I had a hunch this movie was bad. I'm tempted to see it just because I love Nolan's IMAX work but eh, I can probably do without. I've enjoyed most of Nolan's films but I've only made it a point to own the first two Batman's, Memento and The Prestige. Top that off with the fact I can't stand Matthew McConaughey and I thought The Dark Knight Rises was lousy outside of not-Catwoman, and he just doesn't get a free pass with me anymore. Inception I enjoyed but the movie felt lifeless to me by the end. And the ending itself was a "this is just how you have to end it" moment with no real depth in my opinion. The whole stab at Marvel movies not being movies just came across as the idiotic cherry on top. But you know what? Most of the great directors only have a few revered films. Doesn't mean he can't be great again and it doesn't mean the movies he's already made are suddenly bad.
Escape to the Movies: Interstellar - Doesn't Live Up To Its Own Name
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See, most of the other reviews I've read have said that it isn't derivative like that and that the emotional core of the movie is actually quite moving. But you know, differing opinions and all that. I'm not saying that Bob isn't raising any good points, I'm just saying that I wouldn't be surprised if he went in with a certain level of bias against it, which, to be fair, is hard for any reviewer to avoid. Anyway, I haven't seen it yet so my comments obviously don't really matter. I'm just saying what I'm perceiving. I've enjoyed all of Nolan's movies so far, so I'll probably like this one, but who knows, maybe this is his worst yet (it's just the majority of other opinions seem to suggest otherwise).Ark of the Covetor said:
It's difficult to do hard sci-fi without constantly throwing data at the reader/audience. If you can restrain yourself, you lose half of what makes hard sci-fi fun.
This is one reason why I love Robert L. Forward's books so much, so much of the data and the detailed scientific explanation is put in an appendix at the end. This way the reader can enjoy the science side of things, but it doesn't have to interrupt the story. This doesn't really work for film unless you have some sort of multi-media experience or you release a book or documentary as an extra.
This is one reason why I love Robert L. Forward's books so much, so much of the data and the detailed scientific explanation is put in an appendix at the end. This way the reader can enjoy the science side of things, but it doesn't have to interrupt the story. This doesn't really work for film unless you have some sort of multi-media experience or you release a book or documentary as an extra.
Nolan does have a habit of Explaining The Joke as it were. No disagreement there. Even the good Batman movies did that. Almost feels like he'd be better off analyzing films for a living than making them; as it is, he seems to be insistent on doing both.
![jFr[e]ak93](https://eg-forums-escapist-data-bucket.fra1.digitaloceanspaces.com/data/avatars/l/91/91030.jpg?1620781506){kind=avatar}
Had you asked me what Movie Bob would say about this film last week, I would have guessed he'd dislike it.
I haven't seen it yet, however I take his word on this subject with a large grain of salt. He's expressed a LOT of contempt for Nolan's style.
Which is fine... just as long as he doesn't go all Man Of Steel for the next 8 months using this movie.
I haven't seen it yet, however I take his word on this subject with a large grain of salt. He's expressed a LOT of contempt for Nolan's style.
Which is fine... just as long as he doesn't go all Man Of Steel for the next 8 months using this movie.
So if that scene in CoD:AW invalidates games as an art form entirely then that scene from The Wisard of Oz did the same for movies and that scene in Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince did it for books
Bob doesn't really like Interstellar ---> Interstellar was made by Nolan ---> Nolan made the Batman films ---> Batman is DC ---> DC is Marvel's rival ---> Bob loves the MCU ---> Half-Life 3 confirmed???
Can we not do this today people.
OT: The film looks visually interesting enough and the science heavy dialogue is something I might actually enjoy so I'll probably give it a watch.
Can we not do this today people.
OT: The film looks visually interesting enough and the science heavy dialogue is something I might actually enjoy so I'll probably give it a watch.
Sorta sad that they try so hard to fact-check their science, to the point that it's a notable story hindrance, then screw up basic orbital mechanics.
It's falling from orbit! Wait, now it's escaping! Wait, it's falling again! How much delta-V have we used now? I thought we were limited on fuel!
It's falling from orbit! Wait, now it's escaping! Wait, it's falling again! How much delta-V have we used now? I thought we were limited on fuel!
Much as I love some good hard-scifi exploration and adventure, I was pretty turned off by how hard the trailer was pushing the bland & uninteresting family/emotion aspects. Too bad, it sounds like they narrowly dodged making a movie I'd really like. Bah, too many sci-fi works get ruined for me by their BS metaphysics.
