INTERSTELLAR - Grading & Discussion

[Snaploud]

I agree that there should have been more focus on the data received from orbit and long-distance telescopes, but let's keep in mind that humans are desperate at this point. None of these planets were slam-dunks for human settlement, and their best hope was that there would be some small slice of one of these planets that could be adapted for human use.

Is it possible that a planet with no dry land could have been their best option? Sure. They might have been able to create some man-made islands (by shifting dirt) and eventually even grow crops. It depends upon the content of the water, the composition of the dirt, the type of atmosphere, and what tools/materials are available to help.

Is it possible that a planet with a lot of ice and no apparent breathable atmosphere--at their landing site--could have been their best option? Sure. The ice might not have been year-round in some parts of the globe, and there may have been some planetary quirks hidden from long-distance scans.

Neither of those planets would be ideal, but, depending upon the planet's resources and a lack of dangerous elements, one of them might have been a lot better than any of the candidates. We should also keep in mind that there may have been technological changes (between now and these expeditions) that would make colonization of one of those planets more realistic than we might think.

 

[Warped9]

SF, in it's many flavours, treads into areas of speculation from mild to wild. Some of the better SF imagines possibilities that could theoretically exist given the right circumstances as opposed to fantasy that looks to times and worlds that have never existed except in the imagination.

Then there's a lot of blurring in between.

And advances in knowledge can also change perceptions. Jules Verne could be considered something of a hard SF writer by the standards of his day even if some of his ideas have proven to be totally wrong given what has been learned since.

I prefer Star Trek over Star Wars for a number of reasons one of which is presentation. SW is basically sword-and-sorcery dressed up with spaceships and rayguns and with next to no adherence to real physics. It's pure "science" fantasy action/adventure. Star Trek, too, has a good dose of fantasy to many of its stories, but it usually makes an effort to rationalize the apparent fantasy/magic as highly advanced science. Star Trek also dares to delve into allegory and topical issues. It has a serious minded and straightforward approach to drama spiced with servings of action and adventure.


2001 is supposed to be realistic near future (and thus almost by default is natural hard SF), but given we're presently nowhere near what was seen in 2001 it can be argued it isn't that near future. The thing is 2001 depicts a presence in space that looks possible from our current technological standpoint. 2001 also deals with vague speculation of a race so advanced that we can't even perceive it in understandable terms. We learn nothing about them other than they're incredibly advanced and have influenced human evolution. It's hard to argue that 2001's depiction of alien life is realistic or not because we aren't really shown anything to debate it one way or another.

Gravity is also hard SF in its own way. It's depicting a presence in space in terms that look very believable from our current standpoint and yet we know doesn't exist given the shuttle program no longer exists. They could have told the same story with a bit more advanced looking tech to suggest that America has reinvigorated its manned space program.

The beauty of (or one of the beauties) of Interstellar is that it goes beyond 2001 in key ways. On the face of it it depicts tech that is definitely more advanced than anything we currently have or might have in the near future. The Endurance spacecraft looks very believable. The Ranger shuttles look very cool while still designed with a realistic looking aesthetic, but they obviously don't conform to known principles of aerodynamics. They are much more advanced looking than anything we have today and perform in a likewise fashion. So in some ways the tech of Interstellar is comparable to that seen in 2001 yet in other ways it's more advanced.

The aliens of Interstellar are also highly mysterious and involved in influencing human evolution, only that in the end we learn they are actually humanity from the very far future who have advanced so far as to granting them the ability to build stable and traversible wormholes as well as manipulate black holes.

The worlds presented in Interstellar are quite exotic and yet conform to the possibilities speculated by real science. The film also underlined the difficulty of finding another world being an almost exact copy of Earth. The film took the rare Earth approach. It can be argued that maybe the film went for the too exotic in terms of worlds depicted, but it did serve to enhance the drama of the story. The question arises of trying to find a better candidate for human colonization except that humanity is faced with inevitable starvation within a relatively short time span.

