|
Bring back to the DKR thread to get this poo poo out pls. Interstellar looks dope and I am excited to see it
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
At 3+ hours factoring in trailers and stuff, I'm going to probably wait Interstallar on BR. The two states that unfairly hurt my view of a movie is being really hungry or really having to use the washroom.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Eat popcorn then poop in the bucket
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:most of Nolan's stuff ends up tripping itself up computer parts posted:"Nolan goes a little bit beyond what he's capable of" surfwriter1 posted:It tried to do too much Sometimes I wish people could just be more specific about film, rather than talking in vague and unspecific language that actually means nothing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 10:50
|
|
|
TheNakedFantastic posted:It's badly written. Bruce's arc was the only well done part of the plot, Bane was a confused mess of ideas that never really went anywhere, the "twist" ending villain is terrible, cat woman feels like she's there just to have cat woman, and most of what happens when batmans not on screen is boring (which is a lot). I don't know I think the trashing of Gotham and the Kangaroo courts done by criminals and the city being run by criminals is pretty drat interesting and I really haven't seen it done in any other film period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:10
|
|
|
Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Sometimes I wish people could just be more specific about film, rather than talking in vague and unspecific language that actually means nothing. They want to avoid spoilers (reasonable), but they have all said that the third act goes really weird, and that the (emotional) climax is somewhere in the second act.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Shrimp or Shrimps posted:Sometimes I wish people could just be more specific about film, rather than talking in vague and unspecific language that actually means nothing. My objection is that TDKR was constrained by too many moving parts: the completion of Batman's storyline (which was the only thing that mattered, really), Bane's story and the ideology he represented, Catwoman (pointless character), Little Al Ghul (weak twist), Robin (hopeful future, which I'm okay with)... By juggling all of these characters, giving them separate themes and running them through their own arcs convoluted the main thrust of the storyline (Batman's willingness to sacrifice all and inspire the city to heroism) so much that the emotional impact is weakened by the climax of the film. For the same reason student filmmakers are cautioned against using flashbacks, they're warned against straying from the main character too much: the audiences emotional attachments never quite develop if we leave our connection to the main narrative ... which, in 95% of films, is spurned forward by the main character. Are there always exceptions? Sure. But in my humble opinion (which by definition is subjective), I felt that it was too much. Less would have been more--in this case--too me. Still, enough people identify with the previous statements--the ones you're referring to--to understand what is being said, even if the terms are more blanketed than you would like. Therefore the language isn't rendered meaningless. After all, most people aren't film critics or pretentious first year film students clawing their way through Campbell. But thanks for adding absolutely nothing to the conversation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:29
|
|
|
Damnit, the third act of the original script was my favourite part, *because* it was all weird and trippy. Assuming Nolan didn't deviate from it too much (although he very well may have), I just hope he didn't screw it up. The third act was also meant to be incredibly emotional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Nolan seemed to branch out more and more from single-character focuses as time went on, with TDKR being the end - point, as it is somewhere between Les Miserables and Tale of Two Cities in following multiple characters that all represent different aspects/perspectives/demographics surrounding a major event. Following is basically about one guy and his obsession, period, Prestige is about Borden, the mystery other person who I can't mention for spoilers) and Angier equally (once you know the twist, you can immediately see how much focus is given Borden compared to that other mystery character), Inception splits from Cobb and follows the team quite a bit, TDKR is about Bruce, Robin, and Selina almost equally, with each representing different, intertwining ideas. Begins was very much a movie about Batman; by TDKR, it was about Gotham itself.