This is a 'dumb' movie masquerading as a smart one - Interstellar (2014) Discussion

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Now here is something we agree on. *shakes hands*

Beautiful movie, the wormhole and black hole are both groundbreaking models of actual theoretical math, so it was still an accomplishment.

But yes, the actual science fiction here is awful, and there is very little logic behind any decisions made by any characters. The entire plot with the "blight" is also completely self-contradictory in regards to how it's solved, the struggles (like the dust) are forced and extremely artificial, on and on and on. It's like a game to see how many problems the audience can spot.

I don't think Kip had much say in how the story turned out. From what I understand, he had a basic plot concept, which was first written by Spielberg and Jon Nolan, but then Chris Nolan unfortunately took it upon himself to rewrite it and completely mucked it up. He should stay away from sci-fi, just like Rian Johnson should.

Kip's main contribution to the final result was the math for the wormhole and black hole, which was fed into the simulation software.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Well if you dislike it Froggy then maybe it's a masterpiece after all!

But good to know we can agree on something.

What really annoyed me about IS is that I feel it's dishonest. One example: They launch from space, they use rocket boosters, fine, all very realistic and true to life but from that moment on their shuttle thingy takes off and lands on planets like it's the Millennium Falcon. You can't have your cake and eat it, you either show spaceships needing to launch the way they do now or you have some made up space drive to do it you can't do both and you definitely can't do both and then make out your film should be used to teach physics (which is something KT actually said). Yes, apparently the look of the black hole is based on actual theoretical physics but that is ultimately a very superficial aspect than doesn't impact anything in the plot and I'm pretty sure KT's theoretical model didn't include 5 dimensional bookcases and transmitting messages through pocket watches. It was like they set out to be the new 2001 and ended up thinking fuck it, realistic physics is boring, let's turn this into Blackhole.

But I guess it worked, the marketing was very effective as there's a post on the front page of Reddit full of people saying that it is entirely scientifically accurate. No. It's not. But the shape of the black hole is. Maybe. If 'ol Kippy got his maths right.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Yes, the movie is quite dishonest, agreed. Here are the top dishonesties I would list:

-They all live in a space-faring future but can't seal up their houses to stop the dust, can't use filters in their ventilation. This dust is literally killing them and they aren't doing anything about it, YET Coop has robotic farm equipment to make his life easier. Is it the dust bowl in the early 20th Century, or is it the future?

-Michael Caine's character shows Coop that crops cannot even be grown by NASA in isolation, because they still develop blight. However, his "magical solution" to this is to grow the crops in space instead. They're the same crops, you bring the same soil and the same air into space with you. "In space" is no different from "in isolation." If the crops can't be grown in isolation, then launching them into space won't help. This is hand-waved away with dialogue, and Nolan was in a bind because he wanted the blight to be unavoidable, but he also wanted a happy ending. Thus, the solution is: CREATE A CONTRADICTION so that the basic conflict driving the plot makes zero sense.

-Regarding the "Millennium Falcon" ship, yes I agree with you, and another dishonesty with this is the notion that the ONLY way to explore a planet is to land humans on the surface, even when time and resources are slim. It's crazy.

-The lie that robots can't be sent to the planets because robots don't have "survival skills." More hand-waving to make sense of the stupidity. All they're doing when they land is collect a few samples and look around. Furthermore, if you're worried about the robots not being human enough, then remote-control them from orbit. The concept that these planets HAVE to be landed on by HUMANS is just insipid.

Yes, Nolan wanted the down-to-Earth struggles of the Dust Bowl and 20th century NASA restrictions, but he also wanted a bunch of Star Trek level simplicity and futurism. It took hand-waving and basic dishonesty in order to accomplish that.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Helt enig.

