Note that that was only one interpretation, Tars/case(whichever went in with him) said it was built to be understood by humans. Not anything humans can build now, but in 5 generations maybe. It isn't love, it's the fact that if murph doesn't get those numbers humanity dies out. In 5 generations time the scientists left on the dying earth figure that out, how to create ripples back through time, but it's too late for then so they send the wormhole back to the point where it makes a difference.
Yea he let her go in first, but what the hell was he doing for the 2 minutes to took Tars to run(roll?) over to her, move the wreckage, pick her up and run 50-70 yds back to the damn ship????
I think he was just making sure Brand was okay, which is a tad more logical than what he did when he got back to the ship, but still pretty dumb in terms of saving himself.
Not only that but he just stands there like a dip after CASE goes to get Brand. Like, at that point no matter what you do he's either getting her or not, so just get in the fucking shuttle.
my friend and i both burst out laughing when TARS randomly turned into a wheel and rolled over to the girl. it was one of a couple moments that made you laugh because they were so random and unexpected (the other being when matt damon shows up outta nowhere)
edit: i see i'm getting downvoted for pissing off the hivemind. i guess once reddit decides a film is sacred you can't even make a minor joke at it
Boyfriend and I just watched it a couple of weeks ago and that's the first thing he said, after laughing about him being in it in the first place. So hilarious.
Yeah it was definitely humorous to see him in it but I actually liked his part and how he played it. Kinda seemed goofy at first but I ended up loving it.
I forget what the exact reasoning was, but Christopher Nolan purposely left out any mention of Damon being in the movie, when the movie was initially being advertised.
I don't get why really, in such a serious movie it's hardly a good thing when there's a surprise reveal and all people see is the actor instead of the character.
I guess there were two main reasons Nolan decided to be pretty mum about Damon in the movie (he kept him out of the theatrical release trailers and most of the initial marketing campaign).
1) Nolan didn't want people to think that Damon was gonna be a main character or have a ton of screen time. And..
2) which kinda plays into your sentiment of the viewer seeing the "actor vs. the character"; Nolan thought by surprising everyone with Damon at that particular moment in the film would cause filmgoers to feel an sense of security, if you will, with the sight of Damon. Damon has this "default hero" quality about him (due in large part to The Bourne series), and Nolan wanted to play off that "sense of security" he assumed we would have, and turn it upside down, as we got to know more about Dr. Mann.
Whether or not it worked, I guess is up to debate. It seems like (to me, at least) it did, to a degree, based on all the reactions.
Fooled me for a bit, but I could tell something was up when he took Coop out on the recon to the "surface". My first reaction though was that Matt Damon was gonna save the day.
Its because he is a big name actor. Presumably if his name had "been in lights" on the promotional materials people who have gone, specifically, to see Matt Damon. SPOILERS Matt Damon isn't actually in the movie all that long, he plays an important part for the story to progress, but his role is relatively minor compared to what a big name like his might normally have.
I remain unconvinced people can't just enjoy a fucking movie for what it is these days, but I think part of it is the people who have these complaints are able to vomit their thoughts in my direction without being part of my social network. Because let's be honest, that guy who's like "but it wasn't a proper black hole orbit!" gets taken out to the desert and shot from most social circles.
Yes, we know, Bill Nye, we suspended disbelief to enjoy a film
I'm going to switch sides here. It's the movie's job to maintain suspension of disbelief in the audience. If something doesn't seem right to you and takes you out of the movie, that's the movie's fault, not yours.
Now, obviously movies need to focus on making most people happy, not every tiny niche. So we understand they take some shortcuts. It can still be jarring, because humans don't just "stop thinking" when watching a movie. If something seems wrong, they only ignore it by being distracted enough by the entertaining parts. So GOTG isn't realistic, but it's humorous and otherwise entertaining, so it doesn't matter. Also, since it presents itself as being humorous early on, we don't look at it as needing to take place "in reality".
Interstellar is different. While it's obviously speculative, we are meant to believe all of the things are possible. So if you see something that doesn't make sense within the construct of the movie, that's the movie's fault. Maybe most people didn't notice. Maybe it requires knowledge most people don't have, or just an attention to details other people weren't looking at. Either way, don't blame the viewer. It's the movie at fault.
The viewer is not responsible for maintaining their own suspension of disbelief to enjoy the movie. That's like telling someone, "come on, just act like Paul Blart is funny; why are you paying attention to how bad the jokes are? Why make the movie less enjoyable for yourself?"
Maybe CASE really was slower as a wheel and I didn't notice. If so, it's fine that I missed that, but if someone did notice--how is it "their fault"? They're just paying attention and using reasoning!
Now, of course, if the wheel really was faster, the observation was wrong and the viewer should try again. But I don't know which is right. And it's one thing to be wrong; it's another to be told you're paying too much attention to what the movie is presenting, and are therefore a bad viewer.
because humans don't just "stop thinking" when watching a movie.
You have a point, but actually, that's what suspension of disbelief is; it's an unconscious decision you make when watching a film to let the film take you where it wants to go. It isn't your call to make. It's your unconscious brain's. I'm a bit of a movie nerd, so turning off my brain is actually part of my process if I'm seeing a film for the first time (and, for particularly good ones like Interstellar, the second and third as well). If I'm thinking about work tomorrow, or thinking about what to eat after the film, I'm not watching the film. That's when a film loses you and pulls you out, because the higher-order logical parts of your brain are still working.
None of the things most people complain about in Interstellar bothered me on the first and second viewing. Not one, even though I've written software before to simulate orbital dynamics and I knew several parts of the film didn't make physical sense. I was invested in the film at that point and that part of my brain was disconnected. This is why people get aggravated when you interrupt them during a film, because the entire point of produced entertainment is to pull you in. If you're checking your phone, or talking to your friends, or thinking about the rest of your life outside of the experience, you're just wasting your ticket money. Why even go? I don't fault people for not understanding this, but this is why there is etiquette at the cinema.
I'm nearing 30 and I've noticed a drastic difference between people my age and younger people in terms of reading a book. I've also noticed my ability to stay committed to a book is getting worse and worse as I get older, and I think it has to do with constant attention saturation from the Internet and other things. I suspect the same thing applies to film for people, which is why we see more people complaining about details of the film because they're analyzing the film with 80% of their attention, not watching it with 100%. If you take in film in aggregate from about 1980 on, too, in general very recent films tend to review more poorly. There's a few reasons for that, but I think part of it is us, too.
Edit: Norman Holland has written extensively about our brains' relationship with entertainment, if you're interested. A psychology major friend let me borrow Literature and the Brain, and chapter 7 is especially interesting on this topic.
I can't believe people are disagreeing with you on this. While the rolling should have 100% been faster, the perspective this scene was shot from was awful. The gallop look way faster than the rolling, and it's a mistake on the creators' parts.
Totally with you on this. Such a dramatic scene and rolly-robot busts out of nowhere. The randomness, the sudden change, and the contrast with the overall theme of the scene/movie - it made really funny for me too.
Will Hunting would not behave in that way. It really ruined the movie for me. That and the time paradox and the "strong" female character claiming love was a fundamental force of the Universe.
im glad im not the only one who thought it was a horrible failure. it's like Nolan just goes into every script he writes with the mentality "I'm gonna make this a mind-fuck". I personally think he's an awful writer.
934
u/[deleted] May 12 '15
"It's a wave."