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Some spoiler-free reviews. Unabashedly positive: Variety posted:To infinity and beyond goes “Interstellar,” an exhilarating slalom through the wormholes of Christopher Nolan’s vast imagination that is at once a science-geek fever dream and a formidable consideration of what makes us human. As visually and conceptually audacious as anything Nolan has yet done, the director’s ninth feature also proves more emotionally accessible than his coolly cerebral thrillers and Batman movies, touching on such eternal themes as the sacrifices parents make for their children (and vice versa) and the world we will leave for the next generation to inherit. An enormous undertaking that, like all the director’s best work, manages to feel handcrafted and intensely personal, “Interstellar” reaffirms Nolan as the premier big-canvas storyteller of his generation, more than earning its place alongside “The Wizard of Oz,” “2001,” “Close Encounters of the Third Kind” and “Gravity” in the canon of Hollywood’s visionary sci-fi head trips. CinemaBlend posted:Nolan is a filmmaker we turn to when we want something outside of the norms and deliver something that is both “unordinary” and exists on a massive scale. “Predictable” isn’t a word we’d expect to be uttered within 10 miles of a Christopher Nolan movie – and yet it’s painfully necessarily in discussion of Interstellar, Nolan’s aesthetically beautiful, large-scale sci-fi drama that is admirable in its ideas and style, but lacking in its storytelling and execution. /Film posted:Interstellar is ambitious, beautiful, Christopher Nolan‘s most emotional film to date. The story allows us to explore many big ideas we wouldn’t normally see in a big budget studio film, but the ideas sometimes fly by at light speed, squeezed into popcorn cinema. The result is that the story is left with some holes of logic. As someone who enjoyed Prometheus, I can see past this kind of thing when the overall experience is enjoyable. I think others may have problems with some of these logistical issues. But even those critics will agree that Interstellar is a film not to be missed in its theatrical run – the movie must be experienced in a big theater, projected in 70mm or on an IMAX film screen if possible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:At 3+ hours factoring in trailers and stuff, I'm going to probably wait Interstallar on BR. The two states that unfairly hurt my view of a movie is being really hungry or really having to use the washroom. Wait, can you not go 3 hours without a meal?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Senf posted:Wait, can you not go 3 hours without a meal? This is the second time in a couple of weeks someone has said something to that effect. STOP BEING FAT GLUTTONOUS FUCKS! Trump fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
The bathroom thing I can understand, but yeah 3 hours without going hungry is loving insane. Buy some goddamn snacks or something. EDIT: Or add some goddamn protein and fiber to your diet for satiety iSheep fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Oct 30, 2014 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:06
|
|
|
Not drinking or eating something during a movie feels weird. Theatre food and drink is overpriced so I usually only buy either a drink or some candy (or sneak something in), but I still have something at least. It's basically the same thing as having something to eat at a baseball game or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
I'm a fat gently caress and I can still go a few consecutive hours without eating. You're sitting still and passively consuming entertainment, this doesn't require a ton of fuel.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 05:47
|
|
|
Interstellar (2014) : Fat people talk about Batman
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 07:47
|
|
|
I'm excited for Chris Nolan's upcoming film Interstellar, but not in a sexual way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 11:14
|
|
|
IGN's spoiler free review. http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/10/29/interstellar-review-2
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 13:55
|
|
|
surfwriter1 posted:IGN's spoiler free review. Why would anyone in The Year of Our Lord 2014 give even the smallest iota of a gently caress as to what an IGN review has to say about anything, let alone about movies?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Got my tickets for 8pm Nov 4th in 70mm IMAX at the Smithsonian Udvar Hazy center. Can't loving wait - I've been avoiding reading almost everything about this so far so I can go in as spoiler free as possible heh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
GonSmithe posted:Why would anyone in The Year of Our Lord 2014 give even the smallest iota of a gently caress as to what an IGN review has to say about anything, let alone about movies? ... because they guy who wrote it, uh, has seen this movie. And it's a lot more eloquent than some of the other reviews now swarming the Internet by the general public ("OHMYGODITSGHEBESTESTMOVIEEVAAARRR!!"). Sorry they turned you down for a job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
surfwriter1 posted:... because they guy who wrote it, uh, has seen this movie. And it's a lot more eloquent than some of the other reviews now swarming the Internet by the general public ("OHMYGODITSGHEBESTESTMOVIEEVAAARRR!!"). It's about ethics in (gaming) journalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
#jumpgate #stargate IGN really sucks though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 00:21
|
|
This poster loves police brutality, but only when its against minorities!