And your second point might just be one of the biggest plot holes in history. My theory for this is that originally in the script the reason they needed to leave Earth was something more apocalyptic - an asteroid, solar flares etc - but then they decided that would feel too cliched so they went for 'the blight'. So the whole point of the movie makes no fucking sense. None. I was stupefied when it got to that point. So they solve the problem of killer potato blight by: flying into a black hole, solving an unsolvable mathematical equation in the process, not getting crushed to death, going back in time somehow, using a watch to transmit unfathomably complex notions to a child, that lets her solve gravity, that lets humanity build a big space station in space. Where there is no more potato blight. WTF? W.T.F.? And this is a 'thinking mans movie'??? Jesus Titty Fucking Christ!

And the robot line made me laugh, a total hand wave 'Ooo no Robots can't go' then proceeds to show the robots being fucking awesome and the humans doing stuff like going insane and rapidly ageing due to time dilation.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

"originally in the script the reason they needed to leave Earth was something more apocalyptic - an asteroid, solar flares etc"

Yes, it had to have been. With as central as gravity is to the plot, I imagined it to be some gravity-related disaster like a rogue planet that will pass too close to Earth and crack the surface open due to the tidal forces, something like that. ANYTHING!

"then proceeds to show the robots being fucking awesome and the humans doing stuff like going insane and rapidly ageing"

LOL, so true, and you're making me mention that horrible scene, one of the worst I've ever seen: Spend an inordinate amount of time talking about the importance of time, about time dilation, about how people are dying for every second they waste, etc.

Then they land on that water planet and how do they get the beacon? They send the smallest member of the crew, Amelia, out to trudge slowly through waist-deep water on a planet with 150% of Earth's gravity. She struggles and gets stuck.

Solution? Send the robot! The robot flits out to her, grabs her AND the beacon, and he's back in seconds. Coop didn't hesitate to send the robot, MEANING HE ALREADY KNEW THE ROBOT COULD HAVE DONE THE RETRIEVAL FASTER. So when time is SO important, why would he send Amelia out to trudge SLOWLY through the water?

It was absolute insanity. Never thought I'd see something so dumb.

Oh and if they'd just scanned the surface from orbit, even visually, they'd see that the planet had no land, and huge waves, and thus was useless.

But then again, I don't think that ship had any sensors at all, not even basic radar or sonar. On that frozen planet, Coop runs into a frozen cloud, which radar/sonar would have warned him about. He's lucky he only nicked the side of the cloud or they'd all be dead!

The problem there is... You can't fly through the darkness of space with just a windshield. You need some kind of radar or something to see ahead or else you might crash! Stupidity.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Yes, all great points.

And how about when they get back to the ship and that guy has aged 25 years but other than that he's fine. Just some bad old person make up (and acting) but other than that he's good to go. He hasn't gone insane or anything. He didn't kill himself. Or be a mental wreck. Why even have time dilation in the film if you're just going to give its effects the most superficial of impacts? Quantum mechanics has so much story telling potential and this film just screws them all up (have you ever read 'the Forever War'? - now that is a fantastic story)

Some other classic IS moments:

The fact that MM finds a secret NASA base hidden under a rug within driving distance from his farm and NASA are like 'Oh, good job you're here we need someone to fly a spaceship, the fate of humanity now rests in your hands good luck'.

Or what about the fact that Michael Caine was lying about being able to solve the formula in order to 'give people hope'. Well what fucking chance have your fellow mathematicians got of helping you solve the thing (which is going to save humanity!) if you're lying about your understanding of it you great big fucking bell end?! Honestly this film made me furious.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

"It was like they set out to be the new 2001 and ended up thinking fuck it, realistic physics is boring, let's turn this into Blackhole. "

Briliant!
Its funny cos its true

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

I think they just wanted to make a sci-fi movie with as much heart as ideas* and to explore themes relating to how we experience time and how that binds us as people...

* When I say ideas, I mean philosophical ones and such, not necessarily scientific ones although that is alluded to as plot device, but also when Nolan tries to examine how we relate to science and it's role in our contemporary culture.

Most of the pretention about science in the movie is either window dressing, or as an theme to be considered and reflected on, rather than it being the point of the movie.

