Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Interstellar

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

»	Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE » Community » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews » Interstellar (Page 5)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Author

Topic: Interstellar

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-14-2014 09:13 PM

We watched Interstellar last night and while I can't say I didn't like it, I didn't love it like I thought I would. It has a lot of plot holes and inconsistencies and a lot of incomprehensible (for me anyway) scenarios. I thought the first 2/3 of the movie was amazing, but the last 1/3 was where things went adrift and it just got too long.

I thought it was kind of weird that a movie that touts its "scientific accuracy" uses the notion that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a plot point. That sort of undermined the whole basis of the movie for me.

The movie also suffers from the very common sci-fi movie malady that I call "ridiculously indestructible equipment." In the real world a single piece of missing heat shield can bring down a space vehicle. In this movie it doesn't matter if the ship runs into icebergs, gets its engines waterlogged, or has part of itself blown off...the brave crew just soldiers on.

Oh well. Focusing on the good stuff...I loved the visuals, and the sound was out of this world. It really gave our wood floor a good shaking. I loved listening to it. There were a few spots where dialog was hard to get, but they were obviously not important plot points.

It was fun to watch but definitely won't be on my Blu-Ray buy list.

2.5 out of 5 for me.

| IP: Logged

Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001

posted 12-14-2014 11:24 PM

quote: Mike Blakesley
I thought it was kind of weird that a movie that touts its "scientific accuracy" uses the notion that the Apollo moon landings were faked as a plot point. That sort of undermined the whole basis of the movie for me.

I thought that "the Apollo moon landings were faked" thing was a bit of phony propaganda the schools were feeding to the kids.

Back during the Thanksgiving holiday my girlfriend's family and I visited Johnson Space Center near Houston. They have a Saturn 5 rocket (used for the Apollo moon landing missions) on display in a gigantic hangar. That rocket is GIGANTIC. I knew it was pretty big, but it was significantly larger than I thought it would be. It must have been something for the astronauts to sit on top of that "candle" when it was lit.
[Eek!]

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-15-2014 02:00 AM

Interestingly I thought about the same regarding the "water intake issue" and the "iceberg collision". But I had bigger problems with the whole concept of frozen clouds [Wink]

.

Then again, I gladly forgive those things, since this is *the future*. We're apparently able to fly trough worm holes, so it's likely their space ships are built from materials far stronger than we have today.

Compare modern cruise ships with the Titanic for example, a modern cruise ship will probably survive the impact with a similarly sized iceberg today. (Although the Costa Concordia incident clearly showed they're all but unsinkable.)

I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth. That's also what this whole discussion is all about: Earth needs farmers, not scientists.

It was clear that Cooper was all but amused with where this conversation was heading, he was rather proud of his daughter and subsequently invited her to a baseball game (the one with popcorn and no hotdogs), just like he promised in the preceding discussion with the school officials.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-15-2014 10:59 PM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth.

I'm sure you and Bobby are both right about this, but it still stretched the credibility limits with me. It just seemed like too much of a stretch that the schools (and by extension the government) would try to "revise" history that way, especially regarding an event that huge.

(I know, I know, there is a whole other debate about how accurate history books really are these days.)

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 12-16-2014 02:05 AM

My father worked in aerospace research for many years, as a kid he regularly took me to his work (which actually included work for NASA, ESA, etc.). This left a deep impression on little me and probably also inspired my general interest in technical stuff for years to come. Also, having seen just a tiny bit of what kind of efforts go into those kind of projects I've developed quite an allergy for fake moon landing theories trough the years.

So, when I saw the movie the first time, this whole scene also had me on my back, until I realized where it was going.

Personally, I think it's a missed opportunity for a movie which clocks in on an already hefty runtime of 169 min. couldn't give us a little more backstory on how what remains of planet Earth is supposed to work.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 12-16-2014 11:42 AM

quote: Marcel Birgelen
I don't think the movie tried to push the idea of the moon landings being fake, quite the contrary. The idea was to enforce the concept of humans not "looking up" anymore, because they're locked into big troubles on earth. The moon landings were deemed propaganda, because it would give people the feeling we have the capabilities to flee earth and would therefore just distract from facing the problems on earth. That's also what this whole discussion is all about: Earth needs farmers, not scientists.

Marcel is spot on about this, NASA did go to the moon in the movie, it just that the new government (I think they called it Federation) does not what they new generation knowing the real truth.

In the Interstellar future, MRI machines also do not exist anymore, science and tech is not as important as basic concepts like farming etc.

| IP: Logged

Joe Redifer
You need a beating today

Posts: 12859
From: Denver, Colorado
Registered: May 99

posted 12-17-2014 03:05 PM

I was just blown away by the fact that Matthew Mcwhatshisname had NO IDEA about the revised history.

| IP: Logged

Allan Young
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 125
From: EGHAM, Surrey UK
Registered: Jun 2011

posted 12-19-2014 05:27 AM

quote: Bobby Henderson
Back during the Thanksgiving holiday my girlfriend's family and I visited Johnson Space Center near Houston. They have a Saturn 5 rocket (used for the Apollo moon landing missions) on display in a gigantic hangar.

Glad to hear they're now treating the Saturn 5 with a bit of respect. When I visited, it was lying outdoors and in a really sorry state.

| IP: Logged

Mike Blakesley
Film God

Posts: 12767
From: Forsyth, Montana
Registered: Jun 99

posted 12-19-2014 10:47 AM

There is one on display at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida, too. It is uber-impressive.

| IP: Logged

Terry Lynn-Stevens
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1081
From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Registered: Dec 2012

posted 02-23-2015 01:01 AM

It was really great to see Interstellar get recognized for its visual effects. Glad to see that the CGI films were overlooked for a film that relied less on computers and more on miniatures and real sets. I was kinda hoping for the Hans Zimmers score to get the best score award but it was not meant to be.

| IP: Logged

Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 02-23-2015 02:11 AM

Even this movie contained plenty of CGI. But, why should it matter how those special effects were created? Isn't it the end effect that counts?

Many people have the conception realistically looking CGI effects are easy with the latest barrage of CGI super-tech, but as a matter of fact, they still aren't.

As for Hans Zimmer's score... Yeah, it was different. A wall of electronic pipe organs. Unfortunately, different isn't always better.

| IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 5 pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Printer-friendly view of this topic

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.