Interstellar - Part 5

[Naked Shia]

Christopher Melon always look really refined.

 

[AnneFan]

Space suit Anne wins everything.

 

[Naked Shia]

Apparently, Mycoc Aine said he was delighted not to share a scene with Anne Halthaway.

 

[baerrtt]

Apparently, Michael Caine said he was delighted not to share a scene with Anne Hathaway.

Why?

 

[Kansiov]

I think it's safe to bet that

Spoiler

Matt Damon's inside that sleepbox.

 

[kvz5]

^ I agree.

 

[SofNascimento]

I'm starting to think about this film more and more. I love space and I'm hoping this film will manage to make it look even more wondrous.

 

[redhawk23]

Fake or not, I get the impression Gravity is the benchmark for this film, or am I way off?

The two films have different MO's. Gravity was a lot more experience driven where as this seems to have more focus on characters and story.

Gravity delivered its themes in an extremely visual way. There wasn't a lot of plot, and other than a bit of exposition not a lot of obvious character work. The themes of rebirth, among others, in that film were delivered primarily through a lot of symbolic framing and such as well as roller coaster like aspects.

Interstellar of course has those tools at its disposal but seems like much more of a narrative based film.

This Nolan quote someone posted a few pages back kind of sums it up.

"It’s a very classically constructed movie, but the freshness of the narrative elements really enhance it. I liken it to the blockbusters I grew up with as a kid, family films in the best sense: edgy, incisive, challenging."

Interstellar just seems to be intended to be more classically cinematic than the more roller-coaster/videogame like experience of Gravity. (That is not meant to be derogatory towards Gravity at all. Its just a different, wonderful beast)

 

[redhawk23]

The funny thing is I don't think things like jumping 5 months ahead were unintentional on Nolan's part. There's an interview where he talks about how he's always been interested in the "elasticity" of time in movies...essentially all movies have a distorted sense of time that is often unclear to gleen from the narrative. I think in TDKR he was specifically looking to exploit that in order to tell a story on a grander scale, though for some the exploitation might've taken them out of the story. I think of it this way though...does TDKR suddenly become a better movie if we get a slow fade up with a "5 months later" caption? No, not really. When I consider that alternative, I end up feeling like a hard cut to an overhead shot of the Tumbler leaving snowtracks on a quiet, desolate Gotham street is indeed a more provacative way to communicate the passage of time in this apocalyptic scenario. And it's a much more Nolan-thing to do anyway.

One can only wonder what role time has to play in Interstellar. Something tells me we'll be getting quite a few moments of *Cut* (Earth)years pass.

Salivates. I loved that part. There is a lot I really liked about that film, and driving up to Chicago to see it in true IMAX is one of my favorite movie watching memories but overall it didn't quite hold together for me.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Gravity was about coming back to Earth.

Interstellar is about getting the **** out.

 

[redhawk23]

^ Fantastic.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Gravity isn't really a science fiction film, it just happens to be set in space.

I think it's probably very fortunate for Interstellar that Gravity ended up being such a hit. It's given the mainstream audience a nice primer and probably helps build excitement for the next big 'space' movie.

But even without having seen Interstellar, it's pretty clear that the two movies are far more different than they are alike.

 

[Faora]

Wow! Amazing!)

Anne.

 

[redhawk23]

Yeah, Gravity isn't really a science fiction film. It just happens to be set in space.

I think it's probably very fortunate for Interstellar that Gravity ended up being such a hit. It's given the mainstream audience a nice primer and probably helps build excitement for the next big 'space' movie.

But even without having seen Interstellar, it seems like the two movies are far more different than they are alike.

Exactly. There's no real speculative side to it, particularly since it was released several years after the shuttle program ended.

Sidenote: The Saturn Awards really frustrated me this year. They gave Gravity the award for best science fiction film, which all technicalities aside, fine, the movie is close enough and a great example so throw another award on the heap.

But then they gave Spike Jonze's Her an award in the "Fantasy" category. "Her" actually IS a science fiction film. I think it is one of the better examples of really good speculative fiction story telling and world building that movies have seen in pretty much 20 years or more. It had a lot of really interesting extrapolation and reflection of current technology and habits paired with really subtle production design.

It seems like they put Her in the fantasy category just so it wouldn't have to compete with Gravity.

It doesn't really matter but oddly, it irks.

 

[BatLobster]

Yup, that's definitely true. Her was indeed a great science fiction film.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Her was amazing. Shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema btw.

 

[BatLobster]

Yup, also true. I remember noticing how great the cinematography looked while I was watching it...was delighted to learn that it was Hoytema afterwards.

 

[mclay18]

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Gravity isn't really a science fiction film, it just happens to be set in space.

I think it's probably very fortunate for Interstellar that Gravity ended up being such a hit. It's given the mainstream audience a nice primer and probably helps build excitement for the next big 'space' movie.

Just wish WB and Paramount had moved this film up to October after Gravity's massive success in that spot. November 7 is fine, but I want it sooner! Plus Gravity earned numerous Oscar wins even though it was relatively early for award-contenders (which usually come out November-December).

Whoo! I wonder what's going on in that last one aka why no green screens around this shuttle.

According to an EW article, they had projections of constellations and such around the shuttle during filming. Wouldn't be surprised if the final scenes were CGI-enhanced.

 

[redhawk23]

Her was amazing. Shot by Hoyte Van Hoytema btw.

Well then, I feel better about going off topic.

Full circle.

Also, the last I heard, he was doing Bond 24. Haven't seen further confirmation though.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

It's confirmed. Cannot wait to see how it will look. Supposedly they are going back to film after Deakins used the Arri Alexa.

 

[craigdbfan]

That's odd. The Arri Alexa did a good job of imitating film and Deakins did an incredible job with it.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I am fine either way. Hoytema has extensive experience on both formats.

 

[craigdbfan]

Casey looks a lot like Ben in that pic.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, out of all the digital cameras, the Alexa is the best at simulating the softer, milky look of film.

But hey, film is still film.

 

[Dr.]

Whoo! I wonder what's going on in that last one aka why no green screens around this shuttle[?]

Could just be an “old school” technique for a particular scene. In 2001, Kubrick shot much of his spaceship stuff against black velvet curtains. In this case, maybe the shuttle is enveloped by bright light or “energy” - which can easily be done with practical, in-camera effects.