Planning to catch Interstellar this week. How was the movie guys , lived upto its hype ? :)
Who watched INTERSTELLAR ? How was it ?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
I loved it.
good, there were things I liked about it, things I didn't, but overall a very enjoyable movie
@indzman said:
@SaintLeonidas said:
I loved it.
Is that your own review ? :)
Indeed.
It was pretty good.
It was like...three hours long, and I think they could have trimmed a few scenes and explained the plot a little better. As a nerd though, I was fully entertained for the entire thing. I really liked it when they started explaining extremely technical things like gravitational pulls, the fluidity of time and time distortion, and the movie also references artificial gravity, is highly accurate (for shots of space, there is zero sound, little light)...damn, it was a nerds dream.
We need MORE hardcore sci-fi movies like Interstellar.
Okay, I'll make a spoiler post just to post my thoughts about it to share with anybody else that might have seen it.
I liked certain sci-fi elements of it, some were very subtle. The world, for instance, doesn't really say what kind of calamity the world was facing other than food production being their central focus, that itself was challenging because of the crop blight, which I'll touch on later. I wondered myself if this was an envisioned world of what some might see a post peak consumption / peak oil world. In the scene where Matthew McConaughey and John Lithgow are talking on the porch, talking about the peak of mankind's heights of technology and standard of living, then about how that fell apart when 6 billion people strove to achieve it. That's often talked about on the subject matter of peak oil and peak consumption. For instance our high standards of living don't just hinge on readily available high density fuel, but also our entire world's economic system too, as well as access to other readily available supply of natural resources with which drives our economy. As the world strives to use these same resources, costs go up and access diminishes. Economic growth comes to a halt as the return on economic venture is surpassed by the cost to pursue it. Some would argue it's an economic certainty we may see in our near future. People who examine future implications of peak oil often talk about how a decreased fuel economy will effect food supply, as much of the developed world requires importing of food to sustain its population. With high density energy gone, people will be required to localize food production, that's another thing that made me wonder about this film's world pointing a subtle hint at this kind of world. I get the feeling he intentionally pointed at but skirted this subject but touched on it nonetheless. Maybe that's just movie magic. Nolan gave us enough to assume something went wrong and maybe I'm just filling in the holes the way I see it working out that way.
The blight that was effecting crops was also an interesting touch on ideas. In the beginning it was nothing more than just something (I forget, a bacteria, and fungus, something) that was killing off food crops. But later we learn it was something more, it was so pervasive it was beginning to change the very composition of the earths atmosphere, which we know to be roughly 20% oxygen and 80% nitrogen, like 1% being other trace gasses like argon or something. Anyhow, so like I read recently in an article that one extinction event 250 million years ago was caused by a microbe that flourished, creating toxic doses of methane that changed the climate, killed most of the land and sea life as it persisted for 200,000 years. The blight was recognized in the film as something that would persist until it changed the climate to such a degree that mankind couldn't survive on the planet. It really puts into perspective the delicate balance of our environment in which we live, and how one small thing could set it off.
Throughout the film, on earth at least, there were these dust storms that were such a common occurrence. Maybe in some sense this can be attributed to the blight, but I get more a feeling this was more intended as an idea of mankind adjusting to climate change to such a degree that such occurrences are just common place. Again, this too I felt he skirted in ways but was pointing to something, maybe because climate change is such a contentious issue with people he didn't want to alienate or distance his audience, I found it interesting though in how it was (or how it wasn't) presented.
There were some few interesting tidbits about the world's politics I found interesting. First off there was a scene with Matthew McConaughey and people at his daughters school. She was in trouble for bringing a science book to class talking about the moon landings and showing it to the other kids. Apparently in this future we learn in a it's so tragically sad but funny way that anti-intellectualism that exists today is the status quo of tomorrow of Nolan's future. The moon landings are widely believed to be fake, as explained by the teacher, staged United States propaganda pushed to bankrupt the Soviet Union in the Cold War. The existing government is so strained economically that there's no longer any military force. We learn that NASA was once thought to be something no longer funded by the government but later learn it's something the government continually funds in secret in order to keep its funding secret from a skeptical public. I think it's something we in our current times need to be reflective on how our pervasive anti-intellectualism can really threaten something as important as space exploration. Today NASA only gets $20 billion a year, which isn't a lot for how important it is, and how we waste money so effortlessly in other areas. There was a new article not too long back asking people how much they thought NASA's budget accounted for the US budget, and a staggering number of people assumed it was much much higher than it really was, including many who believed it was between 1/4 to 1/2 the total annual budget, rather than it's 1/2 of 1% budget that it currently sits at.
