Interstellar - Part 9

[redhawk23]

IMAX is certainly a marketing gimmick, but it is different just in terms of there is literally a large portion of the image missing when you don't see the film in that format where as you get pretty much the same information across whether you watch a movie in 2d or 3d.

Its very similar to the difference between fullscreen and widescreen.

In my experience with Interstellar, it suffers badly with the space scenes cut down to the standard size. Just as this shot from Mad Max loses whole characters, a lot of the imagery in the film pretty much doesn't work in the standard format. For instance there were external shots of the nose cone of Ranger ship that on my first screening were really frustrating as the front of the ship filled almost the whole frame. In the IMAX framing you could see what was actually being filmed, the clouds and the landscape rushing by. Much of that is simply missing from the standard format version of the film, which Nolan can rightly be criticized for. I don't very much care to ever see it on home video at all.

 

[redhawk23]

"The only hook"? I'm sorry, but Avatar didn't make that much money due to its 3D alone. It was far from being the first 3D movie. But was the 3D a gimmick in that movie? Sure, it definitely was. But so are all of Nolan's half-IMAX'd movies. I'm not sure how you can't see the difference? You seem to be hiding behind some moniker of artistry in defense of IMAX, when in reality, IMAX isn't doing anything more than selling tickets and attracting attention to it, just like 3D. The only difference, is you happen to like the quality in IMAX over 3D, but failing to see that both are gimmicks.

Stop applying negative connotations to the word "gimmick", and see it for what it really is.

Of course not. Like I said, there were Hammerhead Elephants.

 

[dark_b]

both Cameron and Nolan belive that we will get an unique experience with 3d and IMAX. the studios use it to make more money.

we are all here on the same team.

 

[DA_Champion]

both Cameron and Nolan belive that we will get an unique experience with 3d and IMAX. the studios use it to make more money.

we are all here on the same team.

Nolan does not use 3D ...

 

[dark_b]

you know very good that i meant the 3d cameras for Cameron and imax cameras for Nolan.

 

[Tequilla]

both Cameron and Nolan belive that we will get an unique experience with 3d and IMAX. the studios use it to make more money.

we are all here on the same team.

I have never had the experience of wanting to see a non-Imax film and not be allowed. While 3d...

It's not the same thing at all. Imax is a normal 65mm ; 15 perf. It has nothing to do with stereoscopic images , and how they were shoved down our throats. Gladly things evolved in that aspect.

 

[Kane52630]

So if it was the other way around and IMAX was being "forced" upon you, you and many others will automatically dismiss the format by calling it a gimmick?

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

[YT]XH7ZRF6zNoc[/YT]

 

[Tequilla]

So if it was the other way around and IMAX was being "forced" upon you, you and many others will automatically dismiss the format by calling it a gimmick?

No. I would be up against the dictatorship of it. Although it would definitely be in the boundaries of gimmickily , because some people (i don't know any , but i find it acceptable) might not take advantage of seeing an Imax image.

I said in the previous page of what i consider a gimmick. It's something that doesnt enhance my experience , it actually diminishes it (and it certanly does that do the image quality). 65mm don't do that to images. You are technically seeing something better.

 

[BatLobster]

Travesty is right, both are gimmicks, though 3D is ultimately a much more profitable one since it's more widespread.

Also, there's added value to stuff shot in 70mm that you'll get everywhere, not just IMAX theaters. For those scenes you're getting literally the best resolution in the world and that's noticeable at a regular theater, on Blu-ray, etc. It's about more than just the size of the picture.

So to me, the real gimmick is when films are post-converted to 3D/IMAX. When they're shot with IMAX and/or 3D cameras there's a little more integrity behind the gimmick, because at least some work was done in the field to give you the best possible presentation for those formats.

 

[redfirebird2008]

In the IMAX framing you could see what was actually being filmed, the clouds and the landscape rushing by. Much of that is simply missing from the standard format version of the film, which Nolan can rightly be criticized for. I don't very much care to ever see it on home video at all.

