- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interstellar is one of the most boring movies ive seen in years
Posted on 4/10/15 at 2:18 pm to Ace Midnight
Posted on 4/10/15 at 2:18 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:yeah, I agree...this movie isn't long enough
if he had gone for 2 installments, perhaps 110 and 100
quote:
I'm thinking have the set up, build up and get all the way to waking up Matt Damon - have THAT scene be the final scene - his reaction, the crew's reaction and the whole, "Okay, what do we do now?" moment - then roll the credits
now you're talking sense...though there would have to be some visual revelation other than it is matt damon (because we know that is, not the characters) Personally, I thought the opening of mann's "tomb" was the best looking scene in a beautiful looking movie.
1
Posted on 4/10/15 at 3:19 pm to DelU249
I wish we could have seen more of the 2 planets they lived on. It was driving me nuts on the water planet that they didn't reach down and feel the ground they were standing on under knee deep water, or try to take a sample or something. I know that wasn't the point of the movie but im so damn curious about that shite.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 3:29 pm to DelU249
quote:
and no he has the same formula for the climax in these 3 movies. they're identical as to how they're arranged
inception
interstellar
TDKR
(a) 'splain;
(b) ignoring the fact that Ace limited the movies to Nolan's original works; and
(c) ignoring the other two movies I mentioned: Memento and The Prestige.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 3:33 pm to YumYum Sauce
quote:
I wish we could have seen more of the 2 planets they lived on. It was driving me nuts on the water planet that they didn't reach down and feel the ground they were standing on under knee deep water, or try to take a sample or something. I know that wasn't the point of the movie but im so damn curious about that shite.
To be fair, they were on that planet for like 15 minutes, tops, searching for their lost compatriot. Then a giant wave made tard-boy wash away as he waited outside for I-have-a-death-wish-girl to get on the fricking ship. That part made me scratch my head. And it's such an easy fix. Just have the guy get hurt or have him running behind the robot. I mean shite. He's seriously just going to stand outside waiting on this dummy? Just...
Posted on 4/10/15 at 3:58 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
I disagree... Now I'm a big fan on Nolan's previous work aside from TDKR, but he took shortcuts, and needlessly changed the science for whatever reason in Interstellar.
I don't disagree that he may have taken some "short cuts" as you put it, and some of the plot devices failed on their face, but when you are writing a sci-fi story based on 5th dimensional approaches, you are allowed some leaway on what is and isn't possible, don't you think?
I mean if the future humans(5th dimension beings) could build the tesserect but couldn't actually operate it due to some physical limitation and needed Cooper to send Murphy "the message", then that's just the way it is, right? lol
This is like arguing with people that want to say the eagles should have just flown the ring to Mt Doom.
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 4:07 pm to LoveThatMoney
A. I have. Two or more sequences simultaneously being shown or happening switching back and forth with fast editing. The scarcity of time. The mind blowing revelation. Go watch it
B. TDKR is part of this trend, so I don't care who disregards what. You want me to leave out one of the movies in this trend? Why?
C. You will see 2/3 elements I described in (A) in the climax of the prestige. Maybe all 3, it's been a while since I've seen it
D. I like all of nolan's movies. He's a great director like James Cameron is a great director. He's no fricking Hitchcock, Kubrick. If this board believes Spielberg isn't on that level then Nolan definitely isn't.
B. TDKR is part of this trend, so I don't care who disregards what. You want me to leave out one of the movies in this trend? Why?
C. You will see 2/3 elements I described in (A) in the climax of the prestige. Maybe all 3, it's been a while since I've seen it
D. I like all of nolan's movies. He's a great director like James Cameron is a great director. He's no fricking Hitchcock, Kubrick. If this board believes Spielberg isn't on that level then Nolan definitely isn't.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 4:20 pm to Jagd Tiger
Of course there should be some leeway and admittedly I'm holding this movie to a higher standard because of the team behind it.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 4:23 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Of course there should be some leeway and admittedly I'm holding this movie to a higher standard because of the team behind it.
maybe the limitation wasn't physical, maybe it was that they couldn't interfere with their own timelines with the prescient knowledge they had so they set it up so that Cooper did it for them? That's kind of my take anyway.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 7:03 pm to BoostAddict
quote:I admit I don't know enough about the science to comment, but Kip Thorne stated that there were only 2 aspects of the film that were probably not scientifically possible (one being the vertical ice crystals). So how can you say he took scientific shortcuts, when one of the leading scientists in the field says otherwise?
Of course there should be some leeway and admittedly I'm holding this movie to a higher standard because of the team behind it.
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 7:04 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 7:12 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I admit I don't know enough about the science to comment, but Kip Thorne stated that there were only 2 aspects of the film that were probably not scientifically possible (one being the vertical ice crystals). So how can you say he took scientific shortcuts, when one of the leading scientists in the field says otherwise?
Because Boost clearly knows more on the subject than Kipp Thorne or NdGT.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 7:41 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
I admit I don't know enough about the science to comment, but Kip Thorne stated that there were only 2 aspects of the film that were probably not scientifically possible (one being the vertical ice crystals). So how can you say he took scientific shortcuts, when one of the leading scientists in the field says otherwise?
I've read Kip Thorne's book on the science behind the movie. I've read the first draft of the script he help write. I'm sorry but you're wrong, Nolan changed all kinds of shite that he didn't need to. Would you like me to point you to several other scientists critique of the movie?
Whatever...I'm done arguing on this nonsense.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:05 pm to Ping Pong
quote:
but the bulk movie felt like one those new Lincoln commercials with Mathew mcconaughey brainstorming
All I heard in my head was David Wooderson trying to save the planet.
Posted on 4/10/15 at 9:26 pm to DelU249
quote:
If this board believes Spielberg isn't on that level then Nolan definitely isn't.
How much of his own material does Spielberg do? I'll admit he's a fine director and his work on Jaws, Close Encounters and E.T. was groundbreaking - he probably saved Indiana Jones from Lucas as long as he could.
I mean, he's directed 11 movies with a RT score of 90 or better - 9 of which were nominated for best picture (with only Schindler's List winning) - there is no question that the Academy loathes to give him the statue for directing or the statue to films he directs, but as a filmmaker, there is no question he is at the highest tier.
But, I can't say he is an auteur the way Billy Wilder, John Huston, Alfred Hitchcock, Stanley Kubrick, David Lynch, Tarantino or the Coens were/are.
But filmmaking is different now. Is Scorcese an auteur? Whedon? PTA? Wes Anderson? Spike Jones?
Is it, to a certain degree, subjective like with music?
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 11:21 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:08 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
I mean, he's directed 11 movies with a RT score of 90 or better - 9 of which were nominated for best picture (with only Lincoln winning) - there is no question that the Academy loathes to give him the statue for directing or the statue to films he directs, but as a filmmaker, there is no question he is at the highest tier.
He won for Schindler's List did and Lincoln didn't get Best Picture.
He's also won Best Director twice as well. I don't think he's as despised by the Academy as you believe. If you want to look at despised candidates, look at Christopher Nolan and Joaquin Phoenix.
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 10:11 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:12 pm to Ace Midnight
He also won a Best Director for Saving Private Ryan.
ETA: Beat me to it.
ETA: Beat me to it.
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 4/10/15 at 10:48 pm to Ace Midnight
That is entirely how I feel, but his rep is among the academy type people (and the moviegoers who like that shite) is something akin to Michael bay
His visuals (and I'm not talking special effects) are just so iconic, so many nothing scenes that will be with everyone until cinema is dead.
As for Indiana jones, raiders and temple are just classic cinematic pieces. Artsy? No. Great, and I mean great? Definite yes. Would they be that way if Lucas had a James bond type that he wanted?
I'll let you decide.
His visuals (and I'm not talking special effects) are just so iconic, so many nothing scenes that will be with everyone until cinema is dead.
As for Indiana jones, raiders and temple are just classic cinematic pieces. Artsy? No. Great, and I mean great? Definite yes. Would they be that way if Lucas had a James bond type that he wanted?
I'll let you decide.Posted on 4/10/15 at 11:19 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
He won for Schindler's List did and Lincoln didn't get Best Picture.
How did I cross those up?
Posted on 4/10/15 at 11:26 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
He won for Schindler's List
And Saving Private Ryan - but, he was 46 freakin' years old when he won for Schindler's List- 15 years AFTER his first nomination (Close Encounters) and 16 after Jaws which wasn't even nominated - with Raiders, E.T. and The Color Purple - all in between.
The joke was, he got an Irving Thalberg before he ever won a competitive Oscar. I mean, that is funny.
This post was edited on 4/10/15 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 4/11/15 at 12:48 am to DelU249
quote:
long story short: the 5th dimension bookshelf is so hackish.
This. It made me dislike the film in general, although it was a good ride.
And it made other parts stand out as terrible, see Matt Damon.
Still a good movie, just some major flaws and outside of the blackhole, nothing that innovative.
Posted on 4/11/15 at 11:26 am to Freauxzen
I dt I'll really liked it. In fact I thought it was brilliant until the black hole
Page 5 of 6
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News