karelm

Well, Nolan doesn't understand female characters, editing, structure, dialog, or sound mixing either. The more you think about the film, the less positive you'll be towards it. It has wonderful moments but does not have the staying power of a masterful film. The more you think about it, it the less successful you'll find it. I was actually okay with the scene where old Murph tells her father to move on. To me it indicated that Murph had moved on herself having raised her own family and was the matriarch of a large and happy brood. It actually was a nice way of saying she got over the loss of her father. I actually thought it was a clever and satisfying touch.

Lucas says the dialogue in his script is exactly as he intended. he too thinks all of his ideas are brilliant simply because they are his.

No. West Side Story credited Shakespeare up front. In your world view, they wouldn't have to. You are amazingly permissive of your hero's failings.

Yeah, I realized that after rendering so its too late ;-)

Many beautiful moments for sure. But here is the Tristan episode: Tristan is full of longing and deep desire and since Zimmer is German, it's in his DNA along with the movie. I thought the reference was VERY overt and hadn't heard it mentioned by him in an interview and since Tristan is a revolutionary score, it should be mentioned. It might have been in the temp but this is pretty close to illegal level (ala Gladiator/Holst).

The Wagner moment I was referring to earlier was in the track called "Detach" at 5:30. I will try to upload a comparison later.

That is fine but to use Stefancos analogy of Wagner and Led Zepplin, it is as if Wagner was hired to do that orchestral music thing of Led Zepplin. That is the why it greatly annoys some composers is it is not about a unique soundscape that the composer has but because the "standard" is now that that is what orchestras do so talented composers are now asked to do the Zimmer approach.

Except for me. I'm that one cool guy that proves you wrong but otherwise yes. And I would expect you and I would get along in real life much more than online.

Yes, 2001: A Space Odyssey. So simple that there's almost no story to speak of. People tend to miss that one of Kubrick's major goals was to make a visually immersive movie. It's only when you're hoping for lots of story that it becomes 'difficult' or "heavy" to watch. I love 2001 and think it is the greatest science fiction film of all time and having a complex story. It is an excellent story (based on reading the book) but the movie is almost the impression of the story in the book. Generally speaking, Arthur C. Clarke's story has a clear narrative and Kubrick's version is enigmatic.

This. Never said it was all accurate. Just that it was accurate where it needed to be. And it was more than what we usually get. This actually makes sense and is something I agree to. Claims that criticism of its scientific accuracy is nonesense is unfounded and signs of either lazy filmmaking or audience.

Yeah I think my quips with it will bother me less with multiple viewings. Still have to seen it a second time, but I need the time!Indeed. After seeing it twice and committing a completely reasonable amount of thought towards it (in collaboration with five people who are far more competent as physicists than I am) and examining the thoughts of Thorne himself and several other eminent scientists who have written on the subject, it's apparent to me that there is one single thing that could legitimately raise eyebrows as far as pushing the envelope of believability. One thing only in the film that stands out to me as possibly being a candidate for a "flaw". It has nothing to do with personal taste, or what one might have preferred to see, or what one thinks of Nolan's aesthetic or his narrative architecture or his desire for loud music or wordy characters. And it has nothing to do with scientific accuracy - which is compromised for artistic reasons far less often than clickbait articles and certain posters on here would have you believe. No, it's one little leap, the sort that you see in, you know, most movies. Which makes me completely willing to not give a shit. And it's not the longshot that you mention, Karol, though it is somewhat related. I think your point is basically that in your estimation, the movie does so much right that the errors are inconsequential nitpicks. As many have said, it does have a lot of qualities that are impressive. It was the best black hole in sci-fi and it does ultimately do a very good job with time dilation, gravity of rotating vehicles, space sickness, but you are glossing over the errors with pretention of having the balanced opinion. You yourself said: "one thing only stands in out to me as a possible candidate for flaw" pretty much means you consider it practically flawless and that does result in criticism of your opinion especially when you imply others who don't share your opinion to be "mentally deficient". Interesting review from Discovery Science for those interested: "Visually, Nolan did well when portraying multidimensional space; worlds wrapped within worlds, dimensions unfolding to reveal an infinite number of other possibilities. This mindboggling sequence was great, but by this point in the movie I just wondered how long it was going to be until the houselights came back on. I certainly have more criticisms about the movie that I do have praise. That’s because this movie had so much potential, but rather than trusting good science could be carried with good storytelling, it kept slipping into fantasy and baffling soul searching. All this while being dressed up as an epic story of science and exploration, a promise “Interstellar” certainly could not keep. Annoying." http://news.discovery.com/space/interstellar-a-missed-opportunity-review-141108.htm

