Man, Sliders was an interesting show. I'm not sure if it was very good (the acting, in particular, was awful) but the set ups were very fun to watch play out.
Man, Sliders was an interesting show. I'm not sure if it was very good (the acting, in particular, was awful) but the set ups were very fun to watch play out.
I'm a huge fan of multiverse /parallel dimension stories and concepts but good science did that show start off mediocre and descend in to the shitter.
Is there any connection to this and China being on the Moon?
I pray to all the gods and Jesus' and other major and minor deities' that because of this, it starts a new space race, that we put every ounce of our planet's being and will towards the single goal of being more than the sum of our planet. Movies like this hopefully can put the thoughts into the right people.
Is there any connection to this and China being on the Moon?
I pray to all the gods and Jesus' and other major and minor deities' that because of this, it starts a new space race, that we put every ounce of our planet's being and will towards the single goal of being more than the sum of our planet. Movies like this hopefully can put the thoughts into the right people.
I'm sorry, I just watched a movie trailer which showed a bunch of footage of the space race, talked about how we need to start being awesome again, and ended with people looking longingly into the stars after watching a rocket launch into space while the title INTERSTELLAR appeared... Forgive me if I mistook the film for having something to do with space flight and the advancement of human technology, and missed the time lord undertones.
Ok just being hard cuz I ain't ate yet.
What I meant earlier was not whether it was a movie about China on the moon, but if they synced up the trailer launch to coincide with moon landings being in the news because it's a nice synergy (from a company called Syncopy)
But yes, I mean I got from the thread that there was mention of it involving multiple universes or time travel and/or both: and that's cool! But that doesn't mean it doesn't also involve spaaaaaaaaace. Which is logical: if we were doing things involving multiple dimensions you don't wanna do that in a call box in London, you wanna do it out past the Moon or something in case shit goes horribad.
Also who knows if the plot is even the same now since when it was discussed in January? Maybe he decided to incorporate more space into the movie cuz it is important
I haven't watched it yet but I went ahead and read the wiki summary. Seems to use a lot of sci-fi tropes and whenever time travel is used there is almost always plot hole shenanigans. I'm still interested in watching it though.
Yeah, I read that in the comments on the Verge. Also, don't listen to the podcast/SoundClound thing.
Now when you say not about time travel, is it due to the 5th dimension stuff? I have a tiny inkling of knowledge of this stuff and was planning on reading more about it.
I can't say I'm a fan of the movie mostly because I'm not exactly sure what Christopher Nolan was trying to say. The fact it was more science fantasy than hard science wasn't the problem, but I do think it was a mistake to focus so heavily on future technology, formulas, and scientific theories and then switch the themes around the ending. Even with those infographics that explain how the time/space works over the course of the plot, it does have a "Because we said so" ending about how they came so far despite all the odds with a time jump.
I don't hate what he was trying to do, but I think he was reaching far too high and trying to say a message, rather than just tell a story similar to Inception or The Prestige. Also, whoever did the sound editing/mixing should be fired. Too often did the score become so Sturm and Drang that made it hard to understand some of the characters.
I actually think the best part of the movie is the stuff relating to the Earth, because it's a very fascinating situation. I don't think divulge into Earth's situation enough though. How far are we into the future? What happened to urban areas or the government as a whole? Even though we've developed new technology to assist space travel/terraforming, how come we couldn't use similar technology on Earth?
The fact it was more science fantasy than hard science wasn't the problem, but I do think it was a mistake to focus so heavily on future technology, formulas, and scientific theories
I don't hate what he was trying to do, but I think he was reaching far too high and trying to say a message, rather than just tell a story similar to Inception or The Prestige.
Seriously? Inception could be summed up as posing an existential question. The Prestiege isn't too far off either. Also, what message do you think he was trying to send, and what message do you think the movie actually sent?
I actually think the best part of the movie is the stuff relating to the Earth, because it's a very fascinating situation. I don't think divulge into Earth's situation enough though. How far are we into the future? What happened to urban areas or the government as a whole? Even though we've developed new technology to assist space travel/terraforming, how come we couldn't use similar technology on Earth?
I too agree that those bits are very interesting, but I suspect Mr. Nolan didn't explicitly tell us these things on purpose. Because they don't matter. It doesn't matter precisely what year it is. That's not what the movie's about. See also: Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Also, whoever did the sound editing/mixing should be fired. Too often did the score become so Sturm and Drang that made it hard to understand some of the characters.
Good atmosphere, [...] it's really harmed by Hans Zimmer's incredibly intrusive score that hurts the speaking
I just disagree with you here, I thought it was great, and didn't have trouble hearing the dialogue. If anything, I thought there were a couple parts that could have used less talking. Also you seem to be at odds with yourself again somewhat. The score was instrumental - all atmosphere!
Ro: if you're going to pick one thing the movie is "about", I would say Humans more than time travel. But that's just me.
If you couldn't tell, I come down closer to Andrew on this one.
