What Is The Last Film You Watched? (Newer Films)

[crocodile 8,020]

Amen, grey apostle!

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I'm sure Alex knows we're wrong, though.

[crocodile 8,020]

We are. But that's blind brainless devotion to you.

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

You mean, our blind and brainless devotion to Nolan, or Alex's blind and brainless devotion to one very specific type of movie?

I kid, I kid! Out of love!

[crocodile 8,020]

Of course, I mean us. Alex is incapable of being wrong.

Karol

[A24 4,348]

Nolan was comparing his film to 2001? I know he mentioned technical stuff (model work, rotating sets, some single images) and the film is similarly set in s-f genre. But that's all he said. Any link to other comments?

Karol

I have to look for it. What he said is not verbatim but pretty close to: It's the first time I made a movie that isn't experienced through its characters, like 2001: ASO. I've always relied on the characters before, even with TDK.

Of course, I mean us. Alex is incapable of being wrong.

Karol

Wrong about what, guys? It's only my opinion.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Interstellar is very much a film experienced though its 2 central characters. Coop and Murph.

I don't understand what Nolan is talking about

[A24 4,348]

Not to mention the young pretty female expert (Hathaway).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Hathaway sadly seems to be there mostly to explain the "love" angle.

[crocodile 8,020]

Nolan was comparing his film to 2001? I know he mentioned technical stuff (model work, rotating sets, some single images) and the film is similarly set in s-f genre. But that's all he said. Any link to other comments?

Karol

I have to look for it. What he said is not verbatim but pretty close to: It's the first time I made a movie that isn't experienced through its characters, like 2001: ASO. I've always relied on the characters before, even with TDK.

Of course, I mean us. Alex is incapable of being wrong.

Karol

Wrong about what, guys? It's only my opinion.

It's this one, isn't it?

“This is the first film I have made where the actual experience of the film is paramount to the audience. You would think that’s the case with Batman movies but it’s not; they’re more dependent on the reaction of characters on screen. Interstellar is different. It harkens back to the direct experience films of 2001, where you’re not just experiencing it through the characters, you are lost in it.”

Karol

[A24 4,348]

Hathaway sadly seems to be there mostly to explain the "love" angle.

She was, and her theory was immediately acknowledged by Cooper (at the same time deciding for the audience).

Yes, crocs, that would be the one.

[crocodile 8,020]

It's an odd one, I admit. Have no idea what he's talking about.

Karol

[KK 3,307]

Sometimes Nolan spews just as much bullshit as Zimmer does in interviews.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

False gods usually do.

[Brónach 1,302]

Alex does highlight Nolan's main weakness as a director. His inability to translate his own scripts into movies without resorting to massive sections of expositionary dialogue.

The first part of Interstellar actually does quite a good job telling the story without spelling it out for us too much.

But once they get in space!

As a spiritual successor to 2001: ASO its even less satisfying then Gravity because unlike that film it aims higher and ultimately falters (Gravity never aspired to be anything but a film about one individual surviving)

I would enjoy space films that aren't necesarily compared to or have a similar tone to 2001 or Interstellar or Solaris or Moon (which are sometimes very different to each other anyways). Gravity was close at some points to achieving a different tone (although both Gravity and Interstellar feel the need to fall into a needless sacrifice scene, which annoys me but I can't explain why). Maybe what happens is that certain kinds of sci-fi aren't exactly common in cinema so far. Very few examples.

Chaac - not an Interstellar fan. Even though the black hole still looks really cute.

[Jay 37,379]

This does a good job of highlighting some of the same weaknesses you found in Interstellar

[Brónach 1,302]

I really hate this trope of The Power of Love.

Besides, it's unnecesary for two reasons. First, you don't need to have Cooper sending himself from the future, because NASA, out of pilots, knows him and would have been looking for him. Second, the preposterous love thing is only so he can only contact his daughter. Without that limitation the movie could make Cooper contact with, I don't know, Isaac Newton or whatever.

And the ending is super weird. Why doesn't he ask about his son? Why does he have to go through the wormhole in one of the dropships? And without anybody noticing? If the wormhole is still there, does this mean humanity made it to Saturn for no particular reason other than saving him, and had never re-attempted looking for his expedition at the other side? Why?