Karol, good review but as Grey points out mockingly, some mention of the mix issues would have been nice. It's not so much that the sound "can be quite a bullying experience for audiences used to more conventional breezy storytelling of classic Hollywood." It is rather a careless use of the assets at one's disposal. Writing an orchestral score with full orchestra at loud volume may or may not be overwhelming depending on how it is balanced with other elements. If all the elements are maxed out they are poorly utilized. Imagine a recipe - salt is tasty so why not use more of it? Well because its powerful flavor that overwhelms the other flavors so just add more of the opposite flavor. Pretty soon you have a mess of a meal that could have been very well prepared if the ingredents were better balanced and complemented each other. But good and thoughtful review. Fixed that for you, just in case. Yes, yes, Mr. Nolan apologist, I did not miss your sarcasm and referenced your quote with my own sarcasm.

Karol, good review but as Grey points out, some mention of the mix issues would have been nice. It's not so much that the sound "can be quite a bullying experience for audiences used to more conventional breezy storytelling of classic Hollywood." It is rather a careless use of the assets at one's disposal. Writing an orchestral score with full orchestra at loud volume may or may not be overwhelming depending on how it is balanced with other elements. If all the elements are maxed out they are poorly utilized. Imagine a recipe - salt is tasty so why not use more of it? Well because it is a powerful flavor that can overwhelm other flavors. Simple solution - just add more of the opposite flavor, right? Pretty soon you have a mess of a meal that could have been very well prepared if the ingredents were better balanced and complemented each other. But good and thoughtful review.

I don't think anyone is discrediting the whole movie, only if someone says it is flawless and scientifically accurate.

My complaint is not about the volume of the score, but rather the lack of balance between the elements that make up the sound mix.

Pretty good write up on the problems with Interstellar: http://www.salon.com/2014/11/11/the_7_biggest_problems_with_interstellar_partner/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

Hmm, perhaps we are not talking about the same movie. It is not worth listing all the science issues....but a few should be listed but I expect won't silence your predisposition: 1. The horrifically bad science behind the love being the thing that transcends time and space. How many scientists do you think agree with this? 2. As any sailors/fishermen would know, a one mile high wave on Miller planet would cause an incredible withdrawal of water (crest and trough) so imagine a tremendously ferocious rip current? None would stand next to water withdrawing to form a huge wave like that. But an impressive and very exciting visual sequence hence my pro-visual/anti-science assessment. 3. Did you notice if anyone eats during this 100 plus year voyage? The ship would not be small but would rather large to provide life support. 4. Logic: the ability to travel through time finds the most important moment to be when Cooper communicates to his daughter rather than oh kill Hitler or stop the plague in the first place that resulted in humans needing to find another world. 5. The high speed docking sequence was cinematic and unrealistic. With the center of mass off balanced, it wouldn't just be rotating but moving in a circle. That would make docking impossible. Like other movies, it takes creative license on science so please don't pretend otherwise, pal. Yes, yes, a movie can involve suspension of disbelieve. But then don't claim to be scientifically accurate!! By the way, before you spend too much effort refuting me, I do consider this to be one of the best efforts towards science realism but failed to go far enough to make it great! It's a very good premise but lazy execution and script...and failure in the sound mix but no one cares about that in the first place! My point is not to call out all the science failures in the movie but to call out people who claim there are none.