Here I am though talking on things in the film as I stated before were only briefly skirted around by Nolan in his film but nonetheless have some interesting deeper meaning beyond how their presented in the film. Maybe it's better for political reasons he didn't dive into them out of fear of being labelled liberal propaganda, or to avoid explaining things, or simply too constrained by trying to piece together such a long film.
I felt there was some conflicting themes in the movie, or maybe they were supposed to compliment each other. One was on the them of survival, both individually and for the benefit of mankind. There was also a persisting theme of the importance of family and loved ones. There was that whole Plan A and Plan B scenarios, and how that involved leaving mankind behind to begin anew or coming back to rescue mankind. And there was the personal challenges for characters with their relationships that weighed on their decisions, for instance McConaughey promised he'd return to his daughter, wanted to rescue her, whereas with Michael Caine we learn all along though this was going to have to be a one way trip, and he lied to McConaughey to give the mission its best chances of success, and maybe to put his daughter (Hathaway) in the best hands to survive. Hathaway herself has conflicts of her own, her own love interest is an astronaut who went to one of the planets, and when it became time to choose a planet to travel to once traveling through the wormhole, these personal conflicts of interests weighed in on making the right choices. A more extreme example of these personal issues presented itself most with coming upon (surprisingly non-casted) Matt Damon's character. Before McConaughey and Hathaway's trip through the wormhole, NASA sent a group of astronauts on one way trips to chart various potential planets to colonize, with supplies and cryogenic sleep chambers. Well, it was a dangerous one way trip, and out of human weakness and self preservation, Damon's character sends the signal that the planet was ripe for colonization, despite being a harsh and inhospitable and unlikely planet with which to colonize. These area's of human character is where I felt the real drama of the piece lied, and make for the more intense moments of the film. If this film were to compared to 2001 Space Odyssey, the most certainly would be the HAL 9000 moment.
I've only maybe a few minor gripes with the film:
1. So, McConaughey's character was an ex-astronaut turned farmer who after many years later stumbles upon a secret NASA base only to be recruited in a heartbeat to lead mankind's last mission to save itself. The reasoning was that the pilots they did have couldn't handle the simulations. Okay, I'll buy that to an extent. But even then, they basically rush McConaughey into a shuttle with no prep like it was as easy as riding a bike, not bringing him up to speed on mission prep or reintegration training, this seemed like a sloppy plot point.
2. There was a time dilation bit to the plot, one planet existed right on the edge of a black hole to the point that one hour there amounted to 7 years on Earth. While McConaughey and Hathaway were on planet years passed on the main ship in low planetary orbit. Now, I can buy the dilation to that degree from Earth time and mission time, but the dilation being that drastic between planet and low planetary orbit seemed a little too far fetched. When they get back into orbit, years passed for the crew left in orbit. Seemed too far fetched to me that the time dilation between the planet and low planetary orbit would be that drastic. Something there didn't sit right with me.
3. There was the subject of gravitational anomaly in the film which NASA just referred to as an outside entity giving mankind it's last chance of survival, I forget what they called them, I think they just referred to them as "Them/They" or something like that. It's early concluded they created the wormhole near Saturn that allowed them to travel to the other galaxy near planets that could be colonized. In the end, we learn it wasn't some higher beings work but mankind in the future assisting the past in surviving. This just made me think of the Terminator. After all, in that story Terminators are sent back in time to eliminate the future of the human resistance, but instead set in motion the future as it was supposed to be. The Terminator leaves behind itself which turns out being the pivotal key developed into the technology that leads to self aware AI, the human sent back in time to intercept the Terminator becomes the father of the resistance leader John Conner, and Sarah Conner herself would have just remained waitress. It's like the future that would have never been went back in time to create the conditions that made itself to begin with. Well, same thing here, those beings that were creating the gravitational anomalies were actually human in origin, from some point in the future, and they assisted in making that future happen through an intervention that without it would have never allowed for that future to create the means to intervene.
