Interstellar

[Stewball]

I actually thought the "ghost" in the bookcase scene at the end was pretty cool, except for the confusing (impossible?) abandonment of science (unless I missed something) way it came about. I don't think the Scooby Do comparison is fair, but it was like the scientific paradox of meeting yourself back in time was mostly enforced except for being slightly overridden through force of will. I don't think natural law makes allowances for any such slight exceptions. It would be exactly like affecting gravity slightly through mental effort/emotions.

[Suture Self]

I actually thought the "ghost" in the bookcase scene at the end was pretty cool, except for the confusing (impossible?) abandonment of science (unless I missed something) way it came about. I don't think the Scooby Do comparison is fair, but it was like the scientific paradox of meeting yourself back in time was mostly enforced except for being slightly overridden through force of will. I don't think natural law makes allowances for any such slight exceptions. It would be exactly like affecting gravity slightly through mental effort/emotions.

Well, first, there's the simple paradox that asks: how did humans survive to build the Tesseract/5th dimension-contraption in the first place? This also begs the question: not only should we ask how the humans survived, but how the hell did they build this thing, too? These are questions Nolan allows us to figure out on our own. Of course, there's nothing to figure out since this is just a plot leap we're forced to eat up. And unlike some movie mysteries, I didn't find this leap palatable at all. Too contrived.

Moving on: The idea that gravity "bleeds" through all dimensions is a well established one and a possible explanation for why it's so weak. I think right now, with current understandings of string theory and branes in mind, people think there might be something like 10-11 dimensions, so the idea of there being 5 dimensions is something I'm totally willing to buy; but the idea that humans are able to manipulate space-time in such a way that they're able to communicate across the universe through these 5 dimensions via gravity after somehow surviving traveling through a blackhole is pretty goofy. But what's worse is that this goofy idea is conveyed in the most hammy, "Gonna save my family as a way to save the universe" Spielbergian trope possible, with the added tacked on bonus of some unexplainable extra-dimensional inside-a-black hole time travel phenomena that Kip Thorne and Nolan chuckled their way to the bank about.

I'd also like to mention I rolled my eyes hard when the robot is like "I have the quantum data". Oh yeah? You do? That's cool. Thank god we have ~*~ quantum data ~*~ so the universe can be saved now. I thought this was incredibly corny, too, if only because ~*~ quantum data ~*~ became Interstellar's macguffin. and always was Interstellar's macguffin. Not that I expect Nolan to reconcile quantum physics with relativity in a hollywood blockbuster, but come on guys. The robot might as well have said "I have the love potion, let's save humanity". 100% cheese.

Granted, I'm not above cheese. I like a lot of Spielberg's movies. But Nolan was attempting to poker face the entire time, which made it abundantly clear he's no Stanley Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick doesn't need a poker face. Christopher Nolan does.

I will say that the wormhole sequence was badass and by far the movie's great achievement, even if surviving through any kind of theoretical wormhole is most likely impossible (even Kip Thorne would say as much). I thought the wave planet was a little goofy, but I would have been willing to appreciate it more had Hans Zimmer's bass-drone not ruined every scene with the giant wave. The ice planet was a little dull, and Matt Damon's psychotics kind of ruined it for me; y'know, along with Hans Zimmer's bass-drone.

Can we all at least admit that Hans Zimmer should be fired? Good god. Not to mention, to anyone reading this who hasn't seen it: Do not see Interstellar in IMAX. Some of the worst sound mixing I've ever experienced in a theater.

[SirStuckey]

Not to mention, to anyone reading this who hasn't seen it: Do not see Interstellar in IMAX. Some of the worst sound mixing I've ever experienced in a theater.

Can't disagree with you. I thought our theater's sound was messed up because there were numerous times where I could barely hear the dialogue because of either the sound of the effects happening on screen being real loud or some weird bass throbbing that seemed to happen most of the movie.

