Christopher Nolan - Interstellar
Discussion
popeyewhite said:
wombleh said:
I loved it, but hated having to constantly turn the volume up & down.
I didn't think it was mumbling, just assumed it was really quiet vocals and action scenes at three times the volume as last few films I've seen in the cinema were the same. Although having read Justin's post it's perhaps a limitation of my surround system. Couldn't just leave it up as it was far too loud doing that, even with centre channel cranked up above the others.
On the other hand if the director didn't want you to hear the quiet bits of dialogue then you're missing nothing.I didn't think it was mumbling, just assumed it was really quiet vocals and action scenes at three times the volume as last few films I've seen in the cinema were the same. Although having read Justin's post it's perhaps a limitation of my surround system. Couldn't just leave it up as it was far too loud doing that, even with centre channel cranked up above the others.
The expected default is to hear dialogue over everything - no matter how loud whatever else is going on is.
It was an artistic decision to mix the dialogue low in the action sections, so that you were subconsciously placed 'in' the action, rather than watching it from an artificial construct.
Of course however, if you expect the default then this sounds 'strange' in the language of cinema that you've come to expect.
JustinP1 said:
popeyewhite said:
wombleh said:
I loved it, but hated having to constantly turn the volume up & down.
I didn't think it was mumbling, just assumed it was really quiet vocals and action scenes at three times the volume as last few films I've seen in the cinema were the same. Although having read Justin's post it's perhaps a limitation of my surround system. Couldn't just leave it up as it was far too loud doing that, even with centre channel cranked up above the others.
On the other hand if the director didn't want you to hear the quiet bits of dialogue then you're missing nothing.I didn't think it was mumbling, just assumed it was really quiet vocals and action scenes at three times the volume as last few films I've seen in the cinema were the same. Although having read Justin's post it's perhaps a limitation of my surround system. Couldn't just leave it up as it was far too loud doing that, even with centre channel cranked up above the others.
The expected default is to hear dialogue over everything - no matter how loud whatever else is going on is.
It was an artistic decision to mix the dialogue low in the action sections, so that you were subconsciously placed 'in' the action, rather than watching it from an artificial construct.
Of course however, if you expect the default then this sounds 'strange' in the language of cinema that you've come to expect.
I caught Interstellar in the cinema. A pretty good one - top screen and top sound.
Thought it was very good (and I'd be a tough marker).
But it most definitely is a movie which only works in the theatre. I subsequently watched it at home and it seemed poor, so I can understand where all the detractors come from.
But I stand by my original view, in the theatre it is a top experience, and I'm glad I experienced it there first.
Thought it was very good (and I'd be a tough marker).
But it most definitely is a movie which only works in the theatre. I subsequently watched it at home and it seemed poor, so I can understand where all the detractors come from.
But I stand by my original view, in the theatre it is a top experience, and I'm glad I experienced it there first.
On Saturday I actually met up with the friend who had the astonishing home cinema that mentioned I saw it on for the second viewing over last Christmas when the sound was discussed on this thread.
We had our usual chat on which films we'd seen recently and which we'd recommend hiring, and we picked out a film and the conversation went "...the best film I've seen for..." and in searching for a time, we both said in unison "...since Interstellar."
I should add that each probably watch more than 100 films a year.
You could try to pick holes in the plot from a science perspective, but firstly I think you'd spoil it for yourself, secondly, you'd hold the film up to a much higher standard than pretty much every other film ever made, and lastly, since the plot was run through astrophysicists and written about at length afterwards - you may well be wrong anyway.
My only bugbear from the first viewing was the 'love' dialogue which grated slightly for me, however, on second viewing the point was a lot more coherent and one that was when I understood it was very interesting rather than grating.
Above that though, there were a number of scenes that were simply true cinematic spectacle where the emotions in the scene, the visuals, the sound and the score just combine to pull at you in such a complete way - something which I've rarely experienced.
We had our usual chat on which films we'd seen recently and which we'd recommend hiring, and we picked out a film and the conversation went "...the best film I've seen for..." and in searching for a time, we both said in unison "...since Interstellar."
I should add that each probably watch more than 100 films a year.
You could try to pick holes in the plot from a science perspective, but firstly I think you'd spoil it for yourself, secondly, you'd hold the film up to a much higher standard than pretty much every other film ever made, and lastly, since the plot was run through astrophysicists and written about at length afterwards - you may well be wrong anyway.
My only bugbear from the first viewing was the 'love' dialogue which grated slightly for me, however, on second viewing the point was a lot more coherent and one that was when I understood it was very interesting rather than grating.
Above that though, there were a number of scenes that were simply true cinematic spectacle where the emotions in the scene, the visuals, the sound and the score just combine to pull at you in such a complete way - something which I've rarely experienced.