4. Okay, so gravitational anomalies on the farm happened when the ghost / McConaughey went back to the past to intervene and repeat events that led them on the track to the future, but where did the gravitational anomaly that grounded McConaughey's craft during training years back come from?
5. The happy ending was way too convenient. Granted it doesn't piss me off too much, it was a happy ending which felt good after that emotional ride. And he got to travel to be with Hathaway when she was in probably in need of some rebound loving and to populate the planet. Still, but I'd of been fine if he set the future course only to be swallowed up in the singularity when the intervening multiverse bubble he used to transmit the singularity data to older Murph collapsed. Because it was then she realized the ghost the whole time was her dad, and that was a happy enough ending herself to realize her dad didn't abandon her. I mean, it just carried him back to the future Saturn station, if those humans in the future could just move him in suit from a black whole to a space station in another galaxy then why coudln't they just intervene greater and basically carry humans to the right planet.
Movie sucks. It's the same theme. Hope and Hopelessness, bits of science, or SciFi. They pull off that family theme really strongly, but for a few minutes really. Also the movie is LOOOONG, almost 3 hours! It's truly a One-Hit wonder.
Didn't like it. Rather have a simple movie well executed than an ambitious movie that doesn't reach the mark.
Even just on simpler terms as well , a critic summed it up perfectly when she said "Nolan lacks the human touch". I think this is the case with almost of all his movies. It's like watching a boring lecture with no passion.
@SaintLeonidas said:
@indzman said:
@SaintLeonidas said:
I loved it.
Is that your own review ? :)
Indeed.
It was a nice read. Haven't seen Interstellar yet but I think it's going to be the kind of movie I like. I too find the themes introduced quite fascinating.
Greatly enjoyed it.
Have some questions about how exactly everything worked but I guess it's the same questions that you will usually get when you go the route the movie did.
There's enough info and stuff to work out and put together answers, so not too many unanswered questions where you don't know any kind if an answer. You get a pretty clear idea of things without knowing the finer details
@dave123321 said:
Have some questions about how exactly everything worked but I guess it's the same questions that you will usually get when you go the route the movie did.
Same. As soon as it comes out on video I want to watch it again to figure some of it out myself.
As one of my most anticipated movies of the year, it didn't quite fully satisfy. Not bad by any means. Pretty much standard Nolan stuff, only more slow and boring in spots. Lots of slow, melancholic scenes in slow mo makes it drag often. A long film that will truly test your bladder.
It also reminded me of Contact alot, which I thought was a much better movie. They both have similar themes, somewhat similar story, and a WTF? ending. Only this time McConaughey was in Foster's role.
@lamprey263 said:
2. There was a time dilation bit to the plot, one planet existed right on the edge of a black hole to the point that one hour there amounted to 7 years on Earth. Seemed too far fetched to me that the time dilation between the planet and low planetary orbit would be that drastic. Something there didn't sit right with me.
Actually that's rather scientifically accurate. You have to understanding that the black hole in the film is what scientists call a spinning black hole. It effects the dilation of space time differently then a non-spinning black hole. The planet existed just within the cusp of an area effected by the dilating gravitational forces of the black hole. It's entirely probable that the ship could find an orbit that would be out of the range of the dilating effects, thus allowing time to flow nearly the same pace as the observable time on earth. Nolan brought in a quantum physicist to work on the film so scenes could be as scientifically accurate as possible. For the most part it was very accurate, except a few moments throughout the film so the plot could advance.
As for my review of the film, I thought it was a fantastically refreshing original science fiction epic. Finally a sci-fi that requires you do a little thinking.
@ferrari2001 said:
@lamprey263 said:
2. There was a time dilation bit to the plot, one planet existed right on the edge of a black hole to the point that one hour there amounted to 7 years on Earth. Seemed too far fetched to me that the time dilation between the planet and low planetary orbit would be that drastic. Something there didn't sit right with me.
Nolan brought in a quantum physicist to work on the film so scenes could be as scientifically accurate as possible.
