I know that Interstellar was a pretty good movie. But seriously. How does it have a better rating than "visual poetry" "the greatest sci-fi film of all time" and "pure cinema". I mean, this s**t is majestically. It shows the journey from the dawn of man, to the first contact, all the way until man turns into star child. It is intense, meaningful, thought provoking, and beautiful. If you still have no idea what I'm talking about, Interstellar is #33 and 2001 is #89.
"I know that Interstellar was a pretty good movie. But seriously. How does it have a better rating than "visual poetry" "the greatest sci-fi film of all time" and "pure cinema"."
Higher ratings are about mass popularity. Polls about the greatest movies of all time usually come from professional critics from Rotten Tomatoes to the AFI and BFI. And the BFI / Sight and Sound polls especially come from the most exclusive group of movie experts who rank "2001 ASO" as #6 all time.
For me "Interstellar" is Nolan taking a script that either logically does not make sense or has ponderous spoon feeding. I rate it 5/10 and cannot tolerate seeing it again. I've tried and failed a couple of times even with free streaming.
But "Interstellar" reflects popular taste. Nolan doing his blockbuster style is the master gross emotional manipulation of the mass audience.
By contrast 2001 is a work of fine art. I rate it 10/10. But how many average people care about fine art? How many have seen classic black and white films? How many go to fine art museums? Or have gone to classical music concerts?
In general, the masses couldn't care less about old films and their presence is felt on the list. The original KING KONG dropped off of the list, headed for extinction.
"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.
Raincoat; i'm going to try to answer your comments with no obvious strawman arguments. Why did the 1933 "King Kong" drop off of the IMDb top 250 list? The rating for the film is now at 8/10 and that is the lowest score now on the top 250 last. Why has it gotten that low?
Looking at the numbers, part of the reason is due to younger voters;
Aged 18-29 7.8 Aged 45+ 8.3
But that does not tell the whole story. It is also useful to look at the scores from US voters compared to non-US voters.
US users 8.2 Non-US users 7.7
The Internet is now allowing people from around the world to participate in these online ratings. Why isn't the old "King Kong" resonating with either young and/or non-US voters?
BB ;-)
PS. With "2001 ASO" there is no difference between the rankings of US voters compared to non-US voters. But with "Citizen Kane" the pattern with 1933 "King Kong" remains; younger and non US voters give it a lower rating. - Could this be an issue with black and white films? I checked the votes for two black and white 1950s SF classics; "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "The Invasion of the Body Snatchers". It shows the same pattern; lower ratings from younger and non US voters. With "Psycho" the pattern changed; there was no difference between younger and older voters. But non US voters gave it a lower rating. Interesting reflection of non US movie goer taste?
This proves that young people only react to modern CGI, the rest of the world have built bigger buildings than the ESB so have no respect for the thing and giant gorilla like monsters have become passe`. Blondes may be becoming an endangered species also. You guys sure showed me a thing or two. I'm off to WARCRAFT!
"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.
Raincoat; I have to add one more quick caveat which was obvious to me but now I think should be mentioned. The black and white movies I listed, like the old "King Kong", "Invasions of the Body Snatcher" and "Citizen Kane" were all US films. The pattern of lower younger / non US voter ratings only applied to older, black and white US films. - A non US black and white movie, like "Tokyo Story", got a better response from non US voters. And younger voters prefer it. Non US movies can have very different ratings patterns.
Other examples that fit the voter pattern mentioned in my previous post (lower younger/non US ratings with older US black & white movies), are several Bogart films; "The Maltese Falcon", "Casablanca", "The Big Sleep", "Key Largo" and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre".
I'll have to add another quick caveat which was obvious to me but now I think should be mentioned. The older black and white US movies I've seen might have the pattern of both lower younger and non US voter ratings. But in a previous comment I mentioned that it could be either or.
With "Psycho" the pattern changed; there was no difference between younger and older voters. But non US voters gave it a lower rating.
So, if an old US movie has just lower non US voters ratings, that still fits part of the overall pattern idea that I was presenting. - Older US black and white movies can be rated lower by both younger and non US voters. Or it can be rated lower by only younger voters. Or it might be rated lower only by non US voters.
Even if you sampled 10,000 movies, that is just 1/100th of the film library.
10,000 would be much more than enough of a sample size to get results with a very low margin of error.
Perhaps you never took a class in statistics.
Go do a little googling and come back.
Otherwise, of course, just a few hand-picked samples is much too low...and, it seems both you and BB are not picking randomly, but from the top 250...which of course is very much less than a million.
Plus, of those million films, a very small percentage are rated by significant numbers of people.
All considerations to take into account when you are not arguing...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
Ahh, excellent so you did google it. What is the +/-% error window for sampling 10,000 units out of one million, if you don't mind sharing?
I think about 1%, but you can google it yourself.
I am mildly curious where you took a Statistic class, though I do not expect you to answer that since that might be private information I am not entitled to know.
I took an introductory Probability and Statistics course at UCLA and taught a similar class at another major university somewhere to the east.
I mean surely you're not someone who withholds info for the purpose of browbeating others, yes?
Neither am I someone who would cripple someone's mind by spoon-feeding them stuff that is so easily obtainable.
The best thing that is ever taught is a love of learning.
Please read my post again, the only comment I made regarding any requirement was a generic label - "a much higher volume."
Nope, but you brought up that specific example, the implication being that even one out of a hundred would not be high enough.
Anyway.....So yes, I was definitely cherry picking. But then, I'm not the one claiming there is a pattern based on a minuscule sample, now am I?
No, but did you bring up such figures in the first place? In any case you are wont to do so make and take much more value out of imdb's statistics than they merit.
What are the odds of randomly picking a dozen films, and 100% of them revealed the results that were harmonious to his pattern theory? I suppose those odds are not impossible, but at the very least a shining example of serendipity.
Again, if the sample size is very small, it could be quite large and not all that unlikely, especially if there was some merit to the hypothesis.
I take BB at his word and have little reason to question the integrity of his presentation. I do not always agree with him, but his sincerity is never in question, and he seems genuinely interested in exploring possibilities rather than in winning some silly argument.
An ounce of research prevents a pound of embarrassment when making an inaccurate claim. A number of my examples are not in the top 250.
At most a gram of embarrassment. I'm not going to check, but I doubt any of your examples are outside the top 10,000.
I thought my post content was civil, no insults, no name calling. Apparently you saw it as arguing, but in actuality, it was nothing of the kind.
You can argue while doing all of those things. Argument seems to be your default setting, so forgive me if I am mistaken, but if you dispute the point, won't you prove yourself wrong?
For the accusation of arguing to even be applicable, it would have at least require BB-15 to even respond to my posts
Nope, there can indeed be one-sided arguments; probably BB has you on ignore, like most sane people.
Typically it takes at least two parties to be participants in a conversation to even make the accusation of arguing, no?
Typically perhaps, but not always, especially when there are more than two participants in a "conversation".
There is no conflict between BB and I, there was no arguing on our part like you accused us of
I did not accuse him; unlike yourself, BB is a gentleman.
No conflict?
These were your words:
which I can only speculate that bb-15 also had to dismiss some examples that were contrary to his theory. What are the odds of randomly picking a dozen films, and 100% of them revealed the results that were harmonious to his pattern theory?
So you out and out pretty much asserted he was trying to deceive.
That is your MO, not his...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
reply share
You have now reverted to form, which of course you never left.
Bingo. I did my yearly "take 'em off IGNORE to see if they've changed" thing with him. Meh. He immediately began spewing incoherent bile. No surprise, I suppose.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
Bingo. I did my yearly "take 'em off IGNORE to see if they've changed" thing with him. Meh. He immediately began spewing incoherent bile. No surprise, I suppose.
He was the first troll I ever put on ignore. Once on ignore, always on ignore.
now he constantly butts in on conversations involving different people he has on ignore, blurting ignorant comments in threads because he can see only half the conversation.
Yeah that's maybe the worst thing about being ignored. You're free to ignore someone if you wish, but don't go around making general claims about a user whose posts you haven't read in months, just based on your memories of one argument you had with them a long time ago.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
reply share
BB does not need a hero or defense, he does fine on his own; probably he doesn't respond to your criticisms because you don't really deserve a response.
But not only did you accuse him of deceit (ignoring and hiding evidence that did not fit his hypothesis) but you have made sarcastic remarks towards him like the following:
Okay then, note to self: Do not interfere or poke holes in BB-15's theory when he's tunnel-visioned on a forum mission.
Talk about tunnel-visioned! You are the most narcissistic troll with the least justification...mostly you are just dreary and boring until you unleash your army of sock puppets to get posts that offend your tender sensibilities (or just posters who do the same) expunged, then you become somewhat annoying like a tick or a flea.
Quite the life's ambition you have!
I am not someone who would cripple someone's mind by spoon-feeding them stuff that is so easily obtainable
Translation: You were wrong and you know you were wrong. Better luck next time...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
reply share
"Otherwise, of course, just a few hand-picked samples is much too low...and, it seems both you and BB are not picking randomly, but from the top 250."
You are on the right track about me. I was choosing older US black and white movies from either the all time best lists or top genre films; science fiction, adventure or detective movies. There was no interest on my part about the votes for "Monster a Go Go" and other bottom feeders. I focused on critically acclaimed movies (that were older/US/black and white).
Raincoat started things off with 1933 "King Kong", a classic adventure film.
And then I looked at the rating patterns for other classics. No agenda. Just curious about IMDb's numbers.
And then I looked at the rating patterns for other classics. No agenda. Just curious about IMDb's numbers.
Well, that's the difference between you and that other poster...whatever we may disagree upon I know you don't have any particular axe to grind or score to settle in some petty internet feud.
Your genuine sincerity is something that is always appreciated...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
#89 is still a pretty damn high spot for an almost 50 years old movie. In that sense, its ranking is more meaningful at the present time.
With that said, Interstellar probably has more mass appeal, and is less divisive. Many aren't enamoured with it, but still find it okay enough. 2001 is a movie that would get a fair amount of people downright disliking it. So this is going to bring the average down.
Tons of all time greats fall into the lower 8s area for that reason. They have lots of fans, but also tend to be a bit divisive so that limits how high they can go.
There's also the factor that people who watched 2001 may be harsher on average, harsher with their ratings. So a 8 for them may be the equivalent of the 10 from a more casual movie fan.
With that said, I personally think all the superlatives you used to describe 2001 also fit Interstellar very well, as this is my own favourite movie. I think this will go down as a classic as well, just not the huge achievement that 2001 is considered to be.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
My condolences. Your thread has been 99% hijacked by the board trolls. But to answer your question (or at least address your concern), never take the IMDb ratings as anything more than the shallow ill-considered opinions of people largely ignorant both of cinema as an artform and world cultural generally. In their pinched little minds, if it's new and flashy, it's "the best."
Consider a lower rating on IMDb as a badge of honor, and a higher one an embarrassment.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
Most modern films are rated at least 1 point higher than they should be. It's just a case of audiences not knowing enough about film and wanting to justify the fact that they saw/own it with a high rating.
wanting to justify the fact that they saw/own it with a high rating.
What ? First time I hear of something like that. If anything, that would apply much more to old movies. Like, someone having sat through the entirety of Satantango and consequently giving it a higher rating than they would have without that personal satisfaction.
"Good to ponder and illustrates how the perceived quality of a movie is not just in the movie itself, but also in what the viewer puts into it."
I want to add to chorus of compliments for this comment.
There are several moments in "2001" which I describe as beauty in motion. Alignment of planets/sun; The slow, rotating entry of the Pan Am shuttle to the space station accompanied by the Blue Danube Waltz. That sequence reminded me of a ballet between objects in space. I brought that ballet idea to my experience with the movie. And I happen to like watching some classical ballet performances.
But another viewer could easily not have the same personal taste and not bring that perspective to "2001".
The Blue Danube Waltz always makes me think of ballet, and is often used in scenes where characters are dancing. Like, off the top of my head, in Les Amants du Pont Neuf, Wild Tales and Summer with Monika. Some great uses of that track.
In 2001 it creates a feeling of (ironic?) sophistication and peace regarding man's evolution.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
I agree. Looking at the place and the technology, you get a feeling that mankind has come a long way from the time we lived in caves, but at the same time we are still like fish out of water when we are in space. The stewardess trying to grasp the pen together with the frivolousness nature of the music are mostly responsible for those impressions.
In 2001 it creates a feeling of (ironic?) sophistication and peace regarding man's evolution.
Johann Strauss and his waltzes were a staple of 19th century bourgeois society, so there's definitely an ironic sense of complacency in those scenes. Man has conquered earth, so he can rest comfortably (sleeping Floyd) even while his tools are slipping away from his control (the floating pen).
warriorspirit: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.
This is one of the few details of the film on which Kubrick himself made a direct (if typically cryptic) comment. Jay Cocks said as they were approaching/passing a screening room as it played the film, he overheard The Blue Danube playing. Kubrick said to him something like, "Oh, that gives away one of the film's big secrets."
Whatever else we can take from the comment, it's clear Kubrick meant the use of the music to have far more underlying meaning than just some pretty sounds. IMO I think you put your finger on its subtext precisely and insightfully. Well, as usual with you.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
Jay Cocks said as they were approaching/passing a screening room as it played the film, he overheard The Blue Danube playing. Kubrick said to him something like, "Oh, that gives away one of the film's big secrets."
I'd never heard this story, so thanks for that! ๎น Perhaps Kubrick overestimated how many people in 1968 would get the reference, but it makes sense as I get the feeling he never made any cinematic choice (music or otherwise) haphazardly and without some substance or meaning.
warriorspirit: if the penis is used as a pencil holder we'll incur a cost.
Perhaps Kubrick overestimated how many people in 1968 would get the reference
IMO, he knew they wouldn't get it as precisely as anyone would who knew the historical context. Still, I think he (rightly) banked on most/all viewers perceiving that particular music as stuffy/old-fashioned, what their grandparents thought "meaningful." Interestingly, and after almost 1/2 a century, his perception remains credible.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
I never denied that art appreciation is influenced by knowledge. It's very true, but that doesn't make it any more objective. You may gain appreciation of a work thanks to external factors, but it's still totally up to your own subjectivity. Two persons with similar backgrounds may, or may not, have the same opinion on a movie.
There's a difference between analytical understanding of a movie, which can be learned, and emotional understanding, in other words the personal impact it has on you, which may be helped by the analytical understanding, but it's not guaranteed. Some movies just will never quite work for us, you know ? And on the other hand you may also love a movie you don't really understand, as I'm sure has been the case of many with 2001, notably on first viewings.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
I never denied that art appreciation is influenced by knowledge
At best you consider it just another factor, like any other...for example, being raised by nuns in a monastery in Tibet...that forms a perspective upon which we may appreciate art.
This is what you keep on asserting.
You've even gone so far as to say that illiteracy was just as good as literacy in forming VALID opinions.
Understanding the basic language used in any art form IS an objective factor; it is incomprehensible to me how you could believe otherwise.
If Donald Trump tells us that Shakespeare is gibberish and Laurence Olivier says it is the highest expression of humanity, I would not give both "opinions" equal weight or consider them equally valid, and not just because Trump is the much inferior actor.
There's a difference between analytical understanding of a movie, which can be learned, and emotional understanding,
Of course there is, but emotional understanding can be learned as well.
I was not talking about analytical knowledge anyways, which I think is best left until after the fact.
My "study" of jazz consisted almost entirely of listening to a lot of music, and doing so chronologically, which provided not only familiarity but a lot of important context as well.
As I said, my emotional appreciation grew by leaps and bounds.
This experience has been repeated many times.
Learning about various art forms has been of immense benefit.
There are those who maybe are just to lazy to do any such groundwork, who make the excuse that any music or movies or any other art, should be immediately and intrinsically accessible.
A lot of the so-called criticism of films like 2001 derives from this attitude, but is only their loss...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
having some lunatic nutjob hovering over his keyboard waiting to pounce is kind of creepy
They've been doing this to me as well. I think it's one (or more, obviously) of IMDb's chronic troll armies playing their sociopathic games purely for their sick amusement value. Don't take it personally. Just persevere. Eventually they get bored and move on.
๎
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
"BB, I already replied to your post, but ... guy is ... getting posts deleted"
That's always irritating when comments are deleted for no legitimate cause (violation of IMDb rules).
"Basically what I said was that I agreed, but that sometimes an essential component of one's "perspective" is ignorance...ignorance of cultural history or language, or many other things.
So, while many things may be a matter of taste, sometimes that taste is just uninformed and may be emended."
