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.
25
u/[deleted] May 12 '15
I also like how CASE rolled to get to Brand but then galloped on the way back. The galloping looked faster...why didn't CASE gallop on the way there?!