Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Just got back from seeing this. There are some very good things about it, and also some things that are very wrong. I've got four shows I want to watch tonight so my full review will have to wait until tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
There are some very good things about it, and also some things that are very wrong.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
There are some very good things about it, and also some things that are very wrong.

---

Firefly and Interstellar have the same problem with the back story, except Firefly's is bigger. (The back story is what happened before the show starts, the story that got them into this mess in the first place. ) They don't have enough tiny brains or willpower or human energy to slowdown the arrival of the End of the World, but do know how to quickly build spaceships to leave Earth forever? Really?

Interstellar's NASA, despite being defunded decades before, somehow has the capability of launching dozens of crewed ships that would cost hundreds of billions of dollars each (and does so, inexplicably—get used to that word—from an underground silo that is literally right next to its work offices). Firefly has the harder problem of moving millions of people away from Earth, not just dozens. And Firefly moves them light-years, not just light-minutes to Saturn. www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstella
r_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I did not know you found the Firefly backstory inexplicable. Is this viewpoint shared by many others? You are aware Joss used no blackholes or FTL travel? He did not say that Richard Branson was in charge of them, or had any surviving arks in The Verse.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I don't read many other reviewers, but there is one who I think is consistently spot-on with his comments. I avoid his column until I've written my own though.

http://www.locusmag.com/Reviews/2014/11/2014-a-grand-ole-odyssey-a-rev
iew-of-interstellar/

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Your guy at Locus, Gary Westfahl, wrote, "One could devote an entire review to listing the many things about this film that make very little sense."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

As for 'back story ' issues, just go w/ it. Things are bad. Why ? It just is. Trust 'em. . . . I get the 2001 Space Odyssey comparisons. I really do. But this , imo, is far more satisfying.

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

As for 'back story ' issues, just go w/ it. Things are bad. Why ? It just is. Trust 'em. . . . I get the 2001 Space Odyssey comparisons. I really do. But this , imo, is far more satisfying.

---

The Nolan Brothers also wrote and directed The Prestige, which has a 19th Century teleportation machine from Star Trek. Be amazed & thrilled as Hugh Jackman sparkles realistically when teleported in Victorian London! As David Bowie, the inventor of the teleporter, said about his amazing machine, "These things never quite work as you expect them to. That's one of the principle beauties of science."

---

Quote:

---

"science" teleports anxious Hugh Jackman in The Prestige (2006).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
I generally need two viewings of a decent film to cement my opinion of it. This, I think, was a decent film. But I've only had one viewing.

So far, I think:

*******SPOILER NOW********

Select to view spoiler:

---

The thing that bothered me most was that the humans set up the time loop. I have a fan-wank that helps a little, maybe. In my mind, the first time around only plan B happened, as established by the Matt Damon guy.

---

Quote:

---

---

Still, this was a major milestone in presenting the laws of physics to the average audience.

If only there wasn't so much fucking annoying Matthew. Please, make a secondary character more important so I get a break from this guy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
My showing was about 2:50 before the credits.
Anybody know when the time frame was, for the original scenes, Murphy age 10 or so? I didn't find any clear references, other than at least 10 years in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

As for 'back story ' issues, just go w/ it. Things are bad. Why ? It just is. Trust 'em. . . . I get the 2001 Space Odyssey comparisons. I really do. But this , imo, is far more satisfying.

---

The Nolan Brothers also wrote and directed The Prestige, which has a 19th Century teleportation machine from Star Trek. Be amazed & thrilled as Hugh Jackman sparkles realistically when teleported in Victorian London! As David Bowie, the inventor of the teleporter, said about his amazing machine, "These things never quite work as you expect them to. That's one of the principle beauties of science."

---

Did you intentionally leave out the part where this was was Nikolai Tesla? Most of your revered current "scientists" or "physicists" or "PhDs" cannot even fathom the science than Tesla knew more than a century ago.

Quote:

---

That science is just as solid as the science in Interstellar. Even though it is being sold as realistic, Interstellar is fantasy, no matter how many PhDs in physics got paid for making it. Be thankful the Nolan Brothers could not plausibly use a teleporter in the Nolan version of NASA's space program. Except they did do that very thing to Matthew McConaughey to get him back to Earth.

---

I assume you are using literary license. Are you claiming the Ranger or whichever craft as his "teleporter" here?

Quote:

---

The Nolan Brothers'

---

incorrect. This was Tesla's science.

Quote:

---

"science" teleports anxious Hugh Jackman in The Prestige (2006).

