Interstellar (Nolan)

[E.H. Ruddock]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading this thread I can figure out two things I was hopeful for.

1. There are no cool aliens in this movie.

2. When traveling through the wormhole they didn't play "Intergalactic" by the Beastie Boys.

Very disappointing.

[Dev]

This movie might be the thing that destroys RM forever.

[Kaius]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading this thread I can figure out two things I was hopeful for.

1. There are no cool aliens in this movie.

Very disappointing.

Michael Caine is in it.

[spike]

I haven't seen the movie yet, but from reading this thread I can figure out two things I was hopeful for.

1. There are no cool aliens in this movie.

2. When traveling through the wormhole they didn't play "Intergalactic" by the Beastie Boys.

Very disappointing.

no intelligent lifeforms on distant planets and reluctance to include top notch party music; further evidence of nolan's pessimism and cynicism running rampant.

[McParadigm]

It also focuses on stupid things like character interaction and dramatic storytelling when it could be lingering on pictures of spacey stuff.

[LoathedVermin72]

2. When traveling through the wormhole they didn't play "Intergalactic" by the Beastie Boys.

This was a huge missed opportunity.

[Kaius]

It also focuses on stupid things like character interaction and dramatic storytelling when it could be lingering on pictures of spacey stuff.

SHOW ME URANUS, FOR THE LOVE OF SPACE!

[Kaius]

Spoiler: show

I'm also not sure the others are as selfless as you suggest. Cooper's motivations and his arc are always tied to his family. Even at the end, he keeps screaming to himself "Stay!" He wishes he had never chosen to leave his family. Hathaway's character admits to being driven at least partially by her love of someone else. Plan B isn't necessarily cynical, but lying about ever even trying Plan A first is.

Spoiler: show

Well the answer to all of this is love, whether you think that makes it hokey or not. Because despite what your plans are, and despite what rationale might tell you to do, sometimes the love you feel for someone gets in the way of that. It doesn't matter if you're a farmer caring for your flock or an astronaut with the fate of the human race in your hands.

Besides, this wasn't Star Trek. We don't have experienced galaxinauts here. We have pioneers. Pioneers throughout human history have shown difficulty making logical, unimpassioned decisions to the detriment of their cause. I guess I understand that in the end this just wasn't the type of space story you were looking for, but the story that was told was dramatic and, in the end, this story was a hopeful one, despite there being seeds of doubt planted along the way.

What impressed me the most was how Nolan integrated legit, relatively fresh science to the adventure without making it seem too science fiction. The time dilation, wormhole, black hole, and tesseract/time dimension bit were all handled quite well. No way were those parts overshadowed by anything.

[LoathedVermin72]

Spoiler: show

Well the answer to all of this is love, whether you think that makes it hokey or not. Because despite what your plans are, and despite what rationale might tell you to do, sometimes the love you feel for someone gets in the way of that.

Sure, love is a powerful emotion. Of course. But I have a little too much faith in people – especially in the rationality of scientists/astronauts who are tasked with saving all of mankind – to believe that someone in Anne Hathaway’s position is going to choose seeing her lover over the most promising hope for literally all of humanity. That’s just stupid.

And, like I said before, I think all of the film’s nonsense about “love” never goes beyond platitudinous. It never offers any insight or depth. It sounds nice and warm and all, but really, what does it add up to beyond cheap sentiment?

Besides, this wasn't Star Trek. We don't have experienced galaxinauts here. We have pioneers. Pioneers throughout human history have shown difficulty making logical, unimpassioned decisions to the detriment of their cause.

Yeah, pioneers that seem to:

A) feel zero enthusiasm for exploration.
B) regularly make rash, emotional, bafflingly incompetent decisions that feel much more like they’re coming from a bone-headed screenwriter than a trained professional.

And, I mean, they are still professionals who have been trained for what they're doing. They're aware of the massive scope of what's at stake. The circumstances are quite a bit different than the cases of previous pioneers throughout history.

What impressed me the most was how Nolan integrated legit, relatively fresh science to the adventure without making it seem too science fiction. The time dilation, wormhole, black hole, and tesseract/time dimension bit were all handled quite well. No way were those parts overshadowed by anything.

Obviously, we just totally disagree on that. I think all of this movie’s scientific elements were very much overshadowed by its vacuous themes, boring insistence on “drama,” and insulting portrayal of what should be scientifically-minded people. (I would seriously doubt the credibility of a scientist who keeps spewing deterministic nonsense about how the human race wasn’t “meant” to do or be something.)

[BurtReynolds]

quotacolypse warning ahead:

Spoiler: show

1. I said cynicism and pessimism, not intensity and danger. Those are very different things. Awe and wonder can certainly coexist with intensity and danger, though - see everything I said about Godzilla already. But like you said, we just subjectively disagree on how well Interstellar hits that blend. Personally, I never felt the awe and wonder because Nolan’s cinematic language never spoke to me.