Kip Thorne, and Nolan didn't just bring him in, the basic premise of the film was Thorne's. He was working with a producer of 'Contact' (which he also worked on) to get it developed long before Nolan came on board. So he was there from the beginning and was heavily involved in the production. All the equations used, all that math on the boards, was his. So, as you said, a lot of it is very accurate. So much so that the visualization of the black hole helped Kip better understand the science behind how they work and look, and he is working on a paper about it.
i heard it was alright alright alllriiight.
Just saw it today and loved it. Don't know what I was expecting but it definitely delivered.
C rate movie that you either eat it up, or get ready for the the most painful theater experience in 20 some years. If you thought inception was the least subtle movie ever made, professor nolan's characters go all out explaining unprovable junk science in this one. But, you may as well see it for yourself, I once waited 7 hours for a ups delivery, so this movie isn't the worst way to waste time.
I loved it! A lot of people think it was too long, but I actually wish it was longer, because I really liked the world and characters. If you're a fan of sci-fi this is a must see.
Any one else wish TARS and CASE had more screen time?
Those 3 hours went too fast for me. Great movie.
Liked it, but got tired of the 'love' tropes they used through out the film.
@ferrari2001 said:
@lamprey263 said:
2. There was a time dilation bit to the plot, one planet existed right on the edge of a black hole to the point that one hour there amounted to 7 years on Earth. Seemed too far fetched to me that the time dilation between the planet and low planetary orbit would be that drastic. Something there didn't sit right with me.
Actually that's rather scientifically accurate. You have to understanding that the black hole in the film is what scientists call a spinning black hole. It effects the dilation of space time differently then a non-spinning black hole. The planet existed just within the cusp of an area effected by the dilating gravitational forces of the black hole. It's entirely probable that the ship could find an orbit that would be out of the range of the dilating effects, thus allowing time to flow nearly the same pace as the observable time on earth. Nolan brought in a quantum physicist to work on the film so scenes could be as scientifically accurate as possible. For the most part it was very accurate, except a few moments throughout the film so the plot could advance.
As for my review of the film, I thought it was a fantastically refreshing original science fiction epic. Finally a sci-fi that requires you do a little thinking.
lol its was a movie so I think its entirely ok to take some artistic decisions but the science was still WAY off. In order for that amount of time dilation to happen.....well its not even close. Plus where is the sun in that solar system? Is that first planet just circling around the black hole? What about its binary partner?
If anything it should be praised for its representations of the black hole, believe they actually tried to do realistic computer simulations of it.
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@ferrari2001 said:
@lamprey263 said:
2. There was a time dilation bit to the plot, one planet existed right on the edge of a black hole to the point that one hour there amounted to 7 years on Earth. Seemed too far fetched to me that the time dilation between the planet and low planetary orbit would be that drastic. Something there didn't sit right with me.
Actually that's rather scientifically accurate. You have to understanding that the black hole in the film is what scientists call a spinning black hole. It effects the dilation of space time differently then a non-spinning black hole. The planet existed just within the cusp of an area effected by the dilating gravitational forces of the black hole. It's entirely probable that the ship could find an orbit that would be out of the range of the dilating effects, thus allowing time to flow nearly the same pace as the observable time on earth. Nolan brought in a quantum physicist to work on the film so scenes could be as scientifically accurate as possible. For the most part it was very accurate, except a few moments throughout the film so the plot could advance.
As for my review of the film, I thought it was a fantastically refreshing original science fiction epic. Finally a sci-fi that requires you do a little thinking.
lol its was a movie so I think its entirely ok to take some artistic decisions but the science was still WAY off. In order for that amount of time dilation to happen.....well its not even close. Plus where is the sun in that solar system? Is that first planet just circling around the black hole? What about its binary partner?
If anything it should be praised for its representations of the black hole, believe they actually tried to do realistic computer simulations of it.
all that wasn't even a problem, it thought the movie was epic and really matches space odyssey in terms of quality. What happened with the black hole was perfectly believable , maybe even possible. It was really one of the best space sci fi i've ever seen.
until...
he fuckin jumps into the black hole, that was just stupid lol. It didn't screw the whole movie but it surely screwed up a part of the ending because of that. They tried to put something mysterious, like something more religious into the movie, i mean love? really ?? fuckin really???
from that moment on I realized this movie was created by nolan, who created inception, and i didn't like inception. Sadly to say, he could have made one of the best space adventures ever made and right there when he jumped into the black hole and bs that followed, that's where he lost to a lot of classics.