They made a big fuss about how scientifically accurate the movie is, as a marketing strategy, especially in our on-line culture of 'cinema sins' and to get the nerds on their side... It worked, but scientific accuracy was never the point of the movie... The movie was made to deal with issues of the human mind and heart and while science relates to some of the movies themes, it is only a small part of it.

This is not a puzzle movie. There is nothing to solve. It is not meant to explain concepts of science. Rather the movie asks us to reflect on what it means to be human, e.g:

- How we are bound by time and cannot escape it. What does that mean for our personal choices? Do we really act as if it is our most important personal resource? Do we value sharing it with one another as much as we should, or are we stuck in a mode of trying to extend it, or ignore it?
- What role does science play in our culture and to us as persons. Can it be a moral guide? Does it suffice or do we need something more spiritual? Have we elevated scientists to the level of priests in our society and could they betray us? How has science become a tool and a political battleground?
- What is our perpose? Is it enough for us to simply survive? Do we reach for more and at what cost?

These are just examples of themes that are explored and dramatised... This is what the movie is about, not getting the science "right".

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Bollocks.

It's a big dumb glitzy typically Hollywood cliche ridden blockbuster but one that didn't even have the decency as to be honest about itself.

It's Armageddon marketed as if it's 2001.

That's it.

'This movie asks us to reflect on what it means to be human'? Oh man, the marketing guys must be creaming themselves knowing someone out there actually thinks that.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

haha... Always entertaining to read your posts... 👍

It may just be a Hollywood blockbuster, but it more elevated than the inane big movies that fill most of the theatre screens...

Instead of comparing it to a masterpeice like 2001, why not compare it to what is in cinema this week? ... Rampage, Ready Player One, Pacific Rim Uprising, etc... Or whatever was in cinema at the time? i.e. galaxy guardians, transformers and, interestingly, Edge of Tomorrow and Lucy...

In that context Interstellar is pretty elevated and has depth... It's a low brow space movie, with some refinement, a high level of craft and some high brow elements...

I hope we get a big film as high quality as Intersellar this year, or Edge of Tomorrow or Lucy. We'd be very lucky to get three big movies of that calibre.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Glad you think so.

But I'd say it isn't more 'elevated' it just wanted you to think it was. Strip away the well done special effects and the beautifully crafted score and what have you got? Imagine the same story but with a low budget... would it still speak to you about what it means to be human? Or, shorn of its beautiful trappings, would the hollow emptiness of the plot be all the more apparent?

It is pure Hollywood and a few long shots of silent spaceships and garbled bullshit about love transcending time and space doesn't change any of that. And you must concede that the very heart of the plot, solving gravity, is a total non sequitur with regards to the actual problem facing humanity? It doesn't get a pass just because film quality in general and sci fi in particular has gone down the toilet.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

I think the aesthetics (the visuals and sound) matter a lot to this movie, as they give us room to contemplate the themes raised... I do admit that you probably have to bring a lot of it to the movie for it to work on this level...

I agree that the plot is weak and nonsensical in parts, but it doesn't bother me at all... The plot is simply there to move things along for us to get to the themes and the audiovisual experience... the theatre of it... He could have made a plot-light movie, with little exposition, as he did with Dunkirk, but it would have made this film far less accesible...

Superficially, it is a simple B-grade sci fi movie... But it is done in a much higher level... The trappings make the difference, I think.

I liked the father-doughter thing and even the bookcase... I don't take the film too literally, it works better that way, if we're not as serious about it as it is about itself 😉

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Fair enough Renovatio but it sounds to me like you're bringing more things to the movie than it contains. Maybe you should send Christopher Nolan a bill for £12 as you're having to do most of the work?

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

We can't avoid brining our own experiences and ideas into the theatre with us 😉

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

I'd agree with that. It is clearly not scientific. It was downright silly in some things, like the idea that the moon shot is somehow going to devolve into a lie for some kind of politically correct government purposes. Although now with Trump as President the media seems heading in that direction.

Or the shape and format of the robot. I think a lot of people thought that was cool, but in a movie they cannot imagine a robot of the future, so they made this one. It was symbolic in a way.

