places, and I usually really like the writing in Nolan's films.

But it's not an out of nowhere right turn into fantasy. The movie starts off by asking us to accept this fantastic idea (the ghost), and it asks us to do so by looking at it scientifically, when Cooper tells Murph to do as such. They then literally use the rest of the movie using science as a means to explore this idea, until the mystery behind it is finally brought to light. The entire scenario, fantastic and scientific alike, was there and established from the very beginning of the movie.

Like The Prestige and Inception, Interstellar isn't necessarily about science, either. It merely uses science as a means to explore its fantasy.

Skitch
11-19-2014, 08:01 PM
I feel like you guys got what I meant though. Obviously the fiction of science fiction will be debatable until the end of time. My comment was short-handedly (or ham-handedly) implying that science is more at the forefront of the plot of Interstellar than of The Prestige. I'm knocking neither for the surplus or lack of science or logical fact, just that the accuracy of scientific facts of The Prestige didnt bear on the plot for me.

Dukefrukem
11-20-2014, 01:58 PM
I don't find that to be very satisfying when it comes to the creation of a narrative and I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to have an issue with it. Extraordinary things happening are only extraordinary if they happen within certain parameters. You may as well have got to the end of the story and had the world saved by an enormous friendly dragon. Because why not? And then I would have people on the internet coming up with elaborate theories about how an enormous friendly dragon was actually technically possible according to the film's interpretation of Murphy's Law or some such silliness. It's a cheat and a lie and it's not good writing.

Maybe this will help you.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cexcjdyIE

Spinal
11-20-2014, 04:41 PM
I've already seen that. It does not change my opinion.

Spinal
11-20-2014, 05:28 PM
I like Neil's thoughts and perspective though. He's a great teacher.

Dukefrukem
11-20-2014, 07:27 PM
I've already seen that. It does not change my opinion.

It should. It explains the hangup you have.

number8
11-20-2014, 07:52 PM
I don't see how it's even related. As I understand it, Spinal's issue is with its narrative screenwriting choices, not with the mechanics of the science.

Dukefrukem
11-20-2014, 08:30 PM
Duke, you're missing my point entirely.

Yes, contradictions can happen once you have a time machine and start playing around with the timeline. However, in this film, the development of time travel is placed sooooo far off into the future that it should not be attainable by the humans who are experiencing an extinction event.

These are not minor details. This is the major foundation upon which the whole plot hinges.

It was in response to this.

Neclord
11-20-2014, 09:33 PM
All Tyson says in the video is that since what is inside a black hole is unknown that free travel through the fourth dimension inside of one is not necessarily impossible, which he just handwaves as good SF fodder. He doesn't address the paradox inherent in humans retroactively causing the events to ensure their own survival and evolution into four-dimensional beings; presumably, though not necessarily, an eons long process, which is time an Earth bound humanity is stated not to have.

transmogrifier
11-21-2014, 01:06 AM
Why, if the technology exists to build a fully functioning, self-supporting space ship that houses many people in the middle of cold, dark, inhospitable space (you know, the one Coop is taken to at the end), couldn't they just build something similar on Earth? No matter how bad the actual Earth would get, it would never be more hostile to life than the vacuum of space.

There is probably a simple answer to this that I can't see.

Skitch
11-21-2014, 03:49 AM
There is probably a simple answer to this that I can't see.

My guess is the likely answer would be it wouldn't make an entertaining film. It goes with what I say about zombie movies...sure, at the end of all things, we'd find an island and start farming crops...but it wouldn't be interesting to watch. Maybe I'm wrong, but the conflict/struggle is the interesting/cinematic part.

Winston*
11-21-2014, 09:46 AM
Why, if the technology exists to build a fully functioning, self-supporting space ship that houses many people in the middle of cold, dark, inhospitable space (you know, the one Coop is taken to at the end), couldn't they just build something similar on Earth? No matter how bad the actual Earth would get, it would never be more hostile to life than the vacuum of space.

There is probably a simple answer to this that I can't see.

Or if they can build a seemingly completely sentient robot, why they need these missions to be manned.

I enjoyed the set pieces, but this didn't do that much for me otherwise. Too many sci-fi movies about the power of love. Love was already the Fifth Element, and now it can also cross the fifth dimension?

