Interstellar SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion thread

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I'd appreciate an intelligent critique, for a change.

Karol

Good luck finding that. On here anyway. If these threads have given me a chance to show off just how overbearing and obnoxious I can be on a single subject, it's also given several others the chance to demonstrate a severe mental deficiency.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You are calling people retarded because they don't agree with you on a film?

[publicist 4,643]

I think what he means is that the film is somehow precious to him and he reacts sensitive to naysayers who tend to get hung up on irrelevant details like 'the number on the licence plate was wrong' and use that to discredit the whole movie.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

That.

[KK 3,307]

Yeah. Some of the arguments here are based on rather trivial things. Sci-fi is heavily hinged on the "suspension of disbelief" factor, so if you have to ask questions like "Why didn't they just go back in time and kill Hitler?" or point out that certain set-pieces are impossible in reality (like the massive waves in one of the exo-planets), then there really isn't much for you with this film or any big sci-fi flick really.

There are legitimate flaws in this film, and there are even legitimate faults that can be pinned against the science, but the are being tossed in favour of more petty remarks and trivial details, or at least that's the case with most of the Internet's reactions.

[gkgyver 1,645]

The Main Theme:

It's almost impossible to find the original on youtube! It's been drowned with a million covers, and remixes, and stupid videos labelled "extended theme" when really the user just put the original track in an endless loop.....so appreciate this link!

The action cue; "Day One Dark":

This one:

http://youtu.be/l4HEP_PF3qY

I love it.

Karol

Yeah, that theme is beautiful. I hope it's not too loud in album form.

That's the main theme?

It's chords stitched together.

Or is Zimmer in sound design mode again?

[KK 3,307]

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?). That's not the point.

It's more of an impressionistic, minimalist score, that shows off colour, with a very potent emotional effect.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Can we please discuss this is the appropriate thread?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

God he's so predictable in his dumbassery.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

This one:

I love it.

Karol

Yeah, that theme is beautiful. I hope it's not too loud in album form.

It utterly kicks the shit out of the 'Main Theme' (which sounds like a rejected version of This is Clark Kent from MOS). Maybe we should call it Cooper's Theme?

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?).

 

2013.

 

 

[KK 3,307]

I never liked the main theme from MoS, which sounded like a 10 year old meandering around around on some piano chords. The Interstellar main theme (which stands for the father/daughter relationship I believe) follows the same suit but with a nice Journey to the Line-esque adagio style progression that'll hit the emotion home more easily. It's the organ that helps sell the piece, but it's hardly the highlight of the score.

This theme is kind of like the adventure theme no? And yes, it's much better.

[karelm 2,914]

I think what he means is that the film is somehow precious to him and he reacts sensitive to naysayers who tend to get hung up on irrelevant details like 'the number on the licence plate was wrong' and use that to discredit the whole movie.

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

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

And who is saying that?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

You!

[KK 3,307]

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?).

2013.

That's a "lavish, long-lined Williams melody"?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

You!

That's funny because I'm not, actually.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?).

2013.

That's a "lavish, long-lined Williams melody"?

It's a long-lined melody.

[gkgyver 1,645]

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?). That's not the point.

It's more of an impressionistic, minimalist score, that shows off colour, with a very potent emotional effect.

So, it's unlike anything Zimmer has done since ...

oh, wait.

I have never expected Zimmer to be anything like Williams, but the video labeled Main Theme isn't really a theme, but a series of long-winded chords.

Oh well ...

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I never liked the main theme from MoS, which sounded like a 10 year old meandering around around on some piano chords.

The piano theme is the Clark Kent theme. It's a very basic, pop-inspired I-IV-vi-IV=Vsus thing (plagal thirds), but I'm talking about the beautiful Love Theme. The one first heard when Jor and Lara upload the codex to baby Kal's cells.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

The score is based on simple constructs, so don't go in expecting some sort of lavish, long-lined Williams melody (when was the last time Zimmer wrote something like that?). That's not the point.

It's more of an impressionistic, minimalist score, that shows off colour, with a very potent emotional effect.

So, it's unlike anything Zimmer has done since ...

oh, wait.

I have never expected Zimmer to be anything like Williams, but the video labeled Main Theme isn't really a theme, but a series of long-winded chords.

Oh well ...

Try harder.

[crocodile 8,017]

OK so here is what Karol thought of the film.

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Karol I think you used the wrong link for your review. All three times.

[crocodile 8,017]

Good it wasn't porn.

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

This review comes so close to greatness, but alas, it is flawed. Oh, how flawed! Where is the extensive critique of the flawed science? Why were you not brave enough to be the first person to bring attention to the flawed sound mix that is definitely a flawed sound mix since it affected every single screening and not just some? Why don't you discuss Zimmer's flawed score and its loudness flaws? What about that flawed thinking about love being the fifth dimension? So flawed. I really wanted to enjoy this review, but clearly, considering its flaws, I can't.