It can still be a classic though, because from the liftoff to the jump in the black hole it was pretty much the best sci fi i've ever seen but hell, I could have been so much more.
@evildead6789 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
lol its was a movie so I think its entirely ok to take some artistic decisions but the science was still WAY off. In order for that amount of time dilation to happen.....well its not even close. Plus where is the sun in that solar system? Is that first planet just circling around the black hole? What about its binary partner?
If anything it should be praised for its representations of the black hole, believe they actually tried to do realistic computer simulations of it.
all that wasn't even a problem, it thought the movie was epic and really matches space odyssey in terms of quality. What happened with the black hole was perfectly believable , maybe even possible. It was really one of the best space sci fi i've ever seen.
until...
he fuckin jumps into the black hole, that was just stupid lol. It didn't screw the whole movie but it surely screwed up a part of the ending because of that. They tried to put something mysterious, like something more religious into the movie, i mean love? really ?? fuckin really???
from that moment on I realized this movie was created by nolan, who created inception, and i didn't like inception. Sadly to say, he could have made one of the best space adventures ever made and right there when he jumped into the black hole and bs that followed, that's where he lost to a lot of classics.
It can still be a classic though, because from the liftoff to the jump in the black hole it was pretty much the best sci fi i've ever seen but hell, I could have been so much more.
In terms of quality compared to 2001? I'd still put 2001 ahead personally, and in the realm of realism 2001 still stands above it. But like I said its a movie and its ok to 'bend' realism to make something translatable to people on screen. I do agree with your last points though it did seem like classic Nolan.
@joehult said:
C rate movie that you either eat it up, or get ready for the the most painful theater experience in 20 some years. If you thought inception was the least subtle movie ever made, professor nolan's characters go all out explaining unprovable junk science in this one. But, you may as well see it for yourself, I once waited 7 hours for a ups delivery, so this movie isn't the worst way to waste time.
In short: your version of a good sci-fi movie is Transformers.
@HoolaHoopMan said:
@evildead6789 said:
@HoolaHoopMan said:
lol its was a movie so I think its entirely ok to take some artistic decisions but the science was still WAY off. In order for that amount of time dilation to happen.....well its not even close. Plus where is the sun in that solar system? Is that first planet just circling around the black hole? What about its binary partner?
If anything it should be praised for its representations of the black hole, believe they actually tried to do realistic computer simulations of it.
all that wasn't even a problem, it thought the movie was epic and really matches space odyssey in terms of quality. What happened with the black hole was perfectly believable , maybe even possible. It was really one of the best space sci fi i've ever seen.
until...
he fuckin jumps into the black hole, that was just stupid lol. It didn't screw the whole movie but it surely screwed up a part of the ending because of that. They tried to put something mysterious, like something more religious into the movie, i mean love? really ?? fuckin really???
from that moment on I realized this movie was created by nolan, who created inception, and i didn't like inception. Sadly to say, he could have made one of the best space adventures ever made and right there when he jumped into the black hole and bs that followed, that's where he lost to a lot of classics.
It can still be a classic though, because from the liftoff to the jump in the black hole it was pretty much the best sci fi i've ever seen but hell, I could have been so much more.
In terms of quality compared to 2001? I'd still put 2001 ahead personally, and in the realm of realism 2001 still stands above it. But like I said its a movie and its ok to 'bend' realism to make something translatable to people on screen. I do agree with your last points though it did seem like classic Nolan.
If you look at the whole movie 2001 is certainly a better movie. The battle between ed and hal is epic, and the whole movie just makes a lot more sense.
But interstellar's special effects are better though, you could say it's not much of an accomplishment since we're 55 years later but still, no one has done it like nolan did here and it's the best i've ever seen. The dialogues, intrigues, story and overall acting are a masterpiece as well, until of course he... well you know what i mean.
Thought it was fantastic. Went to the theater that serves food while the movie is playing because it was a pretty long movie.
It was great. Loved it. Not Nolan's best, but it's a damn good film. One of the best this year, next to Gone Girl and Guardians.
No way I'm going to sit in a movie thats 3 hours long lol
awesome
@Motokid6 said:
@thedude-: The plot holes are superficial and in no way detract from the story. 2d character interactions? Are you kidding me? Just shut up the movie was amazing.