Fine, It was just as an example. Cynicism and pessimism also apply. The balance was struck IMO, not in yours. whatevs.

2. Has it occurred to you that perhaps a big part of why you like this more than I do is BECAUSE we have differing worldviews? You admit to being on “Team Cynicism,” and the way you add “blind” before “optimism” says a lot about our differing views, haha. So I think it makes total sense that you don’t have a problem with a lot of things I do in the film; we’re coming from fundamentally opposed perspectives.

Team Cynicism was a joke, accept of course that it is as valid in film as any other. We probably do have differing world views, the difference is that I don't demand a movie conform to my world view in order for it to be considered good. I wouldn't call an otherwise fine movie "worst movie ever" just because I disagree with a worldview (if it even actively promotes one or i guess it correctly). Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems you do this ALL THE TIME.

But I disagree that the movie is even cynical, so I dont know why I keep having this conversation. Its not of course, but again, your expectations are blinding you.

Again, different viewpoints. I don’t find that an interesting area for a film to explore at all; I find it empty and dull, and I never bought the way Interstellar goes about exploring it. It came off as silly and ridiculous.

Thats like saying "I don't like comedies" or "I don't like movies with talking animals". To me, it sounds ultimately limiting, but ok then.

Okay, so he’s been isolated on a lonely planet. He was also in hyper-sleep for much of that time. But regardless, this guy is a trained professional who willingly volunteered to take part in a mission that he was fully aware could very well end in his death. But he did so selflessly, nobly, recognizing that the future of mankind was much more important than his own survival as an individual.

But now that he’s been up there for a while and undergoes some hardship, he decides, “Fuck it. I don’t wanna die. Fuck the human race; I don’t care if they all die as long as I get to go home. So now I‘m going to straight-up murder my colleagues.”

Bullshit. Fucking bullshit. That is merely shallow cynicism, something that is all the rage in modern film and TV. The concepts of true courage, selflessness, and nobility seem unfathomable to Nolan; in the end, everyone is selfish. Everyone lies. Everyone chooses themselves over others. Again I say: bullshit. We’re dealing with intergalactic exploration and the future of the entire human race, here. I don’t buy for one second that our astronauts and scientists would behave so childishly.

HAHA its not bullshit, man. Its not shallow either. I dont know why you are so blind to the fact that not everyone in the film is so "easily" (lol) breakable, but whatever. You don't buy it for one second?! lol. ok, man. just... keep doing what you do.

I didn’t demand any responsibility here. In fact, I made it very clear talking about Gone Girl that I never demand responsibility from anyone. All I was saying that Nolan’s constant refrains about how humans weren’t meant to die on Earth and the way the film sets up space exploration as the salvation of human civilization is pretty clearly making a contemporary point. And that’s great; I am all for that point. But, again, the way he actually makes the point undermines it.

"a worthy cause" suggests you do, but I won't argue the point. If you don't demand artists be "more responsible", then we are in agreement.

Also, the "Why don't you just make your own movie?" tactic is such a worthless straw-man argument that I can't believe someone is actually trying to employ it. That has precisely zero bearing on anything we're talking about.

That wasn't meant in the usual "if you don't like it, make your own" way (i agree, its stupid). I actually meant that literally. I'd be interested in that. I welcome more voices, as opposed to the modern day, internet shame brigade's constant need to condemn and shame not just art and artists, but fans of those artists as well (which amounts to de facto censorship IMO). Not that I'm accusing you of doing that, though. Its just a thought.

God I would have loved to have had some more time to absorb that planet. It was such a cool concept and it had the potential to be really beautiful.

I don't think there was much to explore. Any more exploration would have robbed it of its mystery, and undermined the stark emptiness of it all. Maybe you think its part of the movie's cynicism for an astronaut to go across the universe only to find such a barren and empty world, but thats a pretty powerful image to me.

I found its hopefulness disingenuous and platitudinous. Again, all the cynicism and pessimism undermined it. “Fun, beautiful, and tense” is subjective, and I disagree on all counts. I didn’t “miss” them - I just didn’t experience the same emotions you did while watching it.

yeah yeah yeah yeah.

[VinylGuy]

Saw it yesterday, and i liked it...really interesting theories around...

BUT...

yeah, there are some classic Nolan plot holes.

[Alex]

i wish i could tap some sense into LV through his bookcase

[Alex]

Ruminations on the pressures of entering adulthood, especially those focusing on young men, can very easily turn preachy. But by presenting the primary forces physically, delivering them as subtle allegorical constructs rather than as unremarkable emotional turmoil, Bay allows us to see Spike's catabasis manifested...and the results are surprising in very powerful ways.

