Interstellar

Page 21 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

andylawcc

Lifer
Mar 9, 2000
18,183
3
81
it's the same scenario: ppl can't hear what Bane said in TDKR in some IMAX theater, while some could hear him clearly. Each theater's settings or equipment calibration etc etc...

I couldn't hear a word Bane said. and I watched it in the same theater where I thought Interstellar was too loud.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
IIRC, there were lots of complaints about the sound when it came out. I think the score made the sound systems in many / most theaters malfunction.
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
I finished watching all the bonus content today. I'm disappointed that there is no special about the docking scene.

I still can't get over how they require a massive SLS-like multi-stage NASA rocket to get the Ranger to Endurance from Earth but the Ranger can willy-nilly visit and leave a 1.3G planet (Miller's) without such a boost. Let's not even consider how close it is to the black hole (Gargantua) and how much fuel it would take to escape THAT!

They do it again on a 0.8G planet (Mann's) with a Ranger AND a lander, then somehow have enough fuel to go to a third planet (Edmund's) even though they have wasted more since the last time they said there wouldn't be enough. It isn't explained by them shedding weight because Mann already planned to go and was appealing to Brand to come with him. Also, they would have thought of that rather than deliberately risk getting marooned with their decisions.
 
Last edited:
Nov 29, 2006
15,813
4,339
136
Watched it last night also from Redbox. Got too weird for me on about last 1/3 of movie with the time/5th dimension stuff. Liked it up till that point, but probably not a movie id ever watch again.
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Watched it last night.

I mostly enjoyed the first third or so, but that's because I'm a sucker for post-apocalyptic world scenarios.
The second third I tolerated, visual effects were neat, otherwise the plot was dragging and was mostly meh anyway.
The last third was terrible. Good god, asspulls everywhere, a terrible script, Matt Damon, Matt Damons "acting", and physics shenanigans. Also I saw the "twist" coming from MILES away.

So yeah, not seeing why people loved this movie so much. Definitely pretty.
 
Last edited:

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
I finished watching all the bonus content today. I'm disappointed that there is no special about the docking scene.

I still can't get over how they require a massive SLS-like NASA rocket to get the Ranger to Endurance from Earth but the Ranger can will-nilly visit and leave a 1.3G planet (Miller's) without such a boost. Let's not even consider how close it is to the black hole (Gargantua) and how much fuel it would take to escape THAT!

They do it again on a 0.8G planet (Mann's) with a Ranger AND a lander, then somehow have enough fuel to go to a third planet (Edmund's) even though they have wasted more since the last time they said there wouldn't be enough. It isn't explained by them shedding weight because Mann already planned to go and was appealing to Brand to come with him. Also, they would have thought of that rather than deliberately risk getting marooned with their decisions.

It was addressed by Nolan that there were certain compromises in regards to scientific accuracy so that the movie could still flow well for story, plot, and drama.

With all this future science at play, it is plausible that the Ranger had a new ion thruster engine type or other advanced propulsion. Perhaps it only had the capacity to carry so much fuel for that, so it was launched by rocket to have maximum fuel capacity during the mission.

Or it was fully possibly of flying around all over the place, but the rocket launch was entirely for dramatic effect.
 

slag

Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
10,473
81
101
It was addressed by Nolan that there were certain compromises in regards to scientific accuracy so that the movie could still flow well for story, plot, and drama.

With all this future science at play, it is plausible that the Ranger had a new ion thruster engine type or other advanced propulsion. Perhaps it only had the capacity to carry so much fuel for that, so it was launched by rocket to have maximum fuel capacity during the mission.

Or it was fully possibly of flying around all over the place, but the rocket launch was entirely for dramatic effect.

This is one movie I can watch over and over and still enjoy it. Great music, albeit a bit loud at times, nice effects.. A+
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,336
11
0
I just couldn't buy the whole gravity can cross dimensions like time. The whole encoding of the watch using gravity. Um yeah, it doesn't require gravity to work, its mechanical. The butchering of time dilation as it relates to the theory of relativity was just horrendous. And the whole Dr. Brand already solved the equation but didn't tell anyone that he did twist. Why would he waste everyone's time and NASA's resources? There's more things I things I could criticize but those were the major things I could come up.
 

DannyBoy

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 2002
8,820
2
81
www.danj.me
Thought it was a pile of shit, Nolan must have been smoking something really potent when he wrote the script, either that or success as gone to his head and he's trying to 'push boundaries' and spit out any old garbage.
 

JTunn

Banned
Apr 8, 2015
6
0
0
I think the entire family drama part could be a little denser/better packed, it just seemed to drag on forever. By the end of the movie I wanted to stab myself each time Matthew uttered/screamed/whispered MURPH!

With that being said, everything else was amazing. I really missed that true movie experience and have almost lost any hope when it comes to the science fiction genre after watching Gravity.
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
I just couldn't buy the whole gravity can cross dimensions like time. The whole encoding of the watch using gravity. Um yeah, it doesn't require gravity to work, its mechanical. The butchering of time dilation as it relates to the theory of relativity was just horrendous. And the whole Dr. Brand already solved the equation but didn't tell anyone that he did twist. Why would he waste everyone's time and NASA's resources? There's more things I things I could criticize but those were the major things I could come up.

1) time dilation not butchered - this has been discussed just go look it up
2) brand didn't solve it, he realized he could not, still led the charge to save humanity
 

Anubis

No Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
78,712
427
126
tbqhwy.com
It was addressed by Nolan that there were certain compromises in regards to scientific accuracy so that the movie could still flow well for story, plot, and drama.

With all this future science at play, it is plausible that the Ranger had a new ion thruster engine type or other advanced propulsion. Perhaps it only had the capacity to carry so much fuel for that, so it was launched by rocket to have maximum fuel capacity during the mission.

Or it was fully possibly of flying around all over the place, but the rocket launch was entirely for dramatic effect.

that is how I interpreted it when I watched the movie. makes perfect sense, no need to waste the fuel getting off earth when you can just strap it to a giant rocket
 

CZroe

Lifer
Jun 24, 2001
24,195
857
126
1) time dilation not butchered - this has been discussed just go look it up
2) brand didn't solve it, he realized he could not, still led the charge to save humanity
Dr. Mann says it was solved before he left decades earlier but that it was useless.

that is how I interpreted it when I watched the movie. makes perfect sense, no need to waste the fuel getting off earth when you can just strap it to a giant rocket
"Perfect sense?" Really?

I thought of that too before I complained but decided that it still doesn't makes sense. Endurance and the other Rangers/Landers were already staged in orbit and they would have simply staged more fuel up there using their awesome shuttle jumpers that can repeatedly put themselves in orbit with on-board fuel. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

MetalMat

Diamond Member
Jun 14, 2004
9,687
36
91
Soooo, how in the world did that dude that stayed on the ship for 23 years not go nuts? I know he went into stasis but he said that he was awake for a good portion of that time. He would have been coocoo for coco puffs and running around the ship with his underwear on his head.
 

Denly

Golden Member
May 14, 2011
1,435
229
106
Watched it in the theater and watch it twice on DVD. Not going to pick on the little things but I don't really like the ending.

-Matt Damon, instead of blow in to pieces he survive and go into 5th dimension? Not only that he also have the data?

-Not only that, they able to convert the data in binary and send it off "manually"?

-They're around Saturn and the black hole but never send a team in to the back hole to check out the 3 planets?

-Why does he have to "steal" the jet, he can just take one.

-A small fighter jet? I think it will take like 2yrs to get there.
 

Mandres

Senior member
Jun 8, 2011
944
58
91
I feel the same way - the story really feel apart about halfway through. I enjoyed the first half though!
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
Wow, what an epic and amazing if flawed movie. I cried like a baby not going to lie. One of the most tragic movies I've ever seen.

If I could change anything about the movie plot wise I would just get rid of Matt Damon's character because this movie doesn't really need a human antagonist at all. The gravitational time slip is enough of an antagonist and is really the star of the show anyways so I'm not sure why they even felt the need to include the fist fight and all that.

I think Nolan is getting better as a director but my main complain about him is he still rushes things too much. He needs to let certain shots linger a little more. He should try using some more long takes.

But anyways, I thought the movie was awesome. Great soundtrack too.
 

Ichinisan

Lifer
Oct 9, 2002
28,298
1,235
136
Wow, what an epic and amazing if flawed movie.
Agreed. It's fantastic film making. I'm just a bit disappointed in the ending.

If I could change anything about the movie plot wise I would just get rid of Matt Damon's character because this movie doesn't really need a human antagonist at all.
Can't agree with you on this. That was an incredible twist and one of the most intense moments of cinema I've ever experienced. IMAX rocked me, especially the docking scene.

The gravitational time slip is enough of an antagonist and is really the star of the show anyways so I'm not sure why they even felt the need to include the fist fight and all that.
I did think it was fascinating how they worked relativity into the core of the plot, but Matt Damon's character really added something cool to the movie.

But anyways, I thought the movie was awesome. Great soundtrack too.
Watch the featurettes on the Blu-ray disc # 2! Hans Zimmer is a genius. The organ they used was mind-blowing.
 

futurefields

Diamond Member
Jun 2, 2012
6,470
32
91
Welp I disagree I think they should have cut all that Matt Damon stuff out and also I don't agree with Zimmer is a genius, he is talented but most importantly extremely wealthy which is why he's able to afford a team of sound designers and composers who do the majority of the bulk work for him and yeah the organ was cool, a big feature of Zimmer's productions is using intruments only obtainable by the super rich.
 

MongGrel

Lifer
Dec 3, 2013
38,466
3,067
121
Most people don't keep up on modern string theory etc these days I guess.

I've remembered in the past asking pretty high end Engineers to explain gravity off hand in an aerospace setting and they act like it is easy at first, then start bogging down and say "I Can't"

If you could we'd have anti grav things all ready, other than a few repellor things.
 
Last edited: