Can't go wrong with Nolan/Zimmer combination.

I love Hans Zimmer. It's awesome how every score is different and features a different instrument. Like this one with the organ, Man of Steel with the drums and lap steel guitars, Inception with the horns, Gladiator with the voice. I also like his use of synths and effects. To me it's boring and outdated to only use an orchestra and piano for film scores.
 
Yeah, I saw it a second time this week and I liked it even more than the first time.

Btw, this is probably the best music track (during the best scene in the movie) which is in the movie but not on the official soundtrack. They eventually released it but it still wasn't the same as the movie version. Some guy added some layers and brought it really close to the original:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I find it interesting that Christopher's now done a heavily introspective film - Inception - and now a heavily extrospective film - Interstellar. It's a pretty humungous undertaking even with any potential plot holes along the way. He deserves a lot of praise.
 
Bit of a necrobump, but I just got back from seeing this finally and it was such utter garbage except the very end. Awful pacing, plot holes, expository dialogue, overly technical dialogue, completely insufficient explanations for major events, no character depth, too long, what the fuck was that entire Matt Damon sequence and why should we have cared or known who he was or that Anne Hathaway was in love with him, etc. The #1 rule of filmmaking is "show don't tell" and Nolan routinely violated that principle in basically every scene in this movie except the last 30 minutes.

But the wave scene was cool as shit, and it was technically amazing!
 
He's Dead said:
Bit of a necrobump, but I just got back from seeing this finally and it was such utter garbage except the very end. Awful pacing, plot holes, expository dialogue, overly technical dialogue, completely insufficient explanations for major events, no character depth, too long, what the fuck was that entire Matt Damon sequence and why should we have cared or known who he was or that Anne Hathaway was in love with him, etc. The #1 rule of filmmaking is "show don't tell" and Nolan routinely violated that principle in basically every scene in this movie except the last 30 minutes.

But the wave scene was cool as shit, and it was technically amazing!
Click to expand...

Anne Hathaway's character was not in love with Matt Damon's character, she was in love with Wolf Edmunds who is already deceased before their mission starts (though they do not know it).
 
He's Dead said:
The #1 rule of filmmaking is "show don't tell" and Nolan routinely violated that principle in basically every scene in this movie except the last 30 minutes.
Click to expand...

The last 30 minutes I assume you mean the scene inside the black hole? Where he tried to explain every little detail of what was happening? That was "show don't tell"? :tickled:

I'm curious to hear particular examples where he violated the "show don't tell" rule. Scenes that you think would be better served with no additional explanation (assuming that is what you mean). Especially during the second part of the movie.
 
Keregioz said:
The last 30 minutes I assume you mean the scene inside the black hole? Where he tried to explain every little detail of what was happening? That was "show don't tell"? :tickled:

I'm curious to hear particular examples where he violated the "show don't tell" rule. Scenes that you think would be better served with no additional explanation (assuming that is what you mean). Especially during the second part of the movie.
Click to expand...

I agree that they hammered home what was happening a lot, but it was during a set of scenes that tied the entire film together, so the exposition can be forgiven.

The "show don't tell" violations that really stood out as being particularly awful were the banal ones. For instance: "How do we get the viewer to understand that the world has changed?"

*"You're telling me the textbooks say the Apollo mission was faked?!" said the character who was supposedly a pilot for NASA? He seriously didn't know that that had become the dominant view?

*Probably like 3-4 different lines about how we need farmers, not engineers, because, y'know, dust. Because the giant dust storms didn't explain it enough

*Instead of having her act quirky or demonstrate an interest in astronomy or science, the parent-teacher conference and repeated dialogue lines explain how Murphy has a great scientific mind

*Why the fuck would Anne Hathaway be explaining a black hole/worm hole to Matthew McConaughey's character 5 minutes before they were about to go into one? He didn't know?

*Anne Hathaway's terrible, emotionally stilted, weird speech about love in response to the "which planet should we go to" question, completely out of nowhere, about a character we've never met and who is dead, per the post above :lol:

*Matt Damon's "KIDS ARE IMPORTANT" speech to drive home the point over and over and over again about family/love/human relationships instead of having character development and believable interactions on-screen

I could go on, but you get the idea. I really wanted to enjoy this movie, even though I don't like Nolan films, but he has a seemingly complete inability to write good dialogue and coherent, believable-even-in-the-movie-universe plots, and to convey any emotional depth whatsoever. What did we really learn about McConaughey's character, or Hathaway's? Basically nothing. They're just plot devices to move the film on to the next visually impressive sequence.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jauernis
I don't think he means "less explanation," the idea of "show don't tell" is that explanations should ideally originate from the audience piecing together the clues left by movie/book/song/spouses' Christmas gift hint. That way the audience isn't just witnessing events but actively engaging with the movie.

I haven't seen the movie yet (I normally let this things blow over a bit before watching because I hate the way hype colors experiences), but I've really liked other Nolan movies.

Directors should never step into sci-fi territory without a scientific entourage; the same way death metal lyricist don't write shit without a medical dictionary.
 
I loved this movie. Unless you're an aerospace engineer or physicist, don't try and go above and beyond proving how smart you are with plotholes in the science of it all. We get it, time dilation, the waves scene etc.
 
Somewhat off-topic, but i saw 'Predestination' the other day and it was pretty good. Very Nolan-esque if you ask me. So for those who like this kind of thing: go watch it!
 
roflsaurusrex said:
I loved this movie. Unless you're an aerospace engineer or physicist, don't try and go above and beyond proving how smart you are with plotholes in the science of it all. We get it, time dilation, the waves scene etc.
Click to expand...

To me, there is nothing "smartass" in saying that it's not because you detach from another spacecraft in space that you will fall, and the spacecraft not. It's as irrealistic as showing someone throw a ball, and see the ball turn left in the air. Or see a giant robot go to the next room in the next scene while obviously he/it is way too big to even pass the door. It's just details, but they are constant and easy to spot. It shows a lack of sense of details in a genre and style chosen on purpose by the director.

And potholes have nothing to do with being a smartass, for instance the movie starts with a drone that has been said to be flying for about 100 years or something of that style. We're not talking very picky things, we're talking huge irregularities, sometimes shocking.

The point is : they advertise the movie as super scientific, and still they could very easily make all of this accurate, it's very possible to do the same movie while not doing gross shortcut all over the movie. Some movies play on their aesthetic to raise the movie to a different artistically level, this is not the case here where they try very hard to explain physics only when it suits them, and then break it all in the next scene. They talk a lot about their super-realistic blackhole visuals, and this is actually great, but they always forget to mention that to get there the hero breaks the most basic laws of physics 1mn before : the newton laws ! You learn about those laws in your 15s at school, in general classes.

That is why a lot of people are disappointed in it, while no one reacts like this in 2001, Alien, Star Trek, Star Wars, when it comes to fiction vs reality, because the movies have taken a side and stick with it greatly. It removes a lot of soul to it, a lot of class and refinement. Something you find in Alien/Aliens, Kubrick, even old Star Wars.
 
Time for some necrobump... :p

I found this video and I thought I should share it. I don't necessarily agree with everything on it but it illustrates very good some of the reasons why Nolan is my favorite director. Especially after 2015 which just ended and which was full of mediocre movies with hardly any good ones standing out, it makes me appreciate what he does so much more.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
My ear's plugged, can't mix
Replies
15
Views
1K
Bar
TheWinterSnow
T
I
I can't figure out why my mixes go wrong
Replies
2
Views
384
Practice Room
reg3n
R
BlackRoseMetalHeart
Luna Mortis' Mary Zimmer on the Old "Chicks in Metal" Conundrum and the Maidens of Me
Replies
0
Views
792
Flight of the Valkyries - Female Metal Festival
BlackRoseMetalHeart
B
X
Am I the only one that thinks Michael Romoe should compose for a movie?
Replies
10
Views
1K
Symphony X (Unofficial)
Baroque
B
Sorrell
Best Super Hero Movie Ever!!
Replies
9
Views
869
A Prelude to Tragedy
stryder
S
Top Bottom
Back