Escapist Podcast - Movies and TV: 024: Just Why Does Interstellar Suck?

[Team Hollywood]

024: Just Why Does Interstellar Suck?

Interstellar was supposed to be Christopher Nolan's triumphant return to serious filmmaking after the completion of the Dark Knight trilogy. Instead, it's been incredibly divisive and, I'll be honest, the recipient of some rather fun-to-read brutal criticism. Why? We talk about the film at length, along with a discussion of Big hero 6, the uncomfortable undertones inherent in certain comics, and the latest news, or lack thereof, regarding the Warcraft film.

Watch Video

 

[Joos]

Uhm, it doesn't? Sure it could have been better (less corny), but it's not that bad.

 

[Darth Sea Bass]

Just why do we think Interstellar sucked? See i fixed the title for ya!

 

[Jandau]

Ah, the old internet tradition of classifying EVERYTHING into either "SUCKS!" or the "BEST THING EVAAAAR!" categories, with anything that can't be put in the second one being dumped into the first one by default, with no middle ground or gray area. Because being reasonable and moderate is for pussies, I presume...

 

[Nazulu]

Ah, the old internet tradition of classifying EVERYTHING into either "SUCKS!" or the "BEST THING EVAAAAR!" categories, with anything that can't be put in the second one being dumped into the first one by default, with no middle ground or gray area. Because being reasonable and moderate is for pussies, I presume...

It's also an internet tradition to see people complain that there has to be a middle ground, because that's the only way to be reasonable apparently. When in actual fact that's not the tiniest bit true at all.

Anyone's allowed to say something sucks, as long as they explain why. Then you can challenge their opinion.

 

[Jandau]

Ah, the old internet tradition of classifying EVERYTHING into either "SUCKS!" or the "BEST THING EVAAAAR!" categories, with anything that can't be put in the second one being dumped into the first one by default, with no middle ground or gray area. Because being reasonable and moderate is for pussies, I presume...

It's also an internet tradition to see people complain that there has to be a middle ground, because that's the only way to be reasonable apparently. When in actual fact that's not the tiniest bit true at all.

Anyone's allowed to say something sucks, as long as they explain why. Then you can challenge their opinion.

Of course they get to say something sucks. And I get to say I think they are being silly and overreacting. Which I did.

 

[Nazulu]

Ah, the old internet tradition of classifying EVERYTHING into either "SUCKS!" or the "BEST THING EVAAAAR!" categories, with anything that can't be put in the second one being dumped into the first one by default, with no middle ground or gray area. Because being reasonable and moderate is for pussies, I presume...

It's also an internet tradition to see people complain that there has to be a middle ground, because that's the only way to be reasonable apparently. When in actual fact that's not the tiniest bit true at all.

Anyone's allowed to say something sucks, as long as they explain why. Then you can challenge their opinion.

Of course they get to say something sucks. And I get to say I think they are being silly and overreacting. Which I did.

That's not challenging their opinion though. You're doing the same thing as Team Hollywood except with no video making your point.

I can continue this pointless banter and say you're being silly, and it would be just as meaningful.

 

[Jandau]

Ah, the old internet tradition of classifying EVERYTHING into either "SUCKS!" or the "BEST THING EVAAAAR!" categories, with anything that can't be put in the second one being dumped into the first one by default, with no middle ground or gray area. Because being reasonable and moderate is for pussies, I presume...

It's also an internet tradition to see people complain that there has to be a middle ground, because that's the only way to be reasonable apparently. When in actual fact that's not the tiniest bit true at all.

Anyone's allowed to say something sucks, as long as they explain why. Then you can challenge their opinion.

Of course they get to say something sucks. And I get to say I think they are being silly and overreacting. Which I did.

That's not challenging their opinion though. You're doing the same thing as Team Hollywood except with no video making your point.

I can continue this pointless banter and say you're being silly, and it would be just as meaningful.

So, I'm not supposed to comment on video content on the internet unless I also provide video content? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with this whole line of reasoning...

 

[Nazulu]

So, I'm not supposed to comment on video content on the internet unless I also provide video content? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with this whole line of reasoning...

I don't know how you confused making a counter-argument with responding only with a video.

Sure, you can leave a comment saying nothing but it's 'this & that' with no information in it at all. No one will see you're adding fluff worth no discussion value at all.

 

[Jandau]

So, I'm not supposed to comment on video content on the internet unless I also provide video content? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with this whole line of reasoning...

I don't know how you confused making a counter-argument with responding only with a video.

Sure, you can leave a comment saying nothing but it's 'this & that' with no information in it at all. No one will see you're adding fluff worth no discussion value at all.

In my initial comment, I simply pointed out that this video seemed to me to be needlessly putting down a decent film (which has its flaws), which reminded me of other such instances all too frequently seen online, where extremist arguments are used to draw in viewers. Having seen Interstellar, I claim that the film, despite its flaws, can't be reasonably said to "suck" (or with anything approaching objectivity) and that saying that it does is just silly. You can dislike it, but that doesn't make it bad. I did not approve of the overall tone of the video and the stance of the reviewers, wanted to make a comment regarding that, but didn't feel inclined to write a 2000 word essay on the subject.