The question also arises regarding why Mars is not referenced in the film as a possible new home. Establishing a colony on Mars that could slowly grow would be doable given the tech level we see in the film, but it was no solution for transplanting humanity en masse there within a relatively short time frame. It can be argued fairly that there are holes or unanswered questions in Interstellar that are skipped over in order to get on with the story. But given the length of the film a few added lines of expositions couldn't have hurt. What exactly happend that brough Earth to the point we see when the story begins? I find that the biggest question rather than suggest/imply we were possibly seeing the inevitable result of climate change taken to the extreme scenario.


The biggest distinction between Interstellar and 2001 is the emotional element. We care about the characters of Interstellar. The events depicted onscreen are painted with very human colour that underpins why the characters do what they do. The principles driving the characters are easily graspable and relatable rather than pure abtracts.


I think there are a lot of layers to this film and I look forward to seeing it again.

 

[JD5000]

Nice review, Warped9. I agree with you on pretty much every point.

 

[JacksonArcher]

I agree with what most of Warped9 said. Excellent review.

I wrote my own review, which can be read here. In short, I absolutely loved the film. I've seen it three times so far - twice on IMAX. The film really must be experienced on IMAX, btw. I saw it in 35mm and it was gorgeous but seeing it on IMAX was definitely an experience. If I see the film again, I will make sure to see it in IMAX over 35mm or digital.

At initial glance, I think my biggest problem with the film was the second act featuring Dr. Mann. When I first saw the film, I was not sure what his character was building to and I thought that section of the film dragged. However, after seeing it three times, I totally understand Mr. Mann's role in the story. I'm a lot more forgiving because his character gives us what is probably the film's most suspenseful and incredible sequence - when Cooper tries to match the spinning of the Endurance to dock.

It's amusing that most of the reaction here has been positive, because the film has received some polarizing reactions from some circles including what some might even consider a blacklash from certain critics or Internet bloggers. This article springs to mind, which apparently addresses the 7 big problems with Interstellar. I had a difficult time getting past the first paragraph - which says Interstellar "under-performed" at the box office (which isn't true) and then said that only the "fanboys" have been enjoying the film, which comes off as very condescending and pretentious. I managed to get past that initial irksome paragraph and while I can understand some of the writer's criticisms, I am more so surprised the film is generating this kind of reaction from certain people. I guess that's to be expected in this day and age where you sometimes have two extremes: Either you love something or you hate it. There's no middle ground, at least it doesn't seem like there is anymore on the Internet. It also seems trendy to hate on popular things as well, but I know that's been going on for a while.

I mean this genuinely, but did anyone have said problems with the film as mentioned in the article? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but merely curious. I know some people on this board have problems with the film, but I was curious as to what you lot thought when it comes to some of the criticisms raised in that article (poor sound mix aside, which is more fault of the sound mixer than the composer - something the article gets wrong, too).

 

[Warped9]

It's amusing that most of the reaction here has been positive, because the film has received some polarizing reactions from some circles including what some might even consider a blacklash from certain critics or Internet bloggers. This article springs to mind, which apparently addresses the 7 big problems with Interstellar.

As far as I'm concerned the guy's a fucking idiot who just likes to sound off and see his own words in print.

I wrote my own review, which can be read here.

Excellent review and I agree with a lot of it.

Although I didn't think so at the time some of the Mann sequences did seem to drag just a tad. In terms of sound I think I missed out on only one line of dialogue.

I wasn't able to see it in iMAX, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. And it will be a definite BluRay purchase.

 

[Relayer1]

Well, I saw it, and the fairest review I can give it is a decent film I didn't really like.

Yes, it owes a debt to 2001, but it probably owes more to a lot of good scifi stories I've read decades ago which have all jumbled together in my memory. It felt familiar.

The film was a pretty hard take on scifi, which is nice. That sort of thing doesn't make it onto screen very often (I really don't count Gravity) and the (pleasingly non CG) effects were pretty good apart from one establishing shot of Saturn.

I didn't particularly like the plot or the cast. I'm not fond of Caine although he wasn't bad in this. I don't like John Lithgow in anything I've seen him in and I know Matthew McConaughey is supposed to be good, but I didn't enjoy his performance.

My biggest problem was, however, that for a film that was supposed to be themed around the sacrifice of love and family, it was a vastly cold and unemotional experience failing completely to engage or resonate.

I gave a B- and that was probably a little generous.

 

[Mr Light]

I wanted to like that movie, but good god it was so long and slow...

I feel like there was a really good 90 to 120 minute movie lurking in there somewhere. Just like Peter Jackson's King Kong. I can't believe we spent 45 minutes before anything really happened in the story (just like King Kong).

Also, every bit of the movie just seemed painfully obvious to me.

Spoiler

The moment a mysterious coded message appeared in Murphy's bedroom it was immediately clear to me it was Future Cooper. And that the "beings" would be future humans. And that going into the black hole is how Cooper would send a message to the past. The only part that did surprise me was letting Cooper live after going into a black hole.

Favorite sequence was the water planet.

 

[JD5000]

I'd like to hear a little more about what y'all thought of Murphy. I think that character embodied the central themes of the story, which in my opinion had much more to do with fiction than science.

 

[Trekker4747]

It's amusing that most of the reaction here has been positive, because the film has received some polarizing reactions from some circles including what some might even consider a blacklash from certain critics or Internet bloggers. This article springs to mind, which apparently addresses the 7 big problems with Interstellar.

Did Armond White change his name?

 

[Tulin]

We have one drive-in left in my city and they're currently screening "Interstellar".

On certain nights they do a double feature.

I LOVE their pair up. A really bad film ......... and "Tammy".


http://galaxydrivein.com.au/

(Link valid as at 16/11/14)

 

[Marsden]

I don't want to upset anyone, but I thought this was funny, plus it's only 90 seconds long. (after 30 ad)

http://whatculture.com/film/turns-interstellar-prequel.php

Spoiler: what it's about

the little video says Interstellar is the prequel to Wall-E.

 

[Warped9]

Meh. I've read the criticisms and they don't hold much water. The film isn't perfect, but I really like it as is. They got far more right than wrong.

 

[Mr Light]

Maybe it was just my local theater, but... was half of the movie out of focus for everyone else? One shot would be crisp, then it would be back to blurry. It was really annoying.

 

[1001001]

I mean this genuinely, but did anyone have said problems with the film as mentioned in the article? I'm not trying to be confrontational, but merely curious. I know some people on this board have problems with the film, but I was curious as to what you lot thought when it comes to some of the criticisms raised in that article (poor sound mix aside, which is more fault of the sound mixer than the composer - something the article gets wrong, too).

We just got back from seeing it in Glorious IMAX.

Reading the critique you posted, there are two points that strike me. There were brief moments where the dialogue was hard to hear because of the music. It wasn't that bad though.

Point 7: I admit I was confused by the sequence in the black hole. He was in a dimension where he could see time, but it was not created by multi-dimensional aliens, but advanced humans in the future?? I have a feeling I missed something, because I don't see how that could be. I have been avoiding this thread like the plague until I could see it, so now I can go back and read everything. Maybe someone has already explained this.

Now, having said that... What an incredible achievement. Some of those scenes (going through the wormhole, the wave on the water planet, the spinning docking maneuver) were absolutely breathtaking on the giant IMAX screen. Just incredible.

You've got a little bit of everything: desperation, betrayal, hope, love, terror, disappointment, and redemption.

I'm still absorbing the whole thing, but I really enjoyed it. I gave it an "A".

 

[Warped9]

I'm glad I didn't have to watch it in 3D. 3D bugs me and makes my eyes tired.

 

[sidious618]

I thought it was just beautiful. I became teary eyed multiple times. Probably the best "blockbuster" I've seen in a long time.

 

[Trekker4747]

Point 7: I admit I was confused by the sequence in the black hole. He was in a dimension where he could see time, but it was not created by multi-dimensional aliens, but advanced humans in the future?? I have a feeling I missed something, because I don't see how that could be. I have been avoiding this thread like the plague until I could see it, so now I can go back and read everything. Maybe someone has already explained this.

That's how I took it, if in don't seeing how it could be you're talking about how the future "humans" (they wouldn't strictly be "humans" since we're called humans (homo sapiens) and aren't still considered homo erects. The future multi-dimensional creatures who created the tesseract would be as much removed from us as we are from the very first cellular life on Earth and perhaps beyond considering they've reached god-like status. They could very near the heat-death of the universe in time) got off a dying Earth and to the Gargntuan system without the aid of "future us." Well, it's a paradox.

And intentional pre-destination paradox on the part of the movie's writers and it's meant to confound and twist your mind. The idea being the past comes first and then the future and in travel from the future to the past (or connection between the two) would be circular. The earlier event would occur first and not necessarily would be dependent on the future needing to have occurred TO occur.

It's a mind twister, for sure, but sort of a fun one in thinking about it. It's exampled nicely with the scenes with Coop and the books in the library. The books falling with the message before Coop leaves and givens young Murph the message. And when he GETS to that point he doesn't consider what occurred in his recent past and opts to make a more clear message or a better attempt to communicate with his past-self and past-Murph because he literally can't simply because he DIDN'T.

I love this kind of stuff.

[I'd like to hear a little more about what y'all thought of Murphy. I think that character embodied the central themes of the story, which in my opinion had much more to do with fiction than science.

I thought the young actor who played young-Murph and the actor who played adult/middle-ages Murph both did a really good job. Have no real thoughts on elderly-Murph as she wasn't around enough to really get a feel for her or the performance of the actor.

She certainly did embody some of the central themes of the story, mostly when it comes to love and bonding (more so than Amelia's love/connection with her astronaut beau and the presumed connection between Coop and Amelia) and it was her love and fondness for her father that drove her to find the solution to what was going on, even if she was (emotionally) estranged from him for 25-years. But when she saw that her father was he "ghost" it was nice to see her re-make those connections.

I think I would've liked to have seen Coop's interaction with his daughter not be limited to the library in the house and he was able to, at least, view her anywhere in their house so he got a chance to watch her grow-up through all of the years he missed. That would've been nice to see, since that was what was driving *him* to complete the mission. Not wanting to miss out on too much of his daughter's life. (I realize that may have slightly creepy implications but certainly we could interpret that he only viewed her in fatherly-appropriate situations.)

I only wish the son was, well, wasn't his son. They should have made him a cousin or nephew or something that wasn't a product of him. Because it kind of makes him look like a dick that he cared so much for his daughter, wanting to be with her as she grew up, and was so driven to see her again even as she was on her death-bed but he didn't give a shit about his, elder, son?! I guess I could see the idea that there's more of a connection between fathers and their daughters in sort of a "dudes don't feel for other dudes" sort of way, but it's still his own damn kid and he didn't seem to mind never seeing or hearing from him again beyond the vlogs he was getting.

But the other kid should have not been biologically his just for that little negging point. Some emotional removal between him and the young boy. And even if it were a nephew or cousin or something one he had just recently been granted custody of and hadn't formed much of a bond with yet.

This week I'm going to make it a point to go see this in IMAX.

 

[1001001]

I thought it was just beautiful. I became teary eyed multiple times. Probably the best "blockbuster" I've seen in a long time.

Oh, yeah. When he was watching the videos from his kids after being gone 23 years, when he separated from the Endurance...

 

[Mr Light]

I didn't feel extremely positive about the movie but it definitely got me misty-eyed a few times.

I thought it was disappointing that after the entire movie he's finally reunited with his daughter and she immediately says I've got my family go get Catwoman! And what about his son? (did I forget something? did he die?)

 

[sidious618]

I thought it was just beautiful. I became teary eyed multiple times. Probably the best "blockbuster" I've seen in a long time.

Oh, yeah. When he was watching the videos from his kids after being gone 23 years, when he separated from the Endurance...

Absolutely. And his facial expression as he drove away from the farm the last time, all twisted, dear God. What an actor.