---

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
My showing was about 2:50 before the credits.
Anybody know when the time frame was, for the original scenes, Murphy age 10 or so? I didn't find any clear references, other than at least 10 years in the future.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

As for 'back story ' issues, just go w/ it. Things are bad. Why ? It just is. Trust 'em. . . . I get the 2001 Space Odyssey comparisons. I really do. But this , imo, is far more satisfying.

---

The Nolan Brothers also wrote and directed The Prestige, which has a 19th Century teleportation machine from Star Trek. Be amazed & thrilled as Hugh Jackman sparkles realistically when teleported in Victorian London! As David Bowie, the inventor of the teleporter, said about his amazing machine, "These things never quite work as you expect them to. That's one of the principle beauties of science."

---

Did you intentionally leave out the part where this was was Nikolai Tesla? Most of your revered current "scientists" or "physicists" or "PhDs" cannot even fathom the science than Tesla knew more than a century ago.

Quote:

---

That science is just as solid as the science in Interstellar. Even though it is being sold as realistic, Interstellar is fantasy, no matter how many PhDs in physics got paid for making it. Be thankful the Nolan Brothers could not plausibly use a teleporter in the Nolan version of NASA's space program. Except they did do that very thing to Matthew McConaughey to get him back to Earth.

---

I assume you are using literary license. Are you claiming the Ranger or whichever craft as his "teleporter" here?

Quote:

---

The Nolan Brothers'

---

incorrect. This was Tesla's science.

Quote:

---

"science" teleports anxious Hugh Jackman in The Prestige (2006).

---

---

There is teleportation in Interstellar: Cooper sends many messages to his daughter;

---

Quote:

---

once finished sending, the tesseract collapses with Cooper inside of it,

---

Quote:

---

Ouch!; Cooper wakes in the hospital back in the Solar System.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
I liked the basic message that while we can't abandon those people who are on Earth, we must still strive to look up , and not perpetually down, and claim to be caring for humanity.

I understand that space travel is pricey, and also dangerous, but the fact remains... we're going to have to get off this rock one day and start to look elsewhere if our species is going to survive.

There is just no getting around that fact.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
If we keep electing Obama and his ilk, we can get to our extinction much quicker.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are you implying that the Obama opposition, the Republicans, have an interstellar program in their party's platform? If they do, they are keeping that a secret. . . . Hey! That's exactly like the super-secret program in the movie Interstellar! In a real USA, not Hollywood's USA, there is no reason to keep it secret, except to surprise Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are you implying that the Obama opposition, the Republicans, have an interstellar program in their party's platform? If they do, they are keeping that a secret. . . . Hey! That's exactly like the super-secret program in the movie Interstellar! In a real USA, not Hollywood's USA, there is no reason to keep it secret, except to surprise Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

---

You feel the explanation in the film was not adequate, or you didn't understand it, or you disagree with it, or it was not clear enough?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are you implying that the Obama opposition, the Republicans, have an interstellar program in their party's platform? If they do, they are keeping that a secret. . . . Hey! That's exactly like the super-secret program in the movie Interstellar! In a real USA, not Hollywood's USA, there is no reason to keep it secret, except to surprise Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

---

You feel the explanation in the film was not adequate, or you didn't understand it, or you disagree with it, or it was not clear enough?

---

The Interstellar Project was secret only because Hollywood and the Nolan Brothers needed to keep the secret from Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

The project does not need the secrecy of a Manhattan project where Germany could have been strongly motivated to built a competing A-Bomb to drop on the USA if only Germany had known what the US was doing. Or later in the Manhattan project, Russia might drop a A-Bomb on the USA after WW II was over. The movie was, to be perfectly frank, stupid about the secrecy. A rational USA is not going to keep an Interstellar project hidden because there is no enemy to keep it hidden from.

And the movie had school history books rewritten to make the Apollo Program a hoax? That would make as much sense as declaring the Civil War a hoax so that feelings of 21st Century Southerners are spared the distress of knowing that the Confederacy lost.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What big one?

---

Quote:

---

All the other characters were working to fail. His character was the only one making it work.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
So you didn't understand it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Crazy spoilers in this post.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
What big one?

---

You don't see it? Really?

---

Quote:

---

Moron.

I have fan-wank solutions, but I won't share quite yet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Are you implying that the Obama opposition, the Republicans, have an interstellar program in their party's platform? If they do, they are keeping that a secret. . . . Hey! That's exactly like the super-secret program in the movie Interstellar! In a real USA, not Hollywood's USA, there is no reason to keep it secret, except to surprise Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

---

You feel the explanation in the film was not adequate, or you didn't understand it, or you disagree with it, or it was not clear enough?

---

The Interstellar Project was secret only because Hollywood and the Nolan Brothers needed to keep the secret from Cooper and Murphy for storytelling purposes.