Also, none of your responses to my comments had any actual information in them either (if we go by your own criteria), so why did you make them?

 

[Nazulu]

So, I'm not supposed to comment on video content on the internet unless I also provide video content? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with this whole line of reasoning...

I don't know how you confused making a counter-argument with responding only with a video.

Sure, you can leave a comment saying nothing but it's 'this & that' with no information in it at all. No one will see you're adding fluff worth no discussion value at all.

In my initial comment, I simply pointed out that this video seemed to me to be needlessly putting down a decent film (which has its flaws), which reminded me of other such instances all too frequently seen online, where extremist arguments are used to draw in viewers. Having seen Interstellar, I claim that the film, despite its flaws, can't be reasonably said to "suck" (or with anything approaching objectivity) and that saying that it does is just silly. You can dislike it, but that doesn't make it bad. I did not approve of the overall tone of the video and the stance of the reviewers, wanted to make a comment regarding that, but didn't feel inclined to write a 2000 word essay on the subject.

Also, none of your responses to my comments had any actual information in them either (if we go by your own criteria), so why did you make them?

And we are back to square one. Well, a step back from that.

You repeated yourself still saying nothing in defense of it. Claiming it can't be called 'bad' other than it can't be called 'bad', because you say so (Ha, I wish I had that power). And then you go on to say it was not worth making a point because you can't be bothered putting the effort in, which is was what makes it fluff.

Now I am off topic, but you needed to know how your comment is no different to saying "This Sucks" or "It's The Best EVAAA"!

Now I'm done.

 

[Jandau]

So, I'm not supposed to comment on video content on the internet unless I also provide video content? I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make with this whole line of reasoning...

I don't know how you confused making a counter-argument with responding only with a video.

Sure, you can leave a comment saying nothing but it's 'this & that' with no information in it at all. No one will see you're adding fluff worth no discussion value at all.

In my initial comment, I simply pointed out that this video seemed to me to be needlessly putting down a decent film (which has its flaws), which reminded me of other such instances all too frequently seen online, where extremist arguments are used to draw in viewers. Having seen Interstellar, I claim that the film, despite its flaws, can't be reasonably said to "suck" (or with anything approaching objectivity) and that saying that it does is just silly. You can dislike it, but that doesn't make it bad. I did not approve of the overall tone of the video and the stance of the reviewers, wanted to make a comment regarding that, but didn't feel inclined to write a 2000 word essay on the subject.

Also, none of your responses to my comments had any actual information in them either (if we go by your own criteria), so why did you make them?

And we are back to square one. Well, a step back from that.

You repeated yourself still saying nothing in defense of it. Claiming it can't be called 'bad' other than it can't be called 'bad', because you say so (Ha, I wish I had that power). And then you go on to say it was not worth making a point because you can't be bothered putting the effort in, which is was what makes it fluff.

Now I am off topic, but you needed to know how your comment is no different to saying "This Sucks" or "It's The Best EVAAA"!

Now I'm done.

Well, I'm glad you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest. But if it's the low information content of my post that truly bothers you, then why did you single me out, and not the preceding posts which were shorter and even less informative? Actually, nevermind, don't answer that. Doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Nazulu]

Well, I'm glad you feel better now that you've gotten that off your chest. But if it's the low information content of my post that truly bothers you, then why did you single me out, and not the preceding posts which were shorter and even less informative? Actually, nevermind, don't answer that. Doesn't really matter, does it?

Probably doesn't matter. But you say it in such a way.

We're all just as informative as each-other. Darths just pulling his pants extra high, pointing out the thumb is not a finger, or that black & white are not colours, but I could definitely lump Joos with ya. I would have quoted him first, but your comment had that extra bit of punch to it. I felt it was unjustified, and so I try to explain.

I'm not against you at all in defending in the film. No no. But if you want to be the riot that interrupts the swimming party, you need some kind of message to go with the fire to shut 'em down.

Edit: Also, you don't need to write an essay (I bloody hate them)

Making one or two good points is actually enough to make someone out like they don't what they're talking about. Of course, people should delve deeper than that, but it can create some doubt in everyone.

 

[Mihai Calin Momete]

We do actually know almost everything about the Warcraft movie! They said numerous times that it will be based on the first game (a 20 year old game). You can just go to WoWpedia (http://wowpedia.org/First_War or /http://wowpedia.org/Warcraft_I#History for the tldr version) and read essentially the entire plot of the WC movie. I guess doing research only applies for comic book and 80's cartoons for them.

 

[RossaLincoln]

Just why do we think Interstellar sucked? See i fixed the title for ya!

It's entirely possible I was deliberately trolling with this title.

 

[RossaLincoln]

We do actually know almost everything about the Warcraft movie! They said numerous times that it will be based on the first game (a 20 year old game). You can just go to WoWpedia (http://wowpedia.org/First_War or /http://wowpedia.org/Warcraft_I#History for the tldr version) and read essentially the entire plot of the WC movie. I guess doing research only applies for comic book and 80's cartoons for them.

