I was thinking "*yawn* This is lifted right out of 'The Abyss: Special Edition.'"
That's what I was thinking. Vast majority of the water is the wave. Which was freakin' awesome. Those aren't mountains! lol
One thing from my point of view though. The sound was not that great. I suppose it could have been my theater but I doubt it since I was in a really nice one. They seemed to screw up with the sound in several spots but obviously not the whole movie. Some spots were crazy loud and others were slightly incoherent.
There is an IMAX theater on the other side of town so I'll give it a shot. As I continued to read through this thread though there were people quoting Nolan and saying this is how he intended it. Headache high and incomprehensibly low. I'll get back to you after I see it in IMAX
Nolan attributed Interstellars sound to very tight teamwork among composer Hans Zimmer, re-recording mixers Gary Rizzo and Gregg Landaker and sound designer Richard King. We made carefully considered creative decisions, he said. There are particular moments in this film where I decided to use dialogue as a sound effect, so sometimes its mixed slightly underneath the other sound effects or in the other sound effects to emphasize how loud the surrounding noise is. Its not that nobody has ever done these things before, but it's a little unconventional for a Hollywood movie.
Saw this movie last weekend. Loud as fuck. But the movie was awesome. Felt it was like an ode to science (no aliens or ghosts doing the heavy lifting, but humans thanks to science).
Also, anyone has the link to the music? I'd buy it if I could.
4D? :whiste:I thought they didn't even make this in 3D, but I guess could be wrong.
Heh, misread that my bad.
:whiste:
sometimes i wish real life was like the movies. life would be so much funner.
It was a really entertaining scene regardless but if that gravitational pull was that great then the wave would break wouldn't it?
Anyways not his best work but I enjoyed the movie. I'd rate Contact higher if you like this genre. From a theatrical point of view I found Gravity to be way more of a fun ride than this one. You could probably wait to see this movie at home on a good system. It might be better even since if you're like me you'd love to back to back this movie to find/hear stuff you missed.
man this movie totally crushed Gravity. not even close.
very different films. Impossible to compare.
Interstellar crushed War and Peace! (which is what you're saying)
very different films. Impossible to compare.
Interstellar crushed War and Peace! (which is what you're saying)
very different films. Impossible to compare.
Interstellar crushed War and Peace! (which is what you're saying)
he compared the two in a 'theatrical' sense. no way. Interstellar crushed Gravity theatrically, intellectually, cinematically, storywise and in every sense possible IMO.
One was a study in tension and nothing more, really. It developed around one central motivation, and was targeted towards a single emotional response. The effects in Gravity were simply an excuse to heighten tension...and it worked. I agree that it is best achieved in a proper theater, with proper equipment, but how else do you portray the complete isolation of a cosmic vacuum? It's nothing more than trying to take something like...the Mona Lisa (mystery/perspective), and recreate another singular conceit (isolation/tension) in a different medium.
The other is a pseudo-complex mind fuck with grand aspirations....whether or not they achieve that is a different thing for another discussion--but yeah, Interstellar is vastly more complex in terms of plot, character, and design, and in no way was a film designed soley to exploit a singular emotional response.
Oh, you're talking technically--yes, that can be argued,certainly. to claim that it "crushed" Gravity, whatever that means, in terms of character, story, cinematography, whatever...that isn't even worth discussing.
even cinematography--both projects more or less created new techniques to film things that had not been filmed before. played with sound in ways that had not been explored before (Well, except Nolan--he fucks up sound on purpose, all the time! ). Anyway: apples and oranges, more or less.
i found gravity a big letdown. you are right it was a study in tension. the problem is all the tension to me led to a huge letdown. i think interstellar is nearly as visually epic and truly needs to be seen on the big screen to be seen properly, like gravity.
totally agree on that. :thumbsup:
You can't have a movie about time travel without paradoxes. It is the laziest criticism.ok, saw Interstellar.
WTF ending?!
future humans built the time capsule in the black hole?
it was cooper himself that was knocking the books over in his house?
recursive paradox much?
1) After the black hole time capsule dissolved, how did Cooper and the Ranger1 shuttle end up in normal space near Saturn?
they were ejected from the blackhole and sent thru the wormhole back to Saturn???
2) what happened to Edmund's on his planet? yeah, he's dead but what happened?
3) how did Amelia land on Edmund's planet? Shuttle1 was destroyed by Mann. Shuttle2 was used by Copper who flew it into the blackhole.
There was a 3rd shuttle?
4) After earth established their massive space station near Saturn, why didn't they send people thru the wormhole to search for Amelia? or one of the other 9 Lazarus astronauts?
why did it take cooper to steal a shuttle to do it?
3) They had a shuttle and a lander. The lander contained the living quarters and "Plan B" embryos.