Interstellar - Part 7

[Marvolo]

IIRC and not that he's the best source but I remember Marion's baby daddy ranting that she volunteered to do more takes or something like that and Nolan still chose that.

Lmao Nolan trolling Marion.

 

[redhawk23]

Jonah Nolan interview.

The article warns of minor spoilers. I'll read it later, myself.

http://io9.com/jonah-nolans-first-interstellar-pitch-were-not-f-ing-g-1654506330

 

[Persona]

I like this part.


Taking his seat, Tarantino had absolutely no idea about what was about to unfold on the screen. “There’s some other real cool directors there,” he told me later. “We’re waiting for the movie to start and it hit me. I realised that it hadn’t been since The Matrix that I was actually that interested in seeing a movie even though I didn’t know what I was going to see.”

After the movie was over, the directors descended on Nolan like a pack of gulls, peppering him with questions for 45 minutes. Anderson thought the movie was “beautiful” and wanted to know about the whys and wherefores of shooting on Imax 70mm. Tarantino, too, was impressed. “It’s been a while since somebody has come out with such a big vision to things,” he told me. “Even the elements, the fact that dust is everywhere, and they’re living in this dust bowl that is just completely enveloping this area of the world. That’s almost something you expect from Tarkovsky or Malick, not a science fiction adventure movie.”

holy ****, QT did not just reference my main dude Tarkovsky. i am so there. i mean, i already was, but now more than ever (for the record, i'm not expecting this to be anything like Malick or Tarkovsky, as much as that would be awesome).

btw, Harry Knowles hating this movie is like the kiss of life. that dude loves garbage movie after garbage movie and then takes to any principled film with vision that doesn't align with his like he just watched a personal affront to his idea of cinema. he's like the earnest, fanboy version of Armond White.

 

[Persona]

not to name drop, either, but if any of you ever have the chance to meet Tarantino, don't be afraid to talk movies with him. he's more than willing and is super fun to discuss cinema with, especially since he's seen virtually everything. i met him in L.A. a couple times and my favorite was the 15-minute conversation we had about zombies and Godard.

 

[Persona]

It does kind of look like an alien fungus is growing up the one side.

JUST LIKE IN THE MOVIE.

jk. or am i.

 

[Persona]

I am still waiting for Walter Chaw, my go to guy.

mine, too!

i have no idea what he's gonna think. part of me thinks the supposed sentimentality will really put him off but i dunno. it's hard to say.

for reference, he loved TDK (4/4), really liked TDKR (i think 3/4 or something like that) and was so-so on Inception.

he definitely forges his own opinion on things and while i'd say i only agree with him about 80% of the time (since i also forge my own opinion on things), that's probably more than i agree with any other critic out there, and his reviews are usually very insightful.

 

[Persona]

You're not kidding about that! I was in film school and about to direct my first project in lighting class, and i saw the prestige in theaters a few days before shooting. No words can describe my reaction or the confidence and excitement it gave me for my own work.

i promise i'm not a Nolan super-fan but the only Nolan movie i haven't seen in the theater is Following. if it's a director i really respect and as long as their movies get wide enough release to make it to Ohio, i usually make a point of seeing every new movie of theirs in the theater at least once. it's all about the director for me. i don't necessarily subscribe to auteur theory completely but i guess not super far from it. and i pretty much do when it comes to guys like Kubrick, Bergman, Godard, Tarkovsky, Bresson, Dreyer, Lang, etc.

though he might be more cerebral, Nolan is operating more in that Spielberg/Jackson/Lucas realm where there's definitely more of an interaction with the populist angle and the Hollywood machine than would be typical of an auteur...but i love that he's making the movies he's making within those parameters. there's something about that blockbuster with vision--like Jaws or Raiders of the Lost Ark or the Lord of the Rings trilogy and so on--that can be really, really special, because it's this inspiring and powerful work of cinema that's often on a large-scale afforded by Hollywood but also in terms of its cultural impact and sharing that experience with a lot of other people.

 

[Mysteryman]

mine, too!

i have no idea what he's gonna think. part of me thinks the supposed sentimentality will really put him off but i dunno. it's hard to say.

for reference, he loved TDK (4/4), really liked TDKR (i think 3/4 or something like that) and was so-so on Inception.

he definitely forges his own opinion on things and while i'd say i only agree with him about 80% of the time (since i also forge my own opinion on things), that's probably more than i agree with any other critic out there, and his reviews are usually very insightful.

I don't have a link, but Chaws review is up,
He Loved it .
and his review is VERY sentimental.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Even if he didn't love it, I would be studying that review. I only agree with him about 60% of the time. But it's his thoughtfulness and erudite insight into a film's cultural worth and how it affects him on a personal level that makes him one of best critics in the world.

BTW, what happened to Harry Knowels? He used to like Nolan and suddenly he hates him?

 

[Mysteryman]

He indicated the movie put him in a bad mood on twitter , but he has not given his review yet.

 

[Persona]

I don't have a link, but Chaws review is up,
He Loved it .
and his review is VERY sentimental.

thanks! just read it (well, skimmed when i sensed a spoiler coming) and while short and sweet for him, it's up to his usual standard. he sort of acknowledges all the perceived or opined flaws of the movie while at the same time rendering all that substantial criticism a bit moot when up against what he believes the heart of the movie to be and how well that part of it works.

i'm amped and my amp is at 11. most of the critics' whose opinions i value at all are on board with this thing.

