Arpy

Ok.
"I'm coming back Murph" - Captain Solo of the starship Firefly

That dialogue though. That's some fan fiction level stuff right there. Even if it does sound like Cumberbatch.
Overall I guess if you're a die hard fan this is the event you want it to be. But there's not much for the rest of us. I'll see it, I'm sure I'll like it. Maybe later trailers will give me more of the momentous feeling of the return of a legendary story.

It's one of many things in this trailer that give it the, yep, you guessed it, fan film vibe.

I'm surprised how underwhelming that was. When the stormtrooper popped up I thought I was watching a parody trailer by mistake.

This has a real, "This is Star Wars so we'll show you whatever mundane footage we want and it'll give you goosebumps" vibe going on. Unfortunately they're wrong. Should have thought about it more.

WTF?
Sounds like Benedict Cumberbatch narrating...slightly...

Tolkien's work has doubtlessly inspired many people to because writers. It's influence in the fantasy genre still runs deep. Whether one is trying to emulate LOTR or to avoid similarities, it's a work that cannot easily be ignored.

Has Tolkien inspired anyone to become anything? Obviously not. His work is dodgy piece of fantasy where people just walk and eat. No future rocket scientists ever read Tolkien and thought "Hey you know what this stuff inspires me to create better gadgets to improve humanity". It is so obvious why it is inferior to Star Trek.

As usual, I stand betwixt two extremes. . . .
Star Trek as the best franchise ever? I gotta go with you on that one, yup. Certainly the longevity, the applicability of the stories, the love for the characters among a truly epic fanbase, the (overall) quality of the productions. and, of course, the music, among other factors, have lifted it to a legitimately legendary status. I would have to agree that it stands above other franchises—Star Wars and the James Bond films—for the reasons mentioned. I'm a lifelong fan myself, and it's hard to imagine a world without Trek.
But let's draw some intelligent distinctions here, yes?
First off, pulling the likes of Tolkien and the Potter series into this discussion blurs what you're saying. It's apples and oranges. Those novels aren't franchises; they're literary works by a single author that were adapted into film versions. It's on a completely different scale. And to say they've failed some sort of "test," and that they're "nothing" compared to ST? Utter nonsense. In what universe can you call either of these works failures? They've been, each in their own way, unprecedented successes. When it comes to fantasy, it's Tolkien who's the benchmark by which all others are compared (including Martin's Game of Thrones). And if you really want to get nitty and gritty about it, what Tolkien accomplished far outstrips Roddenberry's creds. Star Trek became a success through collaborative effort, other people's money, and not a little bit of luck (without syndication, it would've died the same death most T.V. shows did back in those days). Tolkien, on the other hand, spent his entire life—from the age of 19 until his death—creating an entire world from scratch, a world that's captivated ours on the same level that Star Trek has. Roddenberry didn't do it alone; and, in fact, accounts show that often times his was the weaker vision among his colleagues. The best shows arose from great science fiction writers and directors spinning their magic out of Roddenberry's central idea. When the Great Bird took too much of a heavy hand, things tended to bog down a lot. (That's how TMP became the drag that it was, and why TNG didn't really take off and become a truly great series until Gene took a less hands-on role in the project.)
Roddenberry had done T.V. before ST, and that was just another series he started and helmed as a part of the studio process. It became something huge, of course, but not solely because of him. Comparing his story to that of Tolkien, or even Rowling—a single mother who single-handedly created an entirely new subset of young adult literature—doesn't strengthen your argument. Neither does this:
If that's how you view Tolkien, you'd do best to leave him out of discussions like this altogether. I've read the books from beginning to end a total of 14 times—and no, I didn't skim through the poems, which are some of the best elements of the story and far from incomprehensible to engaged readers. You may not care for the books, and that's fine. To each his own. But to say it's an outright failure because you're a Trekker turns your assertion on its ear by default.
Now, again . . . before the feedback starts, I'd call your attention back to my initial paragraph. I'm not sticking it to ST here. I love all the shows and movies, and have seen them all enough to tell you where all the quotes in this and the other threads come from (right down to the episode and season). I used to attend StarCons, fercryinoutloud—back during the first run of TNG, which made them a kick. I've seen Nimoy and many others, met Colm Meaney, and even rubbed shoulders with John de Lancie. And as much as I love Star Wars and the James Bond movies, I think you're right—Trek is the best franchise going, and I frankly don't think anything in the future will be able to compare with it (because they'll still be doing ST whenever said future franchise kicks off its first season!). I'm just saying we should keep franchise competition among the franchises, that's all.