Qrazy
11-22-2014, 06:03 AM
Bill Nye on it:

http://www.businessinsider.com/bill-nye-the-science-guy-interstellar-space-2014-11

Morris Schæffer
11-22-2014, 11:14 PM
Kinda shaken up even if my mind is telling me that what happens in the last 20 minutes is bullshit. Still, I think the message, or what I perceive to be its message, that gravity (aka love) transcends mere distance, does kinda get across. It's a brave blockbuster, braver and bolder than Gravity even if Nolan can't quite resist selling the ending as something that is supposed to make sense rather than going the 2001 route and keeping everything entirely abstract. Which is why the last 20 minutes are tearing me left and right, then left again, and so on and so forth. Still, a magnificent experience, one that catapulted this particularly viewer right out of the theater, lost, puzzled, dumbfounded, but inspired and grateful, persuaded that something pretty unique was seen. Now, if you'll excuse me, I gotta read through this thread.

Morris Schæffer
11-22-2014, 11:28 PM
Did anyone else think the Matt Damon subplot was unnecessary? I still don't really get what the hell he was trying to do or why that was there. It's like Nolan saw Sunshine and thought he would steal the worst part of that movie's plot.

Well, I think this is the part where they chickened out with the story and feared they probably didn't have enough adversarial shit going on.

Morris Schæffer
11-22-2014, 11:55 PM
I don't find that to be very satisfying when it comes to the creation of a narrative and I'm surprised that so many people don't seem to have an issue with it. Extraordinary things happening are only extraordinary if they happen within certain parameters. You may as well have got to the end of the story and had the world saved by an enormous friendly dragon. Because why not? And then I would have people on the internet coming up with elaborate theories about how an enormous friendly dragon was actually technically possible according to the film's interpretation of Murphy's Law or some such silliness. It's a cheat and a lie and it's not good writing.

I'm sort of leaning towards what you're saying, but when it comes to outer space, or the great unknown, and infinite is lots of unknowns, I can be more lenient towards such a story where a few leaps of faith have to be made. At one point, the black scientist says something along the lines of "we're not meant to see certain things" when he's discussing going into the black hole. He might have added "nor are we meant to understand it". Perhaps space is cold, lifeless and entirely devoid of anything interesting going on beyond stars and things we're already aware of. Or perhaps there are countless wonders waiting to be uncovered. Probably not, but it's more alluring, spine-tingling and adventurous to believe, ever so slightly, that there are.

Spinal
11-23-2014, 01:12 AM
My complaint about the film is not related to the mystery and vastness of space. My complaint is that the film's use of time travel does not hold up to basic scrutiny.

Dead & Messed Up
11-23-2014, 09:07 PM
Went to an AMC IMAX 70 mm film projection screening today, excited to see it in that format.

In theater now, audio started skipping, they couldn't resync, being filed out slowly for refunds.

FFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Dead & Messed Up
11-24-2014, 04:45 AM
UUUUUUUUUCCK

The film projector's broken, friend called up and later screenings went bad too. Angelenos, this is the AMC 19 on Universal Citywalk. Going to a digital projection on an IMAX screen tonight.

This is no longer about enjoying Interstellar. This is about finishing Interstellar.

Dead & Messed Up
11-24-2014, 10:40 AM
Okay. This was good. This was not great. Scenes were great. The countdown, matching the spin, all the variations on light and sound trips. I was weirdly fine with Damon going all Pinbacker on everyone, even though I hate Pinbacker. I know Nolan is a very literal dood, but he did not need to be explaining so much of the Bookshelf Tesseract of Gravilove. The epilogue with the daughter didn't feel cathartic, not sure why yet. Individual shots were gorgeous in IMAX, the spectacle ones anyway. Don't see much value in brownish earthbound talking head shot/reverses coming to us via the biggest screens on Earth!

Spinal's concern about closed loop circular narrative is a fair one. I simply figured that Cooper's comments about 5th dimensional human beings were only a theory. What is he going off of? Gut feelings?

One wonders if beings of a 5th dimension can resolve affairs contingent on linear time, or even why they'd bother. Is them re-sorting people on the time dimension like Coop moving around the parts of an engine? Vonnegut probably was on to something when he made multidimensional beings into bemused, distanced witnesses.

Morris Schæffer
11-24-2014, 11:53 AM
Can anyone, in extremely crude, terms explain how Cooper can be the ghost in the bedroom? And also, the black Hole where Cooper is in at the end and he sees the book cases and he yells at his younger daughter. Is that what the innards of the black hole actually looked like? How is that possible? Did the hole allow Cooper to travel back in time to warn his younger daughter?