What did they do with the gravity tecnology? Make the entires stations fly to space from the ground? Even when they already have *amazing* technology with the Rangers, that being really small can go up an down an Earthlike planet several times?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Chaac, its an old Hollywood convention that the dashing hero saves the damsel in distress.

Sandra Bullock would be a frozen block of space ice, but thanks to the heroic George Clooney sacrificing himself she gets to live a full live, hopefully one day being worthy of the price he paid.

Gravity needed an "earn this" scene.

[Brónach 1,302]

And they did it through dumb physics.

I saw it more like the death of the mentor saving the hero than the death of the hero savinf the damsel in distress, anyways.

I argued that they could have had Ryan pulling Kowalski and then it going wrong and Kowalski slipping somehow in the opposite direction. Although it would have changed the tone. Probably to an interesting one. It would have been more tense and you could play with Ryan's guilt. But then my girlfriend argued laughing that in that case, they wouldn't have had the melodramatic sacrifice scene.

"It's a Hollywood convention?" So what? Screw Hollywood conventions! That's the point! Gravity itself already ignores a few I suppose.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It's very ingrained in the human psyche though, and tradition and history. Even Christianity expects us to be grateful for an alleged sacrifice done on our behalf about 2000 years ago.

[Brónach 1,302]

I guess I wouldn't exactly make movies through a Christian point of view. Hehe, all my religious references are always non-Abrahamic and sometimes obscure, if the stories call for them.

What is ingrained? Sacrifice? I suppose. I don't know. But at the cost of a story that's already quite simple?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Upping the ante I suppose.

[crocodile 8,020]

Sometimes Nolan spews just as much bullshit as Zimmer does in interviews.

Maybe. But. most often than not, he's talking about the technical stuff and mechanics of film. I doubt he'd be so arrogant to compare himself to Kubrick on intellectual level.

In fact, there was one interview (around the time we was starting working on TDKR), when someone told him he's clearly as good as Kubrick and Hitchcock and apparently he didn't take that compliment very well (i.e. uncomfortable look in his face). He's an intelligent bloke but more on a technical level, rather than auteur. And that is fine.

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Indeed.

[KK 3,307]

Sometimes Nolan spews just as much bullshit as Zimmer does in interviews.

Maybe. But. most often than not, he's talking about the technical stuff and mechanics of film. I doubt he'd be so arrogant to compare himself to Kubrick on intellectual level.

In fact, there was one interview (around the time we was starting working on TDKR), when someone told him he's clearly as good as Kubrick and Hitchcock and apparently he didn't take that compliment very well (i.e. uncomfortable look in his face). He's an intelligent bloke but more on a technical level, rather than auteur. And that is fine.

Karol

Oh I definitely don't think Nolan would hold himself up to Kubrick's level. Just that there are some interviews when he talks about the philosophy behind his "novel" methods and it borders on the absurd...

Having said that, Nolan's interviews are always great to watch, as you say, when he discusses the technical side of things.

[crocodile 8,020]

His commentaries are even better. He goes quite deep into technical stuff. It's more of a stuff for asipring filmmakers, rather than casual watchers. Insomnia has a commentary track... but the film scenes are arranged in order they were shot. So he basically goes through shooting process. Fascinating.

Karol

[Jay 37,379]

Wait, are you saying if you select the option to view Insomnia with commentary, it actually shows the film out of order?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Commentary tracks? Even more exposition?

[crocodile 8,020]

Wait, are you saying if you select the option to view Insomnia with commentary, it actually shows the film out of order?

Yeah.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What? Why?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Sometimes Nolan spews just as much bullshit as Zimmer does in interviews.

Maybe. But. most often than not, he's talking about the technical stuff and mechanics of film. I doubt he'd be so arrogant to compare himself to Kubrick on intellectual level.

In fact, there was one interview (around the time we was starting working on TDKR), when someone told him he's clearly as good as Kubrick and Hitchcock and apparently he didn't take that compliment very well (i.e. uncomfortable look in his face). He's an intelligent bloke but more on a technical level, rather than auteur. And that is fine.

Karol

Oh I definitely don't think Nolan would hold himself up to Kubrick's level. Just that there are some interviews when he talks about the philosophy behind his "novel" methods and it borders on the absurd...

Having said that, Nolan's interviews are always great to watch, as you say, when he discusses the technical side of things.