[Ocelot]

FarCryss a lot of your complaints really don't matter because I'm not sure what you were expecting except I guess that Christopher Nolan had solved a theory for wormhole travel and was debuting it in his new money. Even much better movies like 2001 have been about the response to these things because we don't know the causes at all in the first place, so why bother? Like, I know you've said as much, but I'm not sure what sort of line to take that would improve it other than just being a completely different movie.The real problem is when these themes are used to say nothing but than "love, or whatever" which is what this movie was a lot of the time.

But yeah, fire Hans Zimmer. A lot of scenes felt like I should be feeling something emotional but I couldn't hear what the characters were even saying over the obnoxious score. Also I got some Armageddon flashbacks when they talked about slingshotting around the planet and Matt Damon having space dementia.

[Stewball]

Not to mention, to anyone reading this who hasn't seen it: Do not see Interstellar in IMAX. Some of the worst sound mixing I've ever experienced in a theater.

Can't disagree with you. I thought our theater's sound was messed up because there were numerous times where I could barely hear the dialogue because of either the sound of the effects happening on screen being real loud or some weird bass throbbing that seemed to happen most of the movie.

Exactly. I saw it again in regular HD (indistinguishable from the 4K video for me) and was able to understand it a lot better and actually enjoyed it more, partly from that and partly because I was prepared where to pay more attention. My first watch was in a posh 4K viewing situation, with reclining (squeaky) seats that vibrated with the rockets etc., and I thought maybe the theater's sound system was a little weak. I guess not, but the sound in regular viewing, for whatever reason, was much better. The theater company for my second viewing isn't showing the 4K version. Hmmmm.

Another problem was that half the time (the first viewing) I didn't realize it was the TARS speaking off screen what with two other men also off screen.

[Stewball]

I actually thought the "ghost" in the bookcase scene at the end was pretty cool, except for the confusing (impossible?) abandonment of science (unless I missed something) way it came about. I don't think the Scooby Do comparison is fair, but it was like the scientific paradox of meeting yourself back in time was mostly enforced except for being slightly overridden through force of will. I don't think natural law makes allowances for any such slight exceptions. It would be exactly like affecting gravity slightly through mental effort/emotions.

Well, first, there's the simple paradox that asks: how did humans survive to build the Tesseract/5th dimension-contraption in the first place? This also begs the question: not only should we ask how the humans survived, but how the hell did they build this thing, too?

They survived by building those Arthur C. Clarke "Rendezvous with Rama"-like tubes orbiting Saturn. As for the black hole problem, that was Murph's Eureka moment, when she figured out enough of how the singularity hidden in the center of a black hole works so we could enter it without being stretched to infinity. Obviously, if we had such science now, which we don't, it would be over everybody's head anyway. Fair enough.

But.....

They gave two explanations for how they transcended our three dimensions (actually four counting time): using gravity was one, and using love was the other. That's where they lost it. They were working so hard to work love into it, they just sort of dropped it in there, and love being quasi-emotional, we're just supposed to emotionally accept that gravity=love.....or something.

At one point Brand (Hathaway) says that, "Love is the one thing that transcends time as space". Love isn't the one and only thing, it's an aspect of Truth, and that's what transcends time as space. If only they weren't so busy targeting the gushy members of the audience. Not that gushy is bad, only that it isn't the be all and end all by itself. What about other aspects of Truth like knowledge, justice and beauty. A small point in the big 70mm picture-story, but a critical one if we're going to be at all serious about the real Big Picture.

Spike Jonze did a better job of handling this stuff in Her, maybe because he only hinted at the technical, and left it for those who care about that part of it to look up the details for themselves. Yes, this material demands more technical details. So what're you gonna do, re-write it as a love story between Brand and the TARS and skip the black hole?

But what's worse is that this goofy idea is conveyed in the most hammy, "Gonna save my family as a way to save the universe" Spielbergian trope possible, with the added tacked on bonus of some unexplainable extra-dimensional inside-a-black hole time travel phenomena that Kip Thorne and Nolan chuckled their way to the bank about.

