Which did indeed stink.
Odd, as The Dark Knight was by a long way my favourite Nolan movie. I loved it.
INTERSTELLAR - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Which did indeed stink.
Odd, as The Dark Knight was by a long way my favourite Nolan movie. I loved it.
I gave this movie an A
My overall score out of 10 would be 8
But I did have one tiny issue and that was to do with their Ranger spacecraft.
They couldn't build a working anti grav yet the way those ships handle themselves it would seem they actually do have some kind of gravity drive, especially the way they make those really soft landings. Or was that some creative magic?
TARS and CASE were awesome
And three cheers for Murph!!!!! She saved everyone by fixing the gravity problem
I however made a small video of Cooper calling out to Murph.....
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjIB_IVnUA4[/yt]
My overall score out of 10 would be 8
But I did have one tiny issue and that was to do with their Ranger spacecraft.
They couldn't build a working anti grav yet the way those ships handle themselves it would seem they actually do have some kind of gravity drive, especially the way they make those really soft landings. Or was that some creative magic?
TARS and CASE were awesome
And three cheers for Murph!!!!! She saved everyone by fixing the gravity problem
I however made a small video of Cooper calling out to Murph.....
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjIB_IVnUA4[/yt]
Coco Pops 1967;11170609 But I did have one tiny issue and that was to do with their Ranger spacecraft. They couldn't build a working anti grav yet the way those ships handle themselves it would seem they actually do have some kind of gravity drive said:
Although I haven't seen Interstellar, I am also of the opinion that Inception isn't nearly as good as people claim it to be. Sure, the performances are solid, the plot is interesting and the directing not bad.
But people seem to think it's the Second Coming of Cinema or something like that. Not to me really.
Well they must have been bloody powerful to make soft landings on that world where the gravity was much, much more then Earth.
Wasn't the gravity 1.3 Earth normal on that one?
Only saw the film once so far, got it as a Father's Day present as well. Moebius is coming out with a Ranger model kit shortly- 1/72 scale with a second kit of Rangers 1 & 2 in launch configuration to fit on top of a Saturn V Booster (you provide the Airfix/Revell/Dragon Booster).
I must say the Ranger looks much better on screen than a model sitting for photography- t he model reminds me of a cross between a lawn chair and Darkwing Duck's Thunderquack.
Watching the film again, one thing that I thought was kind of a missed opportunity was that instead of using a fictional "Blight" with vague and variable properties, they should have used the very real threat of bee Colony Collapse Disorder to explain why most of the world's food supply had dwindled. If all bees were to die off only wind pollinated crops like corn, wheat, and rice would survive, and then you could very easily bring up a blight affecting those (especially as the insects and microorganisms have nothing left to feed on), and additionally desertification from the dust bowl effect from all the other dying crops and over-farmed soil. You could keep the same basic issues that were already present in the film but insert a very real and pressing problem into the narrative to give it a greater grounding in reality and more of a sense of urgency.
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/humans-need-bees-to-survive/755737/
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JilYBVrFiLA[/yt]
http://elitedaily.com/news/world/humans-need-bees-to-survive/755737/
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JilYBVrFiLA[/yt]
Even Doctor Who put the bee problem into its show. In a fictional way but it was addressed.
I don't think they really needed to go into much detail about why the Earth was screwed- all the blight did was provide a simple motivation to move the story along.
If they brought up and explained the Bee Colony Collapse which then led to the cascading crop problem resulting in the blight systematically destroying crops it would add more complexity where none was needed. There is enough stuff to try and keep straight in the film already which is essential to the story.
If they brought up and explained the Bee Colony Collapse which then led to the cascading crop problem resulting in the blight systematically destroying crops it would add more complexity where none was needed. There is enough stuff to try and keep straight in the film already which is essential to the story.
I never posted my thoughts on Interstellar. Here's the short version.
This is an admirable, but flawed film.
First of all, it's great to see a mainstream science fiction film about space exploration. The overall premise and general progression of the story is intriguing. The twist involving Matt Damon's character was definitely one of the high points of the film. The robots were magnificent. The segment of trying to dock over Matt Damon's planet while nearly spinning out of control was very exciting. In principle, I don't mind the pastiche of a main course of hard science fiction with a few helpings of the paranormal. In terms of tone, there was a nice blend of Close Encounters, Contact, Gravity, and 2001.
Where the film failed with me was in the execution of certain important segments. For example, consider the time dilated planet with the giant tidal waves. It was completely unbelievable that conditions on that planet could not be precisely anticipated. The hydrodynamics determining the tidal waves should have been just as predictable as the time dilation effects, given the arrangement of masses in orbit and given observations of the planet to determine surface composition. Now, the original astronaut they were going down to try to rescue may not have had any choice but to land there, but the follow-up party really should have known exactly what to expect. Yet they were surprised and caught flat-footed on the surface. Very bad writing there because it was completely implausible, despite being dramatic and suitably frightening.
The idea that the whole space program depended on solving equations that no one knew how to solve was also very hard to take seriously as something from the hard science fiction genre. No, that skews the film's genre towards fantasy, but for additional reasons beyond the solution of the equations being by fantastic means. The space program struck me as kind of like a cult.
