Christopher Nolan - Interstellar
Discussion
JumboBeef said:
I enjoyed it (at IMAX).
Only two things really, the dialogue was lost at important points and how did the crew member die on the first planet? He didn't drown......
.........commencing self destruct sequence 10, 9, 8.......
How do you know he didn't dorwn? Given that we know the screen on the space helmet can be broken relatively easily I'd imagine the force of a MAHOOSIVE wave travelling at speed could do the job. Or the force of the wave killed him. Or the massive fall on the 'down' slope of the wave killed him. There are probably quite a few points of being smacked around by huge wave that would do you in. Only two things really, the dialogue was lost at important points and how did the crew member die on the first planet? He didn't drown......
.........commencing self destruct sequence 10, 9, 8.......
Just got back from seeing it. Overall I enjoyed it a great deal. I saw it at an iMax and it looked gorgeous and the sound was very clear. Yes there were a few details that didn't make as much sense as it might have but overall they did not detract from the film for me. It has some 2001 stretch to its ideas- post-singularity transdimensional destiny being just one. I thought the emotional storyline worked, people are being a little harsh here i feel. I would see this again.
Just back from the lovely Platinum Suites at The Dubai Mall (big recliners with great food and service) which is our preferred cinema experience now as the cost of the ticket seems to banish the morons and (or with) kids, and has a great sound system.
I thought the film to be excellent. It never seemed to drag and we were both engrossed throughout. Not being a theoretical quantum physicist, I didn't feel it my place to question the science too much so I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.
I thought the film to be excellent. It never seemed to drag and we were both engrossed throughout. Not being a theoretical quantum physicist, I didn't feel it my place to question the science too much so I just sat back and enjoyed the ride.
Went to Manchester IMAX today with the boy.
Can't say I was that impressed. Technically the picture did not stand scrutiny on a screen that size (focus, resolution, noise etc) and the sound was questionable throughout as many people have already commented.
You could have cut an hour out and still maintained the plot context.
Not to say I didn't enjoy it, just after spending £30 to watch it (and £12.50 to park!) I maybe set my expectations too high.
I'll probably still buy the Blu-Ray and just sit really close to my own puny 108" screen to give it another go!
Can't say I was that impressed. Technically the picture did not stand scrutiny on a screen that size (focus, resolution, noise etc) and the sound was questionable throughout as many people have already commented.
You could have cut an hour out and still maintained the plot context.
Not to say I didn't enjoy it, just after spending £30 to watch it (and £12.50 to park!) I maybe set my expectations too high.
I'll probably still buy the Blu-Ray and just sit really close to my own puny 108" screen to give it another go!
JustinP1 said:
Something I find very interesting:
Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's s
t.
Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! st!
Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! wk!
The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Great post Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's s
t.Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! s
t!Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! w
k!The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Easy to be
y about anything if you try hard enough 
DuncanM said:
JustinP1 said:
Something I find very interesting:
Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's st.
Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! st!
Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! wk!
The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Great post Every great film, ever: That film was great because the acting was great, the story was great, the effects were great and it really made me think.
Interstellar: If you really think about one of these facets of the film, it may or may may not be real or possible, so it's s
t.Maybe we should start a thread where other films end up with the same level of scrutiny:
Shawshank Redemption: If the prison wall wore away, then so would the utensil he did it with! s
t!Star Wars: There's no way that Han Solo can decipher Chewbacca's grunts! w
k!The Matrix: So all these people go into the Matrix to do running and shooting, so why do they all actively choose to wear full length leather coats!!? Poor script!
Gladiator: When you die, you don't see stuff, it's just black! That last scene where he sees his wife is just so unbelievable! Ruined!
Indiana Jones: So the burning spirits come out of the Ark and melt all the Nazis and Indy gets saved by his eyelids being closed! Rubbish! And the Ark doesn't exist!
Easy to be
y about anything if you try hard enough What I found disappointing was:
- he has two kids but literally seems to care not about his son.
- the end bit with the daughter. Done in 30 seconds.
- the nonsense about love and the 5 th dimension.
