Interstellar - November 7, 2014

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 69 comments
  • 6,066 views
Not sure what to make of it. The last part looked interesting alright, with some promise of good atmosphere (no pun intended.)

Always a bit wary of 'sudden' interstellar capabilities, I mean that launch vehicle looked pretty contemporary to now. I shall keep an eye on this though, thank you for posting about it.
 
I don't follow the story, is the film set after they travel or is it all about the buildup to the actual travel event, looks interesting from the trailers though.
 
I don't follow the story, is the film set after they travel or is it all about the buildup to the actual travel event, looks interesting from the trailers though.
The idea is that the earth can no longer sustain humanity, and so a manned mission is launched to find a new home on the other side of a wormhole.

I doubt it's going to hinge on the idea that mankind suddenly has the ability to travel beyond the stars. It is, after all, a Christopher Nolan film. He tends to plan out the tiniest details of his films. It's more likely that certain minds will have seen the threat of extinction coming, and planned the mission in advance.
 
The idea is that the earth can no longer sustain humanity, and so a manned mission is launched to find a new home on the other side of a wormhole.

I doubt it's going to hinge on the idea that mankind suddenly has the ability to travel beyond the stars. It is, after all, a Christopher Nolan film. He tends to plan out the tiniest details of his films. It's more likely that certain minds will have seen the threat of extinction coming, and planned the mission in advance.

Yes I got that, so is the movie about the mission and what they find, or about the build up to the mission or about both if you know what I mean.
 
Yes I got that, so is the movie about the mission and what they find, or about the build up to the mission or about both if you know what I mean.
It's "soft" science fiction, which is to say it's more concerned with the characters and their relationships and the impact the events of the story have on their lives. "Hard" science fiction, on the other hand, deals with explaining and contextualising the technology.

Also, it's a Nolan film. He is notorious for revealing as little as possible about the story until the film's release.
 
It's "soft" science fiction, which is to say it's more concerned with the characters and their relationships and the impact the events of the story have on their lives. "Hard" science fiction, on the other hand, deals with explaining and contextualising the technology.

Also, it's a Nolan film. He is notorious for revealing as little as possible about the story until the film's release.

I see, thanks for the explaination PM, was hard to get it from the trailers.
 
What was hard? Or did you miss all the trailers? I only ask just in case others have trouble they can read the thread on the first page alone and have some idea.
 
I saw it this evening. It's very much a film that is made for the big screen, but it was let down by a bombastic soundtrack that seemed programmed for high-end IMAX theatres, and so all we got was an absolute cacophony of noise because the speakers couldn't handle it.
 
I saw it this evening. It's very much a film that is made for the big screen, but it was let down by a bombastic soundtrack that seemed programmed for high-end IMAX theatres, and so all we got was an absolute cacophony of noise because the speakers couldn't handle it.

I can confirm that the soundtrack was very loud in IMAX. So loud that I couldn't hear what the characters were saying at some points. It's one of those films that gets into your head and you end up thinking about it for days afterwards. Visually it's awesome but for me the story was very good. Nolan has made something quite special here in my opinion.
 
I've seen Interstellar and I give the movie a thumbs up!👍

The visuals were just great and I quite enjoyed the storyline.👍

And Matthew McConaughey does a great job:tup:

It could have used a little more "hard" science to explain some issues, but I guess that director Nolan thought that this might detract from the movie. I also confirm that the soundtrack over-rode some of the dialogue, so I guess I need to see the film a second time so I can try to hear some of the actor's words.:)

Did I miss something??? It seemed to me that Dr Mann was too young when they joined him on his planet. I was expecting that he would be older if he had been waiting on his planet long enough to have put himself into the hibernation sleep-mode.

:cheers:
GTsail
 
Last edited:
Any harder and I would have passed out. :lol: Was lost as it is...

Yeah, some parts are a little confusing.:banghead:

I didn't catch on until after the movie was over that there were two distinct robots: TARS and CASE. The robots just seemed to turn-up whenever needed, and I missed the fact that there were two.:dopey:

:cheers:
GTsail
 
There were three at one point.

I saw it in a regular theatre, and had no sound issues whatsoever.

Apart from when it went "space" quiet and the stupid girl with the popcorn and sweeties decided that she needed to eat them all at that specific point.......

:irked:👍
 
Awful movie with an Idiotic plot. Lots of nice science, but very little of it was explained. A movie is supposed to be a self contained medium, so when I'm forced to go online after the movie to understand the various scientific things that are happening or are mentioned, then you've failed as a writer. Few charachters were actually developed, and they were all either bland or outright annoying. And introducing some forced drama doesn't add anything but time to the already painfully long runtime of the movie... Complete garbage IMO.