To be fair, the Blu-ray will have the IMAX scenes expanded to fill all of the HDTV screen. Not quite the same effect as real IMAX, but similar to digital IMAX (LieMAX).

 

[John McGuirk]

My favorite part of the score, when they're trying to re-dock on the Endurance after the Mann debacle, isn't on the official soundtrack.

 

[georgec]

My favorite part of the score, when they're trying to re-dock on the Endurance after the Mann debacle, isn't on the official soundtrack.

I saw somewhere that a bonus track from that scene has been made available, but it still doesn't match the music from the film.

 

[Donut]

I saw somewhere that a bonus track from that scene has been made available, but it still doesn't match the music from the film.

The track is fine. That is how it was written & composed by Hans Zimmer. Someone took the choirs & organs section from Mountains & edited that into No Time For Caution for the movie

 

[rashad]

Weekend Actuals - $15,341,167 -45.8%

Domestic: $120,933,234 26.8%
+ Foreign: $330,600,000 73.2%
= Worldwide: $451,533,234

 

[Sawyer]

Finally got around to seeing this. Liked it alot and the emotional aspect of it gets an A+ from me, but for some reason it wasn't as gripping to me as other Nolan stuff like Inception.

Also wish I didn't have [blackout]Matt Damon[/blackout] spoiled for me beforehand.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

Finally got around to seeing this. Liked it alot and the emotional aspect of it gets an A+ from me, but for some reason it wasn't as gripping to me as other Nolan stuff like Inception.

Also wish I didn't have [blackout]Matt Damon[/blackout] spoiled for me beforehand.

take it from someone who didnt have it spoiled for him. [BLACKOUT]honestly had no idea Damon was even in the movie.[/BLACKOUT] regarding that fact I was like "what a twist!"

Lol but seriously after about 5 minutes it was sorta obvious anyway. [BLACKOUT]no way that planet was going to support life.[/BLACKOUT]

 

[Sawyer]

Well, no, I mean his entire appearance in the film. I had no idea before I read something on EW.com.

I didn't know that he would be as shady as he was, but that really didn't surprise me too much.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Join me in starting a petition to make sure that the real producer and director of the film gets credit, not Christopher Nolan

yes this is a joke

 

[Travesty]

Reminds me of Grandmas Boy, but with movies instead of video games.

 

[titansupes]

8-Minute Behind-the-Scenes Video on Interstellar's Sound Design:

http://filmmakermagazine.com/88429-watch-behind-interstellars-sound-design/#.VHPxf9IcTIV

 

[Kane52630]

Listening to oneofus.net's review for it and it's pretty much on point how I feel about this movie aside from the IMAX/35 stuff. It isn't as "original" as I thought it was.

 

[Naked Shia]

I loved it. The space stuff was really intense, and the emotional stuff was really really moving.

Also, I know some people are talking about "plot-holes", but to me, most (if not all) movies have plot-holes. What matters in the end, is not that the movie has plot-holes, it's that the director manages to make you believe in the journey, and connect with the story, in spite of the plot-holes.

 

[AnneFan]

I loved it. The space stuff was really intense, and the emotional stuff was really really moving.

I agree. Interstellar is a movie worth seeing at the cinemas.

What did you think of Brand?

 

[Tequilla]

I finally rewatched the film yesterday , and i kinda recommend anyone who liked it , to do so. It was much more enjoyable and puts the film in a place that i thought it might not belong. Being too dense on events/situations/concepts , some stuff just kinda flew by me in the first time. Knowing what was going to happen and the rhythm of some of those beats , allowed me to appreciate everything.

First time i really didn't notice how crazy beautiful are all the aerial shots/landing. It's as monumental as the space scenery. And everything feels way more tight than i felt the first time. The film kinda flows by. The whole first section gains another dimension knowing much more about these characters.

And Nolan once again spills everything in the first minute or so

Spoiler

First shot is the bookshelf and Murph tells Cooper that she thought he was her ghost

When the space section begins and unravels , the pursue of the complete unknown is extraordinarily sensorial. This might just actually be on of Nolan's best. And is best output since the Prestige.