I won't shut up actually, my points are completely valid.
One of the many plot holes that is a paradox stems from:
the notion that Cooper (McConaughy) finds a binary code formed from the dust that falls on the floor in his house. This leads him to NASA. We find out that this binary code was brought on by future Cooper in the 5th dimension through gravitational pull. This is ridiculous because when you logically think about it the first Cooper in a repeating alternate timeline would have no future Cooper to give him the binary code in dust patterns to lead him to NASA.
and another paradox comes from:
if the extra dimensional beings, who are humans that have evolved the physical form of the 3rd dimension, are going back in time to save the human race, then who saved the first humans in the timeline before there was future extra dimensional beings to open the wormhole and put Cooper in the 5 dimension. Like the previous paradox the notion that there has to be an origin to this repeating timeline where this cycle all began suggests that without those future extradimensional beings to help out the first humans of a dying planet's timeline they would have gone extinct.
Character interactions were cold and calculated when the actors themselves emote a deep emotional connection that is then carried out with actions that artificially move the story along. Cooper has deep love for his daughter and she (Murph) has deep love him but:
Cooper immediately decides to go in space on a mission that will eject decades of his family's life or he may never see them again in such a way that does not connect. He expresses the concern that a space mission will have on his family life but immediately acts in the contrary to it. Also cooper sees his decrepit daughter dying for the first time in over a century and he runs off after less than 5 minutes of a reunion. This does not add up to what emotions that character would organically act upon. Its awkward and too artificial.
The wormhole explaination by the black guy (THE PENCIL POKE PAPER) are very similar/stole from the movie Event Horizon (1997). .. I was like ...WTF
@hippiesanta said:
The wormhole explaination by the black guy (THE PENCIL POKE PAPER) are very similar/stole from the movie Event Horizon (1997). .. I was like ...WTF
I liked that. It was sort of a slap in the face of all other films that have done that. Because it is a stupid trope of the genre...yet none actually go on to accurately explain - as 'Interstellar' did - that the "holes" in the paper are actually spheres in reality.
@thedude- said:
@Motokid6 said:
@thedude-: The plot holes are superficial and in no way detract from the story. 2d character interactions? Are you kidding me? Just shut up the movie was amazing.
I won't shut up actually, my points are completely valid.
One of the many plot holes that is a paradox stems from:
the notion that Cooper (McConaughy) finds a binary code formed from the dust that falls on the floor in his house. This leads him to NASA. We find out that this binary code was brought on by future Cooper in the 5th dimension through gravitational pull. This is ridiculous because when you logically think about it the first Cooper in a repeating alternate timeline would have no future Cooper to give him the binary code in dust patterns to lead him to NASA.
and another paradox comes from:
if the extra dimensional beings, who are humans that have evolved the physical form of the 3rd dimension, are going back in time to save the human race, then who saved the first humans in the timeline before there was future extra dimensional beings to open the wormhole and put Cooper in the 5 dimension. Like the previous paradox the notion that there has to be an origin to this repeating timeline where this cycle all began suggests that without those future extradimensional beings to help out the first humans of a dying planet's timeline they would have gone extinct.
Character interactions were cold and calculated when the actors themselves emote a deep emotional connection that is then carried out with actions that artificially move the story along. Cooper has deep love for his daughter and she (Murph) has deep love him but:
Cooper immediately decides to go in space on a mission that will eject decades of his family's life or he may never see them again in such a way that does not connect. He expresses the concern that a space mission will have on his family life but immediately acts in the contrary to it. Also cooper sees his decrepit daughter dying for the first time in over a century and he runs off after less than 5 minutes of a reunion. This does not add up to what emotions that character would organically act upon. Its awkward and too artificial.
Those paradoxes are known as the 'bootstrap' paradox, an actual theoretical concept and used in COUNTLESS other sci-fi films/TV shows like 'Terminator' or 'Doctor Who'. So I had no issue in it.
Also, I think Coop's decision most definitely fits the character, both narratively and emotionally. He makes it very clear that he wishes to do more than be a farmer - he was a pilot who, had the world not gone to shit, he would have piloted missions into space. His expertise gave the expedition a much more substantial chance to succeed. And yes, he acknowledges that it would hurt his family emotionally...but he also clearly understands that if he doesn't go it could mean his family has NO chance - and neither does the rest of the world. As someone who wants to save his children - and aspired to be something more - than his decision makes total sense.