- some exciting scenes dealt with in 2 minutes and other less interesting scenes dragged out over a long time.
- the editing was so inconsistent
- the 'exciting' scenes weren't even that exciting.
- some of the effects looked low rent
- the bookcase moment at the end - that's nothing to do with the science, that's just inexplicable.
- it's as if they filmed a lot more and had to cut bits out so the story didn't stick in parts - such as how he gets selected to be the pilot.
So the science isn't under question, its the story telling that was at fault.
Its not that's it a bad film it's just not a great film.
I went home and my wife asked 'was it good?' And all I could say is 'I don't know'. I think I just found it boring and I went in totally ready to adore it.
So this isn't being t
tty, this is just being subjective on a subjective point.Edited by Pommygranite on Monday 17th November 00:03
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/84247...
Nolan talks about the sound and how he intended it to make dialogue difficult to hear in places.
Nolan talks about the sound and how he intended it to make dialogue difficult to hear in places.
Pommygranite said:
I agree with this but for me it wasn't the potential plot holes in the science given i know nothing about interstellar travel and wormholes.
What I found disappointing was:
- he has two kids but literally seems to care not about his son.
- the end bit with the daughter. Done in 30 seconds.
- the nonsense about love and the 5 th dimension.
- some exciting scenes dealt with in 2 minutes and other less interesting scenes dragged out over a long time.
- the editing was so inconsistent
- the 'exciting' scenes weren't even that exciting.
- some of the effects looked low rent
- the bookcase moment at the end - that's nothing to do with the science, that's just inexplicable.
- it's as if they filmed a lot more and had to cut bits out so the story didn't stick in parts - such as how he gets selected to be the pilot.
So the science isn't under question, its the story telling that was at fault.
Its not that's it a bad film it's just not a great film.
I went home and my wife asked 'was it good?' And all I could say is 'I don't know'. I think I just found it boring and I went in totally ready to adore it.
So this isn't being ttty, this is just being subjective on a subjective point.
I would agree with that. What I found disappointing was:
- he has two kids but literally seems to care not about his son.
- the end bit with the daughter. Done in 30 seconds.
- the nonsense about love and the 5 th dimension.
- some exciting scenes dealt with in 2 minutes and other less interesting scenes dragged out over a long time.
- the editing was so inconsistent
- the 'exciting' scenes weren't even that exciting.
- some of the effects looked low rent
- the bookcase moment at the end - that's nothing to do with the science, that's just inexplicable.
- it's as if they filmed a lot more and had to cut bits out so the story didn't stick in parts - such as how he gets selected to be the pilot.
So the science isn't under question, its the story telling that was at fault.
Its not that's it a bad film it's just not a great film.
I went home and my wife asked 'was it good?' And all I could say is 'I don't know'. I think I just found it boring and I went in totally ready to adore it.
So this isn't being t
tty, this is just being subjective on a subjective point.The bookcase thing was inferred to be a construction built for him to complete the loop paradox, not what you'd find inside a blackhole normally.
I did not understand how Murphy knew of the fate of Brand.
Also, better keep shtum about redshifted signals from planet close to blackhole, or accretion disk radiation environment...
Flat6er said:
http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/84247...
Nolan talks about the sound and how he intended it to make dialogue difficult to hear in places.
I just came back to the thread to post the same link.Nolan talks about the sound and how he intended it to make dialogue difficult to hear in places.
My musings a few pages back that the low dialogue levels in places were so low they must be deliberate seem to be correct:
“There are particular moments in this film where I decided to use dialogue as a sound effect, so sometimes it’s mixed slightly underneath the other sound effects or in the other sound effects to emphasize how loud the surrounding noise is. It’s not that nobody has ever done these things before, but it’s a little unconventional for a Hollywood movie.”
The difficulty Nolan's got it that there are accepted 'norms' in the technical representation of a film, and anything out of place feels strange. For example, we happily expect totally abstract non-diegetic background music in films, and we also expect to be able to hear dialogue clearly at all times despite the fact that of course the most 'real' representation of a scene would have neither.
If this were an art-house film he might have got away with it, but not with a blockbuster audience.
Was watching Chronicle on Channel 4 HD the other night. There were scenes at a party where the characters were talking, dialogue that had to be listened to, yet just like at a real party, you could barely understand what they were saying.
I thought it a problem with the audio but then maybe that was what the director intended??
I thought it a problem with the audio but then maybe that was what the director intended??
ESOG said:
I have seen all of Nolan's films since his beginning masterpiece Memento, can someone please explain to me what directive characteristics Nolan exudes on his films that one is able to recognize it as a "Nolan" film?
Example, John Woo uses doves in all his films, it's his trademark.
I think the use of a particular item like doves is more of a 'motif' than a characteristic.Example, John Woo uses doves in all his films, it's his trademark.
If you look at Nolan's films, he does have a style through his technical preferences:
For IMAX format. For using film stock, not digital. For shying away from 3D. Interstellar will likely be the last IMAX format film on 'film'.
Use of real sets, not CGI wherever humanly possible. Rotating corridor in Inception, space ship on pneumatic stand with space projected outside for Interstellar.
In terms of story style, it maybe best to exclude Insomnia as it was a remake, and Batman as of course he's a bit handcuffed to the characters, but for the rest of the films:
The crux of the story *is* the narrative device. Compare to a generic Hollywood blockbuster, or even M Night Shayamalan, if there's a twist, it's at the end. With Nolan, the narrative is very different, and actually connects you to the story as the narrative *is* the subject of the film:
Following: About following people, narrative is following the 'follower' and people following him in the same way.
Memento: About memory loss - narrative is snippets of memory in reverse order intercut with scenes in correct order which explains the narrative.
The Prestige: A film about the escalation of trickery, ending in the biggest trick of all, which is more obvious once you know how it works.
Inception: About dreams within dreams and subjective reality - we take a multilayered voyage, and experience even the protagonist's doubts of reality.
Interstellar: A trip through the time showing the mind bending aspects of it as the narrative hook from the point of view of the protagonist.
Story traits: All of the last four films are about a father yearning for his family after being displaced. They all involve the passing away of the mother of the family, and this is important to the plot and the connection of the father to his children.
All the films final scene are open to interpretation and continuation and to signify and amplify this feeling, each of them suddenly turns to black without warning or a 'fade'.
One criticism which could count as a trait is because each film has such a conceptualised narrative, and so much time is taken in explaining it enough to hang the story on it, there's not much time for character development. Maybe this is why it is fed to us emotionally through the subject of parental loss as a short cut.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 17th November 15:41
JustinP1 said:
I think the use of a particular item like doves is more of a 'motif' than a characteristic.
If you look at Nolan's films, he does have a style through his technical preferences:
For IMAX format. For using film stock, not digital. For shying away from 3D. Interstellar will likely be the last IMAX format film on 'film'.
Use of real sets, not CGI wherever humanly possible. Rotating corridor in Inception, space ship on pneumatic stand with space projected outside for Interstellar.
In terms of story style, it maybe best to exclude Insomnia as it was a remake, and Batman as of course he's a bit handcuffed to the characters, but for the rest of the films:
The crux of the story *is* the narrative device. Compare to a generic Hollywood blockbuster, or even M Night Shayamalan, if there's a twist, it's at the end. With Nolan, the narrative is very different, and actually connects you to the story as the narrative *is* the subject of the film:
Following: About following people, narrative is following the 'follower' and people following him in the same way.
Memento: About memory loss - narrative is snippets of memory in reverse order intercut with scenes in correct order which explains the narrative.
The Prestige: A film about the escalation of trickery, ending in the biggest trick of all, which is more obvious once you know how it works.
Inception: About dreams within dreams and subjective reality - we take a multilayered voyage, and experience even the protagonist's doubts of reality.
Interstellar: A trip through the time showing the mind bending aspects of it as the narrative hook from the point of view of the protagonist.
Story traits: All of the last four films are about a father yearning for his family after being displaced. They all involve the passing away of the mother of the family, and this is important to the plot and the connection of the father to his children.
All the films final scene are open to interpretation and continuation and to signify and amplify this feeling, each of them suddenly turns to black without warning or a 'fade'.
