re: The official Interstellar thread (spoilers)

quote:

---

It a deus ex machina, an overly convenient and somewhat random way to resolve a plot

---

When you have to follow your pretentious phrase with a comma and a definition of said phrase, wouldnt it be easier just to use just the definition instead?

What was ambitious about this movie and why is ambition even being applied to movie making?

Here is a cool read about Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on the movie. LINK

Supposedly he will be discussing interstellar with Nolan soon on a radio talk show.

quote:

---

It a deus ex machina,

---

how is it deus ex machina if part of what resolved the plot was mentioned or alluded to in the beginning of the movie?

In other words, it's just something you say that has no real meaning at all but makes you feel like some sort of movie maven.

quote:

---

When you have to follow your pretentious phrase with a comma and a definition of said phrase, wouldnt it be easier just to use just the definition instead?

---

It's not pretension. I was quoting a previously used term and defining it for those who werent familiar with it, to make the argument accessible to anyone. Cute bunny rabbit, though.

From the article:

quote:

---

The trippiest part of "Interstellar" comes toward the end, when the action takes place inside a black hole's event horizon. As far as theorists know, the laws of physics break down in that environment — but the filmmakers have set up what they call a "tesseract," or a three-dimensional representation of what the cosmos might look like in extra dimensions.

Inside the tesseract, it's possible to move through time as if it were a spatial dimension. "How you portray that, we don't know, so you let the producers and visual artists figure something out," Tyson said. "It's an attempt to show a person who is no longer bound into the present, a person who has access to the timeline of your own life the same way you can move around in space."

---

So the final scene within the black hole is actually based on theoretical physics? That is some trippy stuff right there.

quote:

---

Here is a cool read about Neil deGrasse Tyson's view on the movie. LINK

---

So do you have your own opinion, or do you just swoop in and give others' opinions just to seem like you know shite about shite? Just to be a little irritating, irrelevant shite? Tell me in great detail.

Damn that movie was a roller coaster ride of emotions and action. I had no idea what to expect in the black hole. Matt Damon was a dick, and the visualization of five demensions was really well thought out.

Note - I saw it in 70mm IMAX in Dallas. Visuals were jaw dropping.

Some positives and negatives noted after watching it for the second time.

**Spoilers**


Nearly everything leading up to the initial launch - apart from the bookshelf backstory - was completely useless. Some of it (the truck ride with daughter, driving away from family while crying, etc.) was meant to be moving, I think, but it absolutely was not. It was ~45 minutes of wasted time.

Also, the whole wrestling seen with Matt Damon was too cookie-cutter for me, but I guess it was necessary in order to set up the epic - and I do mean EPIC - docking scene.

Nolan has a tendency towards lengthy, epic climaxes, and Interstellar is no exception. I may be being slightly reactionary, but Interstellar's climax may be his best yet. Just unbelievable. Breathtaking.

And I appreciated the score a lot more on this second viewing. Very good. I still maintain that it's nowhere near Inception, but that's hardly a knock.

One thing I noticed this time that somehow escaped me the first time, is that at the end, they're in the space ship (thingy) that Michael Caine and Jessica Chastain were building on Earth. No idea how I missed that originally. I just assumed they were in some sort of space station; I didn't realize it was that space station.