Just kidding. Very nice thoughts Karol. And yet, as we pine for Nolan to stop "holding our hands", looking at the degree of misunderstanding response to this film, I wonder if he'll ever feel encouraged to try. And I wonder if he should.

[crocodile 8,017]

In any case, this is probably as far as one can go with a budget like this.

I mean, Solaris is more ambiguous. But look how well it did. Not sure if any studio would risk it, ever.

I'm not that massively bothered by "explaining". There are a few moments when it feels a tad,,, on the nose. I'm referring specifically to the scene where Romilly explains how wormholes work. I think there is the exact same scene in Event Horizon (and I mean: literally the same) and it looks like something Cooper would already be familiar with by the time they get there. Small stuff like that, basically.

As for the plot holes, I can see only one. And even that is somewhat debatable. The moment when Murph realises that Cooper was her ghost. Seems like a longshot. But can be explained through this mysterious Force (pun intended!) that connects the universe.

But I enjoyed this film quite a bit - watched it three times by now. It's definitely better than both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. Although, it has little in common with either, so this comparison seems pointless. The first viewing was a bit problematic, as it usually happens with Nolan for me, but, once I knew where it was going, it was smooth sailing. I guess, the problem is (as I point out in the review) with how he puts his films together - they're incredibly dense and difficult to take in all at once. Repeat viewings improve things considerably and resolve many issues I had.

Karol

[karelm 2,914]

OK so here is what Karol thought of the film.

Karol

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.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

OK so here is what Karol thought of the film.

Karol

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.

[karelm 2,914]

OK so here is what Karol thought of the film.

Karol

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.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Nolan apologist, lol. No, just advocate for common sense and imagination.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

The only dialogue I felt was truly expository was when Cooper randomly brings up his dead wife. I feel like the audience didn't need to know what happened to the mother to appreciate the familial bond of what was left.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Nolan apologist, lol. No, just advocate for common sense and imagination.

Nolan's films doesnt really depend on imagination.

[KK 3,307]

In any case, this is probably as far as one can go with a budget like this.

I mean, Solaris is more ambiguous. But look how well it did. Not sure if any studio would risk it, ever.

I'm not that massively bothered by "explaining". There are a few moments when it feels a tad,,, on the nose. I'm referring specifically to the scene where Romilly explains how wormholes work. I think there is the exact same scene in Event Horizon (and I mean: literally the same) and it looks like something Cooper would already be familiar with by the time they get there. Small stuff like that, basically.

As for the plot holes, I can see only one. And even that is somewhat debatable. The moment when Murph realises that Cooper was her ghost. Seems like a longshot. But can be explained through this mysterious Force (pun intended!) that connects the universe.

But I enjoyed this film quite a bit - watched it three times by now. It's definitely better than both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. Although, it has little in common with either, so this comparison seems pointless. The first viewing was a bit problematic, as it usually happens with Nolan for me, but, once I knew where it was going, it was smooth sailing. I guess, the problem is (as I point out in the review) with how he puts his films together - they're incredibly dense and difficult to take in all at once. Repeat viewings improve things considerably and resolve many issues I had.

Karol

Yeah I think my quips with it will bother me less with multiple viewings. Still have to see it a second time, but I need the time!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Time?

What time do you think we have?

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

In any case, this is probably as far as one can go with a budget like this.

I mean, Solaris is more ambiguous. But look how well it did. Not sure if any studio would risk it, ever.

I'm not that massively bothered by "explaining". There are a few moments when it feels a tad,,, on the nose. I'm referring specifically to the scene where Romilly explains how wormholes work. I think there is the exact same scene in Event Horizon (and I mean: literally the same) and it looks like something Cooper would already be familiar with by the time they get there. Small stuff like that, basically.

As for the plot holes, I can see only one. And even that is somewhat debatable. The moment when Murph realises that Cooper was her ghost. Seems like a longshot. But can be explained through this mysterious Force (pun intended!) that connects the universe.

But I enjoyed this film quite a bit - watched it three times by now. It's definitely better than both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. Although, it has little in common with either, so this comparison seems pointless. The first viewing was a bit problematic, as it usually happens with Nolan for me, but, once I knew where it was going, it was smooth sailing. I guess, the problem is (as I point out in the review) with how he puts his films together - they're incredibly dense and difficult to take in all at once. Repeat viewings improve things considerably and resolve many issues I had.

Karol

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.

[karelm 2,914]

In any case, this is probably as far as one can go with a budget like this.

I mean, Solaris is more ambiguous. But look how well it did. Not sure if any studio would risk it, ever.

I'm not that massively bothered by "explaining". There are a few moments when it feels a tad,,, on the nose. I'm referring specifically to the scene where Romilly explains how wormholes work. I think there is the exact same scene in Event Horizon (and I mean: literally the same) and it looks like something Cooper would already be familiar with by the time they get there. Small stuff like that, basically.

