Interstellar

POSTED BY: ecgordon
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 08:44
VIEWED: 20244
PAGE 4 of 11

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, November 17, 2014 1:59 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Crazy spoilers in this post.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What big one?

You don't see it? Really?

That would be why I asked. Twice.
Quote:

Maybe your limited intellectual ability is why you just aren't capable of groking obvious things. Obvi.

Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?
Quote:

Anyhow...

The big plot hole: How did humans escape their dead Earth the first time around? If humans hadn't gone through the wormhole because no humans had yet gone through it and been able to send their BDH Matthew M into the blackhole and so do all the science that let them get to the wormhole and survive long enough to, in the far future, create the wormhole...

How was the wormhole there the first time through the timeline?

Major plot fail there. Really big. You didn't see it JSF?

How was the Nimitz created the first time around in Final Countdown?
How was Lyle Swann born the first time around in Timerider?
How was invisible aluminum created the first time around in Star Trek IV?
How was John Connor born the first time around in The Terminator?
How did Enterprise C return to it's time the first time around without Battleship Enterprise D in "Yesterday's Enterprise" - one of the highest-voted episodes in the entire Enterprise franchise?
How was the Army of 12 Monkeys created the first time around without Cole, or how did Cole see his future self dying in his childhood in 12 Monkeys?
How was T100 created the first time around without the chip being left, as explained in T2?

Is this your first time viewing a science fiction film? Or one with time paradox?
Or are you a moron?

Quote:

Moron.

I have fan-wank solutions, but I won't share quite yet.

So my question, asked of Second, remains: What big one?

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Monday, November 17, 2014 2:28 AM

I had failed to finish this post.

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Quote:
Originally posted by second:
Are you implying that the Obama opposition, the Republicans, have an interstellar program in their party's platform? If they do, they are keeping that a secret. . . . Hey! That's exactly like the super-secret program in the movie Interstellar! In a real USA, not Hollywood's USA, there is no reason to keep it secret, except to surprise Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

You feel the explanation in the film was not adequate, or you didn't understand it, or you disagree with it, or it was not clear enough?
The Interstellar Project was secret only because Hollywood and the Nolan Brothers needed to keep the secret from Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

The project does not need the secrecy of a Manhattan project where Germany could have been strongly motivated to built a competing A-Bomb to drop on the USA if only Germany had known what the US was doing.

This is not the explanation from Interstellar. Is this your strawman argument?
Quote:
Quote:

Or later in the Manhattan project, Russia might drop a A-Bomb on the USA after WW II was over.

This is not the explanation from Interstellar. Is this your strawman argument?
Quote:
Quote:

The movie was, to be perfectly frank, stupid about the secrecy. A rational USA is not going to keep an Interstellar project hidden because there is no enemy to keep it hidden from.

And the movie had school history books rewritten to make the Apollo Program a hoax?

You are not familiar with the rewritings? You have never seen history rewritten? You don't think history is rewritten by the victors?
Quote:
Quote:

That would make as much sense as declaring the Civil War a hoax so that feelings of 21st Century Southerners are spared the distress of knowing that the Confederacy lost.

extremely poor analogy. Spared feelings is not the explanation given in Interstellar - that would have been rubbish.

Quote:
Quote:

So you didn't understand it.

ECGORDON

Monday, November 17, 2014 5:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?

Hardly a new word. It's from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land, so it's at least 53 years old, possibly older, because he started writing the story in 1949 even though it wasn't published until 1961.

It means understanding something completely.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, November 17, 2014 11:06 AM

EC, just got back from watching Interstellar. Yes, watching. I did not get the feeling that I was experiencing a film, more like watching a series of attempts to tell a story. Oh, it started out well, but after a few minutes it started to become somewhat forced, the emotion I mean. By the way, that little girl who played McConahey's daughter was the best thing going for this film, even Chastain, who's usually solid, seemed a bit off, but she was better than most. Kudos to the actors who voiced the robots CASE and TARS.

I kept thinking, this was written and directed by Nolan? It just didn't seem possible that the director responsible for Inception and Dark Knight was responsible for this weak offering. I left disappointed. Matt Damon's character, what the fuck was that about. I don't think that the actors believed in the script.
It was not your usual tight solid performances that you come to expect from a Nolan film.