I don't know whether to choose this movie as worst movie of the year, or Godzilla. I suppose Interstellar at least encourages you to go online and read up on various interesting topics.
 
Talk about taking Einstein to the extreme. Saw the film this last Sunday as part of a double header(see the recent films thread), I thoroughly enjoyed it. Plenty of science to keep it in the realm of Science fiction, but not enough of it so that it plays out like a fantasy movie. The last third really sent me on a mind trip, but it was a good one.

10/10
 
Just get back from seeing this, pardon me while I pick up what is left of my brain. Also dear Mr Nolan, I get that you make awesome movies but my behind hurts so much from sitting that long.
 
Get a theatre with better chairs, Sems4arsenal :P.

I just saw this yesterday, and I enjoyed it a lot. I liked the story, but I can't say I found it very hard to follow. It was pretty straight-forward, and tied up all loose threads at the end.
 
Get a theatre with better chairs, Sems4arsenal :P.

I just saw this yesterday, and I enjoyed it a lot. I liked the story, but I can't say I found it very hard to follow. It was pretty straight-forward, and tied up all loose threads at the end.

No matter how good the chairs are, people with slim bums can't tolerate sitting for long :lol: .
 
I see what you mean, I went to see it today and had to take a toilet break about 90-110 minutes in. I think I missed a conversation about relativity and time.

Overall, I'd give it an 8.5/10. There are some bits that drag on, and you can't really go for anything less than isense/some other cinema company's equivalent so that does mean you'll have to pay more.
 
Some people at work saw it and thought it was a yawn fest and full of plot holes. I can't say I was impressed from what I saw from the trailers, reviews or interviews. Also seems to be a cash grab following from Gravity.

I'm not a fan of big Sci Fi films that aren't already tied to some cannon or franchise anyway.
 
I'm curious about people saying there were alot of plot holes, I'm very picky about these things and although I'd agree there was some convenient moments (which movies doesn't) and a bit of a paradox, wouldn't agree with that statement at all.
 
Agreed but then again, with Kip Thorne doing advising on the film it's very possible that a "plot hole" is simply an issue the layman might not understand at first glance.
I completely agree with sems4arsenal. 👍
Let's face it, theoretical physics isn't exactly a straight forward science compared to something like biology.
 
I think it's the glaring errors that most people grasp - like the ship needing an Apollo booster rocket to escape the earth's gravitational pull, but not to leave the other planets.
Also seems to be a cash grab following from Gravity.
INTERSTELLAR has been in development for years. It wasn't until Jonathan Nolan got his hands on an early screenplay while Christopher Nolan was shooting INCEPTION that it became a reality.
 
It is set in the future and yes although escaping that planet (which has 130% more gravitational pull seems unlikely), maybe this space ship works like a fighter jet that can launch into space (NASA did have a mega budget to figure something like that out. again it may seem a bit silly but hardly a glaring error.

Would love to know soundtrack issues aside (didn't see it in IMAX myself) how did you find it overall?
 
@sems4arsenal
I think it's the glaring errors that most people grasp - like the ship needing an Apollo booster rocket to escape the earth's gravitational pull, but not to leave the other planets.

This is an easily mistaken assumption to make that a lot of people are falling for. The "shuttles" or rangers could've left Earth orbit fine on their own, the large multi-stage rocket boost was used in order to be able to give them as much fuel as possible for the mission.

The goal was to get into space then start burning for Saturn, which is the first time they start using "mission fuel," so to speak. They talk about it a good amount in the film, discussing how critical fuel usage is and such.

After really diving into the film and doing deep research, I have a pretty good understanding of the story and the science behind everything. I expected to find more problems the deeper I went, but I kept finding awesome explanations and really clever story crafting. This thing is tied together extremely well.

I'm confident I can answer almost any question or concern you guys have with it, just let me know! I've never been more excited about a film, last one that got close was Contact. I just love pondering this type of stuff. I've seen it twice in IMAX and the second viewing was more enjoyable because of my better understanding going into it and new insight coming out. I want to see it at least one more time before it's out of theaters for sure. I've just got to let everything soak a little more before that :) .

It's definitely not for everyone though, in the way that maybe a film revolving around a sport may not be appealing to people that aren't into the sport and are going to distracted by the fact that they don't know what's going.
 
There's been an "apology" on the UK news for the volume of dialogue in the film; supposedly it's intentional that some of it is inaudible.

I'll still watch this but friends who saw it in a cinema are suggesting that it's a very unpleasant auditory experience all-round. This was at a Vue though, known for being a bit-too-loud :D

What do you guys think to that (very subjective) criticism?
 

Latest Posts

Back