I actually think the best part of the movie is the stuff relating to the Earth, because it's a very fascinating situation. I don't think divulge into Earth's situation enough though. How far are we into the future? What happened to urban areas or the government as a whole? Even though we've developed new technology to assist space travel/terraforming, how come we couldn't use similar technology on Earth?
While this is something that I am curious about in many movies, it didn't matter to me in this movie. I was happy it got through most of the Earth stuff in 30-40 minutes and they went to space. I don't think it was really necessary to know the answers to your questions, just the fact that it was happening and that was the problem they were trying to solve.
The more I think about it, the more I feel the message of theme Nolan was going for was "love". I mainly refer to Anne Hathaway's love speech about her wanting to skip the ice planet and go to the planet where the person she loved is. “Love isn’t something we invented — it’s observable, powerful, it has to mean something... Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.” However, it's mainly the love between Cooper and his daughter. I think in the end no matter how complex or scientific something can be, from basic physics to astrophysics, love is powerful force even in comparison to the force of Gargantua.
This was my take on it. It does sound a bit cheesy, but that's the chord that struck to me.
The fact it was more science fantasy than hard science wasn't the problem, but I do think it was a mistake to focus so heavily on future technology, formulas, and scientific theories
It was that the movie wanted to focus on explaining to the audience how these various formulas and scientific theories worked of entering a wormhole. It never became too much for me to handle, until the ending. It's technically something that could happen, but it felt like a mistake in the writing that Nolan wrote himself into a corner and he had to come up or use something such as that as a way to get his idealistic ending.
I don't hate what he was trying to do, but I think he was reaching far too high and trying to say a message, rather than just tell a story similar to Inception or The Prestige.
Seriously? Inception could be summed up as posing an existential question. The Prestiege isn't too far off either. Also, what message do you think he was trying to send, and what message do you think the movie actually sent?
Exposition is the key term here. I think the dialogue spends about 75% on the space, the science, how the time dilation works and why there are stakes. The human element with the acting and the Earth stuff is great, but there isn't enough of it to compensate for the switch. I bring up those two movies because they are also very much about selling you an idea that isn't real, but has all this potential.
The Prestige does it in a really clear-cut way at the ending explaining how the whole thing worked and the outcome of it, only leaving one question open at the end. Inception does ask a lot of the audience of accepting the idea and how far it goes, but isn't trying to force a statement from it. You can still look at Inception as a good story and I even support what more you can find out about it. Interstellar has loftier aspirations to make the story about love and you have to submit to that message to enjoy it.
I actually think the best part of the movie is the stuff relating to the Earth, because it's a very fascinating situation. I don't think divulge into Earth's situation enough though. How far are we into the future? What happened to urban areas or the government as a whole? Even though we've developed new technology to assist space travel/terraforming, how come we couldn't use similar technology on Earth?
I too agree that those bits are very interesting, but I suspect Mr. Nolan didn't explicitly tell us these things on purpose. Because they don't matter. It doesn't matter precisely what year it is. That's not what the movie's about. See also: Neon Genesis Evangelion
If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't add enough information to make you question it. There's very limited technology shown and they even mention things like "Those well done pieces of propaganda known as the Moon Landings" that make you question it.
Also, whoever did the sound editing/mixing should be fired. Too often did the score become so Sturm and Drang that made it hard to understand some of the characters.
Good atmosphere, [...] it's really harmed by Hans Zimmer's incredibly intrusive score that hurts the speaking
I just disagree with you here, I thought it was great, and didn't have trouble hearing the dialogue. If anything, I thought there were a couple parts that could have used less talking. Also you seem to be at odds with yourself again somewhat. The score was instrumental - all atmosphere!
The atmosphere was good in the sense of the cinematography, special effects, the look of space, the design of the planets...all visual. The sound editing/mixing on the other hand was awful as Hans Zimmer's score was pounding you in the head to point out the tension. And he was doing it like a faux-Phillip Glass playing too hard on the incredibly high pitches.
I saw the movie in 35mm and I could count 8 times when the music became so loud that it was hard to hear what they were saying. My brother was saying this was done as a stylistic choice to suggest that what the characters were saying was unnecessary and they should just save their breath, but it came off as really poor worksmanship. (And if there's any agreed bad spot in this movie, people do point at the score)
The more I think about it, the more I feel the message of theme Nolan was going for was "love". I mainly refer to Anne Hathaway's love speech about her wanting to skip the ice planet and go to the planet where the person she loved is. “Love isn’t something we invented — it’s observable, powerful, it has to mean something... Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.” However, it's mainly the love between Cooper and his daughter. I think in the end no matter how complex or scientific something can be, from basic physics to astrophysics, love is powerful force even in comparison to the force of Gargantua.
This was my take on it. It does sound a bit cheesy, but that's the chord that struck to me.