As for the plot holes, I can see only one. And even that is somewhat debatable. The moment when Murph realises that Cooper was her ghost. Seems like a longshot. But can be explained through this mysterious Force (pun intended!) that connects the universe.

But I enjoyed this film quite a bit - watched it three times by now. It's definitely better than both Inception and The Dark Knight Rises. Although, it has little in common with either, so this comparison seems pointless. The first viewing was a bit problematic, as it usually happens with Nolan for me, but, once I knew where it was going, it was smooth sailing. I guess, the problem is (as I point out in the review) with how he puts his films together - they're incredibly dense and difficult to take in all at once. Repeat viewings improve things considerably and resolve many issues I had.

Karol

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

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

I was hoping to drum up some conversation on a different subject (that leap I mentioned) rather than this same old crap. But since you keep perpetuating it....

Notice how I haven't criticized anyone for their gripes that are based on taste. I don't give a shit about that sort of thing, people feel what they feel. But. I'm not wrong to see it as "mentally deficient" (as crass as the phrase is) when people keep proposing or overstating the same things as flaws when they demonstrably are not - the things that aren't dependent on just taste. Say, numerous but incidental mix issues, or certain scientific "plot holes" that aren't actually plot holes or inaccuracies, or any number of misunderstandings/misinterpretations of themes, plot points, etc. If you or that article's author disliked the fact that, say, the film eschewed utterly pure known science in favor of more fantastical and speculative ideas or themes, well that's just fine. Why? Let's talk about that. But recognize that that isn't a problem with the film. It's simply not aligned with what you wanted it to be. And that is just not the sort of issue that I've been talking about at all. So yes, I believe I'm being perfectly objective about it. I've not once talked about something reliant on taste. These are tangible complaints that I've been arguing against.

By all means, continue to post articles that align with your views on the film (I certainly hope you recognize this one is, unlike what I'm saying in this thread, but rather like your own complaints, quite colored by judgements based on taste and what the author wanted or didn't want from the film). By all means, keep bringing up the same objectively refutable complaints. But don't expect to hear any more from me. Unless you want to discuss the film free of long-rectified problems, free of diatribes that are more critiques of me than of the film, I've got nothing more to say to you.

How unfortunate is it that to have a thoughtful conversation about this film, unplagued by the problems that the past pages have been spent clarifying several times over, one must resort to PMs?

[crocodile 8,017]

No worries, Mr Pilgrim. There is one positive lesson to learn from all those bitter exchanges. Now we know there are thousands (if not millions) of astrophysicists and quantum physicist out there. Maybe, one day, the world will put all this knowledge and expertise into some actual use.

Karol

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Anyone else absolutely love the docking set piece? Zimmer's score during that scene was brilliant.

[Romão 2,274]

Very much so

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

The "Cooper, what are you doing?" "Docking" exchange continues the tradition of badass Nolan lines like "Swear to me" and "This isn't a car".

[crocodile 8,017]

Anyone else absolutely love the docking set piece? Zimmer's score during that scene was brilliant.

Yeah. Although, I prefer the first docking sequence musically.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

http://news.discovery.com/space/interstellar-a-missed-opportunity-review-141108.htm

Wow this article puts quite a damper on the claims of the film makers regarding it's scientific accuracy. Thank you

[crocodile 8,017]

How so? Who is this guy? It seems that he is disappointed that some stuff ISN'T in the film. And then he nitpicks other stuff that he can't possible know is actually inaccurate. Interesting read but ultimately quite pointless.

Besides, Nolan and Thorne both said there is a lot of fictional stuff in it.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yet Grey insists that the film is scientifically accurate, as did KK.

Can't be both, guys.

[crocodile 8,017]

It's accurate where it absolutely needs to be. The rest is their best guess and/or something that serves the narrative. It's more than we usually get.

I don't particularly care, to be honest. It does sell most of its ideas convincingly enough. And that's all it needs to do.

Karol

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

Holy shit.

[KK 3,307]

It's accurate where it absolutely needs to be. The rest is their best guess and/or something that serves the narrative. It's more than we usually get.

This.

Never said it was all accurate. Just that it was accurate where it really needed to be. And it was more than what we usually get.

[karelm 2,914]

It's accurate where it absolutely needs to be. The rest is their best guess and/or something that serves the narrative. It's more than we usually get.

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.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

For anyone who didn't quite get the tesseract or thinks it's paradoxical.

http://www.businessinsider.com/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar-ending-2014-11

[KK 3,307]

The real answer is that "we don't know". Which is what allows science-fiction to play with the concept. We don't know what happens in a black hole really, and we don't know what would happen if we could work on a higher dimension, so as long as the film largely plays by the parameters we DO know about, then it can definitely get away with being a little creative with the things we don't know much about.

I do love how NDT explains the idea of higher dimensions.