Support NeoGAF

[chrominance]

Both the science, and the underlying message, will both be important in years to come.


In fact, at some point in the future, when the world is in dire straits because of an asteroid, or over population, or disease, or whatever the extinction event for this planet is, and we look back at how we wouldn't put money towards things like NASA because we were too worried about our own lives, politics, celebrity gossip, etc. People will look back on this film and say things like "Now more relevant than ever before" and "Almost Prophetic"...

The trailer monologue drives this home perfectly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WzHXI5HizQ

I actually did like Interstellar, but come on.

The Day After Tomorrow: "Now more relevant than ever before"

And god forbid an asteroid ever hit Earth.

Armageddon: "Almost prophetic"

 

[BTM]

I freaking love Interstellar but damn this thread is hilarious.

 

[plainr_]

This thread is majestic.

 

[cyba89]

Uh no it's really not, you think people will be talking about Interstellar later this year? Let alone in years to come...

Umm, I don't know. How do you..?

 

[fastmower]

It would be a masterpiece of a movie if wasnt for this.

That's your opinion. Here's mine: mostly everything in that movie kept it from being a masterpiece.

 

[jonnyp]

It would be a masterpiece of a movie if wasnt for this.

Eh no. There are so many problems with the movie it's not even funny. One of the worst movies I've seen since Prometheus.

 

[TreasureHunterG]

I feel a similar way regarding Inception. Fun the first time around, but then such a slog on repeat viewings.

But I'll say this. The idea of love as a quantifiable force could have worked...but Nolan just cannot pull that off, due to him lacking the basic understanding of human emotion. The amount of exposition, particularly in the final scene, didn't help matters either when you're being told what's going on, instead of letting the visuals do the talking instead. And that's the problem all these comparisons to Kubrick.

One of the reasons why 2001 is so well regarded is that it didn't try to give an explanation for everything. Stargate sequence and Star Child, they're things that happen and allow to let the audience to make up their own interpretation based on what they see and perceive. Which is why I can't help but groan at those folks who say that 2001 wasn't all that well received back in the day and compare that to Interstellar with the suggestion that like 2001, people will look back on Nolan's movie with more positive eyes than what we have today, as they completely ignore (or at least don't understand) Interstellar's own failings and why we have been so harsh on it. It assumes that the audience are complete idiots by constantly bludgeoning exposition where it didn't need any, not to mention telling the audience what's around them, his inability to convey emotion in a movie that is supposedly built around the idea of love (stuff like the forced "love transcends other forces" is one of those examples), and do I need to mention that stupid scene where Matt Damon goes all Sunshine? Because if you seriously think that people are going to look back at this movie in the same way we did A Space Odyssey, you're out of your mind. Hell, this isn't even in the league of (the more appropriate comparison) Contact. Sigh. If it wasn't for the fact that Nolan directed this instead of Spielberg, we wouldn't be doing stuff like this.

Well...this has gone very off topic in relation to gaming.

I think you're were among the ones expecting to watch Intersteller to become the next 2001: Space Odissey and have the same aesthetics and concepts, hence your constant comparisons to the Kubrick's masterpiece. It wasn't. I really don't get it why this comparison started out, in the first place. Both movies are completely different, both in pacing, concepts, thematics and even philosophy. Forget about it, this isn't 2001: Space Odissey 2/killer, if you fell for this hype, then of course you'll be disappointed. But may I remind you that 2001 got a lot of backslashing in 1968, when it came out. People were "WTF is this shit?" and were clueless about it. The fame it has now was stablished among the years. I'm sure if it was release now, in 2015, it would be trolled badly by many, mostly because of the subjective nature of the movie you're praising so much.

Interstellar brought many scientifc themes with spot on accuracy, one of the most plausive space travel movies ever made. Kip Thorne, a notorious astrophysicist, was scientific consultant and executive producer of this movie. It's a very immersive experience

Like I said before, like 2001, movies like Scarface, Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange got a lot of negative press and criticism in their initial release, some of them were even banned on some countries (Clockwork Orange?). The criticism were many: overambitious, pretentious, cheap, unnecessary violence, confuse plot, etc. And here it is, no one can question their cult classic status now. Despite the hating, which is minority, Interstellar has a huge amount of praise overall. Just because this isn't 2001, which I serious suspect was the reason for why you watch it and was expecting it to be, or even Contact, a wholly different movie as well, doesn't make it a bad film. Your attempt to place it an uncontested bad film sounds silly and pretentious. Your opinion isn't universal.

 

[le-seb]

Your opinion isn't universal.

Neither is yours.

I'm a sucker for SF, but Interstellar left me cold as far as its story goes (the action scenes were entertaining, though).
Can't tell I've been thrilled by its screenplay, either, so calling it a 'masterpiece' seems fairly exaggerated.