This presents an interesting problem though. At what point does a person speaking with gusto about their ideas, their inner experiences, become absurd or pretentious? One is tempted to keep one's mouth shut on such matters since that point seems very easy to reach in many people's views. If Nolan and Zimmer are merely speaking passionately about these things, and I think even with Zimmer it's possible that he isn't just a BS publicity whore as you and other seem to think, who are we to decry them as weird? Can no one air their most abstract or daring thoughts without being branded a windbag? Sure, some are, but all? Don't we all have such thoughts, though kept locked away for fear of the very criticisms we perpetuate?

[Hlao-roo 389]

This presents an interesting problem though. At what point does a person speaking with gusto about their ideas, their inner experiences, become absurd or pretentious? One is tempted to keep one's mouth shut on such matters since that point seems very easy to reach in many people's views. If Nolan and Zimmer are merely speaking passionately about these things, and I think even with Zimmer it's possible that he isn't just a BS publicity whore as you and other seem to think, who are we to decry them as weird? Can no one air their most abstract or daring thoughts without being branded a windbag? Sure, some are, but all? Don't we all have such thoughts, though kept locked away for fear of the very criticisms we perpetuate?

Weirdo.

[crocodile 8,020]

What? Why?

Because he thought commentaries track would be interesting learning tool for aspiring filmmakers and he wanted to talk about how he works on set, how actors are eased into their parts and stuff like that. Makes sense.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Pretentious twaddle!

[crocodile 8,020]

Maybe but who else would listen to commentaries anyway? Not regular Joe.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Blu-rays and DVD's are a home video medium for the common Joe.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I sometimes listen to commentaries for some ASMR.

[crocodile 8,020]

Blu-rays and DVD's are a home video medium for the common Joe.

Not only. Joe's get their feature, other people can get something out of it too. There are tons of good stuff to be found on those.

I'd even go as far and say this is way more interesting than films themselves.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

There is something horribly depressing when the bonus features are more interesting then the actual film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Yeah like Prometheus.

[crocodile 8,020]

Yes, possibly. But that's not what I meant. I'm not into films as much as I am into the behind the scenes stuff. Hell, this entire site/forum is all about that too, in a way.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Whats Prometheus?

[crocodile 8,020]

It's Sharky before 2012.

Karol

[Hlao-roo 389]

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

What did we miss?

[Hlao-roo 389]

What did we miss?

It's Sharky before 2012.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Macgyver was wearing a tanktop.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

This presents an interesting problem though. At what point does a person speaking with gusto about their ideas, their inner experiences, become absurd or pretentious? One is tempted to keep one's mouth shut on such matters since that point seems very easy to reach in many people's views. If Nolan and Zimmer are merely speaking passionately about these things, and I think even with Zimmer it's possible that he isn't just a BS publicity whore as you and other seem to think, who are we to decry them as weird? Can no one air their most abstract or daring thoughts without being branded a windbag? Sure, some are, but all? Don't we all have such thoughts, though kept locked away for fear of the very criticisms we perpetuate?

Weirdo.

I know. I'll tell you a story.

I once took a philosophy course as a sophomore taught by this bald bearded fellow who was charmingly Malickian in both appearance and thought. He had a very florid way of speaking and writing - similar, if I might be so bold, to the way I write and speak at times. It quickly became apparent to me that most if not all of my classmates were not at all interested in being there. So when the first written assignment was turned in, I got called into his office. Apparently, there was such a sharp difference in the way I had written compared with everyone else, he was certain that I must have been trying to mock him. We easily cleared it up and had a cup of tea.

It was this that made me realize just how unpopular it could be to approach writing or conversation with anything at or beyond a certain degree of formality. I've been told that at times I sound like I'm reading from a script when I talk about something I'm interested in. Otherwise I have a pretty informal and often vulgar manner. Anyway, the point is... where is the line drawn? I'll be the first to admit that I share the widespread allergy to pretentiousness, while apparently embodying many of the symptoms to others. There's such a generous heap of bullshit served to us daily, that we now roll our eyes at any sort of heightened discourse that resembles it - genuine or otherwise. How much is lost, not only in communication, but in actual passion? Does this affect more than just how people express their thoughts, but the thoughts themselves? Is it now unfashionable to think about things with any depth?

Anyway... ass ass ass titties ass titties ass ass

Also some spanking to lighten the mood

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Egghead.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Is it now unfashionable to think about things with any depth?

I don't know. Has it ever really been "fashionable"?