Edited by JustinP1 on Monday 12th October 11:34
Halb said:
Some of the Horizon documentaries that have been on recently about multiverses and quantum theory have been so out there as to be like fantasy, the sort of stuff that theoretical physicists discuss.
i mentioned that elsewhere, some of the recent docs on alternative universes are mind boggling.i was thinking about interstellar and the issue of time when they are down on the planet - is it that the gravitational pull of the black hole is so strong that time effectively slows down relative to the craft on the outskirts of the black hole?
the experience on the planet feels normal but in fact is taking x times longer relative to those not on the planets' surface? that bit messes with my head. effectively if the black hole has a pull that is so strong that time slows down why was that planet selected anyway for exploration? wouldn't it be too "risky"?
i still love the film though its a re-watcher for sure
Nom de ploom said:
Halb said:
Some of the Horizon documentaries that have been on recently about multiverses and quantum theory have been so out there as to be like fantasy, the sort of stuff that theoretical physicists discuss.
i mentioned that elsewhere, some of the recent docs on alternative universes are mind boggling.i was thinking about interstellar and the issue of time when they are down on the planet - is it that the gravitational pull of the black hole is so strong that time effectively slows down relative to the craft on the outskirts of the black hole?
the experience on the planet feels normal but in fact is taking x times longer relative to those not on the planets' surface? that bit messes with my head. effectively if the black hole has a pull that is so strong that time slows down why was that planet selected anyway for exploration? wouldn't it be too "risky"?
i still love the film though its a re-watcher for sure
Still enjoyed it immensely though and have seen it a few times now.Blaster72 said:
I've still not been able to find a decent explanation as to how time on that planet translates to much longer periods of time away from it.
Catch a wormhole to another planet that has a black hole as its neighbour and the effect on gravity, and therefore time, would be very noticeable.popeyewhite said:
Blaster72 said:
I've still not been able to find a decent explanation as to how time on that planet translates to much longer periods of time away from it.
Catch a wormhole to another planet that has a black hole as its neighbour and the effect on gravity, and therefore time, would be very noticeable.In the film they drop down to the water planet while the other guy stays orbiting above in the ship - he doesn't go back through the wormhole.
Why does time on the planet move slower than time on the spaceship?? How is gravity affecting this time??
Just don't get it.
Blaster72 said:
Ok, thanks. That's not an explanation an idiot like me can understand though.
In the film they drop down to the water planet while the other guy stays orbiting above in the ship - he doesn't go back through the wormhole.
Why does time on the planet move slower than time on the spaceship?? How is gravity affecting this time??
Just don't get it.
Gravity is much greater on the planet than on the spaceship. Effectively the stronger the gravity the slower the speed of time.In the film they drop down to the water planet while the other guy stays orbiting above in the ship - he doesn't go back through the wormhole.
Why does time on the planet move slower than time on the spaceship?? How is gravity affecting this time??
Just don't get it.
popeyewhite said:
Blaster72 said:
Ok, thanks. That's not an explanation an idiot like me can understand though.
In the film they drop down to the water planet while the other guy stays orbiting above in the ship - he doesn't go back through the wormhole.
Why does time on the planet move slower than time on the spaceship?? How is gravity affecting this time??
Just don't get it.
Gravity is much greater on the planet than on the spaceship. Effectively the stronger the gravity the slower the speed of time.In the film they drop down to the water planet while the other guy stays orbiting above in the ship - he doesn't go back through the wormhole.
Why does time on the planet move slower than time on the spaceship?? How is gravity affecting this time??
Just don't get it.
Blaster72 said:
You'll have to do better than that
!Blaster72 said:
gravity on Earth is much more than on the ISS
On the ISS it's probably about 90% that of Earth, the ISS isn't very far away, and there's no huge black hole nearby. Might seem from pics, clips etc., there's no gravity but that's because the station is in free fall.Blaster72 said:
- time moves at the same speed on both doesn't it??
There might be a tiny, tiny difference, but as the ISS is still under the influence of Earth's gravity... .Blaster72 said:
I've still not been able to find a decent explanation as to how time on that planet translates to much longer periods of time away from it. Totally baffled with any explanations on the net too. I must be a real thicky butler but I don't get the time being affected by the gravity of the black hole - I don't understand half of the film though Still enjoyed it immensely though and have seen it a few times now.
Stargate SG1 has some awesome episodes on time dilation. Still enjoyed it immensely though and have seen it a few times now.Watch A Matter of Time episode. It will help you visualise the problems/issues. The Stargate connects to a planet next to a black hole.
Other ones that are great are;
New Order, Part 1...basically the Asgard create a time dilation bomb
Window of Opportunity...a Groundhog Day scenario due to a s
tty time machine.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff