re: Interstellar tomatometer watch - currently at 76%

Well for me, i dont give a dam if people dont like it. If its very in-depth with scientific theory, Im all in.

Worm holes, Back holes,
That shite is awesome to me.

quote:

---

Is the exploration of the unknown supposed to illicit new human emotions and interactions? Maybe the movie spends too much time on it, but emotions are relatively universal; expecting something new in that realm is not realistic.

---

I think you misunderstood what the reviewer was saying. He didn't expect the movie to conjure new emotions. He said it was formulaic at times in its emotional appeal and plot devices.

I also don't see the point in arguing with the opinions of people who have seen the film, when we have not. You don't even know what you're arguing against. How can you disagree?

I just think the early reviews are a bad indication. If there were a lot of conflicting reviews, I'd feel less pessimistic about it, but most of them seem to have similar reactions.

quote:

---

I think you misunderstood what the reviewer was saying. He didn't expect the movie to conjure new emotions. He said it was formulaic at times in its emotional appeal and plot devices.

---

I get that, and it's a fair review overall. I'm just saying that some things are "formulaic" because reality is "formulaic" especially emotions. It does seem like there is an emotional plot line with MM and his daughter and it does seem formulaic from what I've seen. That is a dynamic that occurs everyday(e.g., those serving overseas, away from work, etc).

My problem is that sometimes reviewers want something emotionally original, when that may be less realistic than the formula.

quote:

---

I think this movie is gonna be crushed under the weight of expectations.

---

Not mine. These reviews have guaranteed that.

quote:

---

I'm not sweating it. The average movie goer is a moron who wants it to be Batman and likely doesn't understand a lot of the concepts.

---

You sound like a movie critic, except you didn't work in "jingoism."

quote:

---

I think this movie is gonna be crushed under the weight of expectations. 

---

Prometheus all over again.

quote:

---

Prometheus all over again.

---

Maybe but the expectations of that film were based upon a film universe decades in the making. Expectations for this are based on those involved in the project.

quote:

---

Prometheus all over again.

---

quote:

---

Or maybe it's because Gravity set a goal and achieved it brilliantly, and Interstellar doesn't.

---

I get that to a degree. I understand that a film like Jurassic Park had a completely different goal than a film like Schindler's List.. That being said, the distinction was clear in the presentation and subject matter and the metrics (technical aspects for Jurrasic Park; plot and acting for Schindler's List) for judging those films would be entirely different. The strengths and weaknesses of each film as a whole would indicate the final quality though.

Gravity and Interstellar don't have such a distinction so the metric should at least be quite similar. If a reviewer felt Gravity was better film with higher quality than that is fair.

All else being equal, I have a problem with a judgment of the final product based on its comparison of the ambitions of the filmmaker. I understand that it's an unavoidable cognitive bias that our expectations will influence our judgement, but I think we should always try our best to limit this, especially critics since we don't share their expectations but value their objective analysis. At least some try to be transparent and admit their expectations.

There should be more objectivity from professionals. I believe it can reward those who present low ambitions/goals.

quote:

---

I get that to a degree. I understand that a film like Jurassic Park had a completely different goal than a film like Schindler's List.. That being said, the distinction was clear in the presentation and subject matter and the metrics (technical aspects for Jurrasic Park; plot and acting for Schindler's List) for judging those films would be entirely different. The strengths and weaknesses of each film as a whole would indicate the final quality though.

---

Agreed. I don't think it's that simple, like "story vs. visuals," but yeah in theory.

quote:

---

All else being equal, I have a problem with a judgment of the final product based on its comparison of the ambitions of the filmmaker. I understand that it's an unavoidable cognitive bias that our expectations will influence our judgement, but I think we should always try our best to limit this, especially critics since we don't share their expectations but value their objective analysis. At least some try to be transparent and admit their expectations.

---

Really? See to me, the goals of the film maker, the ambitions are critical to how much the film achieves and how "good" or "great," it is. Unless you mean ambitions as the general goals of the director in the art form. I'm speaking more to the ambitions of the single film product. There are exceptions, of course, but I think whatever the film maker wants to communicate is uncovered through the process of watching the film. Interpretation itself is the act of interacting with that very conversation of "This is what I want you to see." To take Fiennes line, "Do you see?"

I think bias comes in from what we WANT to see, hence the Gravity discussions. People wanted something different, they had no clue what Cuaron was trying to achieve, or at least they subconsciously kept themselves from knowing and accepting it.

I don't know whether or not Nolan's film does this, so that part of the discussion is meaningless, but some of those reviewer comments seem to resonate with that idea.

For me, and this might be different from everyone else on here, the film maker's intentions, his goals, are everything when it comes to experiencing the product. They guide and frame everything the viewer sees, literally and figuratively.