Then the point of the movie was that connection over space and through time. I think it was well done to show a point. This and 2001 are not movies of the intellect or even the emotions, they are symbolic allegories meant to affect your at a subliminal level I think. For me it worked, but it was a lot to ask. I remember being pretty blown away when the end of the movie came and I walked out .... which was something considering the foolishness of some of it.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

When I read your comments and those of Renovatio above I can't help but think you're both cloud watching. Now I can look up into the skies and if I look long enough and hard enough I'll begin to find patterns, see faces, maybe I'll be reminded of a lost love or a childhood memory but if any meaning is to be found it is coming from within myself, not from the near random wisps of cloud. And there's nothing wrong with this, if it brings you something then fine but what you don't get to do is to say (NB not saying you specifically are doing this but people often seem to with these kinds of films) well if you don't see what I see it's because you're an idiot, or you're not looking hard enough.

And another thing: would the film lose any of the elements that you find so powerful if the problems that myself and frogface have with it were fixed in the 2nd draft? I doubt it. For me this film is fundamentally broken as the central premise of the plot (life on Earth is threatened due to crops failing) is solved by an utterly nonsensical solution (they build a space-station) and the fact that this could so easily have been fixed in the writing stage (whilst losing none of the grander philosophical aims) tells me the writers either didn't realise or didn't care. I'm not sure which is worst but I know either prevents me from enjoying any deeper themes that may be present.

And what film wouldn't be wonderful if we neglect its flaws and bestow it with our own meaning?

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

> well if you don't see what I see it's because you're an idiot, or you're not looking hard enough.

I kind of resent you posting that, at least in reply to my comment, since I never said anything remotely like it. It's inexact and kind of lazy.

i think the central premise of the movie, that sadly has to overcome the silliness of its setting, is that life and love is a part of the universe, like space and time. I think that is a sophisticated and correct concept, but that you almost need a fuzzy type of setting to express it. Like the reason the robot is a kind of weird abstraction, because otherwise some really cool special effects robot would be distracting from the message. Same with all the rest of it. The "money-shot" so to speak is the connection of the ( I can scarcely remember now ) bookshelf rattling from the beginning and in the end of the movie.

I don't think that is cloud watching either. I also do not think people who might not see that are wrong or stupid. I am not a poetry reader. I can read a poem and get nothing from it, yet when someone explains it to me it is clear to me. It's not because I am an idiot, it's just not a language I speak or an attuned to but that does not mean it is not there.

All films have flaws, and all films have personal meanings to people. You are writing this all about yourself, to me your comment is basically motivated by egotism to be right, rather to have express an opinion with value, that is my problem with it.

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

I literally said "I'm not saying you're doing this" so not sure why you need to feel resentment? Maybe I should have been less ambiguous so let me put it this way: You weren't saying that, or anything like that. And I agree with almost everything you've written (and a lot of what Renovatio above said) I just think you're being too generous, which is your right of course and there's nothing wrong with that - I just get annoyed at people (not you!) that try to posit this film as some infallible, scientifically accurate treatise on love, space and existence.

And you didn't answer my question btw... why do you think the writers left that plot hole there? They didn't realise? They didn't care? Or maybe I'm missing something and it's not a plot hole at all? But if the answer to the question is one of the first two points then what does that say about the film makers and their priorities?

Tell me, if the film had technical flaws as big as its story issues, if the sound boom kept dropping into view, if the space ships looked like models, if the sound just dropped out and was replaced with static in key scenes would you be as forgiving?

reply

[–] brux (14666) 6 years ago

> I literally said "I'm not saying you're doing this"

And I said why are you making that case to me? I also said "I kind of resent you posting that" not that I am resentful.

You also completely bypassed what I said about the movie ... did you not read my post, or only skimmed the first lines on your way towards posting the same thing again?

reply

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

You seem to be one of those people who could start an argument in an empty room.

"And I said why are you making that case to me?"

