Interstellar - Part 5

[Marvolo]

I was trying to imagine what this film could have in it to warrant a 3 hour runtime and it dawned on me that I barely know any of the plot or any of the scenes in this movie. This is the most in the dark I've been about a film in a while. I know they leave earth and check out planets to try to save earth somehow, but that's it. I have no inkling of what else is in this film or what kind of climax it's going to have. It's cool, but until I see it I'm gonna have a hard time explaining and recommending this film to people that aren't sold on Nolan's involvement alone. I still haven't figured out a way to pitch this film to my friends and family. The runtime and marketing isn't making it easy to do.

 

[BatLobster]

Yup, basically all my knowledge of the film is based around Act 1 and the setup. I have NO idea what they're going to find out there, and that's great.

And those of you who read the script, looks like that's where all the changes Nolan made are too. So nobody is 100% spoiled at this point (except the lucky SOBs who've already seen it )

I think the other thing that might be throwing people is Nolan's last three films have been super high-octane, high adrenaline type of movies which lead to more kinetic trailers that pump you up (not to mention that added Batman hype factor). It's okay to not have a raging fanboy ***** for a movie and have a more reserved curiosity and interest. It doesn't mean you can't end up loving the hell out of the movie in the end anyway.

 

[titansupes]

Is it okay to post a bootleg of the TV spot since it was officially aired already? Or no?

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm cool with a film like this being nearly 3 hours as long as it's not some Peter Jackson King Kong ********.

 

[titansupes]

I have the link to a camrecorded version of the TV spot I saw. It's may be a cut down version of the upcoming 4th trailer, since it's a full minute long... can I post it?

I'm cool with a film like this being nearly 3 hours as long as it's some Peter Jackson King Kong ********.

Goooossh, I hated that movie.

 

[Dr.]

So....have they updated Imax tech to broaden the limitations on Imax reels? I don't wanna see a gimped version on the best screen.

I’ve seen various figures: 2.75hrs (165min), 185min and +190min. (The latter was for the IMAX DMR of Titanic; though I couldn’t tell from the source if this was digital or 15/70. In any case, these screenings included an intermission - which may have allowed for a platter change. )

 

[Rowsdower!]

I'm cool with a film like this being nearly 3 hours as long as it's not some Peter Jackson King Kong ********.

Hahaha I hear you there. Let me just say that I love Peter Jackson and his Lord of the Rings movies are three of the greatest films of all time (extended or standard versions). Heavenly Creatures is also great. And the Hobbit movies are pretty good.

But King Kong was just ridiculous. So much of that movie didn't work. I guess it doesn't help that it's such a familiar story, but regardless of that... so much of it just felt like a movie TRYING to be epic but not a movie that actually WAS epic. You had this huge cast of talented actors and yet none of them were memorable. And while the special effects and action were good, there weren't any scenes in the movie that felt like anything I'd want to watch over and over again. All in all, it just felt like a big, expensive movie that wasn't worth making--a vanity project for Jackson, whose favorite movie is the original King Kong.

 

[BatLobster]

Yeah, King Kong was such a chore. I love that Nolan seems to be using his power for good and not just bloated vanity projects. Or at least that his vanity projects are things that simultaneously have mass appeal, haha.

Btw dat new TV spot...

 

[titansupes]

Yeah, King Kong was such a chore. I love that Nolan seems to be using his power for good and not just bloated vanity projects. Or at least that his vanity projects are things that simultaneously have mass appeal, haha.

Btw dat new TV spot...

You saw it!

Man, two things-

Spoiler

That shot of TARS/CASE literally walking next to who I assume to be Cooper... Awesome. I love that thing already.

And second... "For every hour we spend on that planet, seven years will have passed on Earth". Damn.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The LOTR films are my Star Wars so I'm definitely not trying to trash P.J. But the dude did turn an hour and half idea into a three hour film for no good reason. I didn't hate the film but the super bloated length makes it virtually impossible to rewatch.