|
With exception of The Dark Knight Rises (which was a complete mess in my opinion) I have enjoyed all of Nolan's films, so I am cautiously optimistic about this one. I was even inspired the other day to rip off the look of the black hole in Interstellar with my own lovely GIF. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2014 13:43
|
|
|
Senf posted:Wait, can you not go 3 hours without a meal? Not going for three hours without a meal isn't the problem. I suffer from a mild-but-significant case of dysphagia, meaning I'm downing a lot of fluids during meals to ensure that the food-stuck feeling I regularly get doesn't turn into a food-trapped feeling. Preventing having to pee like a motherfucker after that can be annoying as hell, especially being at a movie for upwards of 3 hours a pop.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
I'm sorry I was rude about it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
One of the bonus tracks from the OST got out somehow; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXrGu_TB8F4 Very interesting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
twoot posted:One of the bonus tracks from the OST got out somehow; Still sounds like Zimmer, just with different orchestration. Pretty cool though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Saw the film a few hours ago- a private screening for employees of a certain film company- no press. Nolan wasn't there, but he made a short "thank you" film addressed to us that played before the movie. We were specifically asked not to disclose anything about the film (or even the fact there was a screening), but I can't resist sharing some thoughts. I'll be careful not to go beyond what early critics have already said. I'm pleased to say I saw things represented on screen that before tonight I couldn't imagine, much less visualize. Like in some of Nolan's more conceptual pictures, he's attempted to film the ineffable. Whether or not he made a compelling film here- I'll just say that the way he's interpreted the mind-rending physics of deep space is magnificent- it evoked for me an awe similar to what I experienced first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey. Unlike 2001, the imagery is less beautiful and more eerie- sometimes nightmarish. Borges fans will be pleased. I thought the non-diagetic music was very moving- very vangelis- and I say this even though our theater was clearly not prepped right- there was considerable reverb throughout the film- at some points the dialogue was nigh inaudible. I'll leave you with one word, a name, that won't spoil anything for you, but you'll recognize it in the second half of the movie: Edmunds. I think I spelled it correctly- hopefully it will jump start a discussion after release. e: computer parts posted:They want to avoid spoilers (reasonable), but they have all said that the third act goes really weird, and that the (emotional) climax is somewhere in the second act. I think it's already quite weird and unsettling by the midway point- although I suppose I prefer the word "mind-bending." The denouement is a bit long but I would not locate the climax in the second act. I will admit though, it's an exhausting film. If anyone has questions, I will try to provide some discrete answers. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 07:34 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:12
|
|
|
Seems to me inaudible dialogue is more or less a thing that happens in Nolan's movies. Probably not your theaters fault.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 07:50
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:I'm pleased to say I saw things represented on screen that before tonight I couldn't imagine, much less visualize. ... I'll just say that the way he's interpreted the mind-rending physics of deep space is magnificent- it evoked for me an awe similar to what I experienced first watching 2001: A Space Odyssey. ... I thought the non-diagetic music was very moving- very vangelis ... I think it's already quite weird and unsettling by the midway point- although I suppose I prefer the word "mind-bending." God, reading this post and just having some sort of decent confirmation that the final film actually has any of the insane epicness of the leaked script has skyrocketed (no pun intended) my hype to previously unseen levels. Not sure if I should thank you or curse you for getting me this excited to see this movie. But I do have a question, come to think of it. Do you remember hearing that bonus track that was linked two posts above yours in the actual movie, and if so, would you say that the scene it was included in seemed suitable epic?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 09:17
|
|
|
Several reviews have stated that you need advanced knowledge in physics, specifically quantum mechanics, to be able to follow what happens in the third act. Is that true or just exaggeration born out of scientific illiteracy? Some UK tabloid actually thought that the different rate at which time passes between the expedition and Earth was an intrinsic property of the planets they visit, instead of an effect of relativistic travel. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 11:07
|
|
|