 

[matrixman92]

surprised so many people here seem to really hate this movie. Its one of my favorite movies in years

 

[KrawlMan]

uhhh, it's been out on blu-ray for like a month, after being in theaters. you could've seen it. also, it's not really spoilable.

Just have to comment on this. It's completely "spoilable" not everybody has the time to see movies even in the first couple years that they've been out, let alone within the first 6~ months.

Just because the masses have seen it and feel like sharing every detail about the plot doesn't mean that they aren't also spoiling it for those that haven't seen it. Be a bit more considerate, especially considering this post is about a guy that was trying to watch interstellar in the first place.

 

[Thud]

Maybe Xbox One couldn't handle the bass.

 

[Nerdkiller]

I think you're were among the ones expecting to watch Intersteller to become the next 2001: Space Odissey and have the same aesthetics and concepts, hence your constant comparisons to the Kubrick's masterpiece. It wasn't. I really don't get it why this comparison started out, in the first place. Both movies are completely different, both in pacing, concepts, thematics and even philosophy. Forget about it, this isn't 2001: Space Odissey 2/killer, if you fell for this hype, then of course you'll be disappointed. But may I remind you that 2001 got a lot of backslashing in 1968, when it came out. People were "WTF is this shit?" and were clueless about it. The fame it has now was stablished among the years. I'm sure if it was release now, in 2015, it would be trolled badly by many, mostly because of the subjective nature of the movie you're praising so much.

Interstellar brought many scientifc themes with spot on accuracy, one of the most plausive space travel movies ever made. Kip Thorne, a notorious astrophysicist, was scientific consultant and executive producer of this movie. It's a very immersive experience

Like I said before, like 2001, movies like Scarface, Citizen Kane, Blade Runner, Clockwork Orange got a lot of negative press and criticism in their initial release, some of them were even banned on some countries (Clockwork Orange?). The criticism were many: overambitious, pretentious, cheap, unnecessary violence, confuse plot, etc. And here it is, no one can question their cult classic status now. Despite the hating, which is minority, Interstellar has a huge amount of praise overall. Just because this isn't 2001, which I serious suspect was the reason for why you watch it and was expecting it to be, or even Contact, a wholly different movie as well, doesn't make it a bad film. Your attempt to place it an uncontested bad film sounds silly and pretentious. Your opinion isn't universal.

I never said that it was a bad film. Hell, I didn't expect it to be the next 2001 (like Nolan is ever capable of ascending to Kubrick's level). And yet you have the gall to call my opinion pretentious, as if I don't have an understanding of what criticisms I'm trying to address. Hell, you don't even seem to know how reactive the critics of some of those movies were back then. It wasn't like people had it in for Citizen Kane back then, after all, it was nominated for 9 Oscars. It was only after a smear campaign by the person for whom the life of Kane was based on did the critics turn their back on the movie, to the point where when it came time for the Oscars, the crowd would start to boo whenever the flick was mentioned. But since then, people have long forgotten that spat, but there was nothing before that that assumed critics were particularly negative towards the movie.

Blade Runner had the benefit of having two additional versions of the film released in the years after the movie first ran in cinemas. It probably wasn't until the 1991 director's cut that we saw the press giving it a second look. Ridley Scott knew that there was something imperfect about the original, and we managed to get a much better movie thanks to him.

It's not surprising that movies like Clockwork and Scarface would be given a negative response (Scarface moreso) due to its content. Some critics would probably be a bit more prudish to what would be going on in those movies, but there were still quite a few out there that saw past that. Roger Ebert gave Scarface a perfect rating, and put it up on his great movies list.

But what I seem to be getting here is that just because the critics were somewhat muted towards Interstellar, you assume that the movie would be given a second look back, trying to find hidden depths that just are not there because of how everything is laid out and explained (I mean, why do I need to be told just what's going on

Spoiler

in the tesserect

when the visuals already show me that?). And I do have to wonder what your opinion on the whole Matt Damon thing, because that was just laughable and completely pointless (

Spoiler

why did there need to be a villain in a movie where we already know that the fate of the human race is at stake?

) and in the end, added nothing other than a cool visual effect. Because (and it's probably cliche saying this at this point) correlation does not equal causation. What we saw is what we got. And multiple repeat viewings are not going to reveal greater nuance like Blade Runner did. In the end, the movie wasn't awful...but it could have been much better.

 

[ClaptoVaughn]

I could barely make out what Michael Caine said near the end. I assume it was important stuff.

 

[0.1.1.2.3.5.8.13.21.34.55]

I actually just watched the movie for the first time
....
Spoiler alert:
Science, Science...? science..........??? Psycho........ Magic clock gravity factory, the end.

 

[Americanmushroom]

Both the science, and the underlying message, will both be important in years to come.