The project does not need the secrecy of a Manhattan project where Germany could have been strongly motivated to built a competing A-Bomb to drop on the USA if only Germany had known what the US was doing.

---

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

---

So you didn't understand it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
Just got back from seeing this. There are some very good things about it, and also some things that are very wrong. I've got four shows I want to watch tonight so my full review will have to wait until tomorrow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:
We saw it yesterday as well, and even today I'm still "Loading... please wait...." mode.

I should mention for anyone going to see it that it's 169 minutes long, so don't get there early. There was a couple scenes 2/3 of the way through I just really wanted to go for a smoke break (and I don't smoke!) but I will say that I didn't notice how long it was until that point.

I think I liked the movie. (I will give it an A-) I had some problems with the voice work (McConaughey tends to mumble) and the music scores were written by a teenaged music major(at least it felt like it) with one of those old electric organs and at maybe 60-70 decibels. Painfully loud. It was still loud with my fingers plugged in my ears. Did not take the kiddo and I'm glad we didn't as the intensity of the suspenseful scenes and constant life/deathness and loudness would have been too much.

I do not care for the way they resolved the whole thing. "THEY" and "SOMETIME, SOMEWERE IN THE FUTURE" after going to such lengths for the rest of the movie to come up with a plot just seemed to cheapen it. Also "HERE'S THE SCENARIO, THE EARTH IS MESSED UP>>> RUN WITH IT" Just sucked. Talk to any scientist and they can give you dozens of reasons for an apocalypse. It was mindless robot time. ARGH, DUST KILL CROP. MUST LEAVE PLANET. So sad, lets just move on??? After all, we still have 2 and a half hours to go people Don't look at that hydroponic plant behind the curtain............. *snort*

There were definitely some great visuals and sensations and science aspects worthy of praise. The robot was one of the best of those. They actually put some thought or research into them and the interaction with them was one of the better points. And it certainly had the feel of an amusement park ride and kept my attention for almost three hours.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
http://templetongate.net/interstellar.htm

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I left disappointed. Matt Damon's character, what the fuck was that about. I don't think that the actors believed in the script.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Major plot fail there. Really big. You didn't see it JSF?

Moron.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
One thing said by a reviewer was that this movie was constructed for a theater experience, to wait for the DVD means missing out on a lot.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?

---

Hardly a new word. It's from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land, so it's at least 53 years old, possibly older, because he started writing the story in 1949 even though it wasn't published until 1961.

It means understanding something completely.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OLDGUY:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THGRRI:
One thing said by a reviewer was that this movie was constructed for a theater experience, to wait for the DVD means missing out on a lot.

---

eh...but then you haven't seen my home movie room ! and I'll be able to adjust for the imbalance of voice-to-music that everyone is complaining about

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Wishimay:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I left disappointed. Matt Damon's character, what the fuck was that about. I don't think that the actors believed in the script.

---

Yep, that was the point where I wanted to take a smoke break, but I was trying to be nice. It's almost like they wanted to just throw in another planet, and to re-iterate that PEOPLE are going to be the biggest problem with space travel. "Here's your morality lesson of the day, kids" time. It didn't add anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Online dictionaries had results of nothing. So it must be fictional word, then. That would be the work which created the waterbed, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
...And it wasn't even used correctly, so I'd pay it no mind.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I went to see it again yesterday, so I guess I'm a masochist.

Last week I would have invited my brother-in-law to see it since he is the only one I know who also likes SF movies, books too. But he and my sister were out of town. Then he calls me and asks if I wanted to go, I told him I had already seen it and wouldn't waste more money on it, but he was paying. I couldn't convince him to see Birdman instead, so I'll see that one later on in the week.

He is usually the one who nitpicks things that I like, and yet he was much more impressed with Interstellar than I was. I still admit it has some great visual set pieces, but the story is woefully thin.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Was it hard to take a second viewing SGG?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Was it hard to take a second viewing SGG?

---

Make that ECG.

---

Quote:

---

Actually, it was easier to take the second time around, because I had already dealt with all the inconsistencies and WTF moments the first time. The audio on the dialog was still murky though, but I guess it didn't really matter since what they were saying was mostly nonsense anyway.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Is groking a new word? Or typo? What was the intended word or meaning?

---

Hardly a new word. It's from Robert Heinlein's novel Stranger in a Strange Land, so it's at least 53 years old, possibly older, because he started writing the story in 1949 even though it wasn't published until 1961.

It means understanding something completely.

---

Online dictionaries had results of nothing. So it must be fictional word, then. That would be the work which created the waterbed, right?

---