Latest news, or lack thereof doesn't mean "we know nothing", though I did speak a bit inarticulately during the beginning of the podcast. What I really meant is that we didn't learn anything new over Blizzcon. Sorry for the confusion!

 

[warrenEBB]

Really didn't feel they got around to explaining what sucked. I thought the movie was a triumph, so hearing some critics hated it is baffling.
In this case, i'm not sure why moviebob hated it, because he keeps being vague to avoid spoilers. so it ends up being "it sucked because take my word for it I can't go into details"

in his write up, he claims the movie ruined it's emotional punch by over explaining. and yet I was emotionally punched multiple times by the movie, so i wildly disagree. I suspect the key difference here is : i have two kids. i think this movie will kick any parent in the balls.

I also think critics aren't giving Nolan enough credit for making his most heart warming and emotional movie yet. The podcast touched on the bleakness of his previous movies a little (each being mostly concerned with an emotionally crippled tough guy), but never swung around to giving Nolan props for how different the emotional landscape is in Interstellar.

It's like they feel the emotional threads were leftovers from some Spielberg version - except Spielberg never even got into pre production? wha? and you don't want to give the nolan brothers props for either their great writing or the entire job of directing? huh. PFFT.


Anywho. let me dump in this explanation of the "love" plot device, since people keep mistaking love as an "explanation" for all the parts of the movie that weren't explicitly explained. interstellar wasn't saying love is a basic element, or a mechanism for controlling wormholes. Rather it was making an excellent case for love being a motivator behind things we don't understand (the actions of 5th dimensional beings for example).

It's weird that critics get hung up on the idea that the movie explains too much, when so much is really being left to the audience.

(spoilers)
The idea that Love might be tapping into a transcendent universal force is a really optimistic notion for cold intellectuals. It's practically a religious argument (that if we agree that no one can fully understand the factors involved in X, then shouldn't we also agree that maybe we aren't fully understanding the influence of Love?). The machinations of 5th dimensional beings from the future - reaching back across time to help humanity save itself - is directly showing you a way that love could very well be influencing events across time and space.

But the movie isn't saying love is the sole explanation of how mcConaughey enters (arguably) the black hole or how he interacts with his daughter's room or how he travels back to our galaxy. The movie is pointing out the way that love may be involved as a motivating factor in how all the science is being used. Maybe love is a factor worth considering.

You weren't supposed to throw up your hands when "love" was mentioned and stop paying attention to the science in the movie.

Having 5th dimensional beings, likely humans from the future, reach across time and space to help a dad reach across time to help his daughter - is 2 versions of the same message. This is a great scifi movie because seeks to answer why as well as how.

i want to ramble on about how matt damon is presented as the best and brightest of human scientists, but turning to him just led to disastrously visiting the wrong planet and wasting precious resources. ... but i'm typing way too much.

bonus : Kip Thorne notes how the movie doesn't explain much of anything (thbbt) and he wrote a book for those seeking explanations instead of the emotional roller coaster of a movie:
http://mashable.com/2014/11/11/interstellar-kip-thornes-book/

 

[Uriain]

Not having any news on fantastic four.... maybe its an animated movie?

 

[Tojumaru]

I think Bob just hates this film because he wants to. I'd like to see a smart person challenging him on this, because he is not giving any reasonable arguments.
Oh too much explanation(where? point to me the exact moment that happens.)
The power of love got through time and space.(no, it's the motivating factor. Gravity got through it actually).
Matt Damon is the bad guy.(no, he is a brilliant scientist who lost all hope and does not want to let Cooper go back and thus destrot humanity's last hope of survival, Michael Caine's Plan B).
For me, Bob just has no reason to hate it, it's just that he wants to, probably related to that offhand comment about Marvel films that Nolan denied ever having made. And related to The Dark Knight Rises which made a mess out of Bane's voice, true, but was just as dumb as The Dark Knight. To me, this just seems like a man who has become downright sycophantic towards one specific niche of film(MCU) and is willing to hate everything else.
And Lincoln to me just seems to push the tl;dr idea: you can have more than one idea in a film, you know? Case in point, Inception: reality, dreams, loss. NO! Don't have it be both emotional and smart, just choose one and run with it. What the hell dude?
Aaaanyway, if you state that, I think your validity as a critic is being seriously undermined as it's basically you saing: I can't follow more than one thing, so I don't like the movie. You must have hated Apocalypto then. And The Good, the bad and the ugly. And Blade Runner. Because all these films are throwing big ideas at you, while also having human emotion and drama built into them. You are basically demeaning every great piece of art every created, from Moby Dick to For Whom The bell tolls to Doctor Zhivago to Lawrence of Arabia to the Bridge on the River Kwai, etc. because it has more than one thing going on. Top notch.
And that Speilberg stuff is just a lie. Spielberg never touched the project and the Nolans redid everything basically except the core ideas, which were there before Spielberg. You 2 are just building this argument like Michael Palin building his castle in a swamp. And did you not see the first half of the film which is basically a family drama during the Dustbowl? Did you expect all that build up to be forgotten? Of course it was about family and a loving father and a guilt-ridden daughter. And about space, exploration, humanity's survival.