One criticism which could count as a trait is because each film has such a conceptualised narrative, and so much time is taken in explaining it enough to hang the story on it, there's not much time for character development. Maybe this is why it is fed to us emotionally through the subject of parental loss as a short cut.
If you look at Nolan's films, he does have a style through his technical preferences:
For IMAX format. For using film stock, not digital. For shying away from 3D. Interstellar will likely be the last IMAX format film on 'film'.
Use of real sets, not CGI wherever humanly possible. Rotating corridor in Inception, space ship on pneumatic stand with space projected outside for Interstellar.
In terms of story style, it maybe best to exclude Insomnia as it was a remake, and Batman as of course he's a bit handcuffed to the characters, but for the rest of the films:
The crux of the story *is* the narrative device. Compare to a generic Hollywood blockbuster, or even M Night Shayamalan, if there's a twist, it's at the end. With Nolan, the narrative is very different, and actually connects you to the story as the narrative *is* the subject of the film:
Following: About following people, narrative is following the 'follower' and people following him in the same way.
Memento: About memory loss - narrative is snippets of memory in reverse order intercut with scenes in correct order which explains the narrative.
The Prestige: A film about the escalation of trickery, ending in the biggest trick of all, which is more obvious once you know how it works.
Inception: About dreams within dreams and subjective reality - we take a multilayered voyage, and experience even the protagonist's doubts of reality.
Interstellar: A trip through the time showing the mind bending aspects of it as the narrative hook from the point of view of the protagonist.
Story traits: All of the last four films are about a father yearning for his family after being displaced. They all involve the passing away of the mother of the family, and this is important to the plot and the connection of the father to his children.
All the films final scene are open to interpretation and continuation and to signify and amplify this feeling, each of them suddenly turns to black without warning or a 'fade'.
One criticism which could count as a trait is because each film has such a conceptualised narrative, and so much time is taken in explaining it enough to hang the story on it, there's not much time for character development. Maybe this is why it is fed to us emotionally through the subject of parental loss as a short cut.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 17th November 15:41
Otispunkmeyer said:
My brother, film critic that he is, said it was 3 hours of McConaughey mumbling his way through space. Boring and not worth watching if you aren't going to an IMAX.
About right? or wrong? (bearing in mind I find nonsense like Pacific Rim immensely enjoyable).
Go watch it at an IMAX. You'll like it About right? or wrong? (bearing in mind I find nonsense like Pacific Rim immensely enjoyable).
p.s. Pacific Rim is not nonsense, it's a really underrated film.
Shaoxter said:
Otispunkmeyer said:
My brother, film critic that he is, said it was 3 hours of McConaughey mumbling his way through space. Boring and not worth watching if you aren't going to an IMAX.
About right? or wrong? (bearing in mind I find nonsense like Pacific Rim immensely enjoyable).
Go watch it at an IMAX. You'll like it About right? or wrong? (bearing in mind I find nonsense like Pacific Rim immensely enjoyable).
p.s. Pacific Rim is not nonsense, it's a really underrated film.
I quite enjoyed the music building to a crescendo as he attempted to dock whilst matching the spin...added to the 'atmosphere' for me
Saw it last night, not at an IMAX but I think it would be even better at one. I thought it was bloody amazing. Didn't understand some of it at the end, mind. Can't WAIT to watch it again. Didn't once feel like checking the time to see how long was left, it didn't drag at all.
How could we have made a wormhole to survive, surely we would have had to survive the end of Earth to advance to the point where we could make a wormhole for it to ever be there in the first place?
Matt Damon's death scene was great I thought. Actually threw my hands over my face when that happened even though I knew the door was going to blow off.
How could we have made a wormhole to survive, surely we would have had to survive the end of Earth to advance to the point where we could make a wormhole for it to ever be there in the first place?
Matt Damon's death scene was great I thought. Actually threw my hands over my face when that happened even though I knew the door was going to blow off.
Edited by CharlesAL on Monday 17th November 18:51
Edited by CharlesAL on Monday 17th November 18:52
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff