Chris Nolan's "INTERSTELLAR"

Ryan Farnes said:
The limited fuel is a central plot point that dictates why they do what they do in the other galaxy's system and which planets they go to and how. (although, that may be the Endurance's fuel, not the landers) But, at the end, when they've ruled out 2 of the planets, they realize they cannot get home, but they use the remaining landing craft as boosters to slingshot around Gargantua to get Brandt to Edmund's planet, during which each craft detaches after running out of fuel.

They sent 10 or 12 astronauts during the Lazarus missions, and yet are only able to go check on 3. Fuel seems a major limitation for the smaller craft and so perhaps in getting it up to the Endurance from Earth, they use a traditional rocket to save the fuel for that gravity escape. Those small craft are capable of leaving earth without a rocket, but they only have so much fuel, and thus can only go up and down from a planet and thus escape gravity a couple of times.

Remember, on the first planet, Cooper doesn't even use any fuel in the landing until the very last moment. He uses aerodynamics to let the ship glide in and use the atmosphere to slow it until the last moment when he engages the thrusters for touchdown. He even says in response to a comment on his abrupt landing, "...yes, but very efficient." Fuel is a limited commodity.

Anyway, my thoughts on it. There may be other factors at play.
Click to expand...

You make some good points. I will have to watch the film again to see if that information is conveyed. Part of it is the way the film is edited and paced. It gives the illusion they are flying around the solar system like the Millennium falcon when those voyages could have taken much longer. One of the reasons 2001 is still considered the most accurate representation of space travel is because of its pace. I'm not sure I would want Interstellar paced that slow, but speeding up the pace has its consequences.
 
I agree on the pacing. Even the "slingshot" at the end appears to only take minutes when it would have taken what? Weeks? Months? Whereas other parts of the film, they make a point of the length of time needed for travel.
 
Ryan Farnes said:
I agree on the pacing. Even the "slingshot" at the end appears to only take minutes when it would have taken what? Weeks? Months? Whereas other parts of the film, they make a point of the length of time needed for travel.
Click to expand...

Unrelated note - did you see you were censored for pointing out the irony of the most recent Prolost post? I don't think I shall be visiting there anymore...
 
Why yes, I did. Well within his prerogative, if it was intentional. I'm not sure what to make of it. DVXuser does it from time to time for violation of board rules, makes sense to curate one's community...and Stu stipulates that you "contribute." :)

Sometimes I can't resist...I'm like TARS, my humor/sarcasm setting is fairly high.
 
I have seen a bunch of films with out of focus spots. I was surprised that this was such an issue, and expected it to be horrible, but I found the missed focus to be in line with what most films are. Yes, in the digital realm they can check it before they move on, but in the film world, the editors sometimes choose the performance over the 'focus'. Anyways, only one shot got me a little bothered by the missed focus.

What bothered me more, was switching story perspectives well into the film. It kind of felt a bit jarring to switch to another character, when I had already gotten used to the idea this was about one person. I see why they did it, but it did take me out of the film for a second. Also, the lens flares in the VFX space shots have to be reigned in a bit. I love a good lens flare, but to go as far as they do really starts to feel like there is a camera operator with a vintage prime floating in deep space hunting for lens flare shots. Kind of gets ridiculous.

Overall, it was my favorite big film of the year. Edging out the others by the way it would build, rather than trying to dazzle every second. It was the only film that used silence, which shows it is the only film that really understood balance. It didn't let itself get too big. The science was a bit underwhelming, but this is the same guy who made Batman and Inception, not exactly expecting accuracy here. It was definitely a conceptual fantasy, and the film making was there for me.
 
Hit the exact intersection of everything which made me excited to go to a movie as a kid. Blew me out of my seat in a way that hasn't happened since Jurassic Park.
 
David Jimerson said:
Hit the exact intersection of everything which made me excited to go to a movie as a kid. Blew me out my seat in a way that hasn't happened since Jurassic Park.
Click to expand...

I enjoyed it just as much on second viewing, and the little plot details that bothered me actually were addressed, I just wasn't paying close enough attention the first time...Near the end though, as Cooper went through the black hole, I started to smell a strong electrical burning and realized the movie was burning out my subwoofer! It became smell-o-vision!
 
Yeah, I noticed it was pretty harsh on the system! A couple of pictures on the wall were crooked after watching.
 
Since nobody else said it, I will. McConaughey made the film. His car commercials were a joke at first, but the same demeanor carried the film. Didn't like him for years, but he really added the glue to the story.
 
Finally saw this. Boy I really did enjoy it, and of all on this board, I HATE long films. So first off, I highly recommend it.

Now, let's pick it apart. The nice thing about seeing a movie late is coming to this board and reading all your reviews/comments.

I didn't get one part (well, not just one, but here it is): if you need millions of pounds of fuel to leave Earth's gravitational field then how can you leave a planet which has 130% of Earth's gravity with a Star Wars spaceship?
Click to expand...

This comment was like a punch in the stomach. Yes, why do we give a pass to Hollywood's take on imaginary space travel? I just did the Kennedy Space Center tour....have you ever seen the size of those Saturn stage rockets? I think the film makers just wanted to invoke the powerful feeling of leaving the Earth's atmosphere as we know it. But once we're in deep space, all rules are out the window. Escape velocity? Use a Star Wars spaceship.

I was kinda shocked at the decision to shoot with wide-open apertures and razor thin DoF on 15-perf 65mm... what's the point of having all that incredible resolution and detail at your fingertips and then wasting 90% of it on creamy bokeh? Rather defeats the purpose I think.
Click to expand...

It was kinda dumb at times. I did see a lot of out of focus shots as well. Also I didn't care for those phony lens flares.

the sound mix was unbalanced in spots
Click to expand...
I've spent too many years in loud edit rooms....my hearing isn't what it used to be. I was constantly up and down with the remote control volume. Michael Caine yammering on his deathbed? Yeah, I'm not understanding a word he says. Minus 5 gold stars for sound design in this film.

I'll have to say, those damn robots creeped me out lol, especially when they took off running.
Click to expand...
The robots were cool.

You completely missed this common theme:

Michael Caine: The Prestige, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Inception, Interstellar
Click to expand...
hiliarious

I would have liked to have seen more backstory on Coop as a pilot/astronaut. One 15 second sequence does not paint enough of a picture for me why he is such a valuable asset to NASA. (Not going to get into how much they fast-tracked the need to get him in the chair.) "Hey, you just stumbled onto our facility, have we got a job for you....you start tomorrow!"

Kind of an unsung character was the astronaut Romilly. He had a lot of interesting facial expressions & reactions. Soundtrack was wonderful.

This film raises a ton of moral/ethical questions. Would you go? Currently watching a second time and YES you will pick up much more on a repeat viewing.
 
I didn't think much of McConaughey's acting skills until I watched True Detective. His role in Interstellar also
did not disappoint.
 
Last edited:
Regarding velocity taking off and landing on the distant planets, didn't the planets have less gravity than Earth? So landing on a planet, they're in space, so no gravity means less fuel used, and maybe the planet has some level of gravitational pull once you enter their atmosphere. But then taking off requires more fuel but still not as much as Earth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top