Of course not!
I only wish I could experience such credulous enjoyment.
Oh, that I was able to regress and somehow be capable of seeing Interstellar through naive eyes, I too might rate it highly!
![]()
You are digging a hole for yourself now.
Of course not!
I only wish I could experience such credulous enjoyment.
Oh, that I was able to regress and somehow be capable of seeing Interstellar through naive eyes, I too might rate it highly!
![]()
Yep, let's chastise people for liking a movie that's SO beneath me. I mean I was born knowing everything there is to know about theoretical physics and science fiction. I couldn't fathom anyone else wanting to be interested in that stuff because that's MY TURF. What do I have if other people are intruding on MY TURF, that only I and other people exactly like me should be able to like.
The spreading of genres so that other people can like them is so dumb and antiquated.
Christopher Nolan has revealed the secret to enjoying his films in an interview quoted in this excellent review from the renowned Film Comment magazine...
What Ive found is, people who let my films wash over themwho dont treat it like a crossword puzzle, or like there is a test afterwardsthey get the most out of the film.
It's really a restatement of the advice given in this classic film moment.
The less time you waste on all that pesky thinking nonsense, the better Nolan's films look!
Yet my Brit sensibility recoils at the idea of an English director so wholeheartedly embracing American myth that he can cheerfully present us with the idea that the destiny of our entire species is being forged in a Midwestern cornfield.
I have to believe there is a group of people who don't like the movie because of the temporal paradox, not thinking of you bobob.Being able to go with the flow, and just accepting it along with some plot coincidences of convienence is essential.
Time travel paradoxes such as Back To The Future seems to be easier to swallow, where Marty's picture starts to fade because he almost prevented his parents from getting together. And the setting was back on Earth, not on mostly boring planets. One plus for the movie, is that the planets were boring, (picturing the Moon and Mars)and in essence, realistic. Dr Mann's planet would have sucked, even if you could have stayed there.![]()
I didn't like this movie and thought I'd join in the conversation.
I am a nerdy geek that loves all things real and fiction when it comes to science, physics, maths etc. I have been reading loads of things about the physics of this film and it is all fascinating. The main issue I have with Interstellar is that it is, IMHO, a dull film. I can watch a film and ignore the reality. I ignore the paradoxes. It is a story and I want to be entertained. If I want to think then I might try Discovery Channel !!!!:roll eyes:
I enjoyed all the Alien movies, some more than others but I have seen them all many times. Back to the Future is a great trilogy set. I watched 3 back to back just the other day. Excellent fun....full of holes if you want to think about the physics but so what......
Maybe Interstellar was too accurate (or trying to be) as the story telling was long winded and dull. Yes, the visuals were amazing (again, I enjoyed Gravity for the same reason) but I seriously doubt I'd sit through either movie again. I don't think the ending of a film where everything is wrapped up neatly in the last 5 minutes is very satisfying to watch. Interstellar just seemed to make huge leaps in order to finish the film. Maybe it was supposed to be another 2 hours longer
Anyway, didn't like the film, liked the pretty pictures.... that's my input.
I know.![]()
Spoilers
Thing is, why would 'they' (5th dimension folks) set up such a frail, luck dependent, 'bound to fail' method of fixing things in the past when they were smart enough to develop a Tesseract in the first place? Not to mention the basic question of how it is even possible for mankind to 'evolve' in such a way to rescue themselves from extinction in the past? edit: And I don't mean 'how did they create the Tesseract specifically' but how could mankind survive in the first place to evolve up to a point where it could rescue itself in the past? Basic question which always comes up when having to do with timetravel (or related) topics - Nolan spells out a lot of things, details etc but avoids this basic question (unless I just missed it, certainly possible since I watched it in English).
I want answers, Huntn! ;D
As for the Kubrick ending, I absolutely love it!
But to anyone who liked Interstellar (and 2001 of course) and haven't watched those already: I highly recommend Moon and Tarkovsky's Solaris.
Does anyone know if there is any scientific hypothesizes floating around that entertains the notion of time travel?
Not trying to sound like I'm preaching to you, but this is why time travel paradoxes can be so aggravating. Why indeed do we have to save our past selves, when we've clearly made it to the future? It's like an act of faith to go with a story like this, accepting something that seems impossible, so the rest of the story can be enjoyed.
I imagine the hypothesized multiverse would not be antithetical to time travel - - with each action a new universe is carved off to join the infinite number of other universes where different actions occured.
(link)What would it take to make time travel a reality, and how would that affect the present reality? (via Arik Korman, 95.7 KJR)
We are all travelling forward in time anyway. We can fast forward by going off in a rocket at high speed and return to find everyone on Earth much older or dead. Einstein's general theory of relativity seems to offer the possibility that we could warp space-time so much that we could travel back in time. However, it is likely that warping would trigger a bolt of radiation that would destroy the spaceship and maybe the space-time itself. I have experimental evidence that time travel is not possible. I gave a party for time-travelers, but I didn't send out the invitations until after the party. I sat there a long time, but no one came.
Thanks for answering, Huntn. Preachy? why? Tbh I can't follow MR as closely as I did before so maybe I missed your previous part about that matter (?).
I thought I probably missed / misunderstood the 'explanation' or at least questioning about that in the movie. Didn't know this thread existed so eventually read the other opinions but seems like I didn't miss sth. Even more disappointing - you can't set up a movie like that but avoid this basic question. Makes the protagonists look foolish too and the movie pretentious. And I'm not sure whether I'd say 'faith' is the right word to describe the stance you'd have to take to go on with it. More like 'ignoring it' - which is just a horrible thing to do. I'm exaggerating of course![]()
Glad you could enjoyed it!![]()
So were people going to go to the new planet or not? They seemed to be settled in nicely in their space station.
My question too, although it did seemed like Cooper was off to find the girl at the end. The rest of humanity- who knows?![]()
If Interstellar had been 1/100th as inspiring as the short film Wanderers, I would be singing it's praises from the rooftops.
Sure, Interstellar had a story, but that was it's weakest feature - - the screenplay was just awful.That was great, but in Interstellar's defense it had no story and it was 4 min long..![]()
Quoting another sci-fi movie with a terrible screenplay? You must be a strictly visual person.Among the best visuals for a recent movie were you get this kind of vibe is the arrival at LV-223 in the movie Prometheus. Visuals and music have a powerful effect. I felt like I was there, discovering this new planet.![]()
Sure, Interstellar had a story, but that was it's weakest feature - - the screenplay was just awful.