Interstellar - Part 9

[StarLord]

Mass audiences like the comfort of the familiar. We all do. It's why we often order the same meal in a restaurant rather than try something new.

Nolan is challenging to people if only because he innovates. He mucks around with narrative structure. He makes serious and grounded comic book movies. He focuses on plot when the consensus is to focus on characters at the expense of plot and to have infinite plot holes. He includes massive rotating black holes in his space operas rather than dragons and ray guns.

That's different from what people are used to, so of course people won't like it.

Or of course, they just didn't like the movie.

 

[Dr.]

What [Priest] said was really condescending to anyone that watches superhero movies generalizing all of us as young teens.

It seems clear to me that Priest is just not a fan of the superhero genre. Fair enough; he’s entitled to his opinion. (Some folks hate westerns.) But his distinction between Nolan’s DK trilogy and Avengers is bogus. The same complaints he makes about those inattentive teens who text-message during Batman Begins would apply to pretty much any summer blockbuster. IOW, his apparent preference for Avengers isn’t an endorsement, it’s “damning with faint praise.”

I find it interesting how some (though not all) critics can’t see past the standard conventions of the superhero genre (e.g., fanciful abilities and costumes) to the actual stories, themes, etc. Meanwhile, they’ll (for example) ignore the utter surrealism of characters breaking into song-and-dance in musicals. I.e., there appears to be a double standard about which forms of narrative artifice are acceptable and which are deemed “silly.” (For that matter, multiple magician clones in a quasi sci-fi film isn’t all that far removed from a protagonist adopting a bat persona. )

Now this doesn’t mean that superhero movies should get an automatic pass. Obviously, some of them are total crap. But the notion that the genre can be dismissed a priori because it encompasses its own set of “idiosyncratic” conventions and tropes strikes me as exceptionally close-mined.

 

[Dr.]

...no matter how 'out there' the concept never lose sight of the characters, the movie should be character driven not plot driven. Nolan (IMHO) gets too bogged down with the plot and doesn't devote enough time with the characters. I absolutely felt this watching Inception.

The distinction between “plot driven” and “character driven” is arguably real (though in most cases, there’s some degree of overlap - it’s not absolutely one or the other). Speaking of Kubrick word, most of his movies tend to be “plot driven.” So his characters tend to represent “thematic constructs” - metaphors which serve a philosophical point of view. (Likewise, I’d say that everyone in Inception is a “thematic construct.&#8221 In contrast, romance novels or so-called “kitchen sink dramas” are more apt to be “character driven.” So a given plot (e.g., boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-and-girl-reunite) might just be a background template. And the extent to which the story is compelling really comes down to how well the characters (and their interactions) are crafted.

However, I don’t think one can simply pronounce “character driven” to be inherently superior to “plot driven.” It’s a matter of personal taste (and clearly, authors/filmmakers/audiences have their individual biases and preferences).

 

[rashad]

‘Interstellar’ Inspires Koreans To Study Space Science
ByJaeyeon Woo

Hollywood blockbuster “Interstellar” may have used some artistic license with science, but it’s also inspired South Koreans to learn about the real thing.

In the three weeks since opening, the movie has attracted nearly 7.3 million moviegoers in South Korea and racked up 58.2 billion won, or $52.8 million, in ticket sales, according to the Korea Film Council. That’s about the same pace as “Frozen,” the country’s second-most watched foreign film after “Avatar.”
As of Sunday, South Korea was the second biggest foreign market for the film behind China, with almost 40% of the US’s gross sales, according to Box Office Mojo.

The film’s huge success has also sparked interest in phenomena like black holes and Einstein’s theory of relativity, resulting in Interstellar-related events and online educational offerings.

Full article: http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2014/11/27/interstellar-inspires-koreans-to-study-space-science/

 

[DA_Champion]

Or of course, they just didn't like the movie.

That's a tautology, not an explanation.

Do you know the difference?

"They didn't like the movie because they didn't like the movie" , your argument, doesn't provide any diagnostic power. It sheds light on nothing and makes no predictions.

 

[StarLord]

That's a tautology, not an explanation.

Do you know the difference?

So because they have a lack of evidence, their opinion isn't valid?

Going by most of your posts in here, you seem to come across as highly offended when someone doesn't like Intersteller.

