Nuker, I think you are trying to communicate valid points, but your responses aren't very clear. You use "it" a lot and it's not always clear to me what you're referring to. Other parts of your response are disjointed as well. Specifically, the first, third, and fifth sections from your post above. I'd like to have this discussion, but I want us both to be clear what we're actually talking about.
Make sure your sentences are grammatically correct. Make sure they're all complete sentences!
In the first question, I'm primarily referring to "it" as the plot/story. I never found the story to be scientifically questionable with the exposition until the ending.
In the second question, I'm referring to the amount of exposition in the plot. Prestige and Inception constantly explain the plot and science too you, but they can stand alone as a story. Interstellar requires you to submit to Nolan's message of love and can't stand on it's own inter-movie science.
In the third question, I'm referring to "it" as the movie's own sense of science. If the movie does not want to be truly about hard science, then the film shouldn't leave so many questionable things open. Saying something like "the moon landings were propaganda" in the school books makes you question exactly how far the setting is in the future and how much technology is actually available.
In the fourth question, I'm referring to the sound. I believe the score was awful but there's a possibility that Nolan did that intentionally.
In the fifth question, I'm referring to "it" as the movie's message about love. The film should have been balanced better between all the dialogue and discussion being so much about science, exposition, math and formulas while barely having inspirational talks of humanity and survival. That's why the ending is basically a cop-out so we could have a more satisfying ending.
That type of ending/message is something you roll your eyes out in fantasy/children's movies, Nolan is just delivering it to you in a different genre. Thus I said: "There is quantum, empirical evidence showing that love and the human spirit is a successful force."
Hopefully that clears up what you were trying to understand.
I would need to go back and rewatch the movie to confirm this, but but I'm pretty sure all the times when the score got so loud that it overpowered the dialogue (especially in Murph's room), coincide with Future Cooper attempting to contact/influence the past. Only towards the end of the movie did I realize that the score and the bass got overpowering when Cooper was trying to send a message back in time to Murph via the books and the watch. I think this was intentional on Nolan's part as an audio cue.
Like I said, I'd need to rewatch the movie to confirm that they're related 1:1, but if my memory serves, most of the instances match up.
That's pretty cool. I'll also check out the app on iOS to see what they have to offer. It's more than likely basic stuff from what most people here already know, but I wouldn't mind getting educated on it.
I'm really glad I saw this in the theater. I think Interstellar is a very ambitious piece of hard science fiction. While I love it I do understand that the movie has flaws that keeps it from entering 2010 territory. Namely it's Christopher Nolan's weird and somewhat unsuccessful attempt at analyzing human emotion, and the run time (I personally think that movies should err on the side of being shorter).
On the subject of Matt Damon, I don't think his plot went no where. I think it served as a vehicle to push the cast to the final resolution, and said something about our connections to family that, for me, added to the concept of love as a quantifiable force that connects us over vast tracts of time and space. That in turn more solidified the concepts that were at play in that tesseract scene.
I don't think it's at all important the year beyond that it is some decades in the future. I liked how the movie just treated me like I could be trusted to fill in the blanks from context, at least about what led up to where the movie started. I personally just found the propaganda line to be a nice bit of world building that just went to show that the whole world was prioritizing food production over technology by far.
I can see why someone wouldn't like this movie, I just disagree.
Comments
Make sure your sentences are grammatically correct. Make sure they're all complete sentences!
In the second question, I'm referring to the amount of exposition in the plot. Prestige and Inception constantly explain the plot and science too you, but they can stand alone as a story. Interstellar requires you to submit to Nolan's message of love and can't stand on it's own inter-movie science.
In the third question, I'm referring to "it" as the movie's own sense of science. If the movie does not want to be truly about hard science, then the film shouldn't leave so many questionable things open. Saying something like "the moon landings were propaganda" in the school books makes you question exactly how far the setting is in the future and how much technology is actually available.
In the fourth question, I'm referring to the sound. I believe the score was awful but there's a possibility that Nolan did that intentionally.
In the fifth question, I'm referring to "it" as the movie's message about love. The film should have been balanced better between all the dialogue and discussion being so much about science, exposition, math and formulas while barely having inspirational talks of humanity and survival. That's why the ending is basically a cop-out so we could have a more satisfying ending.
That type of ending/message is something you roll your eyes out in fantasy/children's movies, Nolan is just delivering it to you in a different genre. Thus I said: "There is quantum, empirical evidence showing that love and the human spirit is a successful force."
Hopefully that clears up what you were trying to understand.
I would need to go back and rewatch the movie to confirm this, but but I'm pretty sure all the times when the score got so loud that it overpowered the dialogue (especially in Murph's room), coincide with Future Cooper attempting to contact/influence the past. Only towards the end of the movie did I realize that the score and the bass got overpowering when Cooper was trying to send a message back in time to Murph via the books and the watch. I think this was intentional on Nolan's part as an audio cue.
Like I said, I'd need to rewatch the movie to confirm that they're related 1:1, but if my memory serves, most of the instances match up.
That's pretty cool. I'll also check out the app on iOS to see what they have to offer. It's more than likely basic stuff from what most people here already know, but I wouldn't mind getting educated on it.
On the subject of Matt Damon, I don't think his plot went no where. I think it served as a vehicle to push the cast to the final resolution, and said something about our connections to family that, for me, added to the concept of love as a quantifiable force that connects us over vast tracts of time and space. That in turn more solidified the concepts that were at play in that tesseract scene.
I don't think it's at all important the year beyond that it is some decades in the future. I liked how the movie just treated me like I could be trusted to fill in the blanks from context, at least about what led up to where the movie started. I personally just found the propaganda line to be a nice bit of world building that just went to show that the whole world was prioritizing food production over technology by far.
I can see why someone wouldn't like this movie, I just disagree.