[ Hypnos Forum ]

OTHER THINGS IN THE WORLD THAN MUSIC => Art and Literature, Movies and TV => Topic started by: drone on on November 07, 2014, 09:50:04 PM

Title: Interstellar
Post by: drone on on November 07, 2014, 09:50:04 PM
Anyone seen this yet?  Opinions wanted....haven't seen it yet myself.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Altus on November 08, 2014, 07:16:34 AM
From what I've read, it doesn't devolve to just guns and explosions, and has been compared to Robert Zemeckis' Contact. Yay!
I've also read it's heavy on exposition, which is a problem for some. That doesn't bother me though. I'll be seeing it in a few weeks once the crowds die down.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Ein Sophistry on November 09, 2014, 02:40:58 AM
Just saw this tonight. A very, very ambitious movie. There's a lot of cool stuff happening, but its reach definitely sometimes exceeds its grasp (in a way, this is somewhat thematically appropriate). Plenty of fantastic set pieces and a good amount of compelling drama, but things tended to get cringe-worthy pretty quickly whenever anyone started talking "science." I'm a pretty huge science nerd, so these moments took me out of the film. I should definitely say that I think most of you will be pleasantly surprised with Zimmer's score. Refreshingly different from the bombast for which he's famous. Possibly my favorite work of his since The Thin Red Line.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Altus on November 09, 2014, 07:27:58 AM
Possibly my favorite work of his since The Thin Red Line.
Hearing this excites me. Thin Red Line is certainly my favourite from Zimmer as well.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: APK on November 09, 2014, 10:16:22 AM
It's a long, slowly developing movie. A bit of a 2001 mood in places. Don't expect non-stop action. Yep, overlook the science and just enjoy the mood, characters, sets and cinematography.
We enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: El culto on November 10, 2014, 06:26:00 AM
Possibly my favorite work of his since The Thin Red Line.
Hearing this excites me. Thin Red Line is certainly my favourite from Zimmer as well.

+1 Here the same  :)
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Dave Michuda on November 10, 2014, 07:48:30 PM
I saw Interstellar over the weekend & enjoyed it very much.  Not my favorite movie of the year, that would be Boyhood, but it sure was an excellent ride.

It's a bit long, probably could have cut 20-30 minutes from it.  I love the big, grand scale of the film.  The score, while maybe not as bombastic as usual for Zimmer, is still very intense at times.  The volume in the theater I was in was just on the edge of too loud.  Overall I liked the score.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: drone on on November 12, 2014, 02:42:44 PM
Saw it and it was awesome.  If you liked Contact and 2001 you will like this.  Concerning the music:  it was better than the overdramatized drivel these blockbusters usually employ, but I didn't notice much about it.   You know I really can't understand why some of these sci-fi projects don't use electronic space music.  A perfect one would be Redshift.  Their music is big and cosmic, alternating between bombastic sequencer to symphonic to atmospheric drone.  I could see a whole film being scored  to this music, and it would fit so much better than some boring classical music which is totally generic (and I don't mean 2001 because that music was perfect and not generic).

What is some ambient electronic music you'd like to see in a film?
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: jdh on November 12, 2014, 03:27:17 PM
Saw it yesterday.It was mediocre at best,5/10.There have been many comparisons with 2001.Kubrick would be turning in his grave. 50 years later,2001 is still a reference.In about a year,this film will be more or less forgotten. I really wonder what passes for culture now.Was it entertaining,sort of yes.Did it say anything,no. Music was OK,a bit cloying.Good point Drone on.Blockbusters use the same 2 or 3 composers for everything.You think a sci-fi pic would use more electronic based music like the film Under the Skin but it will never happen.

Anne Hathaway-Every scene she looked like she stepped out of a Vogue photo shoot.Do they have lipstick,eyeliner and rouge in hyper space.One scene Michael Caine is an old man,next scene it is supposed to be 20 years later,he looks exactly the same.BTW-He is the best thing about this.In the spaceship,one crew member has his helmet on and continues with it on,the other no helmet-Why the helmets men? What is with that TARS robot-I really laughed out loud when I saw that. Is that Nolans answer to HAL.What is with the "They" all time.You want to sound deep and mysterious,use "They".

I can relax and say it was just a film and that is fine.But when I read reviews comparing it to masters like Kubrick or that they consulted NASA and so on.Come on.