The triumvirate is perfect: the Autobots represent a successful life, ripe with consumerism and its shiny and showy pleasures, as well as the difficult mature choices one must make in order to thrive within that system. Megan Fox is vapid and plasticine, yes, but this is actually what makes her perfect for the role. We don't want or welcome any characterization, because she is there solely for the function that delivers so well: to be a visual stand-in representative for the overwhelming physical and romantic urges that a boy becoming a man must face. And it is these urges that force Spike to make a change in his life, more than any robot (part of the brilliance of this film is that the other forces look so large and inescapable, but it is ultimately the girl that really matters). The Decepticons, warped and cruel, are the base violent urges all young men experience.

Bay does something truly novel by not having Spike feel temptation towards the Decepticons...most directors would pessimistically devote their story to showing a young man who DOES sometimes want that part of himself, in effect wanting to expose the weaknesses inherent to masculinity. But Bay goes noble, having his character reject it completely and devoting his film to the triumphant achievement of this impassioned rejection.

It is a movie about triumphing not just over the darkest part of yourself, but of the ease with which we all can make the choice.

11/10

[LoathedVermin72]

We probably do have differing world views, the difference is that I don't demand a movie conform to my world view in order for it to be considered good. I wouldn't call an otherwise fine movie "worst movie ever" just because I disagree with a worldview (if it even actively promotes one or i guess it correctly). Maybe I'm misreading, but it seems you do this ALL THE TIME.

Let me ask you this: would it be an unfair criticism if an atheist watches God’s Not Dead or Heaven is for Real and says it’s a bullshit movie because they don’t buy into its perspective? Perspective is important. Sure, I could go around and just try to make myself into some objective automaton judging movies in an ideological vacuum, ignoring how I feel about society, people, the world, reality, etc. But I have no interest in doing that because movies don’t exist in a vacuum; they’re part of that world.

An individual’s perspective and worldview is what makes them unique, what gives them something to say, and I think those perspectives should be brought to and valued in film criticism and art analysis, not coldly excluded and belittled.

That wasn't meant in the usual "if you don't like it, make your own" way (i agree, its stupid). I actually meant that literally. I'd be interested in that. I welcome more voices, as opposed to the modern day, internet shame brigade's constant need to condemn and shame not just art and artists, but fans of those artists as well (which amounts to de facto censorship IMO).

Dude I agree with all of this so goddamn much, especially the bolded part. Why must we fight?

Though if you think that, isn’t it a little contradictory to give me such a hard time for my opinions sometimes? I dunno. Just a thought.

And I’m working my way towards getting my own movies made, believe you me.

[McParadigm]

Let me ask you this: would it be an unfair criticism if an atheist watches God’s Not Dead or Heaven is for Real and says it’s a bullshit movie because they don’t buy into its perspective? Perspective is important.

But those are just really, really shitty movies, LV. It's a Wonderful Life, What Dreams May Come, Wristcutters, Life of Brian, Last Temptation of Christ, and Meet Joe Black also rely on premises that don't jive with atheism. Do you assume atheists hate all of those?

[Alex]

oh snap

[LoathedVermin72]

Let me ask you this: would it be an unfair criticism if an atheist watches God’s Not Dead or Heaven is for Real and says it’s a bullshit movie because they don’t buy into its perspective? Perspective is important.

But those are just really, really shitty movies, LV. It's a Wonderful Life, What Dreams May Come, Wristcutters, Life of Brian, Last Temptation of Christ, and Meet Joe Black also rely on premises that don't jive with atheism. Do you assume atheists hate all of those?

There’s a difference between a film taking something for granted as part of reality and using something for other purposes. I used the examples I did because those are films that take God’s existence for granted. They take the truth of Christianity for granted. They treat them as real, true elements of reality. On the other hand, It’s a Wonderful Life is a fantasy that uses elements of Christian mythology as part of that fantasy. Same for WDMC. Life of Brian is a satire that is largely about ridiculing the absurdity of religion. TLTOC is a very questioning, probing film that deeply upset a lot of Christians when it came out. Haven’t seen the others so I can’t comment.

The problem for me with Interstellar’s cynicism and pessimism was that it wasn’t exploring anything about them or using them to explore anything else – it just treated them as an inevitable part of the narrative. It took them for granted as just being true. And when a movie does that, it’s credibility tends to collapse for me. And, like I said earlier, in this case, it exploded into boring ridiculousness.

[Alex]

we used to wonder about our place in the stars, now we just chud and thodoks

[LoathedVermin72]

we used to wonder about our place in the stars, now we just chud and thodoks

[BurtReynolds]

Thodoks is out there somewhere, waiting for us to save him.

Spoiler: show