 

[DA_Champion]

The distinction between “plot driven” and “character driven” is arguably real (though in most cases, there’s some degree of overlap - it’s not absolutely one or the other). Speaking of Kubrick word, most of his movies tend to be “plot driven.” So his characters tend to represent “thematic constructs” - metaphors which serve a philosophical point of view. (Likewise, I’d say that everyone in Inception is a “thematic construct.”) In contrast, romance novels or so-called “kitchen sink dramas” are more apt to be “character driven.” So a given plot (e.g., boy-meets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-and-girl-reunite) might just be a background template. And the extent to which the story is compelling really comes down to how well the characters (and their interactions) are crafted.

However, I don’t think one can simply pronounce “character driven” to be inherently superior to “plot driven.” It’s a matter of personal taste (and clearly, authors/filmmakers/audiences have their individual biases and preferences).

Yes, I also disagree with the notion that all movies should push characters at the expense of plot.

 

[DA_Champion]

So because they have a lack of evidence, their opinion isn't valid?

That is completely unrelated to what I or anybody else in this thread has written.

 

[Travesty]

lolwut?

 

[StarLord]

Haha, being from the UK I have no idea what SAT's are. I assume they are some exam score type thing?! Which is totally irrelevant to this nonsense anyway.

 

[hafizbat]

Spoiler

I honestly think Priest has a point there. I mean, it's great that we got Nolan's trilogy, and it's obviously a phenomenal piece of cinema and a series for the ages... but, that's not what superheroes or the genre should be. We were spoiled there. I'm glad we got it, but I don't want it all the time. I feel the same way about Watchmen.

This stuff is for kids, guys. And we take it way too seriously. Kid gets bitten by a spider, becomes a spider-man, and we're angry and appalled by the third movie because it's too silly. Guy gets a ring and a lantern from an alien soldier, and becomes his replacement in an army of space cops, and we're angry because the writing wasn't good enough. I'm sorry, but the only people being pretentious here are the fans.

"It didn't respect the source material!" - Oh, well the source material is cheap paper with cartoon people who wear capes. I think we need to calm down a little bit. Writers like Alan Moore and Grant Morrison are the rare ones who are going to come along and challenge that notion every now and then, but film adaptations will never follow that. When they do, it ends up being Watchmen and it bombs at the box office.

Comic books are cheap, quick, meaningless, fast food entertainment, and that's why Marvel is succeeding unbelievably at an unprecedented level - they're following their source material precisely, and that's what people want.

What a terrible, delusional post.

Spoiler

I couldn't dislike this post more.



Who says? I think that's a really out of date way of looking at things. It started out excusively for kids, yes. Then the audience got older and comics went with them. Most comic book buyers these days are adults and teens. Kids mostly get into it through the movies/tv shows and find their way to the comics eventually. Even then, kids don't want to be condescended to. I sure didn't when I was a kid. Anything that was aiming aiming low because it was "for kids" I rejected. I preferred the creepiness of BR and the violence and adult tone of Robocop, the serious (even "majestic") aspects of S:TM.

Conversely, doesn't mean everything has to be dark or complex, or even adult. STM, TA and IM1 are still fan favourites. They were light and fun without being condescending, and they were well made.

It shouldn't be one way or another. There's room for variety.

Bull. People were angry about the third Spidey movie because it was poorly written and made bad, silly choices. What's wrong with that? People were angry at Green Lantern because it was poorly written, directed, shot, edited and had bad effects. Absolutely fair. Nobody said it should have been more adult. They said it should have been better.

Watchmen didn't bomb because of what it was trying to do, but because it failed at what it was trying to do. Conversely, another DC Comics property a year earlier also aimed to transcend the genre, and became one of the biggest movies... ever. Because they executed it right.

Comic books are a format for story telling, using words and pictures. Just as novels are a format for storytelling using words, cinema using images and sound. Whether they're cheap, quick, meaningless or whatever nonsense depends on the individual story, the spirit with which it was made and its execution - Not the format. There are plenty of comics that are that... and there are plenty that are way more, and plenty somewhere in between. Just the same as with novels and movies.

To paint the whole format with one brush is out-of-date, reductive and condescending.

Thank you.

Exactly.

Marvel is dominating for a reason, and rightly so. They know what these movies are supposed to be, and that's why Guardians of the Galaxy and The Avengers are phenomenal successes. They're not going to be anything bigger or deeper than the medium they came from.

People criticize Man of Steel, they criticize The Dark Knight Rises, they criticize Watchmen. Why? Because they're trying to be REAL. They're trying to be deeper and more meaningful than they need to be. People don't want that.