Ummmmm..... that was disappointing!
The first half of the teaser was actually good, made me excited for a new journey to this island. Chris Pratt seemed like a new Muldoon type, it was cool they had some new dinosaurs, etc.
But then the second half it all turned to shit. I don't want to see a story about some stupid genetically modified something or other. That's so generic - it could be the bad guy in any sci fi story.
What's wrong with featuring traditional classic dinosaurs in a cool modern setting? Bah.
As for the music, the synth crap in the first half was terrible. The piano version of the theme was fine but we already heard it.

The theme wasnt even written by Shore, so I dont care!

Kegolas eh?

I think the ending was perfectly biguous, if that's a word.
This is a really great film.

E.T. and Elliot just misses the old days and who can blame him. Would anyone rather have no new Williams music at all?

http://www.filmmusicsociety.org/news_events/features/2014/110614.html
Now that's what you call an article worth reading!

That's the part I don't get. I'd rather have new Williams music that isn't as good as the unbelievable scores he wrote from my childhood than no new Williams music at all, personally.
Luckily, I find the music he's writing in his 80's to be spectacular.

It seems to me that Zimmer's approach is usually to score the mood of the film, not particularly story or characters. This is the main difference with the traditional Hollywood music style approach. Hence why he thinks mostly about how to color the soundscape. Interstellar is no different in this sense, even though it seems to me that he tried to be more "musical" than in other circumstances. As someone said a few posts above, Zimmer doesn't "compose to picture", in the sense he doesn't seem to write around dialogue or specific on-screen action. It's a very different approach than traditional film scoring. To use a worn out analogy, he paints with big strokes of color, while someone like Williams for example is more like a sculptor, who carves and chisels the music around the film's narrative needs.
When it comes to Zimmer though we shouldn't use the same judgement patterns that we use with traditional old-school Hollywood composers like Williams (or Herrmann, Goldsmith, North, Korngold and so on). Even though he uses orchestra (and sometimes even traditional forms and structures), I think he's more akin to a composer like Vangelis than anyone else. Mood and ambiance comes first.

Which is sad since he directed the franchise's best film.

I won't bother refuting any of them because they're absurd. There have been legitimate science challenges. What you're offering are not among them.
By the way, you're arguing with yourself. You're not "calling out" anyone who says the film is 100% scientifically airtight. I said it's far from poor, never perfect. Which seems to be your assessment as well. We've covered most of the actual issues that people are likely to have and sorted them out. Surprisingly no one has mentioned the few true departures from reality - except Nolan in a recent interview, describing why. Thorne's book is out and can do all of this more comprehensively and knowledgably than I possibly can.
But again, you're arguing with yourself. You're grasping at scientific "flaws". Is it just to give me a hard time? Sure seems like it. You're smarter than this.

So I listened to the song this morning, and while I like it, I feel like all 3 The Hobbit songs are misfires. DOS and BOFA's are at least fine listenable songs on their own, but I don't feel like any of the three of blend in with the score well - for all three scores, I'd much rather not include them in my playlist whatsoever, but could listen to them when I am in the mood for pop music.
For LOTR scores, especially TTT's and ROTK's, the song is so well meshed with the score that I basically always listen to them as part of my full score listening. Sometimes I'll skip May It Be, sometimes not.
One thing that helps in LOTR is all 3 of them have nice music-only material when the credits start rolling, with the vocals of the song not coming in until a minute or more into the credits. AUJ had that really lovely Shore cue to start the credits (that devastatingly isn't on the OSTs), and it's a shame the DOS and BOFA song just kicks into the vocals so soon. They both could have used the Shore touch he gave to the terrible AUJ song.

Yeah, that shot was beautiful.
The sequence with the damaged Endurance spinning out of control was also quite impressive.

Think my favorite "big" shot was of the tiny, glimmering Endurance set against Saturn's rings. The sheer sense of genuine scale in that was breathtaking. That's the kind of thing I'm after. Not contrived vistas just for the sake of showing something pretty.
In other news, I believe not having this score yet is affecting my sanity.

Regardless of whatever "sterility" there may be, Gargaunta and the wormhole were absolutely beautiful, and certainly had it's fair share of "mind-blowing" shots.