Try another theater.And check Twitter to observe all that "killing" WOM.... As everyone is telling you, it's a film mix issue."There were those at our screening that indicated that there were some issues with audio bleed, or dialogue getting lost in the cacophonous shuffle of sound effects, score, and whatever the hell else is going on inside the swirling vortex of Interstellar. And truth be told, we also noticed that too; sometimes bits of dialogue here and there would just disappear. But Interstellar is an insanely rich visual experience and a lot of the dialogue is expository in nature, simply explaining how characters are getting from point a to point b (or something). In other words: the dialogue isnt super important, even if you miss out on some stuff, it wont matter much in the end. So is this just an IMAX issue? Not at all. Peter Sciretta saw the movie on 70mm IMAX and then 35mm film and reported similar issues: I saw it in 35mm at the Arclight Hollywood and the sound is not as bad as the IMAX Chinese but there are still moments where its hard to understand what people are saying, usually because the score or sound effects are blaring loudly." Nolan doesn't seem to have an ear for sound: http://www.slashfilm.com/expect-christopher-nolan-change-audio-the-dark-knight-rises/ And from this interview, it seems this widespread issue might have been intended: Nolan mentions that the sound mix on this film is unique because he didnt want a lot of surround. That might create some kind of overload in the channels: The most important thing, he said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didnt put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didnt want a lot of distraction from the sides. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/magazine/the-exacting-expansive-mind-of-christopher-nolan.html That's all great, thanks for recapping what everyone is telling me. But then why did I and many others also have zero sound issues at certain screenings? That doesn't seem like a problem with the mix to me, but the way the mix behaves in different rooms. Or are we just ignoring that because JWFan? The movie was at its best during it's quieter moments - the silence in space, the moral debates, etc. The quiet was very strong and Kubrikesk. So it takes talent, effort, trust (in the audience) and skill to pull that off. The more I think about the movie the less I like it. Visually great. Writing mediocre. Character development weak. Dramatic acting strong. Scientific understanding poor but far better than most movies. Score exceed my expectations. Sound mix mediocre. Most people will simply conclude the movie is "loud" but not understand the reason why.

Try another theater. And check Twitter to observe all that "killing" WOM.... As everyone is telling you, it's a film mix issue. "There were those at our screening that indicated that there were some issues with audio bleed, or dialogue getting lost in the cacophonous shuffle of sound effects, score, and whatever the hell else is going on inside the swirling vortex of Interstellar. And truth be told, we also noticed that too; sometimes bits of dialogue here and there would just disappear. But Interstellar is an insanely rich visual experience and a lot of the dialogue is expository in nature, simply explaining how characters are getting from point a to point b (or something). In other words: the dialogue isnt super important, even if you miss out on some stuff, it wont matter much in the end. So is this just an IMAX issue? Not at all. Peter Sciretta saw the movie on 70mm IMAX and then 35mm film and reported similar issues: I saw it in 35mm at the Arclight Hollywood and the sound is not as bad as the IMAX Chinese but there are still moments where its hard to understand what people are saying, usually because the score or sound effects are blaring loudly." Nolan doesn't seem to have an ear for sound: http://www.slashfilm.com/expect-christopher-nolan-change-audio-the-dark-knight-rises/ And from this interview, it seems this widespread issue might have been intended: Nolan mentions that the sound mix on this film is unique because he didnt want a lot of surround. That might create some kind of overload in the channels: The most important thing, he said, was the volume; he wanted a lot of simple power, and all of it coming right out of the screen. He didnt put a lot of surround in the mix, because he didnt want a lot of distraction from the sides. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/11/02/magazine/the-exacting-expansive-mind-of-christopher-nolan.html

Did you guys see this: http://i.kinja-img.com/gawker-media/image/upload/aapj5qbk0iyjatrnjfy0.jpg Does it change any interpretations or opinions?

Just a reminder - this was a film about personal loss and longing of a father and a daughter. The setting was intersteller. But I don't think that was the point.

Agreed. I think Damon's character, as fine an actor as he is, becomes typical stereotype and dumbs down the effort. I think this results in greater talent than the writing supports. But its still the best I've seen in years.

Me too. Okay so here is my theory as to how Cooper can fall in the black hole without getting torn to shreds. Maybe it's like the way the fragile jellyfish can survive thousands of pounds of water pressure per square inch at great depth. It is because the jellyfish is mostly water so it has the same pressure inside and out. So maybe Cooper is getting pulled to shreds in the same amount that space time is getting pulled to shreds. So from his point of view it's all normal. To an outside observer he's no longer visible after he passes the event horizon.

So it seems like an update of the vintage sci-fi movies of the 1950s like "When Worlds Collide". Basically, earth running out of time...civilization collapses while the scientists work on a desparate plan for seeding earth 2. I think if you like sci-fi and don't have too much expectation of grandiosity but rather enjoy the genre with a desparate father/daughter story and very respectable scientific elements then its a good movie. Not perfect, not revolutionary ala 2001, but a solid and entertaining film.

Hmm, that is an interesting solution. So humanity does survive into the far future and ultimately intervenes at the point when rocketry and history are at a pivitol point. So the fifth dimensional beings are humans of the far future who are no longer bound by time or is time absent in the black hole resulting in what appears to be fifth dimensional beings? Interesting.