Author Topic: Interstellar  (Read 7171 times)

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26777
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Interstellar
« on: November 05, 2014, 10:19:46 AM »
So totally awesome... until it becomes so totally shit.

STOP CINECAST!ING OVER-EXPLAINING EVERYTHING NOLAN!!!! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SCREENWRITER!

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 10903
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #1 on: November 05, 2014, 10:26:47 AM »
Oh man...you had me for the first 3 words.
Hey, nice marmot!

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26777
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #2 on: November 05, 2014, 10:27:10 AM »
 ;D

One unexpected highlight - there are several fairly quiet moments in the film. At one point, the only sound was the massive 70mm IMAX film reel clacking away in the dark. That was lovely and comforting experience.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2014, 10:33:55 AM by íKeith! »

Pink

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 189
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #3 on: November 05, 2014, 12:11:36 PM »
Interesting clash of art and commerce. Second Keith's sentiment. A bit like if HAL interjected to explain the star baby.

Alan Smithee

  • Elite Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1111
    • http://cherrypicker.tumblr.com/
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #4 on: November 05, 2014, 04:34:34 PM »
So totally awesome... until it becomes so totally shit.

STOP CINECAST!ING OVER-EXPLAINING EVERYTHING NOLAN!!!! YOU ARE A TERRIBLE SCREENWRITER!

Sounds like Inception.

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26777
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #5 on: November 05, 2014, 04:55:29 PM »
I had the exact same issues with that. Also with TDKR. His penchant for assuming audience idiocy is maddening.

I also had some issues with his use of when he shoots in 35/70/whatever. At first I thought it was an indoors/outdoors thing, but thats not consistent. Then maybe its just for big events and that doesn't work either. Its all just spectacle for spectacle sake. Which is ok, but its the incoherent use is frustrating. He uses the big camera like he uses Zimmer's scores or his dialogue - to beat you over the head. He's just not smart enough to swim in the places his head wants to go. Grand ideas with increasingly shallow execution.

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 31992
  • Marathon Man
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #6 on: November 05, 2014, 05:05:38 PM »
I find it interesting that Nolan fans think his writing is one of his strongest talents and people who don't like Nolan think is writing is one of his weakest talents.
Must See  |  Should See  |  Good  |  Mixed  |  Bad  | The Worst

íKeith!

  • Objectively Awesome
  • *****
  • Posts: 26777
  • Bitch, I been around since LimeWire.
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #7 on: November 05, 2014, 10:10:25 PM »
To be fair, I have previously been a fan. The writerly hubris feels like a more recent thing... I think. Kinda scared to go back to Memento, The Prestige or Insomnia to see if it was a thing back then.

markgpearse

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #8 on: November 07, 2014, 10:40:45 PM »
After almost 3 hours I am to exhausted and disappointed to post very useful comments.  Science fiction films should avoid trying to convince the audience that what they are going to see/experience is based on actual science.  The joy of science fiction is that it allows you to experience things that probably will never happen.  Matt Damon will never pop up halfway through a true life experience and he shouldn't have popped up halfway through this movie.  The whole time will slow down when we go down on the water planet, but will not slow down for the people we left up in orbit just didn't make any sense.  I felt like I was watching the television version of the original Star Trek.  Avoid the IMAX, the sound was so loud at times it was hard to hear the dialogue.

verbALs

  • Godfather
  • ******
  • Posts: 9447
  • Snort Life-DOR
Re: Interstellar
« Reply #9 on: November 08, 2014, 03:35:44 AM »
That concept that time moves at different speeds relative to your position and the speed you are moving at, is the basis of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and it's provable physics (send a clock around the world in an aircraft and it will come back showing a different time to clocks that stayed on the ground). However, I cringe at the concept being explained by a Nolans' script.

I think your point about whether good sci-fi is rooted in science-fact or in pure fiction is really interesting. My experience is that a lot of science fiction stories are based on extensions of existing scientific theory, flights of fantasy from proven ideas. The waves of stories based on computing principles or robotics came after the theories had been posited. I agree, though, that the author/ creator generally fantasises those ideas way beyond the basic theory. The it's interesting how those fantastic stories start to appear as real-life concepts. Everyone seems to have a Star Trek type communicator these days, and some people now hold their phones, more like those comm units than phones; out in front of their faces, not to their ears.
I used to encourage everyone I knew to make art; I don't do that so much anymore. - Banksy