No. You didn't. If you had said that I would have said this:

I'm not making that case to you - it was just a follow on point from my thoughts and I expressly said 'Not saying you're doing this'. I'll use a page break next time so you don't get confused.

""I kind of resent you posting that" no that I am resentful."

So you're not resentful you just resented the statement. Ok - thanks for the clarification!

"You also completely bypassed what I said about the movie ..."

Nope. If you read my post you'd see me saying *I agree with you*. I'm not going to try to counter your points as I think they're fair I just think you're being too kind to the film in general. So I have to ask - did you even read my post before going on to make your bizarre comments above?

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

This is one of those movies that the more you watch it, the less you like it, as you see things that make no sense. But with that sad, you can still be moved by the human emotions of leaving your loved ones and seeing Matthew cry as he sees his kids in the videos. That was moving. I am a big fan of the soundtrack. It's repetitive but it gets under your skin.

I didn't really like the ending and how he sees his daughter and then more or less dumps her 'for the girl' sort of ending. It was weird. As I said, I dislike this movie the more I watch it.

reply

[–] kameeleoned_out (59) a year ago

Not only that he left his daughter, but absolutely nobody cared about him. Some random intern’s reverence, yes, but other than that, his entire family (his grandsons and granddaughters) didn’t care about him at all and showed no interest in connecting with him. As if the only person in the room was Murphy, his daughter. The movie does this a lot. The hand waving away at the unconfortable plot points that actually matter.

The entire ending is so difficult to watch, showing him not having a place in the new world (why?) and needing him to leave to be with ‘his own kind’ on an empty planet, without having any motivation (like love or attraction) for Anne Hathaway.

So sum up, he goes halfway across the universe, all he does is miss his daughter all the time and regret leaving, he comes back, he sees her for 5 minutes and he’s just ok to leave. His transformation is absurd. He comes back after probably a few years in space (to him) and he suddenly acts like a retired pensioner.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Arghhhh (804) 6 years ago

Well when you put it like that how can I possibly disagree?

reply

[–] bozo_500 (12149) 5 years ago

gave it a rewatch last night after not seen it in good few years (saw it at cinema in 2014 and once on dvd maybe about a year later) and i dunno what i was thinking not to realise before (or maybe I did and just forgot) but there seems to be a lot of 'i gotta rewind that to make sure its as dumb as i think'

-choosing the planet closest to a black hole and knowing full well that each hour is like 7 years. er shouldn't they just immediately jettison that idea and gone onto Mann or Edmunds where theres probably no time dilation thing?
-romilly staying put for 23 years. he just gonna stay there forever and let the human race die huh? I guess (surely after say 15years hed be like 'aw shit the human race is gonna die out I gotta go to Manns planet!')
-frozen cloud. wow that's lucky Cooper wasn't going through any full on huh.
-Coop as the ghost/rubik cube/library ending (I bet most of the average joe saturday night at the movies audience were like 'WTF is this shit!?')

just lots of weird left field 'that makes no sense whatsoever' stuff that's so dressed up in high intellectual 'shh Nolans doing 2001' you don't realise that its kind of dumb.. like the dumb that youd expect to see in something like Transformers or JJs Trek

reply

[–] TheHungryHippo (821) 5 years ago

LOL dumber than Armageddon??? Now that's just hilarious hyperbole. Keep dreaming, Interstellar was a very successful film and is still regarded as one of the greatest films ever made.

reply

[–] maul (1530) 5 years ago

Absolutely. It really is stupid. The original script by Jonathan Nolan was loads better - don't know wtf Chris was thinking because he ruined it with his rewrite.

reply

[–] snepts (11123) 5 years ago

I have yet to watch this from the beginning, and it seems to have a lot of support. Unfortunately, to me it's late to the outer space party, and seeing such recognizable stars in these brainy roles just takes it away for me. Hathaway already has exaggerated features so seeing her grimace through her helmet looks comical, and the well known Mac drawl is another draw back. At least for me. Occasionally Mac has found a role where he seems credible, but generally I don't seek him out.

reply