1. OK, one group can be labeled the under educated/under exposed. - We can describe these folks as less informed. There are always those who lack education and/or were in an environment which did not expose them to much fine art, classic movies, classical music or in your example of classic jazz. - Of the US high school grads (81% of the population), 66% enroll in college and about 62% of people (older than 25) do not have either a 2 year or 4 year+ college degree. - There are those who do not have as many cultural experiences to appreciate fine art.
2. But there is another trend which is happening; there are those who have been exposed to fine art, who don't care about it. Results are the decline of appreciation of fine art (classic film/music/jazz) by the educated. - Lots of people who have the opportunity don't want the cultural tools. For instance in 2013 only 2.8% of albums sold was of classical music. Museum attendance has been on a downward trend for at least a decade. Movie box office each year is dominated by big budget action films or glossy CGI child/family entertainment. The major studios get 80%+ of the total box office. And independent small film studios could do as well as Weinstein with ~2.5% or Fox Searchlight or Focus could get 1% a piece. DVD sales are down (which have a good selection of older movies) while online streaming is up (which has a limited selection of the classics).
In a age where fine art knowledge is easily available; lots of people don't want it.
"I gave an example about when I listened chronologically through the history of jazz while I was in my mid-twenties, which greatly enhanced my appreciation."
You made the choice to refine your appreciation of classic jazz. Most people who have the means, who could watch the Ken Burns Jazz documentary, could care less.
"This is one of my main disagreements with phoenix, who seems to believe that all appreciation of art is entirely subjective, with little if no room for any objective standards.
Such is, I think, the case of 2001...many don't have the tools nor the knowledge to come at in any fair fashion."
What I see that is objective, is the amount of knowledge that a viewer of art can have. But the cultural trend is away from people wanting to develop those art appreciation tools.
What a person knows affects personal taste. Still each person has the right to not like classic films, fine art, classical music. People can enjoy what they want to enjoy.
On this Board we can appreciate each other's more informed opinions about "2001 ASO" and enjoy that. This is one of the blessings of the Internet where people with rare tastes can communicate with each other. Still we are an island in a sea of popular taste. And I have a live and let live attitude about that. One reason is because most of the people I know personally, including family, are not big fans of fine art, classical music or of classic films. And that is by their choice. So, I've accepted it and do my classic film chatting on IMDb, where I can find it, such as on this Board. ๎
- Of the US high school grads (81% of the population), 66% enroll in college and about 62% of people (older than 25) do not have either a 2 year or 4 year+ college degree.
That's one of the main reasons why people don't like 2001? Personally, I would never link the appreciation of art to an academic degree, IQ or knowledge.
- Of the US high school grads (81% of the population), 66% enroll in college and about 62% of people (older than 25) do not have either a 2 year or 4 year+ college degree.
by CreamersAlex;
"That's one of the main reasons why people don't like 2001?"
That section of my post does not mention the movie "2001 ASO". It's not about that film. The subject of that portion of my response was started by hafeez112233 who wrote;
sometimes an essential component of one's "perspective" is ignorance...ignorance of cultural history or language, or many other things.
So, while many things may be a matter of taste, sometimes that taste is just uninformed
Hafeez's point was that people can have different levels of cultural knowledge. That was the topic. - My response was to agree that different people can have different cultural knowledge and to give my general ideas about why that can happen. Part one of that part of my comment began with this;
one group can be labeled the under educated/under exposed... There are always those who lack education and/or were in an environment which did not expose them to much fine art, classic movies, classical music...
Some people can have more knowledge about cultural history than others. And a level of education can be part of the reason why. Not always, but I was speaking in generalizations. There are always exceptions but generally I've found this to be a factor.
This leads to another topic; the cultural bias of certain achievement tests which can have questions about classic Western culture which a person may not have been exposed to. * Again, my discussion was about a much broader issue of knowledge which goes far beyond the reaction to one movie.
"Personally, I would never link the appreciation of art to an academic degree, IQ or knowledge."
I agree with you. I also wrote;
People can enjoy what they want to enjoy.
A person may like any kind of art and any kind of film. But at the same time this person may usually "not like classic films, fine art, classical music.". A person may not "want the cultural tools" of appreciating lots of fine art.
* And do I accept the personal taste of those who do not have lots of fine art cultural knowledge or who reject such knowledge? Of course. I also wrote;
Still we are an island in a sea of popular taste. And I have a live and let live attitude about that. One reason is because most of the people I know personally, including family, are not big fans of fine art, classical music or of classic films. And that is by their choice. So, I've accepted it..."
Classical music can be found in odd places. Dvorak's NEW WORLD Symphony, 2nd movement can be found in Sammy Turner's STAY MY LOVE from 1960. A beautiful thing.
"gonna throw, my raincoat in the river...gonna toss, my umbrella in the sea"...Sammy Turner.
There is plenty of exposure to classical music (or what is in the style of classical music) with movie soundtracks. Yet, the popularity of that kind of music continues to fade.
What a person knows affects personal taste. Still each person has the right to not like classic films, fine art, classical music. People can enjoy what they want to enjoy.
Of course everyone has "the right" to enjoy what they wish, even if they want to be ignorant in doing so.
Force feeding rarely works and is usually counter-productive.
But we also have the right, with reason and justification on our side, to give less weight or even dismiss the opinions of those who make pronouncements upon such subjects of which they are ill-informed or unfamiliar.
But the cultural trend is away from people wanting to develop those art appreciation tools.
This is also true and it leads, unfortunately, to a much shallower body of work...work that becomes so much interchangeable "product".
I am not trying to be elitist, I appreciate many forms of "popular" culture. But there used to be a time when even such popular culture built upon its own history.
Jazz is just one such example.
That knowledge of one's own history can only enhance and enrich...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
"But we also have the right, with reason and justification on our side, to give less weight or even dismiss the opinions of those who make pronouncements upon such subjects of which they are ill-informed or unfamiliar."
Our little group on this Board is one of the few places on IMDb where discussing film class level knowledge would sometimes make sense. Here we can refer to the Sight and Sound critics / director's polls and some people on this Board would know what that means.
But we are still on IMDb and not in the comments for the director's section of They Shoot Pictures Don't They. The wide open, almost no moderation chaos of IMDb boards are going to have members who are unfamiliar with the nuances of film, fine art, and classical music. Of course you can dismiss their opinions as ill-informed. - But I am reminded of Roger Ebert's recommended approach to movie ratings. Paraphrasing; he said go with your gut feelings.
Gut feelings can lead to unusual results imo. Ebert once thought that the mediocre "Bonnie and Clyde" was an all time top 10 film. (Pauline Kael also rated "Bonnie and Clyde" highly.) http://www.listal.com/list/kael Even the informed can go very far from my personal taste.
- And by coincidence a person with less film knowledge might agree with me about the merits of a film; "Blade Runner" for instance which Ebert did not like for decades which is #67 on the Sight and Sound Director's list. http://www.bfi.org.uk/films-tv-people/sightandsoundpoll2012/directors
* We agree about a lot of things regarding certain films we prefer and about the value of fine art culture in general. We can expose others to fine artistic knowledge. Still, personal taste is up to the individual and can go down many roads no matter how informed or uninformed about fine art a person may be.
"Interstellar" was a pretty good survival/apocalyptic movie for about the first hour. But then our heroes started zipping about in a little spaceship that magically has "Star Trek" level propulsion systems capable of effortlessly escaping gravity wells.
Then we get space ghosts, intergalactic Morse code and a space library which obviously attempts to out-surreal "2001's" climax. Desiring to be both profound and accessible to non-science fiction loving audiences, the film jumps a whole bunch of sharks.
A simpler and more humble picture would have been a better and more honest picture. For me, "Interstellar" is the film where Nolan undergoes the kind of artistic identity crisis/mental breakdown that Spielberg had a while ago. Nolan is in denial of what he is, is ashamed of what he does well and is desperate to prove that he is what he is not.
""Interstellar" was a pretty good survival/apocalyptic movie for about the first hour. But then our heroes started zipping about in a little spaceship that magically has "Star Trek" level propulsion systems capable of effortlessly escaping gravity wells"
That topic gets to the heart of the debate about "Interstellar" imo. It is about suspension of disbelief and vastly inconsistent tech. I'll generalize about two main viewer arguments about this. 1. One viewer accepts whatever the movie says about the tech. And just focuses on the story and the poetry of the visuals. Suspension of disbelief is maintained. 2. Another viewer notices the shabby 1930s quality farm houses combined with Star Trek level space shuttles as well as giant space station structures that are larger than anything made by humans in our world. And this viewer notices that houses which are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction do not fit with a society which is able to build tech which is about a thousand years more advanced than what exists in our world today. Suspension of disbelief is demolished.
"A simpler and more humble picture would have been a better and more honest picture. For me, "Interstellar" is the film where Nolan undergoes the kind of artistic identity crisis/mental breakdown that Spielberg had a while ago."
I would not be quite as harsh but I do agree with the comparison of Spielberg and Nolan. Spielberg has said that at the end of a movie, if he has the audience under his control, he can slip in things which are much less believable; like a T-Rex magically and suddenly appearing in the museum hall in Jurrasic Park. - Nolan with "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Interstellar" has gone far beyond that. It is like he wonders; how much nonsense can I put in a blockbuster and still get the audience to buy it? Nolan is like a magician in that way. He can get more viewers to accept inconsistent story ideas better than any other major director.
But as I mentioned earlier, lots of the audience does not care. They are able to maintain their suspension of disbelief. I just can't do that.
But as I mentioned earlier, lots of the audience does not care. They are able to maintain their suspension of disbelief. I just can't do that.
I think that is because you are asked to suspend that disbelief at every twist and turn.
At the heart of SF is a suspension of disbelief, but it usually about only one thing or at most a very limited range of things.
It does not matter that this "thing" may have very little scientific credence (say with time travel), but once that is done everything else should follow logically.
As mentioned in the above posts, Interstellar does not in any way follow this rigorous path.
Yes, some people may find it satisfying visually, or melodramatically...but as any sort of serious speculation in the science fiction sense it fails miserably.
Perhaps, BB, I don't look as much as you do for strict technical foundations, but I do expect logic and consistency at the very least...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
And this viewer notices that houses which are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction do not fit with a society which is able to build tech which is about a thousand years more advanced than what exists in our world today.
Kinda how one may wonder how there can be poor suburbs in big cities not far from huge technologically advanced corporations. Progress is hardly ever geographically consistent.
Also, the tech isn't a thousand years more advanced, you're grossly exagerrating. The big difference, by the end of the movie, is that they have solved an equation that we haven't in the real world, which allows them to harness gravity, greatly increasing the space distances they can travel. Other than that they are not shown as all that more advanced.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
reply share
To phenix717; We have already discussed this movie quite a bit and have ended up agreeing to disagree. I know you focus on the poetry in the story and the visuals. And that your suspension of disbelief is maintained. If we begin talking past each other, the best option is to again agree to disagree.
"Kinda how one may wonder how there can be poor suburbs in big cities not far from huge technologically advanced corporations. Progress is hardly ever geographically consistent."
- Your positive feelings for this movie are not going to lead to the specific knowledge I am talking about. - Secondly, I live in the US (where much of the film's story takes place). And that leads to specific knowledge that I'm discussing.
"Interstellar" is partly about a group of US farmers (in the future) who live within a few hours driving distance of Colorado Springs, Colorado (where the NORAD facility is located).
The location of NASA puts the farms around Eastern Colorado near or just over the border of Kansas or Nebraska. (Considering the flat terrain, with mountains in the far distance and yes I know the actual filming was done in Alberta Canada but that does not matter.) - What are pertinent facts about houses and farm houses in the US today? 1. About 2/3 of US homes have central air conditioning. 2. Eastern Colorado / Western Kansas - Nebraska is hot and humid in the summer. An area where air conditioning would be common. 3. US farmers have an average total household income of over $70,000 per year. The farmers in this area would almost certainly have central air conditioning. 4. Central air conditioning means insulated homes (walls, windows). This home insulation would also make sense in the cold winters in these areas. *** To sum up; in our world farmer homes in this area have modern upgrades with walls and windows.
* Now look at the movie; there are still cars, trucks, tractors and other farm equipment. But the upgraded houses have disappeared. Instead in the movie, like some time machine; houses which are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction from the 1930s have been transported into the future and have replaced the insulated US farm houses of today.
"Also, the tech isn't a thousand years more advanced, you're grossly exagerrating."
Some of it definitely is. - A space ship with a centrifuge gravity design? Nothing like that is even planned by any space program today. Hundreds of years in the future is a fair estimate of that happening. - A shuttle which can take off from the gravity of an earth like planet (plus the gravity of a black hole) on its own. A thousand years in the future is a fair guess about that level of tech.
"The big difference, by the end of the movie, is that they have solved an equation that we haven't in the real world,"
That anti-gravity equation has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. The tech I mentioned above was created before the anti-gravity equation was put into effect.
As for the space station; Cooper says this;
"This entire facility is a centrifuge. Some kind of vehicle? A Space Station?"
And Professor Brand says it's both. We see what the space station (Cooper Station) looks like at the end of the movie. What is being said and shown is that the space station or at least parts of it were being built on earth and floated into space using the anti-gravity equation.
The size the space station is roughly known from what the film shows and type of design (size needed for earth like gravity). Those kinds of structures (O'Neil cylinder) would be massive, multiple times larger than the biggest building on earth today. How long would it take in our world to build such a huge structure on earth? At least a hundred years in the future.
** So, I return to my conclusion; - Farm houses which should have modern upgrades are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction. - And that is in a society which is able to build tech which is up to a thousand years more advanced than what exists in our world today. Result for me; Suspension of disbelief is demolished.
* But that is just my view. As before, I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree.
"That's right, Interstellar was completely unrealistic by showing out dated homes lacking insulation and air conditioners."
Completely unrealistic? No. But US farm houses which had construction that was 80 years behind our day, that did not belong; it started my reaction to the film in a negative direction. Then the poor construction of the houses became a problem for the characters in the movie. If only in 2067 the characters didn't have to live in 1930s level run down houses that could not keep out dust. - Of course without those substandard houses then the survivors of the dust bowl of the 1930s would not have belonged in the film (and imo they didn't). And the farmers in the movie would have had a healthier life style and Nolan could not tug on the emotions of the audience as much.
"Because in real world, you would never see decades/even century old buildings"
The movie is about Midwest farmers in the US who in the real world, decades before the time of the movie, had high enough incomes to have houses with modern upgrades to deal with dust.
"Well let's be thankful Dave didn't have to wait a thousand years."
After the Dawn of Man sequence, all of the human tech in "2001" is consistent. It is all advanced at a high level. Science fiction allows for that.
But there is not a huge gap in the level of human tech in "2001" among the family members of the astronauts. In "2001" when dad (Dr. Floyd) calls his daughter from the space station we don't hear from her; Daughter; "Daddy, good luck on your trip. I'm dying of pneumonia because of the dust that keeps coming through the holes in the walls and through these old warped wooden windows." Dad; "Yes, it's too bad that no one from our space program can get off their a$$ and go to your house and use plaster for the holes and put in metal windows which can keep out dust. We can build an airtight space station but we still don't know how to build houses that are better than the death traps from the 1930s US dust bowl. Anyway, darling. I hope you and your mother have a nice funeral." ๎
*** SFM, it's all about personal taste. I'm fine that you like "Interstellar". Same with Phenix. I have no problem that he loves "Interstellar". But that doesn't mean I have to like the same thing that you like.
"known as the member who complained his suspension of disbelief was demolished due to a farm house lacking Owens Corning insulation."
I don't mind the humor. I own a house from the 1950s (still better than a 1930s US Midwest farm house). I remodeled my house and had all the leaky wooden windows replaced with modern metal ones; good for heating, cooling and keeping the dust out - Locally I've seen over 100 old houses make those kinds of upgrades. - In the US there is a huge home improvement industry with giant store chains like Home Depot and Lowe's and a myriad of home construction contractors. - I know what a modern Midwest US farm house should look like and those drafty, wooden relic death traps in "Interstellar" were not it. - Laughing at my expense? Whatever; it's IMDb. ๎
"Floyd family phone call, we hear much more dignifying, high impact plot relevant, and certainly not intended to cutesy and syrupy dialogue about birthday parties"
It's the kind of dialogue that ultra wealthy people talk about with their kids. Surface / shallow chat which fits the uber bureaucrat dad, Dr. Floyd, who can calmly lie while smiling.
"I can't muster an interest for a second viewing of Interstellar."
With all the comments here in just a few hours, I missed understanding that (I thought you were talking about "2001"). Oops! Sorry. I also haven't been able watch "Interstellar" again even on free streaming. And I seriously tried a couple of times but stopped after a few minutes for reasons I've explained with my comments in this thread.
"I hope that resolves that misunderstanding."
No problem. I've enjoyed the exchange.