Doctor Bishop posted:God, reading this post and just having some sort of decent confirmation that the final film actually has any of the insane epicness of the leaked script has skyrocketed (no pun intended) my hype to previously unseen levels. Not sure if I should thank you or curse you for getting me this excited to see this movie. I don't want to "hype" the film too much. I'm not a big fan of Nolan's work in general, although I appreciate the strangeness of films like Memento and Inception, and I certainly do like it when filmmakers bring to screen things that are genuinely surprising. I honestly don't remember that specific track. Like I said, my screening was in a small independent theater, and I don't think the acoustic dampening was up to the task. The sound design was nonetheless stirring. e: I just now googled the leaked script. Just reading a plot summary, its obvious that more parts of the script were changed than were retained in the final draft. A very minor spoiler regarding China: There's no mention of the Chinese space program nor are any Chinese astronauts/spacecraft featured. Karpaw posted:Several reviews have stated that you need advanced knowledge in physics, specifically quantum mechanics, to be able to follow what happens in the third act. Is that true or just exaggeration born out of scientific illiteracy? Some UK tabloid actually thought that the different rate at which time passes between the expedition and Earth was an intrinsic property of the planets they visit, instead of an effect of relativistic travel. Relativity and quantum mechanics are both integral to the story. That conception of relativity the tabloid wrote about is wrong? I actually thought that's how it worked- the gravity of individual celestial bodies distort time differently, so for instance, within the sphere of influence of a super-dense planet time will pass at a different rate than on a body with less mass. Needless to say, I had trouble understanding why certain things happened, and why they had the effects they did. Like when I saw Memento and Inception, things didn't seem to fit together very cleanly, but the emotional, human elements of the story didn't suffer much for it. Your experience might differ of course. Dilkington fucked around with this message at 18:46 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
Dilkington posted:That conception of relativity the tabloid wrote about is wrong? I actually thought that's how it worked- the gravity of individual celestial bodies distort time differently, so for instance, within the sphere of influence of a super-dense planet time will pass at a different rate than on a body with less mass. This is true, but the amount of gravity that would be required for the effect to be noticeable, let alone appreciable, would be way beyond anything a planet could generate or a human survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 18:53
|
|
|
Chairman Capone posted:This is true, but the amount of gravity that would be required for the effect to be noticeable, let alone appreciable, would be way beyond anything a planet could generate or a human survive.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Saw it in IMAX (70mm) at a press screening in Europe. It's certainly the way to watch the film (if you had somehow any doubts); when the image fills up the whole screen it looks magnificent. Similarly to my experience with Inception, I know the film is great, just not how much. Nolan makes sure you will want to see it again, not because the plot is too intricate or the scientific stuff too complex, but because your knowledge of the plot development will (more or less significantly) change how you'll emotionally react to the film. It should be no surprise that many critics call the film cold. It's not, you'll just fully warm up to it when you'll see it for the second or third time. That's obviously a guess that I'll try to confirm as soon as possible, but that's how previous Nolan's movies worked for me. He tells you stuff, sure, and sometimes it may seem too literal, but he makes drat sure he tells you at the right moment. That's also why the comparisons to Kubrick et al are often going to be based on a misunderstanding. Interstellar self-consciously works with motifs mainly from 2001, but also other sci-fi (Spielberg, even Tarkovsky), and uses them in a different context. It's not a rip-off, it's a dialogue. 2001 is in this sense much more of an art film, full of metaphor and mystery that lefts you in awe. Interstellar deals thematically with the same things, but it's more of an open debate full of grey areas and contradictory perspectives. I guess some may not like how the third act ties in all the scientific and emotional stuff, but I think it actually works very well with regards to the film's themes. In other words, if people talked about Nolan's films as too rational and emotionless, he now made a film that explicitly thematizes the conflict of rational and emotional thinking, and does so convincingly. GoSpeedGo! fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 19:27
|
|
|
So I want to see this later this week, and my available options are either IMAX (fake IMAX but still better than a regular theater), digital or 4K digital. Which would be better for seeing this? I'm assuming it's between IMAX/4K.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
Wait you guys don't use runpee app?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
MisterBibs posted:Not going for three hours without a meal isn't the problem. I suffer from a mild-but-significant case of dysphagia, meaning I'm downing a lot of fluids during meals to ensure that the food-stuck feeling I regularly get doesn't turn into a food-trapped feeling. Preventing having to pee like a motherfucker after that can be annoying as hell, especially being at a movie for upwards of 3 hours a pop. I completely understand and yeah, I apologize for making light of it and misinterpreting your original post. Just picked up my tickets for this Friday night on a 70mm IMAX. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 00:10 |
|
|
I just read some very skimpy spoilers for those who want to know. Apparently there are no aliens of any kind in the movie. I find this greatly disappointing. I guess CN must have really changed a lot to do with the second and third acts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 4, 2014 04:16
|
|