And to bring it back to the thread, they're criticizing Interstellar too. Why? Because it's making points, it's challenging, it's thought-provoking, it's saying something about the human condition, it's real, it's based on REAL science, and nobody in the world has ANY problem with Guardians of the Galaxy. Does anybody hate it? Honestly? Because I don't.

People are going to hate BvSDoJ, and it's going to be considered a failure - this I guarantee you.

Again, you are being completely illogical and twisting facts to support your, quite frankly, ludicrous argument.

Spoiler

88% on RT, $1.1B worldwide. It was a massive success. It's extremely well-liked by the masses, and criticised by a vocal minority of forum users, some of whom don't like it because of its pacing, some for the execution of the themes, and many simply for the fact that Batman retired and that the Batman in their heads wouldn't do that.

Also, it's predecessor also did something more than "just being a comic book story". But it's loved much more. There are some who don't like them for their tone, but it's hardly some sweeping epidemic.



Again, reductive. Some people do want fun. Some people do want serious. Most people want both. Everyone wants them to be well made. For the most part, the audience likes the way those movies are made, and looking at the creators, they're all in engaged with their characters and are trying their best to represent them in a good way. As opposed to GL (which was light and meaningless, all that ****) but was summarily rejected by everyone because it wasn't well made. If it were just a case of "people want light and meaningless" it would have been a hit.

People criticize MoS* and Watchmen because Snyder isn't the strongest storyteller. There's that. There are also people who have a bias against Snyder and automatically look for faults. There's a lot of reasons. If people didn't want that, then how do you explain the success of TDKT? Or... any other serious movie/story?

*Yes, there are some who don't like it for it's tone. I'm one of them. BUT - I'm sure the tone would have gone over better (for me) had the pacing, action and messy way the themes of the movie were put together weren't so laborious aka if it were better made. Tone is only one factor.

On Interstellar, some don't like it because they feel it didn't execute it's themes (failed to mix science and philosophy) correctly. Some because of it's dialogue, some because it thinks the more overt emotion is outside of Nolan's wheelhouse, and some because of an anti-Nolan bias. And, even some for whom the science and philosophy simply went over their heads and hence consider the movie to be "dumb".

But - 73% on RT (last I heard) which is a majority, and well over $400M worldwide in it's third week of release alone. That accounts for the critics and audience. For a film that does ask it's audience to put their thinking caps on, it's cleaning up. Hell, read through this thread and look at the poll on top of it. On the poll, I see the majority of the forum loving the movie, many liking it and some feeling mixed.
Now, explain to me why any serious or smart movie, or anything that asks more of it's audience emotionally or mentally is a success.

I really, really didn't like GotG. I thought it was a boring, void waste of time that tried way too hard. Of the MCU movies, I loved TA and really, really liked TWS. IM1 was okay. The rest...? No thanks. But, I'm really anticipating AoU, CW and IW1&2 (and am curious about CM).

If it does, it will assuredly be because of all the other reasons I've stated. Not because the world somehow rejects the tone as one.

Again, I completely agree. His entire argument is based on two very delusional assumptions.

1)TDKR was a failure. Which is unarguably wrong. Financially, critically, and by all means it was a massive success. Throwing it in with Watchmen and MoS and generalizing about all of them is just so stupid.

2)Comic books are only for kids. What? Have you read any comics post-60's? Likening comic books to cheap fast food is utterly distasteful. It's a valid medium of expressing thoughts and ideas, just as movies and books are. Go read Arkham Asylum and tell me it was meant for kids.

 

[DA_Champion]

I also reject the notion that Watchmen was a bomb and a failure.

It has a passable RT score of 65%, it outgrossed its costs by a significant margin, and it did very very well on the DVD+Blu Ray market. Most importantly, it's still talked about it a lot and it's decently respected among film snobs. I've seen a lot of non-CBM nerds bting it up.

For example, Neil de Grasse Tyson says he considers it the best CBM

 

[hafizbat]

The real crux of the problem is when people assert how movies "should be".

"The TDK trilogy 'should have been' more lighthearted and less mature, because it's supposed to be for kids."

The Avengers 'should have been' more intellectual and complex; it was too simple and predictable."

Both statements are unproductive, and a detrimental way of thinking about things. I believe it would be far preferable to accept things how they are, and not judge them based on how you thought they should be. After accepting that, it's entirely up to oneself to decide whether to like it or hate it.

 

[BatLobster]

All I'm gonna say is I'm glad that over the past decade or so we've had variety in the superhero genre. This idea that an entire genre of films (which the CBM has truly become) "should" only have one tone is asinine, especially when there are so many of them. And it's downright ignorant for Priest to make such a statement about Batman of all characters, who alone encapsulates the vast spectrum of how dark/light, silly/serious this material has been treated.

As for Interstellar...I have to say that this movie definitely was a more enjoyable watch for me the second time around. Any reservations I had after the first viewing kind of melted away for the most part. I really can see this one continuing to grow with subsequent viewings and become a fan favorite ala The Prestige over time.

 

[Warhammer]

Sooo...will Interstellar eventually be like The Empire Strikes Back in terms of retroactive critical reception?

 

[DA_Champion]

Sooo...will Interstellar eventually be like The Empire Strikes Back in terms of retroactive critical reception?

Maybe.

I think that since Nolan is such a big name, all of his movies will be retroactively re-evaluated based on how good (or bad) the subsequent ones are. The Prestige for example had a mediocre, middling reception, but it's now well regarded due to The Dark Knight and Inception.

Also, even though this is completely unfair, his evaluation in the public eye will depend on the continuing relative merits of Marvel movies vs DC movies. If Man of Steel had been better received than say Iron Man 3, Interstellar would have been better received as well.

 

[hafizbat]

Maybe.

I think that since Nolan is such a big name, all of his movies will be retroactively re-evaluated based on how good (or bad) the subsequent ones are. The Prestige for example had a mediocre, middling reception, but it's now well regarded due to The Dark Knight and Inception.

Also, even though this is completely unfair, his evaluation in the public eye will depend on the continuing relative merits of Marvel movies vs DC movies. If Man of Steel had been better received than say Iron Man 3, Interstellar would have been better received as well.

Why do you keep bringing Marvel into this? Christopher Nolan has moved on from the superhero genre, I'd recommend you move on as well.

Marvel has absolutely nothing to do with the reception of Interstellar. Nor does Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, or any other movie not made by Nolan himself and to suggest otherwise is pure effrontery.

 

[DA_Champion]

Why do you keep bringing Marvel into this? Christopher Nolan has moved on from the superhero genre, I'd recommend you move on as well.

Marvel has absolutely nothing to do with the reception of Interstellar. Nor does Iron Man 3, Man of Steel, or any other movie not made by Nolan himself and to suggest otherwise is pure effrontery.

Do you actually think that Interstellar would have gotten the exact same critical reception if it had been directed anonymously?

I don't. I believe that critics bring biases into their evaluations. I believe they're fallible just like we're fallible. If you're interested I can present some arguments backing that up.

But here's one line of evidence. If you look at classics released in the last ten years, their RT scores range from 75% to 100%. Those are movies for which the ratings were made before critics knew if they were supposed to like a movie.

Now look up some classics that predate RT. Scores of 98-100% are common. That's because the critics knkw that they're supposed to like the movie.

Alternatively, read some of the criticisms on RT. There is clearly some backlash against his work. Baggage from previous movies follows into subsequent movies.

Heck, listen to Christopher Priest's interview from the previous page. Was it me who told him to bring up Marvel?

 

[jmc]

I don't think the reception would have been all that different to be honest. Interstellar is a grand movie with big ambitions but it's sandwiched somewhere between being a brilliant sci-fi movie and an awesome astronomy documentary, and that's the type of film that not everyone is going to enjoy.

 

[hafizbat]

Do you actually think that Interstellar would have gotten the exact same critical reception if it had been directed anonymously?

I don't. I believe that critics bring biases into their evaluations. I believe they're fallible just like we're fallible. If you're interested I can present some arguments backing that up.

But here's one line of evidence. If you look at classics released in the last ten years, their RT scores range from 75% to 100%. Those are movies for which the ratings were made before critics knew if they were supposed to like a movie.

Now look up some classics that predate RT. Scores of 98-100% are common. That's because the critics knkw that they're supposed to like the movie.

Alternatively, read some of the criticisms on RT. There is clearly some backlash against his work. Baggage from previous movies follows into subsequent movies.

Heck, listen to Christopher Priest's interview from the previous page. Was it me who told him to bring up Marvel?

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about critics having biases, and like I said, Nolan's previous films obviously do have an effect on how critics view his movies. Nolan has reached the level of greatness where people just want to take the shine off.

I just don't get the vague relation to Marvel. Marvel and Nolan have nothing to do with each other at all...And before you say that all critics love Marvel and reward their formula or blah blah, just keep in mind that Iron Man 3 has a 78% RT compared to Interstellar's 73%.

You keep bringing up Marvel but you're not using any real evidence or making any logical connections...

I love Interstellar and I'm confident it will go down as a beloved classic ala Fight Club or Blade Runner, but I strongly disagree that it was negatively affected by Marvel.

The Prestige is incredibly popular and a great many people say it's Nolan's best film. Yet it only got a 76% on RT...in 2006. Before Marvel Studios even existed. How do you explain that?

 

[jmc]

I do think there's too much pressure put on Nolan to be a step above blockbuster movie cliches. I'm guilty of having that expectation myself on more than one occasion.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying about critics having biases, and like I said, Nolan's previous films obviously do have an effect on how critics view his movies. Nolan has reached the level of greatness where people just want to take the shine off.

I just don't get the vague relation to Marvel. Marvel and Nolan have nothing to do with each other at all...And before you say that all critics love Marvel and reward their formula or blah blah, just keep in mind that Iron Man 3 has a 78% RT compared to Interstellar's 73%.

You keep bringing up Marvel but you're not using any real evidence or making any logical connections...

I love Interstellar and I'm confident it will go down as a beloved classic ala Fight Club or Blade Runner, but I strongly disagree that it was negatively affected by Marvel.

The Prestige is incredibly popular and a great many people say it's Nolan's best film. Yet it only got a 76% on RT...in 2006. Before Marvel Studios even existed. How do you explain that?

When the prestige came out, the critics didn't know that they were supposed to like it. Nolan was one of many talented young directors, name didn't stand out I don't think, it was reviewed honestly, and their hobest assessment was that it was an average movie. That's my guess, maybe there are confounding factors I don't know about.

So what do you make of the Priest interview? He's asked what he thinks of Nolan and he goes on and on about how Avengers is better, he doesn't bring up Inception, etc.

 

[hafizbat]

Priest is one man. Taking his interview and projecting it onto the entire world, or at least the movie critic world, is preposterous. Besides, he was talking about how his kids prefer their superhero movies less serious than the TDK trilogy. That has no relation to Interstellar, which is neither a children's movie nor a superhero flick.

 

[DA_Champion]

Priest is one man, but he's just one of several lines of evidence I posted, and of course there are a lot more. As such dismissing that particular line of evidence on the basis that it's just one piece of evidence is unfair in my opinion.

Nolan like all known directors has critics take in baggage (good or bad) prior to every movie. I'm sure Nolan would have it no other way as he gets more positive than negative baggage, lol.

So I stand by my prior analysis: long term evaluation of Interstellar will inpart depend on the quality of Nolan's subsequent movies.

 

[DA_Champion]

I don't think the reception would have been all that different to be honest. Interstellar is a grand movie with big ambitions but it's sandwiched somewhere between being a brilliant sci-fi movie and an awesome astronomy documentary, and that's the type of film that not everyone is going to enjoy.

It's hard to be sure. The only comparison I can think of is the outstanding Europa Report. It is more of a documentary, has slightly better ratings but we ccan't be sure because it's a small movie.

Anyway, if I have a bias it's that this is the movie I've wanted to see for ten years: a hard science fiction space opera blockbuster. It actually used science to further the plot, for example time dilation, genuinely exotic alien planets, and worm holes. Being an astrophysicist, I can appreciate the deep space diligence I've never seen in a blockbuster. It may be hard for you to understand, but when I saw the ridiculous asteroid belts in GoTG and in Green Lantern I was really turned off. I am aware that most viewers don't even register the problem for those asteroid belts, but I wish they'd also be annoyed that the imagery is recycled from Star Wars.

Why recycle imagery from Star Wars? Why not create new imagery? If Nolan can do it why can't other directors? I don't know but for the most part they can't. Hollywood Space Opera are mostly a series of footnotes stretching back to Stanley Kubrick and George Lucas. I'm glad to see new stuff added.

You know, I've actually been joking for years that Hollywood should be using rotating black holes as plot devices for years now. Lots, LOTS, of directors used black holes, but Nolan is the first one to have them rotate lol. As you can see they're a much more interesting plot device. Now I bet you that in the next ten years you'll see them on a regular basis in movies.

There's hard research that went into this and not just astronomy research. Matt Damon's character for example is something a writer could only ever come up with by researching astronaut psychology. For me that's something to respect and appreciate, that they did their homework on how astronauts are and live and that whole subculture.

But anyway people didn't like the movie, for several reasons. I can list eight complementary non-overlapping non-universal reasons and if one of those eight reasons offends somebody I'll get attacked, so I won't. I'll be tautological: people didn't like the movie because they didn't like the movie, lol.