I am still looking forward to seeing this at my local theatre as they are doing a season of Christopher Nolan movies including Inception, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar on concurrent Thursdays. I can't post a link as the forum mods have frowned on such things in the past.
I don't know what all you people are talking about. Bob didn't say anything in this review that was a slight against Christopher Nolan, he even said that Nolan is a very capable film maker. What he also said however is that Nolan isn't capable of delivering the kind of emotional dramas that Speilberg is known for. He didn't say this was a terrible movie, he just said it wasn't a great movie. So would all you Nolan fans just chill already?
I think it's more likecanadamus_prime said:
1/3 of people pissed about his deliberately click-bait news piece
1/3 of people are Nolan or DC fans claiming bias
1/3 of people hate Bob for one of many reasons:
A) Social Justice Warrior (I WANT TO KILL THE PERSON WHO STARTED THIS "SJW" SHIT)
B) His complete and total devotion to Nintendo and hate of everything else (Understandable)
C) Pretentiousness (Understandable)
D) One of the many colossally stupid things he has said or done (Understandable).
Gee, I wonder why they could possibly be petrified of that... oh, right, Tyson went on CinemaSins to dogpile Gravity.MovieBob said:
I don't think we have any right to be surprised by this kind of thing anymore. Nolan and crew got so bogged down in show-their-research details that they forgot to tell a story or develop the characters? Of course they did, their audience was GEEKS, and after that CinemaSins mess, the filmmakers understandably thought that geeks don't care about stories or characters at all.
CinemaSins is a show made by and for the people from Yahtzee's poem, "The Keretic, Part III."
Well, this is...disappointing to hear. Nolan's got the chops to make a hard sci-fi film that doesn't talk down to the audience about its hard science, but I didn't know Interstellar was originally meant for Spielberg. I can understand the sheer amount of expositional hand-holding would bore most audiences. I did get a good laugh at that screenshot from Captain Planet when Bob said "Heart", and using Dr. Venture to represent scientists. Both those shows sound like candidates for future Big Picture episodes.
After credits: not just one but two Take That's to the latest CoD? Casting Kevin Spacey in that must have touched a nerve for Bob. He might as well have a sign over his head saying "I well turn out to be evil and the last boss fight in this game that wishes it was a movie."
You just know, deep in the back of your mind, he has a costume ready for just that occasion. And his battle-cry will be "FOR SCIENCE!"ThingWhatSqueaks said:
After credits: not just one but two Take That's to the latest CoD? Casting Kevin Spacey in that must have touched a nerve for Bob. He might as well have a sign over his head saying "I well turn out to be evil and the last boss fight in this game that wishes it was a movie."
didnt expect that. was thinking of seeing it today but this movie is just too damn long. might give it a try next week anyway due interest reasons. but a shame to hear its not up to the typical nolan film making.
....Johnny Novgorod said:
Damn.
*drops mic*
OT: Bob needs to grow up a little bit. Some of his criticisms are valid, but all of his reviews lately reek of bias. He, himself, has admitted this. I always feel like he's got an agenda, and if its not political (and it usually is) then it's personal.
I don't necessarily think this is true. It hasn't been done, but it CAN be done. After all, what's the point of exploring hard sci fi if not to understand its affects on the human condition? If I just wanted the facts, I'd just watch the science channel (which I do). If I watch a work of drama at the theaters then I want to understand the affect of that sci do on people.Nimcha said:
That said, I do think you need to prioritize one or the other on order to maintain narrative focus.
No, but we can do this:PunkRex said:
Bob reads Nolan doesn't dig post-credit stingers > Taking offense for Marvel, he creates a news post built around a misquote > He then rushes his negative critique of the week two days early to try and hurt the movie preemptively > He also rushes "Intermission" 2 days early, going on about how good Marvel's Agents of Shield is (literally - "What went right?") even though he already has a whole separate column dedicated to the show.
Look, I wasn't mind-blown by Interstellar, and I actually agree with some of the stuff Bob goes on about. But the spiteful bias displayed here reaches new levels of immaturity.
it turns out as I believed it would be. The made same mistake they made with Godzilla, Cut 1.5 hours from movie and you would have had a great movie.
FRAKK the 'human drama'!
FRAKK the 'human drama'!