Just read Wishimay's review and that's pretty much how I feel about it.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Just got back from seeing this. There are some very good things about it, and also some things that are very wrong. I've got four shows I want to watch tonight so my full review will have to wait until tomorrow.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, November 17, 2014 11:23 AM

SPOILERS!!!!!!

I agree with you 99.9%

I was not happy when I left the theater. How does a little girl out-act everybody, except for Chastain and the robots, in a Nolan film?

What was up with the ear-splitting music? I couldn't hear half the dialogue. Matt Damon's character, WTF?, and that fight scene was so lame. The reason why I think the scenes felt long was because there was never any payoff, the scenes pretty much went nowhere. As soon as they mentioned the time element in exploring the Black Hole, I knew that it was Murph's father that sent the message. No surprise there.

I was totally disappointed.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay:
We saw it yesterday as well, and even today I'm still "Loading... please wait...." mode.

I should mention for anyone going to see it that it's 169 minutes long, so don't get there early. There was a couple scenes 2/3 of the way through I just really wanted to go for a smoke break (and I don't smoke!) but I will say that I didn't notice how long it was until that point.

I think I liked the movie. (I will give it an A-) I had some problems with the voice work (McConaughey tends to mumble) and the music scores were written by a teenaged music major(at least it felt like it) with one of those old electric organs and at maybe 60-70 decibels. Painfully loud. It was still loud with my fingers plugged in my ears. Did not take the kiddo and I'm glad we didn't as the intensity of the suspenseful scenes and constant life/deathness and loudness would have been too much.

I do not care for the way they resolved the whole thing. "THEY" and "SOMETIME, SOMEWERE IN THE FUTURE" after going to such lengths for the rest of the movie to come up with a plot just seemed to cheapen it. Also "HERE'S THE SCENARIO, THE EARTH IS MESSED UP>>> RUN WITH IT" Just sucked. Talk to any scientist and they can give you dozens of reasons for an apocalypse. It was mindless robot time. ARGH, DUST KILL CROP. MUST LEAVE PLANET. So sad, lets just move on??? After all, we still have 2 and a half hours to go people Don't look at that hydroponic plant behind the curtain............. *snort*

There were definitely some great visuals and sensations and science aspects worthy of praise. The robot was one of the best of those. They actually put some thought or research into them and the interaction with them was one of the better points. And it certainly had the feel of an amusement park ride and kept my attention for almost three hours.

SHINYGOODGUY

Monday, November 17, 2014 12:10 PM

I agree, I was very disappointed in this mess. There wasn't much that I felt was good about this film. Plus, it was so damn loud, couldn't hear half the dialogue. Comparing this to 2001: A Space Odyssey is like comparing Goodfellas to Analyze This.
I was so looking forward to this film, but ever since Dark Knight Rises his writing has been slipping. DKR was a 50-50 mix of great action and solid storyline, with a great deal of overreach, just too much socio-political scenarios.

SGG

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
http://templetongate.net/interstellar.htm

WISHIMAY

Monday, November 17, 2014 7:45 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I left disappointed. Matt Damon's character, what the fuck was that about. I don't think that the actors believed in the script.

Yep, that was the point where I wanted to take a smoke break, but I was trying to be nice. It's almost like they wanted to just throw in another planet, and to re-iterate that PEOPLE are going to be the biggest problem with space travel. "Here's your morality lesson of the day, kids" time. It didn't add anything.

AURAPTOR

Monday, November 17, 2014 8:46 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Major plot fail there. Really big. You didn't see it JSF?

Moron.

Is the insult actually necessary ? This is a MOVIE. It's ENTERTAINMENT. And yeah, I thought the 'handshake' was a bit of a short cut too, a cop out, but what the hey, so what ?

What I got out of the movie is that man MUST look upwards, to the stars, if there's any hope for our long term survival.

OLDGUY

Monday, November 17, 2014 8:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by THGRRI:
One thing said by a reviewer was that this movie was constructed for a theater experience, to wait for the DVD means missing out on a lot.

eh...but then you haven't seen my home movie room ! and I'll be able to adjust for the imbalance of voice-to-music that everyone is complaining about

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Tuesday, November 18, 2014 4:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?

Hardly a new word. It's from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land, so it's at least 53 years old, possibly older, because he started writing the story in 1949 even though it wasn't published until 1961.

It means understanding something completely.

Online dictionaries had results of nothing. So it must be fictional word, then. That would be the work which created the waterbed, right?

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE