Which is better? Inception or Interstellar?

[batman1]

Both are mind benders. Interstellar is in real time so it's fresh in my mind but I remember being mind blown when I saw Inception. Share your thoughts and thank you in advance.

 

[max314]

Inception didn't blow me away at the cinema, but it's very rewatchable.

By contrast, I get the feeling that I won't revisit Interstellar all that often, but there were moments in that movie that had me clawing the armrests like a ****ing rollercaster ride. It was a physical experience.

On a level of pure, cinematic craft: Interstellar is Nolan's best film since Memento.

 

[Zantera]

I'm gonna say Inception, but I did really like Interstellar a lot.

 

[Drz]

I enjoyed Inception's story more.

 

[Chesterfield]

Better in what way?

For overall enjoyment, definitely Inception.

For emotional impact, Interstellar.

 

[Schlosser85]

For emotional impact, Interstellar, but Inception is definitely more rewatchable to me.

 

[childeroland]

Inception. More interesting story (at least more in my wheelhouse), tighter, more interesting conceits (again, more in my wheelhouse), better paced, less egregious exposition (had no problem with Ellen Page as audience surrogate, as opposed to the space pilot being lectured on wormholes), far more interesting characters.

 

[elgaz]

They're very different types of stories. I'm not sure you can really compare them, I mean asides from having the same director they've very different in both execution and meaning.

I guess I more enjoyment (and days of thinking about it afterwards) from Inception. I loved Interstellar too, but the mind-bending part only came at the end - whereas in Inception we were trying to wrap our heads round the concept almost from the beginning.

 

[antonydelfini]

Inception 8.5/10
Interstellar 7/10

 

[Lord]

Inception was better, Interstellar was well crafted and took risks, however, it had more problems. While i do hope he tries correcting some of the problems his latest films have had, i'm excited to see what comes next in his filmography.

 

[Steyin]

Inception. I felt Interstellar was a one and done. Straightforward and not much to it for me.

 

[scifiwolf]

I'll wait to say one or the other until Interstellar gets its chance at home. Even after stripping away the IMAX experience for Inception, that film retained so much in my living room that I can just watch it over and over again. I need a similar apples-to-apples context to judge Interstellar.

 

[DA_Champion]

Inception was better, Interstellar was well crafted and took risks, however, it had more problems. While i do hope he tries correcting some of the problems his latest films have had, i'm excited to see what comes next in his filmography.

What kind of problems?

 

[DA_Champion]

It's difficult for me to rank the two because they're both excellent but in different ways. I think they make good companion films, as they're very complementary in both filmmaking strategy and general philosophical intellectuality.

Inception is about the power of ideas and how they can take over a soul, whereas Interstellar is about the need for love as intrinsic to the human condition.

Inception's action takes place in the most grounded approach we've ever seen to a dreamworld, whereas Interstellar's take place in the most fantastical approach we've seen to genuine physics.

 

[Snow Queen]

Inception by a hair.

 

[Lord]

What kind of problems?

Mostly holes in the plot, this can happen with any film, but i think they were too big. The ones that comes right to my head are the paradox where humanity from the future had to save itself in the past, it's a bit like answering that a chiken exists because it went back in time and put an egg in there. By the way, if the answer to save the planet was as simple as a morse code, why didn't humanity from the future simply deliver them to some scientist in Earth?

There were also other things that i didn't realy like, such as Matt Damon's character, the guy pretty much put himself at risk again by trying to kill the main character. It was also a bit weird that they had the pilot they needed a few km from their base, yet, he had to go there by chance in order for them to use him.

I believe there were more holes or problems in the film that i can't remember right now. Either way, while i apeciate Nolan wanting to go biig with his films, it seems like each new one has more and more plot holes or inconsistencies.

 

[kvz5]

I rated Interstellar higher than Inception (it has more heart IMO) but like the others, it's re-watchability is pretty low for me. If I'm going to waste my 2 hours, I'd rather watch Di Caprio and Co be badasses in dapper suits than McConaughey crying.

 

[DA_Champion]

Mostly holes in the plot, this can happen with any film, but i think they were too big. The ones that comes right to my head are the paradox where humanity from the future had to save itself in the past, it's a bit like answering that a chiken exists because it went back in time and put an egg in there. By the way, if the answer to save the planet was as simple as a morse code, why didn't humanity from the future simply deliver them to some scientist in Earth?

That's not actually a problem with the movie and it's a pity people think it is. That's simply how time travel works within general relativity: closed timelike curves. A-> B -> C -> A. In comparison what we're used to is simply A-> B -> C -> D, that's how it works in the world when there is no time travel, outside of black holes, worm holes, et cetera.

Humanity from the future could not simply deliver the message, as they only exist because of Cooper and Brand's journey. They exist because Cooper went to the worm hole, because he had the courage to drop into Gargantua and transmit the data on the event horizon, because his daughter was the one who could piece things together, etc. I think it's also implied that the 5th dimensional beings were also the physical descendants of Cooper and Brand, but I'm not sure.

That's the way it happened and thus it can't happen any other way. See also the Novikov self-consistency principle, when applied to rotating universes or billiard balls.

This may seem unsatisfactory, but that is the way time travel works within general relativity, and the movie chose to follow those rules.

ETA: If I told you that you could never kill your grandfather by going back in time, you might respond that this doesn't make sense. Well: you probably can't kill your grandfather even if you have a time machine. Those are not established rules since we don't have a time machine, but they're the expected rules.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Inception, easily.

 

[Monsieur Xavier]

I prefer Inception. I even bought the OST.

 

[Lord]

That's not actually a problem with the movie and it's a pity people think it is. That's simply how time travel works within general relativity: closed timelike curves. A-> B -> C -> A. In comparison what we're used to is simply A-> B -> C -> D, that's how it works in the world when there is no time travel, outside of black holes, worm holes, et cetera.

Humanity from the future could not simply deliver the message, as they only exist because of Cooper and Brand's journey. They exist because Cooper went to the worm hole, because he had the courage to drop into Gargantua and transmit the data on the event horizon, because his daughter was the one who could piece things together, etc. I think it's also implied that the 5th dimensional beings were also the physical descendants of Cooper and Brand, but I'm not sure.

That's the way it happened and thus it can't happen any other way. See also the Novikov self-consistency principle, when applied to rotating universes or billiard balls.

This may seem unsatisfactory, but that is the way time travel works within general relativity, and the movie chose to follow those rules.

ETA: If I told you that you could never kill your grandfather by going back in time, you might respond that this doesn't make sense. Well: you probably can't kill your grandfather even if you have a time machine. Those are not established rules since we don't have a time machine, but they're the expected rules.

I'm not sure it realy works that way, if humanity from the future exists in the future, it means they had to survive in their original timeline from some other way, in the film, the past actualy seems to be dependent on the future helping it. Theoreticaly, going back in time to kill someone who later had a son would alter the future, but what the film presented was more like someone having to go back in time in order to make his parents get together, which means that in the original timeline, his parents never got together, and he never existed, which doesn't realy make sence.

The problem's not realy that the past was changed witht he future's help, the problem's that the film makes it clear that had the future not helped, it wouldn't exist, it's a paradox.

 

[Quasimod0]

Idk which is better, but I enjoyed Interstellar quite a bit more.

 

[DA_Champion]

I'm not sure it realy works that way, if humanity from the future exists in the future, it means they had to survive in their original timeline from some other way, in the film, the past actualy seems to be dependent on the future helping it. Theoreticaly, going back in time to kill someone who later had a son would alter the future, but what the film presented was more like someone having to go back in time in order to make his parents get together, which means that in the original timeline, his parents never got together, and he never existed, which doesn't realy make sence.

The problem's not realy that the past was changed witht he future's help, the problem's that the film makes it clear that had the future not helped, it wouldn't exist, it's a paradox.

That's not a bug that's a feature. The past depends on the future helping it. The logic is exactly and intentionally circular.

Are you familiar with the billiard ball resolution to the grandfather paradox?

what the film presented was more like someone having to go back in time in order to make his parents get together, which means that in the original timeline, his parents never got together, and he never existed, which doesn't realy make sence.

There is no original timeline where his parents got or didn't get together. There's no meta-timeline against which the timeline evolves. He went in the past to help his parents get together, and that's how he was born. That's the only timeline.

It may sound contradictory, because our brains are not evolved to deal with that kind of (circular) causality, but if you write down each step you'll see each individual step works.

 

[Victarion]

I know absolutely nothing about time travel...I always looked at it as individuals already existing going back from a fixed point to an unfixed point to insure the stability of the fixed point from which they went back in time.

I dunno if this makes sense.

 

[Lord]

Never heard o that theory, gotta research it then.