BTW-Dave is right.Boyhood is truly wonderful.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: drone on on November 13, 2014, 01:18:26 PM
Although I don't agree with your summation, your review did make me laugh.  Yes, Caine still looked the same age.  Everybody got perfect haircuts --maybe by TARS?--during the long spaceship mission.  I wanted to puke during Hathaways "love" speech. 
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: chris23 on December 16, 2014, 08:10:12 PM
Saw it today. I enjoyed it, but wasn't as blow away by it as I had hoped I would be. I agree with those who summed it up by noting that it attempts to do too much, without really connecting all the dots. (Is it a movie about love? Is it a movie about the will to live? Is it a movie about ambition? a movie about trust?) The soundtrack was unremarkable.

I love Nolan. I'm not disappointed--I was just hoping this would be a game changer and it wasn't.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Analoguekid on December 17, 2014, 04:45:33 AM
While not wanting to appear too outspoken and the fact that I haven't seen it (not that seeing it would make any difference to me anyway) but do people who watch Sci Fi movies always look for something in it more than just a slab of light hearted entertainment:-)

The words Science followed by FICTION tends to give it a bit of a clue as to its content, this not being Science FACT :-)
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: drone on on December 17, 2014, 10:49:12 AM
Was 2001 a slab of light hearted entertainment?  Hmmmmm...
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Analoguekid on December 17, 2014, 02:40:36 PM
Was 2001 a slab of light hearted entertainment?  Hmmmmm...

I think so, well ahead of its time but still light entertainment based around Sci Fi writings, maybe some are more factually correct than others but they are just slabs of cinema designed to entertain to one degree or another:-)
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: drone on on December 18, 2014, 10:39:12 AM
Everyone's entitled to their own opinion.   ;)
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: jkn on December 26, 2014, 07:36:59 AM
I still haven't seen it - I will when it gets on Netflix or somewhere. 

Zimmer's Thin Red Line - yes - my favorite soundtrack of his.  Agree with previous.  There's a sublime moment of awesomeness in the movie where the score completely overtakes the audio of the movie - a magnificent drone - over the battle up the hill. Amazing. 

I've heard the organ at times overtakes the movie in Interstellar as well. 

Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Bill Binkelman on February 09, 2015, 09:46:40 AM
Finally went to see this last night at our neighborhood second run theater (it's an excellent theater with tremendous sound quality and digital projection....not your typical 3 buck a show theater, trust me). Man, was I disappointed. Everything was a let down and the reviews I had read previously were mostly all spot on about what was wrong. IMO, it wasn't even that spectacular to look at (and the Riverview Theater has a HUGE screen...not IMAX sized but BIG). I kept waiting for some kind of WOW factor, but even going through the wormhole and the 2 planetscapes were underwhelming, e.g. the frozen cloud planet...you never get a sense that they are on frozen clouds above the planet surface, you just think they are on the ground already.

But it's the third act that just fell apart, IMO. I may be no astrophysicist but I'm not stupid and the time travel paradox at the end was one of the worst I have ever seen in a time travel movie. As soon as Cooper entered the black hole, I thought "Well, at least we're going to see something awe-inspiring." Nope...just some nonsensical I-don't-know-what-it-was. I could give you a better idea of what I couldn't buy, but not sure it's worth it. I thought Contact did a MUCH better job with some of the same ideas (e.g. wormhole traveling), although at least there the "ending" (i.e. when Jodie meets her "father" and it's revealed what the movie is about) made sense, from an SF standpoint. Interstellar, did not. Even the earth bound scenes that set the story in motion had me thinking "Really???" E.g. schools are teaching that the moon landing was staged to bring down the Soviet Union? Yeah, right.

As I walked out of the theater (at midnight) a woman who was alongside me said "No one stays for the credits when it's midnight." We both laughed and then I said to her, "Ya know, I don't get this movie at all...I saw 2001 in 1968 when I was 14 and and I understood that movie a lot more than I did this one."

I had such high expectations for this...damn. Oh well, it was still 100x better than Prometheus, IMO.  ;)
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: mgriffin on February 09, 2015, 02:57:11 PM
The science consultants for Interstellar were the same ones who consulted on Contact.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Bill Binkelman on February 09, 2015, 06:09:45 PM
The science consultants for Interstellar were the same ones who consulted on Contact.

Yeah, which makes it even more of a puzzle to me. I just don't get it, i.e. the paradox factor. I will post it later and se what forumites have to say.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: mgriffin on February 10, 2015, 12:42:15 PM
I've seen a number of articles by scientists and science writers taking on the idea that the science in Interstellar was weak. They're basically saying that just because weird effects occur, that doesn't mean the science is unrealistic. Weird things do occur with spacetime in proximity to black holes.

That's not to say one or two liberties weren't taken in order to make the story work a certain way.

I loved Interstellar, and rank it up there with Contact and 2001 among my favorite SF films.