Chronologically, I cannot wrap my brain around any of that.:)

Dukefrukem
11-24-2014, 01:55 PM
Can anyone, in extremely crude, terms explain how Cooper can be the ghost in the bedroom? And also, the black Hole where Cooper is in at the end and he sees the book cases and he yells at his younger daughter. Is that what the innards of the black hole actually looked like? How is that possible? Did the hole allow Cooper to travel back in time to warn his younger daughter?

Chronologically, I cannot wrap my brain around any of that.:)

Yes to your latter question. It's because he believe and was his most desired wish in live that is why the Tesseract brought him back to "the book case" as you describe it.

number8
11-24-2014, 03:52 PM
Yes to your latter question. It's because he believe and was his most desired wish in live that is why the Tesseract brought him back to "the book case" as you describe it.

Huh? It's not his desire that took him there. It's not a wishing well. The future humans deliberately constructed a tesseract that specifically leads to Murphy's bedroom in that time period.

Dukefrukem
11-24-2014, 04:03 PM
Huh? It's not his desire that took him there. It's not a wishing well. The future humans deliberately constructed a tesseract that specifically leads to Murphy's bedroom in that time period.

No. The tesseract allows for 5D spaces/time. It wasn't just 1 time period as shown. He could have gone through any of those time periods. It's my understanding that depending on who entered the tesseract, it would show different 5D space time. It wasn't just a door to Cooper's house. Remember, Cooper reached out to Anne Hathaway in the ship? I just used the "desire wish analogy" to explain how Cooper was able to get to that point (to communicate with his daughter), once he understood how to use the tesseract.

Spinal
11-24-2014, 04:39 PM
One wonders if beings of a 5th dimension can resolve affairs contingent on linear time, or even why they'd bother.

This is the biggest issue to me. It makes every bit of sense why Cooper goes to extraordinary lengths to save the world. It's not at all clear what the 5th dimensional beings have to gain from all this. And not in an exciting ambiguous Kubrick kind of way. More in a boy-it-feels-like-somebody-just-lied-to-me-and-hoped-I-wouldn't-notice kind of way.

number8
11-24-2014, 04:40 PM
Everything there was just Murphy's childhood bedroom. Cooper said to TARS in that scene that the future-humans built the place specifically to observe "every possible moment" of a little girl's bedroom. The futurefolk were observing Murphy because to them she was the most important person in history ("It's not about me, it's her") who saved the human race.

The tesseract's a portal construct, not a time machine you can steer.

Dukefrukem
11-24-2014, 04:42 PM
Everything there was just Murphy's childhood bedroom. Cooper said to TARS in that scene that the future-humans built the place specifically to observe "every possible moment" of a little girl's bedroom. The futurefolk were observing Murphy because to them she was the most important person in history ("It's not about me, it's her") who saved the human race.

Then why would they allow Cooper to reach out to Hathaway in the tesseract? That doesn't align with the purpose of observing Murph.

Dukefrukem
11-24-2014, 04:43 PM
The tesseract's a portal construct, not a time machine you can steer.

I agree but it's also not tied to one place or person.

number8
11-24-2014, 05:01 PM
Then why would they allow Cooper to reach out to Hathaway in the tesseract? That doesn't align with the purpose of observing Murph.

That handshake was when they were traveling through a wormhole created by them. It wasn't necessarily intentional.

Dukefrukem
11-24-2014, 05:15 PM
That handshake was when they were traveling through a wormhole created by them. It wasn't necessarily intentional.

Ahhhh I like that. Ok. I'm buying it.

Dead & Messed Up
11-24-2014, 08:47 PM
This is the biggest issue to me. It makes every bit of sense why Cooper goes to extraordinary lengths to save the world. It's not at all clear what the 5th dimensional beings have to gain from all this. And not in an exciting ambiguous Kubrick kind of way. More in a boy-it-feels-like-somebody-just-lied-to-me-and-hoped-I-wouldn't-notice kind of way.

I don't feel that I was lied to, necessarily. More that the film simply bit off more than it could chew. I think what's happened here is that, in an attempt to thematically simplify the story by suggesting the agency is advanced humans (paralleling the advancement beyond Earth with the advancement beyond four dimensions), the film complicates itself too much.

Imagine how much simpler the film would be if that Saturn wormhole was simply there, with no presumed "they," and if Cooper didn't start theorizing on one specific idea while inside the Tesseract.

In fact, maybe that's the only way to take the film that makes it explicable. That the humans saying 5d humans did this are just guessing. The wormhole and Tesseract are either flukes or alien creations or simply ineffable events.