I do think that's my biggest problem with the movie is that for being sold as a scientific space epic and then to be really all about a story about humanity. If you want to do that, the balance could have been so much better because the first two-thirds are almost oppressive with the bleakness and then have that turn up. Plus we have the Matt Damon subplot that doesn't go anywhere and there's the time jump from the climax to the ending. It's a familiar theme, but I find it's corny that the movie was all about that at the end. (I was cringing when Anne Hathaway was giving that speech, but if it worked for you, all power to ya.)
Picture it with the fantasy/magic genre: "Love is the magical power that saves us from evil and transcends through everything!"
Interstellar is saying the same message, but as: "There is quantum, empirical evidence showing that love and the human spirit is a successful force."
Comments
Can we Misery Christopher Nolan?
I pray to all the gods and Jesus' and other major and minor deities' that because of this, it starts a new space race, that we put every ounce of our planet's being and will towards the single goal of being more than the sum of our planet. Movies like this hopefully can put the thoughts into the right people.
Ok just being hard cuz I ain't ate yet.
What I meant earlier was not whether it was a movie about China on the moon, but if they synced up the trailer launch to coincide with moon landings being in the news because it's a nice synergy (from a company called Syncopy)
But yes, I mean I got from the thread that there was mention of it involving multiple universes or time travel and/or both: and that's cool! But that doesn't mean it doesn't also involve spaaaaaaaaace. Which is logical: if we were doing things involving multiple dimensions you don't wanna do that in a call box in London, you wanna do it out past the Moon or something in case shit goes horribad.
Also who knows if the plot is even the same now since when it was discussed in January? Maybe he decided to incorporate more space into the movie cuz it is important
Taken from
Also it's pretty much a perfect movie. It's a once in a generation type film.
Now when you say not about time travel, is it due to the 5th dimension stuff? I have a tiny inkling of knowledge of this stuff and was planning on reading more about it.
I don't hate what he was trying to do, but I think he was reaching far too high and trying to say a message, rather than just tell a story similar to Inception or The Prestige. Also, whoever did the sound editing/mixing should be fired. Too often did the score become so Sturm and Drang that made it hard to understand some of the characters.
I actually think the best part of the movie is the stuff relating to the Earth, because it's a very fascinating situation. I don't think divulge into Earth's situation enough though. How far are we into the future? What happened to urban areas or the government as a whole? Even though we've developed new technology to assist space travel/terraforming, how come we couldn't use similar technology on Earth?
Ro: if you're going to pick one thing the movie is "about", I would say Humans more than time travel. But that's just me.
If you couldn't tell, I come down closer to Andrew on this one. Well, since Inception at least anyway ^_~
The more I think about it, the more I feel the message of theme Nolan was going for was "love". I mainly refer to Anne Hathaway's love speech about her wanting to skip the ice planet and go to the planet where the person she loved is. “Love isn’t something we invented — it’s observable, powerful, it has to mean something... Love is the one thing we’re capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space.” However, it's mainly the love between Cooper and his daughter. I think in the end no matter how complex or scientific something can be, from basic physics to astrophysics, love is powerful force even in comparison to the force of Gargantua.
This was my take on it. It does sound a bit cheesy, but that's the chord that struck to me.
I also, in regards do your sci-fi vs. hard science: Neil deGrasse Tyson seemed to enjoy 'Interstellar,' according to his Twitter analysis.
The Prestige does it in a really clear-cut way at the ending explaining how the whole thing worked and the outcome of it, only leaving one question open at the end. Inception does ask a lot of the audience of accepting the idea and how far it goes, but isn't trying to force a statement from it. You can still look at Inception as a good story and I even support what more you can find out about it. Interstellar has loftier aspirations to make the story about love and you have to submit to that message to enjoy it. If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't add enough information to make you question it. There's very limited technology shown and they even mention things like "Those well done pieces of propaganda known as the Moon Landings" that make you question it. The atmosphere was good in the sense of the cinematography, special effects, the look of space, the design of the planets...all visual. The sound editing/mixing on the other hand was awful as Hans Zimmer's score was pounding you in the head to point out the tension. And he was doing it like a faux-Phillip Glass playing too hard on the incredibly high pitches.
I saw the movie in 35mm and I could count 8 times when the music became so loud that it was hard to hear what they were saying. My brother was saying this was done as a stylistic choice to suggest that what the characters were saying was unnecessary and they should just save their breath, but it came off as really poor worksmanship. (And if there's any agreed bad spot in this movie, people do point at the score)
I do think that's my biggest problem with the movie is that for being sold as a scientific space epic and then to be really all about a story about humanity. If you want to do that, the balance could have been so much better because the first two-thirds are almost oppressive with the bleakness and then have that turn up. Plus we have the Matt Damon subplot that doesn't go anywhere and there's the time jump from the climax to the ending. It's a familiar theme, but I find it's corny that the movie was all about that at the end. (I was cringing when Anne Hathaway was giving that speech, but if it worked for you, all power to ya.)
Picture it with the fantasy/magic genre: "Love is the magical power that saves us from evil and transcends through everything!"
Interstellar is saying the same message, but as: "There is quantum, empirical evidence showing that love and the human spirit is a successful force."