I do not understand your complaint about the very end. Murph was dying, she had her family, and told him to leave. Why would he stick around? To grieve at her space funeral? He was just happy enough to actually be able to see her one last time. It only makes sense that he then go off and do as she wished and find Amelia. And it was CLEARLY long than 5 minutes....you do know the length of scenes is representative of time in the film??
Spoilers----
@SaintLeonidas: Oh so other movies/shows use it so it is ok here? Ha ha no it deters from the quality of the storyline. The tone that is set in this movie does not leave room for such ridiculous mistakes like this. It drags down some core themes which were actually intriguing.
The movie does not allow for the gravity of his situation to settle in a way that is organic. He fails to make his daughter understand why he must embark on this journey and then immediately peaces out.
When he comes back and sees his lost kin, he leaves in a way that is not consistent with how he displayed a relationship with her. There is no implied passage of time. The camera does not cut away. It's just another example of how robotic the characters interact with each other.
Still entertained by the magnitude of this film. The practical effects will go down in film history.
@thedude- said:
Spoilers----
@SaintLeonidas: Oh so other movies/shows use it so it is ok here? Ha ha no it deters from the quality of the storyline. The tone that is set in this movie does not leave room for such ridiculous mistakes like this. It drags down some core themes which were actually intriguing.
The movie does not allow for the gravity of his situation to settle in a way that is organic. He fails to make his daughter understand why he must embark on this journey and then immediately peaces out.
When he comes back and sees his lost kin, he leaves in a way that is not consistent with how he displayed a relationship with her. There is no implied passage of time. The camera does not cut away. It's just another example of how robotic the characters interact with each other.
Still entertained by the magnitude of this film. The practical effects will go down in film history.
maybe he just doesn't like his daughter all that much
@IgGy621985 said:
Those 3 hours went too fast for me. Great movie.
that's 21 earth year
@thedude- said:
Spoilers----
@SaintLeonidas: Oh so other movies/shows use it so it is ok here? Ha ha no it deters from the quality of the storyline. The tone that is set in this movie does not leave room for such ridiculous mistakes like this. It drags down some core themes which were actually intriguing.
The movie does not allow for the gravity of his situation to settle in a way that is organic. He fails to make his daughter understand why he must embark on this journey and then immediately peaces out.
When he comes back and sees his lost kin, he leaves in a way that is not consistent with how he displayed a relationship with her. There is no implied passage of time. The camera does not cut away. It's just another example of how robotic the characters interact with each other.
Still entertained by the magnitude of this film. The practical effects will go down in film history.
The "boot strap" paradox is a sci-fi trope...and 'Interstellar' is sci-fi film. It isn't out of place that the film would have such a plot device running through it. Plus, it works. It set everything up from the very beginning and delivers at the end, completing the loop of the paradox quite well. It doesn't matter how "logical" it seems based in reality because this is fiction. Even if much of the rest of the film might seem to be based on actual science, doesn't mean the film can't have an ending that isn't. All that matters is if it delivers emotionally - and fits the story - which it did in my eyes.
Also, I am not sure what exactly you are talking about in regards to Coop and Murph. The decision to go was clearly a difficult one, but something Coop deemed necessary and crucial to humanity - and his children's - survival. There was no time to be wasted and he knew if he stayed too long and saw further how upset Murph was than he might have changed his mind - note how he never looked back when driving off. It was CLEARLY hard on him, and the guilt weighed heavily on the character throughout the rest of the film - and was the driving force for some of his more difficult decisions.
When Coop does finally see her again she is old and on her death bed. He greets Murph and tells her his regrets, etc. but there isn't much more to say. Not only because it is implied that she is about to die - but also because she specifically TELLS HIM to leave. She got her closure when she found the watch and has her own family now. So he does what she asks of him. What did you expect? Him to refuse to listen to her, causing her to get upset, and just watch her die? After that scene there are a few cuts that clearly show a passage of time, probably a few days. Who knows, he might have visited her one last time or maybe went to her funeral - but Nolan clearly didn't find such scenes necessary (and they weren't). Instead he shows Coop doing what Murph asked him to do, honoring her achieve meant and life one last time - and sets out to find Amelia. This fits the characters and the film both narratively, thematically and emotionally.