Something like Interstellar will probably not feel as long as it is, as long as I don't drink anything until 2 hours into the film. I won't hold The Dark Knight Rises against Nolan (sorry I think it's a bloated mess, don't care if that's the minority opinion). I look at this as Nolan being in Inception mode again and I ****ing adore Inception. I don't mean that it's not going to be it's own thing because clearly it is, I just mean that it's another big sci fi film like Inception.

 

[georgec]

Viggo Mortensen said it best regarding Jackson a couple months ago.

“Also, Peter was always a geek in terms of technology but, once he had the means to do it, and the evolution of the technology really took off, he never looked back. In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

“I guess Peter became like Ridley Scott – this one-man industry now, with all these people depending on him,” Mortensen adds. “But you can make a choice, I think. I asked Ridley when I worked with him (on 1997’s GI Jane), 'Why don’t you do another film like The Duellists [Scott’s 1977 debut, from a Joseph Conrad short story]?’ And Peter, I was sure he would do another intimately scaled film like Heavenly Creatures, maybe with this project about New Zealanders in the First World War he wanted to make. But then he did King Kong. And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”

I think that's the key difference - Nolan hasn't sacrificed subtlety for CGI in the way Viggo explains PJ did. Interstellar may be Nolan's "biggest" film yet, but ultimately it's the visuals serving the story and charaters, not the other way around.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think Viggo is being a dick by dissing the director and movies that put him on the map. Others can appreciate the "honesty" I just think it's a dick move.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The LOTR films are my Star Wars so I'm definitely not trying to trash P.J. But the dude did turn an hour and half idea into a three hour film for no good reason. I didn't hate the film but the super bloated length makes it virtually impossible to rewatch.

Something like Interstellar will probably not feel as long as it is, as long as I don't drink anything until 2 hours into the film. I won't hold The Dark Knight Rises against Nolan (sorry I think it's a bloated mess, don't care if that's the minority opinion). I look at this as Nolan being in Inception mode again and I ****ing adore Inception. I don't mean that it's not going to be it's own thing because clearly it is, I just mean that it's another big sci fi film like Inception.

TDKR is took short.

I think Viggo is being a dick by dissing the director and movies that put him on the map. Others can appreciate the "honesty" I just think it's a dick move.

Don't find anything Richard about it. And he is completely right.

 

[Boom]

Dick or not, I agree with him. I watch FoTR at least once and month, and Two Towers almost just as often. Couldn't tell you the last time I watched RoTK. Maybe last summer when I had a LoTR marathon.

As a movie fan, I am pretty indifferent towards the Hobbit films, with no strong urge to ever watch them again. As a Hobbit fan, I hate them with a fiery, burning passion. I just completely and utterly loathe them as adaptations. The parallels between Peter Jackson and George Lucas are eerie, and they ultimately produced the same results.

Maybe I'll live to see a remake.

 

[Schlosser85]

Viggo might be undiplomatic, but I think he has a valid point.

 

[BatLobster]

I guess PJ's actors being publicly critical of him is just another way he's followed in Lucas' footsteps.

 

[Schlosser85]

With The Hobbit, Jackson just went crazy trying to make The Lord of the Rings 2.0, which The Hobbit was never meant to be. He's shoehorning this second "epic trilogy" into a short, simple fantasy story, and it just ends up feeling bloated all over the place.

I LOVE, LOVE LOVE The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and would probably rate them as my favorite movies of all time. I've only seen the first Hobbit once, in the theater, and still haven't watched all of the second.

 

[Infinity9999x]

I was trying to imagine what this film could have in it to warrant a 3 hour runtime and it dawned on me that I barely know any of the plot or any of the scenes in this movie. This is the most in the dark I've been about a film in a while. I know they leave earth and check out planets to try to save earth somehow, but that's it. I have no inkling of what else is in this film or what kind of climax it's going to have. It's cool, but until I see it I'm gonna have a hard time explaining and recommending this film to people that aren't sold on Nolan's involvement alone. I still haven't figured out a way to pitch this film to my friends and family. The runtime and marketing isn't making it easy to do.

Reminds me of Inception. I didn't know what the basic plot was for that film until a few months before it was released.

 

[Octoberist]

Dick or not, I agree with him. I watch FoTR at least once and month, and Two Towers almost just as often. Couldn't tell you the last time I watched RoTK. Maybe last summer when I had a LoTR marathon.

As a movie fan, I am pretty indifferent towards the Hobbit films, with no strong urge to ever watch them again. As a Hobbit fan, I hate them with a fiery, burning passion. I just completely and utterly loathe them as adaptations. The parallels between Peter Jackson and George Lucas are eerie, and they ultimately produced the same results.

Maybe I'll live to see a remake.

I think the hype around his comments made it sound a lot worse than what he actually said. Though, yeah, it's extremely truthful but I can see PJ being hurt by his reaction.

I think the bulk of his criticism on the Hobbit is justified though, I don't know if I completely agree with his stand on the latter two LOTR movies. I just don't see how you can't indulge those two without CGI. I will admit that, as the films went on, the CGI compositions became less polished. Like the physical Treebeard (with Pippin and Merry) walking against the green screen was way off. The movement of 'Beard and the background did not match at all. But at the time, I forgave it.

But what PJ is doing now with the Hobbit, nothing seems real or tangible. I know that 'tangible' can be an overused word by some, but nothing made me believe that Biblo and friend are in Elf forrest; or fighting Smaug with fake liquid gold in a cave.

 

[Octoberist]

With The Hobbit, Jackson just went crazy trying to make The Lord of the Rings 2.0, which The Hobbit was never meant to be. He's shoehorning this second "epic trilogy" into a short, simple fantasy story, and it just ends up feeling bloated all over the place.

I LOVE, LOVE LOVE The Lord of the Rings trilogy, and would probably rate them as my favorite movies of all time. I've only seen the first Hobbit once, in the theater, and still haven't watched all of the second.

What makes me so made about PJ is that, even after the Hobbit, I still love him as a person. He's like a Kevin Smith type, as it were, because seeing him in the Hobbit features, he's so damn likable. I just think he's just losing base due to the endless amount of money and CG he has under his thumb.

 

[BatLobster]

To be fair, I thought Desolation of Smaug was a step up from the first one. They're not bad movies or anything, but the whole trilogy is just a perfect example of making something longer for the sake of making it longer. When even the fans of the book are saying the movie is too long and a trilogy is unwarranted, you know something is not right.

What makes me so made about PJ is that, even after the Hobbit, I still love him as a person.

I think, most of the time, when people criticize filmmakers it's never anything personal. I have mixed feelings about Zack Snyder as a filmmaker, but he's the kind of guy I'd love to shoot the sh** with over a beer.

Conversely, I love Nolan as a filmmaker but I once asked him a question at a Q&A, and he gave me the most serious, piercing gaze...I got so nervous that I nearly completely blanked on my question. True story lol

 

[Octoberist]

It's barely a step. In fact, I kinda prefer the first one over the second one.

After I saw Desolation, I told my then-girlfriend that this will be the last time I'll ever see a Hobbit film in theaters. It felt unfocused and barely came off as a film.

I wish there was more cohesiveness to them, though I will say, the Hobbit films are way better than the Star Wars Prequels.

 

[redhawk23]

My problem with Jackson is that even as his films have become more effects focused, it doesn't seem like he's gotten any better at using them. He is notoriously fickle, scrapping and redoing shots and working his personally owned effects house to the bone until days before the release. And it really shows. So many of the effects in his last several films are unpolished. Also, sweet jeebus the man has remained fairly awful at lighting green screen shots. That's not hyperbole. He's really bad it. His actors stand out so badly from their fake environments. The dwarf chase/fight against Smaug was particularly bad. The scenes between just Bilbo and Smaug looked great but once the dwarves showed up everything went down hill visually reaching a liquid gold nadir.

But hey, how 'bout that Interstellar?

 

[Octoberist]

Interstellar!

 

[Mysteryman]

I'm cool with a film like this being nearly 3 hours as long as it's not some Peter Jackson King Kong ********.

When their ship is sucked into a Supermassive black hole , the crew of The Endurance find themselves trapped in the 1930s facing a gigantic rampaging ape!