 

[kvz5]

BTW, what happened to Harry Knowels? He used to like Nolan and suddenly he hates him?

I think TDKR burned him big time. Or of course, it could jut be as simple as him still liking Nolan but not caring for TDKR and Interstellar.

 

[BatLobster]

So the 8pm showing at the IMAX in West Nyack, NY is sold out. Yesterday it was 60% sold. I'm hoping this bodes well.

T-minus 2 hours and 43 minutes till liftoff for me.

 

[Octoberist]

I think TDKR burned him big time. Or of course, it could jut be as simple as him still liking Nolan but not caring for TDKR and Interstellar.

Harry's like that. Even though I respect his significance in pop culture, Harry's sometimes erratic and immature. Like when he reviewed The Dark Knight Rises, a film that I don't like (liked Hardy as Bane though), he attacked it for the wrong reasons. You can't keep comparing the events in the movie to the comics constantly; you have to review for what it is as a film. He broke the laws of online criticism by doing that. But then again, he's not much of a critic anyway; just a charismatic persona who broke new ground in the 90's with geek news.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Because Nolan doesn't act like the his BFF and invite him to sets and give him presents.

 

[Donut]

Good old fan boys

 

[Persona]

wow, A.O. Scott of the NY Times loved it, too.

didn't see that one coming. it is very, very interesting, the critical divide on this movie. i wouldn't say it is polarizing, because of the reviews that aren't mostly positive i'd say the reactions are more mixed than negative, but it is fascinating to read some of the passionate praise from respected critics and then also see the other group that talks about how terribly messy and "dumb" the movie is.

i tell you what, though...i have a daughter. and after reading Chaw's review, i'm pretty sure this movie is gonna hit me like a ton of bricks.

 

[DeadPresident]

I'm going to assume critics without degrees in quantum physics calling it "dumb" are to be ignored, there are people that dislike the tone or "themes" of Nolan's movies that will hate Interstellar irrespective of how well executed it is.

 

[Donut]

I'm going to assume critics without degrees in quantum physics calling it "dumb" are to be ignored

Is the same thing going 2 be said for the people that start coming in here that does not end up liking the movie ?

 

[DeadPresident]

Is the same thing going 2 be said for the people that start coming in here that does not end up liking the movie ?

If their criticisms are aimed at the scientific aspects of the film, then yes.

 

[Mysteryman]

Is the same thing going 2 be said for the people that start coming in here that does not end up liking the movie ?

For me, If its a criticism about things that have not been proven to be scientifically possible , then I think it is fair game.
It really depend how"out there" it is .
If we make a jump from plausible or halfway decent speculative Science Fiction to Fantasy or The Supernatural,
Then I think criticism is fair .

 

[Marvolo]

For me, If its a criticism about things that have not been proven to be scientifically possible , then I think it is fair game.
It really depend how"out there" it is .
If we make a jump from plausible or halfway decent speculative Science Fiction to Fantasy or The Supernatural,
Then I think criticism is fair .

It depends on who's doing the criticism too. Theoretcal physics are still based on sound math equations and proven science. Its speculative, but not the sort of speculation that we hear from laymen. Speculations made by most scientists are more sound and possible than most "certainties" spouted by laymen. So as far as the science in this film is concerned, I only want to hear criticisms from actual scientists. Anyone who isnt a scientist needs to just leave that aspect of the film alone.

 

[redhawk23]

It depends on who's doing the criticism too. Theoretcal physics are still based on sound math equations and proven science. Its speculative, but not the sort of speculation that we hear from laymen. Speculations made by most scientists are more sound and possible than most "certainties" spouted by laymen. So as far as the science in this film is concerned, I only want to hear criticisms from actual scientists. Anyone who isnt a scientist needs to just leave that aspect of the film alone.

The main problem is that while something might be scientifically sound, the way it is used as the basis for storytelling may not be particularly effective. Or the concepts may not be expressed in a cinematically interesting way.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

wow, A.O. Scott of the NY Times loved it, too.

didn't see that one coming. it is very, very interesting, the critical divide on this movie. i wouldn't say it is polarizing, because of the reviews that aren't mostly positive i'd say the reactions are more mixed than negative, but it is fascinating to read some of the passionate praise from respected critics and then also see the other group that talks about how terribly messy and "dumb" the movie is.

i tell you what, though...i have a daughter. and after reading Chaw's review, i'm pretty sure this movie is gonna hit me like a ton of bricks.

Looks like it's the Nolan movie for those who don't like Nolan movies.

 

[Marvolo]

The main problem is that while something might be scientifically sound, the way it is used as the basis for storytelling may not be particularly effective. Or the concepts may not be expressed in a cinematically interesting way.

Which is a story or plotting issue and thats what they should address. I just dont want to hear this film getting docked because Critic A thinks wormholes or time dilation is a load of bunk or that Theoretical Science A is absurd. Any critic that starts critiquing the science in such a way gets tuned out. Now if Neil deGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku want to critique the science in the film Ill listen to them because they are actually qualified to critique the science.

Critics need to critique the things that falls within their purview: plotting, pace, score, cinematography etc. The science and the validity of it is beyond their purview imo.