BB ;-)
PS. I just read the recent comment by tieman64 to you below. And that comment summarizes the tech issues and their uncomfortable meaning (imo) very well.
"You wanted to talk about the upgrades to your humble abode!"
Only to this extent. If people are dying due to low quality air, (which is part of the plight of the farmers), then imo characters should immediately try to do something about it. - Simple mitigation can be done easily (insulated houses, wearing dust blocking face masks).
- And as I mentioned in a comment below to tieman about tech consistency; the tech in the film's society would allow for structures on earth that could completely block the effects of the blight. - There is nothing in the film which says that this technology could not be used as I described. * I apply available tech to the entire story in the film based on; where it takes place, the highest level of tech in the story and logically seeing what this society could do considering the level of tech that they have.
"still haven't done a second viewing. Maybe tonight."
Good luck. I still can't watch "Interstellar" again (and it continues to be on Amazon Prime streaming which is free for me).
I still can't watch "Interstellar" again (and it continues to be on Amazon Prime streaming which is free for me).
I did get through it twice and the mild enjoyment on first viewing was completely gone; instead one is left to ponder all those little and big annoyances.
2001, by start contrast, rewards multiple viewings, one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision.
So stark is this contrast that comparisons are really unwarranted, it is not even apples and oranges, but ambrosia and cotton candy...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision
I expect I've told you before, but a great friend of mine from college (in 1970, horror of horrors) actually thought Interstellar was competition for 2001. For a while. He's since revised his opinion...BIG time.
I just rewatched an adolescent fave of mine, The Leech Woman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054020/?ref_=nv_sr_1), a Z film with the production values of a bargain basement and the sophistication of a 12 year-old. Yet it struck me that tedious little pot boiler is more innovative, original, and unique than ANYTHING in Nolan's multi-million dollar epic.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
Yet it struck me that tedious little pot boiler is more innovative, original, and unique than ANYTHING in Nolan's multi-million dollar epic.
No wonder; little is needed to surpass Interstellar in creativity. And setting all the conceptual problems aside, I really hated (and that's not a word that I use all that often) the camera work in Interstellar. reply share
I really hated (and that's not a word that I use all that often) the camera work
Good point. It seemed remarkably wan and flat throughout. There seems to be this trend in many films made in the last decade or so, a kind of "decolorization," if you will. It seems to be a combination of deliberate quasi-sepia toning, additional grain, and a "deaf eye" to perspective shots. It's almost as if many directors are opting for a sort of "too cool to care" sort of approach. Don't know if that's a clear way of describing it, but when I compare many of today's films against work done in the 70s and 80s, the new stuff comes off as much less rich, visually.
I blame Ridley Scott!
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
"2001, by start contrast, rewards multiple viewings, one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision."
It terms of its subtle style, philosophical depth, respect for the intelligence of the audience and speculations on evolution; "2001 ASO" is one of the greatest achievements in cinema.
I've already expressed my views about "Interstellar" here so I don't need to add to that.
Regarding the farm houses, you have more or less ignored my point about real life suburbs. No matter how far we advance, there will always be some areas that are left out. At least that's how it's always been so far in human history. So I don't see why that would be hard to believe it in Interstellar.
The two technological points you mentionned are valid, from a real life perspective. The shuttle problem has certainly been discussed a lot on those boards. But a movie is its own world. I'm not going to get worked up over how advanced we'd have to be to get that shuttle to take off in real life, because the movie is not supposed to be real life. So I'm just assuming that this is something that is not that hard to accomplish in their world with their own physical laws.
What can be bothering is internal inconsistency, because then it is just nonsensical. When two things clearly contradict each other it can take me out of the movie, but there isn't really any of that in Interstellar. Just somewhat shoddy points.
By the way, doesn't the spaceship in 2001 also have a centrifuge gravity design ? Though of course there is a big size difference. But remember they had been building that station for about a century. And had been focusing all human resources and efforts on that goal, seeing that was their only chance of survival.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
Result for me; Suspension of disbelief is demolished.
Sometimes it is just a preponderance of little things which does that.
The farmhouses didn't bother me that much, though I have spent a fair amount of time in that part of the US and I do seem to remember most such places having air conditioning.
Phoenix seems to think there are no internal inconsistencies in the film; for me the greatest inconsistency is that of character, with a cast that may have well been transplanted from any of an assortment of Hollywood melodramas or tv shows...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
"for me the greatest inconsistency is that of character, with a cast that may have well been transplanted from any of an assortment of Hollywood melodramas or tv shows..."
Ah yes, the dialogue. I've stayed on the topic started by tieman64 which was about the inconsistent tech in "Interstellar". But now that you mention character, there is some repeated dialogue by these characters (mostly from Professor Brand and daddy Cooper) that drives me nuts. Hammering home that Cooper is a hero felt like something from a cartoon imo. And that they have to save the families. And then they are going to die but that they are not not meant to die; and now cue in another reading of "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night". Later the idea that love is a force in the universe was not nearly as bad as this, still it was a momentary irritation.
To be fair; There were moments of enjoyment for me with "Interstellar", pretty much the Matt Damon character, the soundtrack and some visuals.
I've stayed on the topic started by tieman64 which was about the inconsistent tech in "Interstellar".
Which brings us back to the discussion of suspension of disbelief.
For me, it is perfectly reasonable and not too difficult to do so with such things as time travel or interstellar travel or many other science fiction "what ifs".
But once you try to explain the technology behind such speculation, and especially if you try too hard, that suspension of disbelief is continually called into question.
In that case, little things (such as the farm houses you mention) can add up and topple that house of cards.
Better to be simple.
That is where 2001 is infinitely better than Interstellar.
The "consistency of criticism" of what appears to be "similar" technology in both films is way, way, way off base.
As tieman points out, one is supposed to be alien technology, the other human...and human in a very limited span of years.
The alien tech I can accept as is...I don't need nor care to comprehend any nuts and bolts behind it.
But the near future human tech...well, no matter how many eminent scientists may attempt to fudge the matter and make it more "realistic", in essence they just do the exact opposite.
Very often the less said the better, and I would assert this is quite often the case with "suspension of disbelief".
Tack on all the character and story problems of Interstellar, all the trite, trivial, insipid and even insidious aspects, then there is little to distract one for all those other little nagging, pesky and annoying problems with the basic premises.
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
to hafeez; With all of the comments in this thread, it's taken me some time to get to yours which imo brings up some important points in contrasting "2001" and "Interstellar".
"That is where 2001 is infinitely better than Interstellar.
The "consistency of criticism" of what appears to be "similar" technology in both films is way, way, way off base.
As tieman points out, one is supposed to be alien technology, the other human...and human in a very limited span of years."
Yes and that's very important to keep in mind. But that brings up another point. Serious/hard science fiction stories can bring up / illustrate basic economic (and maybe political) arrangements of societies which show differences with technology/resources among groups. It can be in films/TV episodes/books. - For a detailed examination of this in literature see The Foundation Trilogy. - In popular SF TV see Star Trek especially the original series and Next Generation.
* After the Dawn of Man; "2001 ASO" has two almost completely separate societies. Because of that separation, the technology cannot be inconsistent even though the space aliens who use monoliths as tools or markers are much more advanced than the modern society on earth. * Result; because of the logic and rationality of how the societies in "2001" are portrayed, my suspension of disbelief is maintained.
** "Interstellar" is a completely different situation. 1. The NASA staff live in a facility which builds air tight structures which have air without the blight. NASA can not only do this in space ships, a Star Trek level shuttle but also in an entire space station being built underground. - In the NASA facility the dust problem and the blight problem have been solved. 2. A couple hundred miles away are farmers who live in 1930s level farm houses with holes in the walls and leaky windows which cannot keep out dust. The farmers do not wear air filtering face masks. The farmers are dying of dust and their crops are failing because the air is poisoned with the blight. ** These two groups are in one society yet their tech is vastly inconsistent; one group is stuck in the 1930s and the other is hundreds to 1,000 years more advanced compared with our world. - When there are two groups in one society which have very different levels of tech / standards of living, the story should provide an explanation. The classic example in SF literature would be H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" with the Eloi and Morlock. - Any rational explanations for this difference within the "Interstellar" story? None that I can find. A. Are NASA greedy/elite capitalists? No. NASA is not looking for economic gain. Their motivation is socialist; they want to save the farmers for no charge. B. Is NASA made up of elite totalitarians as in "1984"? No. C. Are NASA the masters and are the farmers slaves? No evidence of slavery. D. Is NASA made up of an exclusive ethnic/racial group compared with the farmers? No. * Result; because of the way I approach SF, expecting rationality within the story, my suspension of disbelief cannot be maintained.
"The alien tech I can accept as is...I don't need nor care to comprehend any nuts and bolts behind it."
Same here. The space aliens are an abstract concept at some ultimately advanced level. How advanced can space aliens become? That's as much about philosophy as SF. It's an interesting premise.
My view is similar about the advanced transdimensional humans in "Interstellar" who we don't see and who can only communicate using gravity. Interesting idea and I don't need to know the nuts and bolts details about how they can do things.
"But the near future human tech...well, no matter how many eminent scientists may attempt to fudge the matter and make it more "realistic", in essence they just do the exact opposite.
Very often the less said the better, and I would assert this is quite often the case with "suspension of disbelief"."
How the modern humans got their tech is not my problem with either of these two movies. My question with "Interstellar was; in a society with Star Trek level tech, why are people living in houses which are death traps because they have 1930s tech?
And that kind of question is often a basic premise in a Star Trek episode. The Enterprise crew will land on a planet and see groups of haves and have nots. And the crew will wonder; why are some people suffering and others are thriving? There can be an answer to this question that has some rationale within the story. Star Trek always provides that. My problem is that "Interstellar" did not provide that rational answer.
"Tack on all the character and story problems of Interstellar, all the trite, trivial, insipid and even insidious aspects, then there is little to distract one for all those other little nagging, pesky and annoying problems with the basic premises."
Yes, it is all combined into one glob of problems which repels me from being able to watch "Interstellar" again. Too bad because there were a few moments in the film which I enjoyed.
My question with "Interstellar was; in a society with Star Trek level tech, why are people living in houses which are death traps because they have 1930s tech?
And that kind of question is often a basic premise in a Star Trek episode. The Enterprise crew will land on a planet and see groups of haves and have nots. And the crew will wonder; why are some people suffering and others are thriving? There can be an answer to this question that has some rationale within the story.
"Star Trek" was a product of hippies, the counterculture and tried to be socially conscious. It was basically communists in a spaceship, albeit one captained by an intergalactic pimp.
"Interstellar's" a product of different times: a little bit of Hollywood apoliticism mixed with a little bit of the usual action movie fascism.
I mean, we're talking about a director who literally made a "Batman" movie in which free energy exists, but in which people "shouldn't have it" and should "remain poor" because it may (and does) fall in the hands of sneaky "environmentalist/terrorist women" who want to "destroy society" and turn it over to "crazy anarchists" who are led by "vaguely Oriental/Arabic" supervillains who hate good, wire-tapping, international-law-breaking, spandex-wearing rich dudes with their own private militaries.
the more I think about Interstellar, the less and less I see in it...
IMO, this is the most appropriate epitaph for all of Nolan's films. He's sort of the Baz Luhrmann of sci-fi/action films...lots of superficial razzle-dazzle with practically no substance. You admire his grasp of film technique and his striking immediate impact. But when you peel away the layers of (considerable) technical polish, there's nothing much underlying it. It's like cinematic cocaine...an intense rush which evaporates into nothing.
In a sense, he's the spiritual descendant of Ridley Scott, another director with impressive visual style, but almost uniformly vapid content.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
Imo the guru directors who led the march towards CGI loaded vapid content would not include Ridley Scott in my top 5 list which is;
1. George Lucas after Last Crusade; the richest film maker. Who not only slid through the 90s to today making commodity movies for every demographic and to sell merchandise. But as a producer turned his back on artistic projects and even opposed the film preservation of his earlier good films and instead promoted his CGI stuffed newer versions. 2. James Cameron; he knows how to make money. He's the king of the world at that. But the pioneer of unrelenting action and paper thin characters has spread his influence far and wide. 3. Roland Emnerich; some people make disaster movies. Roland created the disaster porn movie where hours of destruction for its own sake became an excuse for entertainment. The new Independence Day has arrived and it will make loads of money. 4. Michael Bay; isn't the audience only made up of teenage boys? That's what Michael Bay thinks. From the racial jokes to the pee jokes to the red neck shooting neighbors / friends jokes; to oil drillers in space; to toys becoming action heroes in one bloated film after another. 5. Adam Sandler; need I say more.
Look closely at these pioneers and then see what they have wrought; the worst Amazing Spider-Mans; the never ending Fast & Furious epics and the worst comic book film schlock. Comedy? How about Jack and Jill or a Hangover sequel?
Considering that 10 year old level torture; I actually longingly anticipate a new Ridley Scott movie.
Alex; to me Nolan is one of the most talented film makers I have seen in terms of technique. And when he can get the story tight and logical, like in "Memento" and "The Prestige", he can produce excellent movies imo. Even with "Inception", in the middle of all of the action, there was a kernel of a heart felt tale of tragic loss beautifully told.
But it's hard for me to trust Nolan after "The Dark Knight Rises", "Interstellar" and the story for "Man of Steel" (which he wrote).
BB ;-)
PS. I forgot "Batman Begins" my 2nd favorite Batman movie after the first one by Tim Burton.
to aaahmemories; Well, in the last days of IMDb, if you see this, I want to first thank you for many years of thought provoking discussion about film.
"I must guiltily admit I really enjoyed ID4 and Godzilla, though primarily for their clever assimilation of so many classic 1950s B-movie science fiction memes. That said, I would never in a million years nominate either of those two as anything but populist pap."
What I tried to bring up is the greater context of the film industry since the method of Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron took over. - What Lucas envisioned was to take children's science fiction serials (Flash Gordon), kid Westerns, war air battles, mash that up with Kurosawa story lines and produce big budget, major special effects spectaculars mostly for teen age boys. - That's why I mentioned Roland Emnerich and Michael Bay who have lucrative film careers based on shlock. Take Captain America Civil War, with its nonsensical/propaganda story. What is the best part for many audience members? A character who is usually 1 inch tall can become 50 feet tall! Who would consider this great? A teenage boy or someone who has that mentality. As for me, I grew up. - Please understand, I can handle certain amounts of shlock. But today's film industry is dominated by it. That's the difference between the 70s and before compared with today's cinema.
What is left with the film industry? - Film careers that are pretty much over? Francis Coppola, Terry Gilliam and David Lynch. - Film makers who are thoughtful and want to survive either go for micro budgets or they go mainstream. Scorsese has gone more mainstream but his last more artsy film "Silence" flopped. The Coen brothers made a remake of 'True Grit"; playing it safe. - And Tarantino is no salvation. He, like Lucas, retreads old shlock in a new package. It's the Tarantino "cool" with lots of violence. There are moments in "Pulp Fiction" with Samuel L. Jackson which are very good I admit but there are long stretches of Tarantino movies where all he has is gratuitous violence. Tarantino cannot stick with just drama, which has thought, and let a movie just stand on that. (Except for Jackie Brown but that wasn't violent/popular enough.)
Finally, look at what Kubrick did after the Lucas revolution? "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut". These are both play it safe films. No more "Strangelove", "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange".
As for Nolan, we'll see how well "Dunkirk" does at the box office. We'll see if Nolan can continue his career with just drama and not fall back into nonsensical, or overly sentimental stories.
** To view Ridley Scott's work requires this context of the recent film industry as a whole imo. Same with the Coen brothers or Scorsese. The potential of the movie industry in the 70s and before is long gone.
"It's sad (and sadly stupid) the powers that be should see fit to deny ...us ... insight in so accessible a forum."
And it was unnecessary for Amazon to do this. If Amazon wanted to monetize IMDb more, they could have required a Facebook or Amazon username/membership and then tracked that for ad purposes. I would have been willing to create another anonymous account for the site.
No message board system that I have found is as well designed as the IMDb boards in terms of the tracking of comments and the way that replies to comments are structured. IMDb boards are a top notch achievement of software design. It naturally builds online communities some of which have lasted over a decade. For a multibillion $ company to throw that all away is a terrible shame.
"now wander through the movie aisles at, say, Best Buy, and can't for the life of me stir up any enthusiasm over the available titles.'
Yes, and one of the remedies for that was IMDb. Suggested titles from you, Eva_Yojimbo, hafeez and many others on the site brought to prominence small, interesting films (often from different countries) which otherwise would not have been found.
I've made private contacts with the posters you mention by name, and others. If you'll only PM me your contact info (apparently the only way we can keep in touch) I'll gladly return the favor. If not, though, I understand. The new cyberworld comes with all manner of hidden costs and challenges, and your excellent contributions to IMDb should and do mean we should respect your personal approach to those.
But I'll regret for the rest of my days losing track of you.
๎
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
The first hour of 2001 ASO, space technology is very familiar to what we have today both in visual structure and technical feats. Then bada-bing bada-bang and a Jupiter orbiting large black box later, we're zipping beyond the infinite
But the zipping in "2001" isn't due to human technology. It's - assuming you believe that stuff is "literally" happening in the film - due to an inconceivably advanced Higher Power.
In "Interstellar", meanwhile, humans go from solid fuel rockets to X-wing styled repulsorlifts. That thing (thin as a slice of bread) was zipping about Star Trek style, and effortlessly escaping gravity wells almost twice as high as Earth's.
"That's right, Interstellar was completely unrealistic by showing out dated homes lacking insulation and air conditioners."
The farm houses in "Interstellar" are there for the same reasons they pop up in Norman Rockwell paintings or in Spielberg's (himself a Rockwell collector) "Saving Private Ryan" or Michael Bay's "Pearl Harbour". It's a shorthand for a very specific type of post-war, American iconography; America the bucolic, the homey, the great, the working class, the simple, the tough, the rugged, the pastoral, the kick-your-ass-and-get-things-done if you try to mess with US! The farmhouses are there for the same reason the film is filled with baseball, blue collar jackets, Matthew Mcconaughey and flapping flags. This is a film about the AMERICAN SPIRIT!!
I think "Interstellar" gives a really sick, "Triumph of the Willsy" vibe when you watch it again. There's something really insideous about it, especially the way its "needs of the many" plot clashes with its contempt for Earth and Earthbound populaces. In "Interstellar", blight might kill man, but it rekindles something better: alpha men who dream and don't play by your stupid farm-boy rules.
Tieman; Your comment summarizes the tech issues and their uncomfortable meaning which I have with "Interstellar" very well. Combining the iconic, (inappropriately placed) future farm houses, the baseball game, the heroic farmers who are beaten down because they don't know how to make a modern window or seal a wall.
Besides the irrationality of that, it becomes absurd in a society with Star Trek level tech (shuttles/giant space stations), But Nolan's purpose is massive manipulation. There is so much direct manipulation in "Interstellar" that it often feels like heavy handed World War 2 propaganda (and reminding me of the methods mentioned in "1984"). So, I also have a very unsettling, pit of the stomach feeling, about how pushy the film's repeated messages are.
Combining the iconic, (inappropriately placed) future farm houses, the baseball game, the heroic farmers who are beaten down because they don't know how to make a modern window or seal a wall.
Besides the irrationality of that, it becomes absurd in a society with Star Trek level tech (shuttles/giant space stations),
I didn't find the architecture "irrational". That's a common aesthetic in science fiction. In Western SF, future societies are often ultra high tech on one hand, and pastoral on the other; an idealized futurism meets an idealized primitivism. Look at "Star Trek", where 23rd century Earth sometimes looks like it's stuck in the 1950s.
And things like farmhouses, southern bluecollars and picket fences are common totems in pulpy SF, from "Invaders from Mars" to Spielberg's "War of the Worlds". It's a genre thing.
And "Interstellar" is only set in the near future (aroundabout the 2070s) anyway.
What's annoying - arguably - is the message these "old fashioned", "idealized" images (or symbols) are being used for. "Interstellar" is what a SF movie would look like if Jord Ford directed it: family, community, farm, church, spirit, destiny, love and America vs IT.
That might be annoying, but it's not too unbelievable.
It's just that DAMN LANDER WHICH MAKES NO SENSE. That thing looked and moved like a super magical corn flake. I've seen a zillion SF movies, and I don't think I've ever seen another ship which seemed so out of place. That thing is like the lovechild of Michael Jordan, Jesus and an X-wing. And a craft like that would need fuel reserves multiple times heavier than its own mass.
(shuttles/giant space stations),
You didn't buy the Cooper Stations at the end? Those didn't bug me. By that point in the film, humans have evolved into time travelling 5th dimensional beings who have solved some kind of Einsteinian field equation or gravity equation, letting them "lift big objects into orbit".
At that point, any ship or station is acceptable. Humans become Starchildren.
Perhaps the number of stations built is a bit incredulous. Doesn't the film say that all of humanity has been moved up into stations? That's a lot of material and a lot of stations, depending how many humans perished on Earth.
Considering this Interstellar topic is being discussed in the 2001 ASO forum, a film that portrayed a blackhole as a Peter Max color explosion cartoon,
"2001" also ends with a giant baby. The film's very abstract and Bowman's journey might be allegorical for all we know. He may even be suffering oxygen deprivation. Or the "gate" may be an alien device. Or God.
The point is, the tone and tech in "2001" are consistent. "Interstellar's" lander, though, possess a level of technology that doesn't gel with the rest of the film. If you have a tiny ship that can escape planets and blackholes even after being smashed about by giant (apparently invisible) tsunamis - which floods its engines no less - you can deal with blight. A civilization with that level of technology wouldn't be affected by blight. They'd simply upload their brains into CO2 breathing cybernetic kangaroos and eat gene-altered plankton.
The point is, the tone and tech in "2001" are consistent.
Exactly. The human tech is plausible and the other stuff is in the box labelled incomprehensible, a venerable and oft used idea in mainstream science fiction.
Interstellar tries to mix and match, with no real appreciation for any sort of credible speculation.
2001 is most definitely NOT space opera, which usually deals with galactic empires and vast interstellar battles.
The essence of SF is a realistic and rigorous examination of the consequences of some speculation which itself may be unrealistic.
2001 does this grandly and eloquently; Interstellar does not really even make the attempt, except only superficially and sporadically, and that is where any similarity ends...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
"The point is, the tone and tech in "2001" are consistent."
Agreed.
" "Interstellar's" lander, though, possess a level of technology that doesn't gel with the rest of the film. If you have a tiny ship that can escape planets and blackholes even after being smashed about by giant (apparently invisible) tsunamis - which floods its engines no less - you can deal with blight."
Again agreed.
"A civilization with that level of technology wouldn't be affected by blight. They'd simply upload their brains into CO2 breathing cybernetic kangaroos and eat gene-altered plankton."
I accept the concept of consistent tech. And my making the tech consistent in "Interstellar" leads me to a more direct approach in how to deal with the blight. 1. I'll start with these givens; - A shuttle which can escape a planet's/black hole's gravity like in Star Trek. - Also it's a given that this society can put all of earth's population in giant structures (Cooper's Station) which can produce enough food, energy, heat, water in a place which has no blight. 2. Considering all that tech, I would deal with the blight by upgrading housing on earth. - Put all humans in giant structures which have the benefits of Cooper's Station on earth. - Take everyone out of their leaky farm houses or put the houses together and cover them in futuristic structures which control the blight. - Result; there is no need to leave earth.
** Back to the issue of architecture; - My issue isn't with the shape of houses. My issue is with the technology of where people live. - In the story people are dying because the air they breathe is killing them. With proper building technology the air they breathe can be changed and they do not need to die. Example; Cooper's station. If that can be done in space, then similar structures which have the same benefits can be built on earth. - That would be consistent tech in "Interstellar".
Yes, man's response to blight is a bit fanciful. Man would instead create artificial biomes on earth and develop gene altered crops and then begin terraforming (or re-terraforming) earth. He would also create vast nurseries with unaffected or synthetic crops.
Creating ecologies-in-a-can in space are vastly harder than doing the same on Earth. But the film's "screw Earth, space is our destiny" message requires this.
A more rigerous and robust film would have opened with humanity already developing - or struggling to maintain - sustainable, artificial biomes. With a stable base, THEN you begin looking to the stars. If at all.
So I guess, in a way, you're right. You don't live in a toxic farmhouse in the hope that an equation is solved and a planet is found. No. You build biomes and then you work the problem.
That a superbug is capable of killing all crops, is also unlikely. Blight jumps species and climates and apparently is immune to all forms of eradication. Is this possible? But this is science fiction - it could be an alien blight, for all we know - and challenges like this are part of the fun of the genre.
But if you read other science fiction writers, many of them are quite critical of "Interstellar's" idea of blight itself.
We already live in a world suffering "blights". Our atmospheric O2 levels are constantly decreasing (150 molecules of O2 are destroyed for every 100 atoms of carbon burned). In the past we regularly hit O2 levels of about 35 percent. We're forecast to hit about 18 percent within several generations. And our CO2 ceilings are constantly being raised by governments who refuse to curb fossil burning (I think new safety levels are about 350ppm).