Don't underestimate the film's point about the drive to survive, the extension of which is the family. As for the black hole, see above. Yes, 11 dimensions is one theory, another has 28, and mine has an infinite number which swamps the dimension of time, but which becomes prominent when our 4 dimensions were "extruded" from them in the Big Bang. [Yes].

In any case, with all those theories, 5 is as good as any for the purposes of the film.

I'd also like to mention I rolled my eyes hard when the robot is like "I have the quantum data". Oh yeah? You do? That's cool. Thank god we have ~*~ quantum data ~*~ so the universe can be saved now. I thought this was incredibly corny, too, if only because ~*~ quantum data ~*~ became Interstellar's macguffin. and always was Interstellar's macguffin. Not that I expect Nolan to reconcile quantum physics with relativity in a hollywood blockbuster, but come on guys. The robot might as well have said "I have the love potion, let's save humanity". 100% cheese.

Not so fast. My favorite quantum interpretation (the Transactional Interpretation) suggests that all quantum transactions take place both forward and backward in time. It explains ALL quantum anomalies and weirdness, as well as the Einstein-Podolsky paradox. Quantum data/theory is critical to a Grand Unified Theory which would incorporate gravity. Not so corny, I think.

Granted, I'm not above cheese. I like a lot of Spielberg's movies. But Nolan was attempting to poker face the entire time, which made it abundantly clear he's no Stanley Kubrick. Stanley Kubrick doesn't need a poker face. Christopher Nolan does.

Nolan's biggest setback in comparison to 2001 (and there are several comparisons), and the only major negative one, is the music.

Now some off the wall comments:

No war? No armies? Huh??? They could have spent a couple of lines at least explaining how that came about, not to mention what caused the blight on the world's crops. But nothing.

There was a great bit of political commentary about the redacting of textbooks to show that the missions to the Moon were fake. Never mind that a few decades later were sending missions to Saturn. Perfectly represented big government, bureaucratic double-think being foisted on our schools.

Why did they have to go to a whole n'other galaxy? There's nothing else suitable here in the good ol' Milky Way? The planets they did find weren't no great shakes.

Was the water on that first planet salty? And how did waves that high form in water that was (apparently everywhere) only 1 foot deep? (I know, picky picky.)

[Ocelot]

Hi. A question for Mister Nolan. In scene 2F09 when Cooper plays Brand's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

[Stewball]

Hi. A question for Mister Nolan. In scene 2F09 when Cooper plays Brand's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

Haven't you ever read about Adam and Eve and the rib thing? Other than that I have no idea what you're talking about, except maybe it's an obscure slam at the hyper-critics. If so, well done. (scene 2F09 )

[mattorama12]

At one point Brand (Hathaway) says that, "Love is the one thing that transcends time as space".

I liked the movie, but this really bugged me. Such clichéd writing there. I was actually pretty impressed with the emotional impact of the movie, as I think its Nolan's best in that sense. The scene where they first come back from Miller's planet and Cooper watched the 23 years of video...very heart wrenching. But the attempt to tie the science-fiction with "love" really made me roll my eyes.

Anyway, question for you all: What purpose did Professor's Brand's big lie serve? I mean, in the end, his like turned out to be accurate. I can't see how the reveal that it was a lie pushed the story forward. I guess the reveal sort of prompted Matt Damon's coming out as willing to sacrifice the people left on Earth. Or maybe it was meant to just make us feel more hopeless for Plan A? Either way, the whole reveal just seemed like a twist for the sake of a twist, rather than really serving a better purpose.

[mattorama12]

Hi. A question for Mister Nolan. In scene 2F09 when Cooper plays Brand's skeleton like a xylophone, he strikes the same rib twice in succession, yet he produces two clearly different tones. I mean, what are we to believe, that this is some sort of a magic xylophone or something? Boy, I really hope somebody got fired for that blunder.

Haven't you ever read about Adam and Eve and the rib thing? Other than that I have no idea what you're talking about, except maybe it's an obscure slam at the hyper-critics. If so, well done. (scene 2F09 )

Simpsons reference