I thought that the ending was awful. Catwoman going to sleep, fine. But lover-boy going out alone to wake her up with a kiss, uh-uh.
The central heart of the movie, that humanity will survive extinction because of our inherent godhood is, well, of the fantasy genre. But that's what unrestricted time travel is, as demonstrated by Bill and Ted, the ability to summon garbage cans out of thin air on the promise that you will throw them down later, or in other words, the ability to wield godlike powers.
Again, I said short version, so, moving on....
So, the other reason I haven't chimed in until now is that I really don't know how to grade it. Part of me wants to give it an A for effort, but the demerits nearly knock it down into the B range. There are so many science fiction films that are better, but none of them are contemporary, except Gravity. On the other hand, there's a lot to chew on, so the film earns back something just for that. It's certainly worth seeing.
A-
This is an admirable, but flawed film.
First of all, it's great to see a mainstream science fiction film about space exploration. The overall premise and general progression of the story is intriguing. The twist involving Matt Damon's character was definitely one of the high points of the film. The robots were magnificent. The segment of trying to dock over Matt Damon's planet while nearly spinning out of control was very exciting. In principle, I don't mind the pastiche of a main course of hard science fiction with a few helpings of the paranormal. In terms of tone, there was a nice blend of Close Encounters, Contact, Gravity, and 2001.
Where the film failed with me was in the execution of certain important segments. For example, consider the time dilated planet with the giant tidal waves. It was completely unbelievable that conditions on that planet could not be precisely anticipated. The hydrodynamics determining the tidal waves should have been just as predictable as the time dilation effects, given the arrangement of masses in orbit and given observations of the planet to determine surface composition. Now, the original astronaut they were going down to try to rescue may not have had any choice but to land there, but the follow-up party really should have known exactly what to expect. Yet they were surprised and caught flat-footed on the surface. Very bad writing there because it was completely implausible, despite being dramatic and suitably frightening.
The idea that the whole space program depended on solving equations that no one knew how to solve was also very hard to take seriously as something from the hard science fiction genre. No, that skews the film's genre towards fantasy, but for additional reasons beyond the solution of the equations being by fantastic means. The space program struck me as kind of like a cult.
I thought that the ending was awful. Catwoman going to sleep, fine. But lover-boy going out alone to wake her up with a kiss, uh-uh.
The central heart of the movie, that humanity will survive extinction because of our inherent godhood is, well, of the fantasy genre. But that's what unrestricted time travel is, as demonstrated by Bill and Ted, the ability to summon garbage cans out of thin air on the promise that you will throw them down later, or in other words, the ability to wield godlike powers.
Again, I said short version, so, moving on....
So, the other reason I haven't chimed in until now is that I really don't know how to grade it. Part of me wants to give it an A for effort, but the demerits nearly knock it down into the B range. There are so many science fiction films that are better, but none of them are contemporary, except Gravity. On the other hand, there's a lot to chew on, so the film earns back something just for that. It's certainly worth seeing.
A-
It requires no more explanation than what was already given in the film regarding the Blight.
There were fan theories that the people that made the tesserect made the blight
One illogical thing that has really stuck with me- that obsessive attempt to retrieve the data recorder from the wreckage on the water planet.
It is totally pointless- the simple existence of the massive wave traveling around the planet means it is useless for any sort of colony- any data in that recorder is meaningless and redundant. That ship had crashed only hours before (due to time dilation) and anything recorded by that ship would be also recorded by the Ranger.
What it did do was to demonstrate the team was inexperienced and stupid, it made an exciting action sequence and an avoidable death.
It is totally pointless- the simple existence of the massive wave traveling around the planet means it is useless for any sort of colony- any data in that recorder is meaningless and redundant. That ship had crashed only hours before (due to time dilation) and anything recorded by that ship would be also recorded by the Ranger.
What it did do was to demonstrate the team was inexperienced and stupid, it made an exciting action sequence and an avoidable death.
The crew's inexperience was explicitly laid out in the film. That's why they immediately let Cooper, a stranger to everyone but Professor Brand who wandered onto their base (albeit under guidance) become their mission pilot, because he was the only person genuinely trained to be an astronaut among them, from back when NASA was still a functioning publicly funded agency. The rest were academics who knew the basics but didn't receive extensive astronaut training.
I remember how the inexperience was laid out earlier, it is just that recorder retrieval scene confirmed that fact with drama and an avoidable death. It was the equivalent of somebody walking down the darkened stairs in a horror film, you want to grab and tell them to stop before someone gets killed.
But movies do this all the time.
I watched this movie yesterday where terrorists board a military plane in flight to steal its cargo. There's an extra passenger onboard who hears the bad guys when they board and kills one of them. He's got one of their big ass guns and could very easily have taken them all out but doesn't..
Instead we have 90 minutes of chasing and drama.
OK, loved the film until we get to the tesseract. It seems to me that either plan a or b had to succeed for the later humans to aid current humans. The math doesn't work for plan a if she doesn't get more help via the tesseract?
We also need future humans to place the wormhole there for plan b to even take place.
Don't think any of this works.
Am I missing something?
We also need future humans to place the wormhole there for plan b to even take place.
Don't think any of this works.
Am I missing something?
Everything would have been fine had he not said humans put it there.... it should have been some advanced alien species that found humans intriguing and decided to help them.