In fact, at some point in the future, when the world is in dire straits because of an asteroid, or over population, or disease, or whatever the extinction event for this planet is, and we look back at how we wouldn't put money towards things like NASA because we were too worried about our own lives, politics, celebrity gossip, etc. People will look back on this film and say things like "Now more relevant than ever before" and "Almost Prophetic"...

The trailer monologue drives this home perfectly.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WzHXI5HizQ

I ... what... Are you for real?

 

[Chris1]

Was the spoilers really necessary? yeah you may not be spoiling it exactly but

Spoiler

to post the "maybe it's you from the future" or "bruce willis was the ghost all along

you might aswell have just posted it entirely..

I feel sorry for OP if he hasn't seen it yet.

 

[vio]

Do not go gentle into that good night.

 

[SneakyStephan]

It's you from the future trying to stop you from watching Interstellar

roflmao

Movie wasn't very good but these posts made it worth watching

 

[Slaythe]

roflmao

Movie wasn't very good but these posts made it worth watching

Exactly my words.

Hated that movie with a passion (because it took itself seriously and ended up very pretentious).

But this thread made it worth it, lots of laughs.

 

[CronoShot]

Just eat some okra instead

 

[Bold One]

 

[Thanati]

Maybe the CPU just couldn't handle the nonsense anymore and just say, 'no, I'm done'.

 

[fastmower]

I never said that it was a bad film. Hell, I didn't expect it to be the next 2001 (like Nolan is ever capable of ascending to Kubrick's level). And yet you have the gall to call my opinion pretentious, as if I don't have an understanding of what criticisms I'm trying to address. Hell, you don't even seem to know how reactive the critics of some of those movies were back then. It wasn't like people had it in for Citizen Kane back then, after all, it was nominated for 9 Oscars. It was only after a smear campaign by the person for whom the life of Kane was based on did the critics turn their back on the movie, to the point where when it came time for the Oscars, the crowd would start to boo whenever the flick was mentioned. But since then, people have long forgotten that spat, but there was nothing before that that assumed critics were particularly negative towards the movie.

Blade Runner had the benefit of having two additional versions of the film released in the years after the movie first ran in cinemas. It probably wasn't until the 1991 director's cut that we saw the press giving it a second look. Ridley Scott knew that there was something imperfect about the original, and we managed to get a much better movie thanks to him.

It's not surprising that movies like Clockwork and Scarface would be given a negative response (Scarface moreso) due to its content. Some critics would probably be a bit more prudish to what would be going on in those movies, but there were still quite a few out there that saw past that. Roger Ebert gave Scarface a perfect rating, and put it up on his great movies list.

But what I seem to be getting here is that just because the critics were somewhat muted towards Interstellar, you assume that the movie would be given a second look back, trying to find hidden depths that just are not there because of how everything is laid out and explained (I mean, why do I need to be told just what's going on

Spoiler

in the tesserect

when the visuals already show me that?). And I do have to wonder what your opinion on the whole Matt Damon thing, because that was just laughable and completely pointless (

Spoiler

why did there need to be a villain in a movie where we already know that the fate of the human race is at stake?

) and in the end, added nothing other than a cool visual effect. Because (and it's probably cliche saying this at this point) correlation does not equal causation. What we saw is what we got. And multiple repeat viewings are not going to reveal greater nuance like Blade Runner did. In the end, the movie wasn't awful...but it could have been much better.

Very well stated! I'm glad I don't have to feel like I'm taking crazy pills by disliking Interstellar.

 

[BitStyle]

I find this funny because I just finished watching the movie.

have you tried love

It's you from the future trying to stop you from watching Interstellar

#dead

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I could barely make out what Michael Caine said near the end. I assume it was important stuff.

He said "My cocaine...I want you to have all of My Cocaine"

 

[jts]

This thread actually made me want to see the movie a second time... in like 4 days.

My main complaint is that it's actually an overly long movie. Would like to see an abridged cut.

Other than that it's brilliant at moments... but extremely silly at other times. And it's infinitely quotable.

I do appreciate its existence though. Making me watch a second time is already more than I can say for Inception.

 

[red731]

Just finished this movie because of this thread. What seemed like spoilers pushed me over to finally see it.

I cam here and reread the thread retroactively and damn. We are crying right now.

 

[legacyzero]

Those Gifs... My sides...

 

[rjcc]

Just have to comment on this. It's completely "spoilable" not everybody has the time to see movies even in the first couple years that they've been out, let alone within the first 6~ months.

Just because the masses have seen it and feel like sharing every detail about the plot doesn't mean that they aren't also spoiling it for those that haven't seen it. Be a bit more considerate, especially considering this post is about a guy that was trying to watch interstellar in the first place.

nah b. the thread title is pretty clear.

if you somehow care, but not enough to actually watch it even though you could have, why would you possibly enter a thread discussing said movie. a: to whine about spoilers.

Also, the movie's not spoiled.