Here are a couple of articles of the sort I mentioned. These aren't necessarily the best of them, but two that I found quickly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interstellar-science-explained-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/interstellar-science-explained-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/)

http://www.space.com/27692-science-of-interstellar-infographic.html (http://www.space.com/27692-science-of-interstellar-infographic.html)

Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: Bill Binkelman on February 10, 2015, 07:10:23 PM
Thanks for the links, Mike. I will be sure to check them out. Here is my problem with Interstellar, which is the ending reveal:


Okay, now, supposedly the wormhole near Saturn and the tesseract (the "bookcase" at the end of the black hole singularity) were created and positioned by us, i.e. future humans who had reached an evolutionary point where they discovered that time is the fifth dimension (as someone in the film explained it, as if time were mountains (future) and valleys (past). They manipulated events so that the wormhole would bring Cooper, Brand, et al to the black hole so that Cooper could go back in time and send the message to Murph so she could solve the "gravity" equation and save humanity. Okay, I'm on board with that...except....

How did the human race evolve to that point if they never survived and by that I mean the paradox. They sent Cooper on a mission to ensure their own future survival but if Cooper didn't succeed they wouldn't exist to create the wormhole and tesseract in the first place, but they did survive yet if they survived "before" Cooper sent the message to Murph (which they did, right?), then why go through all that trouble?

I have read one critic postulate that Cooper actually died and everything in the tesseract and his rescue to be reunited with Murph was merely his "dying dream." Which Matt Damon's character foreshadowed with his monologue to Cooper about "dying." Nice, but way too "Sixth Sense" for me.

I think the only way to avoid the paradox is this. Brand successfully started a colony on the third planet. THAT "humanity" is the one that created the wormhole and the tesseract. Brand "instructed" them about the species downfall and as THAT version of humanity grew and evolved, THEY (not Cooper or Murph) solved the gravity equation and went about "twisting time" so that the "original humanity would survive. Not THAT is a cool concept and I would be on board with it but no way does Nolan seem to infer that (if he did, I missed it). Instead, we get some kind of pseudo science that "love" is the force that made all this happen. While I enjoy movies that address love as a power in the universe, I just couldn't buy it in this case.

I will view it again to seen if maybe on second viewing I like it better. It's happened before with me and a film.

Thanks again, Mike, and I am glad you enjoyed it that much - I sincerely wish I could have because when I saw the trailer the first time, I was severely stoked for it.
Title: Re: Interstellar
Post by: mgriffin on February 11, 2015, 12:24:24 PM

The information that we're given is that somehow, human beings (not necessarily on Earth) survive long enough to discover the non-linear nature of time (or 5 dimensional nature of reality, which is presented as kind of the same thing), and endeavor to affect past events so that humanity on Earth will spare itself of the worse suffering to come.

It doesn't need to be explained how, where or when this occurs, just that it occurred somehow. It's not unreasonable to think that someone on Earth survives underground, or one of the many people sent out in off-world exploration survives and makes this breakthrough. All that's required is that more than one person survive, and continue breeding long enough for this breakthrough in understanding to occur.

I think the reason people are considering the ending paradoxical is that the film, for reasons of wanting MM's character to seem protagonist-like, seems to imply that he's the one who brings this about himself, which doesn't make sense. We see him suffering on Earth, going to NASA, leaving Earth, going through the wormhold, visiting various planets, and learning stuff along the way, none of which involves discovering FOR HIMSELF the non-linear nature of time or the 5 dimensional nature of time. So yes, it would be paradoxical to believe that he created the wormhole and the time rift to send a message to his daughter, but I believe this is set up for him by the beings (future humans) who have discovered this almost godlike ability to create conduits through space and time, yet can't direct affect the past themselves (because "signals" or information can be sent through time, but human beings can't simply visit the past physically and communicate directly) and so rely on MM's character to send messages to his past self and to his own daughter which will be interpreted in ways that will be understood (because of this kind of inside joke language they share, more code and so on) and allow people who exist in the past to make changes that will flow forward into the future and enable the plan to succeed in making humanity's course on Earth somewhat less awful than it would have been otherwise, and to finally send a larger number of people off the planet, as we see happening at the very end.

Again, I think the confusion arises because this is effectively a deus ex machina ending -- godlike intervention from unspecified offscreen future humans actually saves the day, and MM's character merely acts out the role he needs to play, understanding hints he figures out along the way. He and his daughter make the change happen but only because they're acting through a mechanism set up for him by others we never see, who have somehow survived long enough to gain this higher understanding of time and space.

Now, if you think the film presents no possible way for any human beings, even a few of them, to survive long enough to gain this understanding and set up the means for this understanding to be passed along, then this explanation won't really work.