We're already killing our atmosphere, our species, and screwing up the pH of our oceans. We're already in a slow asphyxiation. You don't need to imagine blight, it's already happening. And if you're a good artist, you have some kind of moral duty not to propose "expanding out into the stars" as a solution for these real problems. The film is more contemptuous than it is optimistic. It's solution is bluster, optimism and a kind of ostrich-like delusion.
This is why I prefer a trashy film like "Pandroum". "Pandorum" told a similar tale: man screws up planet, man bails planet on generation ship, man is still a greedy psychotic, man screws up generation ship, man lands on new Earth, man still a greedy psychotic, man screws up new Earth. There's a sense of genuine criticism in crap like "Pandorum" (or even something like "Wall-E"), whilst "Interstellar" plays like the Donald Trump version of the same tale. Blight? Fk it. We gonna build a wall.
reply share
To Tieman; your summary fits my ideas on "Interstellar" very well.
"Man would instead create artificial biomes on earth... He would also create vast nurseries with unaffected or synthetic crops."
Exactly. If living arrangements can be put in space, they can also be put on earth.
"Creating ecologies-in-a-can in space are vastly harder than doing the same on Earth. But the film's "screw Earth, space is our destiny" message requires this.
A more rigerous and robust film would have opened with humanity already developing - or struggling to maintain - sustainable, artificial biomes. With a stable base, THEN you begin looking to the stars. If at all."
Agreed. I'm fine with space colonization but if people are dying due to being poisoned by dust and crops are dying due to blight, first help the people on earth. After people on earth are protected, then send some into space. * But the film wants to abandon earth and this allows people to get sick there and uses a major technology inconsistency in order to justify this; so that everyone has to leave earth; Why? - Because on earth tech is stuck in the 1930s. - But in space, tech is at the level of Star Trek! Illogical result; no one can live on earth and everyone has to go to a space station.
"But this is science fiction - it could be an alien blight, for all we know - and challenges like this are part of the fun of the genre."
I'm also OK with the idea of the blight. I only wish that the cause was due to human actions. That would have sent a strong ecological message. But instead the Nolans wanted the noble / heroic farmers to be victims of something that was completely out of their control. - Still the blight works as a SF idea. - But I think a better SF idea would be to have the blight be a metaphor for how humanity is ruining the ecology of the planet. Just my personal taste.
"We already live in a world suffering "blights". "We're already killing our atmosphere, our species, and screwing up the pH of our oceans."
Absolutely. Again, this is where the film missed a chance in not having the blight being caused by humans.
"And if you're a good artist, you have some kind of moral duty not to propose "expanding out into the stars" as a solution for these real problems. The film is more contemptuous than it is optimistic. It's solution is bluster, optimism and a kind of ostrich-like delusion."
Agreed about the delusion packaged in the style of very slick propaganda. Another reason why for me this is a very frustrating movie.
"This is why I prefer a trashy film like "Pandroum". "Pandorum" told a similar tale: man screws up planet, man bails planet on generation ship, man is still a greedy psychotic, man screws up generation ship, man lands on new Earth, man still a greedy psychotic, man screws up new Earth."
Well said. If I was given the choice of seeing "Pandorum" or "Interstellar", I would pick "Pandorum" in a heartbeat. It's not great SF but it is logically consistent SF.
"Your issue is with the technological inconsistency, mine is with the dialogue. I think you and I took different paths to reach the same destination: No replay value."
I also have problems with the dialogue. "Interstellar" is a perfect storm in terms of several things that I dislike in certain big budget movies including with the dialogue (too much spoon feeding for instance).
"the film's technology"
I give props to tech advancements in several movies which I give overall lower ratings (5/10) including with the CGI in "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace" and how the black hole looked in "Interstellar" as well as the way time travel (communication) was handled (according to Kip Thorne's ideas about it). Otherwise I would have ranked these films lower.
SFM; imo there is a difference between useful information in the dialogue and spoon feeding. "Interstellar" in terms of almost all its story is very simplistic, including down to the details. It was so easy to understand on first viewing for me that I was bored through most of the film. (And just reading one article about Kip Thorne's work on the film explains the science premise and the communication through time.) - Some viewers prefer that kind of easy to understand story style course but since this is the "2001 ASO" Board and there are repeated threads which compare "2001 ASO" and "Interstellar", it's fair to look at the dialogue between the two movies.
Now you bring up "Inception". There is a huge difference in terms of complexity of story in that movie compared with "Interstellar". I've probably discussed "Inception" with over 100 people on the internet over the years and I think maybe a handful of folks understood what was going on in every moment of that film. - So, even with all the information given by the characters, imo over 90% of people who discussed film in depth with me still don't know why the characters are doing/dreaming things in every important moment of "Inception". Considering that, the dialogue in "Inception" is not spoon feeding just as a lecture in a 4 month university physics course is not spoon feeding. It's giving pieces about a large mass of information.
"Interstellar" is a completely different situation. It's story reminds me of Fairy Tales read by teachers to children. Simple stuff which allows people to talk in the theater, take their kids to the restroom and still easily follow the film. Some viewers think it's all poetry in film. And that's fine for them (personal taste after all) but some viewers, especially with hard SF, need more of a challenge.
* "Interstellar" helps the most distracted audience member by repeating ideas in the dialogue. - The farmers are dying from the blight/dust, They are dying. Farmers are dying. - Cooper is a hero. He is a hero. The hero is Cooper. - Cooper will save the families. Save them Cooper. Cooper will save them. - We are not meant to die on earth. "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night", "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night".
That kind of repetition of basic, easy to understand, ideas in dialogue is spoon feeding imo. In fact to me it's one of the worst examples of it I've seen in a big budget film.
* But it's all personal taste. After all to most IMDb members, "Interstellar" is a better hard science-fiction film than "2001 ASO". And it is their privilege to believe that.
"Any character who asks seventy questions in any movie"
It comes does to this imo; does the audience understand the crucial events in the film ("Inception")? Do they know how Limbo works compared with the other dream states? Do they know how the totems work? Do they know why Mal wanted to be in Limbo and what she did with her totem? Do they know what Cobb did with Mal's totem in Limbo and why he did it? Do they know what Cobb was doing in the beginning of the film with Saito? Do they know if Cobb was dreaming or awake at the end of the film? And so on.
* Giving information about complicated topics in a story like "Inception" is fine. Not spoon feeding. Repeatedly giving the same information about parts of a story for adults which a 10 year old can easily understand ("Interstellar") is spoon feeding. Again imo.
* It is another Nolan SF film. And imo "Inception" is one of the best SF movies since "The Matrix".
Even the informed can go very far from my personal taste.
Surely, but let's at least start with being informed.
And the converse is not really valid. An uninformed judgement that just happens to agree with your own is not very valuable...as I have found too often to my regret on these boards.
Of course these boards are open to everyone, and they are welcome to it, informed or uninformed. But at least there should be a certain level of sincerity and openness regarding the subjects under question.
If I wish to have a discussion about Set Theory I am not about to waste my time with people who hate mathematics as a religious principle (you know who you are)...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ
"Of course these boards are open to everyone, and they are welcome to it, informed or uninformed. But at least there should be a certain level of sincerity and openness regarding the subjects under question."
Some of the most productive discussions I've had on IMDb were when there was a sincere desire to explore the process of film making and story writing. For instance recent threads here about; the voices in the alien living room and "2001 ASO" with regard to mythology were enjoyable for me. - Such interactions make this Board a place I keep coming back to.
"I am not about to waste my time with people who hate mathematics"
The only topic that I regularly discuss on IMDb that involves any math is box office formulas which try to indicate flops and money makers and that almost always that doesn't get very far.
The only topic that I regularly discuss on IMDb that involves any math is box office formulas which try to indicate flops and money makers and that almost always that doesn't get very far.
Of course you realize that math was used only as an analogy. Some ignorant jerk can come sit in a seminar and make a nuisance of himself. But he is only a nuisance...his uninformed opinion of mathematics is not in any way as relevant as that of the others who are sincerely attending.
Just the same here...like the various threads started by people asserting that 2001 is boring. Most are just willfully ignorant trolls who want to stir up trouble.
Like any other sort of troll, they are just seeking attention, probably as a distraction away from their own pitiful lives.
One sure sign is how readily they get off topic and stray into personal invective...
โYour head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?โ