Interstellar
POSTED BY: ecgordon
UPDATED: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 08:44
VIEWED: 20244
PAGE 5 of 11
Quote:
Originally posted by OLDGUY: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
What size screen have you?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Agreed. At least in Inception each scene built upon the previous scene and so on. It was like a movement on a Swiss watch, precise without being clunky or boring.
Here, in this film, it felt somewhat disjointed and awkward. Like a teenage boy picking up his prom date at her parents house, you knew why you were there but didn't quite know what to do with your hands. Hathaway looked lost and there was no chemistry with McConaughey. Even when they revealed that her fiance was one of the lost explorers, nothing. It felt tacked on. There was no real emotion there, the robots had more passion.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by Wishimay: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.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I went to see it again yesterday, so I guess I'm a masochist.
Last week I would have invited my brother-in-law to see it since he is the only one I know who also likes SF movies, books too. But he and my sister were out of town. Then he calls me and asks if I wanted to go, I told him I had already seen it and wouldn't waste more money on it, but he was paying. I couldn't convince him to see Birdman instead, so I'll see that one later on in the week.
He is usually the one who nitpicks things that I like, and yet he was much more impressed with Interstellar than I was. I still admit it has some great visual set pieces, but the story is woefully thin.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Online dictionaries had results of nothing. So it must be fictional word, then. That would be the work which created the waterbed, right?
If using 'gorram' or 'shiny' among Firefly fans, it'd make sense. But 'grok' ? I don't care how old that word is, it was lost on me as well. And while I'm not full bore Sci-Fi geek, I am more up on such things than most. I've seen that word used here a time or two, and just ignored it. Nothing more than a lame attempt by the user to show some sort of phony intellectual upper hand, is how I see it. And it wasn't even used correctly, so I'd pay it no mind.
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthling assumptions) as color means to a blind man.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines to grok as "to understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with" and "to empathize or communicate sympathetically (with); also, to experience enjoyment".
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
...And it wasn't even used correctly, so I'd pay it no mind.
Translation: Please please fight me with me! I'll pick and peck at any old stupid thing just so you'll fight with me because I need the attention so very very badly!
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I went to see it again yesterday, so I guess I'm a masochist.
Last week I would have invited my brother-in-law to see it since he is the only one I know who also likes SF movies, books too. But he and my sister were out of town. Then he calls me and asks if I wanted to go, I told him I had already seen it and wouldn't waste more money on it, but he was paying. I couldn't convince him to see Birdman instead, so I'll see that one later on in the week.
He is usually the one who nitpicks things that I like, and yet he was much more impressed with Interstellar than I was. I still admit it has some great visual set pieces, but the story is woefully thin.
I had some vague plan to see it again so I could cement my opinion, but I really don't think I can handle the length. Was it hard to take a second viewing SGG?
I read an article about how they layered the sound differently than most movies, so I am kind of curious about that. I do recall liking the sound. (Yay for a silent explosion in space!) And those visuals were so good. OK, I might get drawn back into the theater if it stays up for a while.
Or... I could just veer into the theater waaaaay upstairs in the Times Square AMC where Guardians is still playing. It was last week, anyway. Hunger Games might bump it out this weekend.
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Was it hard to take a second viewing SGG?
Make that ECG.
Actually, it was easier to take the second time around, because I had already dealt with all the inconsistencies and WTF moments the first time. The audio on the dialog was still murky though, but I guess it didn't really matter since what they were saying was mostly nonsense anyway.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Was it hard to take a second viewing SGG?
Make that ECG.
D'oh! Sorry about that.
Quote:Interesting. I probably will take it in again then. In a few weeks.
Actually, it was easier to take the second time around, because I had already dealt with all the inconsistencies and WTF moments the first time. The audio on the dialog was still murky though, but I guess it didn't really matter since what they were saying was mostly nonsense anyway.
I've read some reviews about the dialog being hard to hear. I don't remember that being a problem for me. Maybe because I didn't care too much about the dialog? It was super loud at times in general.
Anyhow, I did want to agree with what y'all were saying above about how good the girl actress was. So true. I think MM was pretty good really, what bugged me was how the plot line centered so completely on him. Humankind's first big encounter with a black hole and it's all about one man and his daughter? Meh. Too obviously Hollywood.
*-------------------------------------------------*
What trolls reveal about themselves when they troll:
http://fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57532
*-------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN: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?
Alright, as explained now, it was intended to be "grok" and extended to "grokking" according to those posting here. "Groking" remains undefined gibberish.
So, YES, it WAS a TYPO.
Thanks to all who helped out with translating her gibberish.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME