If you can pull it off, which everyone agrees Interstellar either did or came the closest anyone has ever done, then it's fine. When you're making a movie about the destiny of mankind and his place in the universe, it's almost impossible to not pay homage to 2001 since it did it perfectly.

Nolan tried to make this generation's 2001, but while Kubrick's was more optimistic look on mankind's future (why wouldn't it be since we were 2 years from landing on the moon), Nolan took it into retrospect on how pathetic our space program had become. All we care about now is really immediate gratification and not the betterment of our species, which will inevitably catch up with us. The fact that Nolan chose the dust bowl as a setting isn't a coincidence, since we are as far removed from the Moon Landing now as the Moon Landing was from the dust bowl. It took a nice new spin on 2001 and it for the most part succeeded.

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Posted by Ace Midnight

Between sanity and madness

Member since Dec 2006

90877 posts

Posted on 6/30/15 at 10:43 am to OMLandshark

quote:
The fact that Nolan chose the dust bowl as a setting isn't a coincidence, since we are as far removed from the Moon Landing now as the Moon Landing was from the dust bowl.

Dust Bowl to Apollo 11 was 30 to 35 years - and the last moon landing (Apollo 17) was about 42 years until Interstellar's theatrical release, so this is pretty good analysis. On the other hand, what I find striking is that (some of) the kids of the Dust Bowl era grew up to be the technicians, engineers, support workers, and astronauts of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs. Other than top executives, virtually everyone at or associated with NASA lived through those times (and WWII).

1 Jump to Post ...

Report Post Jump to Post

Movie/TV Board - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board