@SaintLeonidas said:
@thedude- said:
Spoilers----
@SaintLeonidas: Oh so other movies/shows use it so it is ok here? Ha ha no it deters from the quality of the storyline. The tone that is set in this movie does not leave room for such ridiculous mistakes like this. It drags down some core themes which were actually intriguing.
The movie does not allow for the gravity of his situation to settle in a way that is organic. He fails to make his daughter understand why he must embark on this journey and then immediately peaces out.
When he comes back and sees his lost kin, he leaves in a way that is not consistent with how he displayed a relationship with her. There is no implied passage of time. The camera does not cut away. It's just another example of how robotic the characters interact with each other.
Still entertained by the magnitude of this film. The practical effects will go down in film history.
The "boot strap" paradox is a sci-fi trope...and 'Interstellar' is sci-fi film. It isn't out of place that the film would have such a plot device running through it. Plus, it works. It set everything up from the very beginning and delivers at the end, completing the loop of the paradox quite well. It doesn't matter how "logical" it seems based in reality because this is fiction. Even if much of the rest of the film might seem to be based on actual science, doesn't mean the film can't have an ending that isn't. All that matters is if it delivers emotionally - and fits the story - which it did in my eyes.
Also, I am not sure what exactly you are talking about in regards to Coop and Murph. The decision to go was clearly a difficult one, but something Coop deemed necessary and crucial to humanity - and his children's - survival. There was no time to be wasted and he knew if he stayed too long and saw further how upset Murph was than he might have changed his mind - note how he never looked back when driving off. It was CLEARLY hard on him, and the guilt weighed heavily on the character throughout the rest of the film - and was the driving force for some of his more difficult decisions.
When Coop does finally see her again she is old and on her death bed. He greets Murph and tells her his regrets, etc. but there isn't much more to say. Not only because it is implied that she is about to die - but also because she specifically TELLS HIM to leave. She got her closure when she found the watch and has her own family now. So he does what she asks of him. What did you expect? Him to refuse to listen to her, causing her to get upset, and just watch her die? After that scene there are a few cuts that clearly show a passage of time, probably a few days. Who knows, he might have visited her one last time or maybe went to her funeral - but Nolan clearly didn't find such scenes necessary (and they weren't). Instead he shows Coop doing what Murph asked him to do, honoring her achieve meant and life one last time - and sets out to find Amelia. This fits the characters and the film both narratively, thematically and emotionally.
It was also common place to mistreat minorities in the South in 1950s that doesn't make it acceptable. I do not like it in those previous movies and I really dislike it even more in Interstellar because without that silly time travel device this would have been an excellent movie. Stop defending it, it was a terrible idea and ruined this movie. I am not going to strip apart all the inaccuracies this film takes liberty on with physics. I understand it is fiction, but this is something beyond that. It is just lazy storytelling. It objectively doesn't fit at all.
He expressed it being difficult for a moment and then barely says goodbye. It does not create the sense of loss that it desperately tries to convey. The story should have spent more time conveying these struggles then shoving science facts down the audience's throat.
There is no implied passage of time. Cooper is rushed off as if this was an episode in a TV show. She asks him to leave and it completely contradicts her previous feelings of longing to see her father. It doesn't add up. These characters have stale artificial processes of emotion and it ruins this film.
@thedude- said:
it completely contradicts her previous feelings of longing to see her father. It doesn't add up.
That was 50+ years earlier, before she got closure, before she thought he was dead, and before she had a family. You are assuming she wasn't in a place at that point in her life in which sure, she was glad to see him, but had her own family to care about and wanted him to continue doing what he clearly loved.
I'm done watching Christopher Nolan movies in theater. They're typically overrated.
I liked it. Saw it in IMAX on opening night. Generally it was beautiful but for a film that has parts with complete silence it sure is loud with some muddy sound mixing. The plot was somewhat predictable but I'm glad that the science was explained well enough so that the average person with no scientific credibility can understand it.
Props to the acting (and voice acting too) but I definitely feel like Matt Damon was a miscast.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment