Interstellar

[UrsusArctos]

I was shaking in my seat during that scene. Couldn't help it.

I know exactly which scene you're talking about - and it was the one truly good scene in the entire movie. The actor (I forget his name) really made you feel for him at that moment.

[Mr. Tines]

absolutely the stupidest, most meaningless piece of idiocy we'd seen in a very long time.

The trailer I saw some while back, plus Hollywood? Yeah, that whole description sounds all too plausible to me, including the inevitable mawkish punchline.

[UrsusArctos]

Here's a bunch of reviews that detail what is wrong with the movie, and they dovetail with my own miserable experience down to the obnoxious Hans Zimmer score.

http://io9.com/stop-putting-new-age-pseudoscience-in-our-science-ficti-1656432047

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/critics-notebook-case-interstellar-747630

http://www.salon.com/2014/11/11/the_7_biggest_problems_with_interstellar_partner/


Here's a bit of a goofup where an astronomer gets his black hole math wrong and corrects it. It turns out that Nolan actually got the black hole at least semi-correct thanks to Dr. Kip Thorne, but there still remains a lot of questionable science and the story came off as awful -

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/space_20/2014/11/interstellar_science_review_the_movie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.html

http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/09/interstellar_followup_movie_science_mistake_was_mine.html

Personally, I don't care about a movie with classic science-fiction tropes like faster-than-light travel or "space is an ocean" if the story is actually good, and good this was not.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Seems a little strange to judge a sci-fi movie based on its science content, methinks. All these "Boo-hoo, Interstellar didn't follow the laws of science!" criticisms sound like they're coming from people who desperately want to find something, anything wrong about Interstellar, just so that they don't have to talk about the movie itself.

That last link you sent-- 7 problems with Interstellar-- that one actually wasn't awful, considering that it addressed points other than Interstellar's science. However, it suffers from the author turning his own opinions into facts. Nolan can't name characters right? So-and-so character is stupid? Opinions, buddy-- there may be another guy out there who didn't like Interstellar that did it for totally different reasons and disagrees the hell out of yours. (Also, the author's opinion on 5th dimensional physics in Interstellar implies that he does not understand how 5th dimensional physics works, which is amusing considering that he claims Interstellar did it wrong.)

It feels like all these reviews are going into Interstellar with a burning need to find something to complain about.

[Guy Nacks]

It feels like all these reviews are going into Interstellar with a burning need to find something to complain about.

Reading some of these, I'm starting to think it's because some people get boners and moist from hating on Nolan movies and being edgy going against the grain with complaints that seem far too nitpicky.

Also, that one person basically claiming that John Williams is an attention-seeking whore? Fuck them.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Well, it's far easier to dislike something popular. You can take the "Oh, everybody else is a sheep and I'm so much more cultured" approach. Same for liking something that most other people hate.

[Sorrow]

"Oh, everybody else is a sheep and I'm so much more cultured"

Yes, but it's not always pretension. Quite often something simply awful is liked by the masses.

Look at how The Da Vinci Code (book and film) took off back in 2006. It's atrocious. Often treated as though it were highbrow and wonderfully complex. That's because it's more complex than what most people are used to, but not actually complex. If it were, they'd just complain.

There shouldn't be stigma attached to considering yourself capable of enjoying something that requires thought and analysis to truly appreciate. True snobbery and boastfulness is utterly distasteful, but when we say "X isn't very good. It isn't challenging enough", there is no need for it to be considered an act or being full of oneself.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Look at how The Da Vinci Code (book and film) took off back in 2006. It's atrocious. Often treated as though it were highbrow and wonderfully complex. That's because it's more complex than what most people are used to, but not actually complex. If it were, they'd just complain.

There shouldn't be stigma attached to considering yourself capable of enjoying something that requires thought and analysis to truly appreciate. True snobbery and boastfulness is utterly distasteful, but when we say "X isn't very good. It isn't challenging enough", there is no need for it to be considered an act or being full of oneself.

"Oh, everybody else is a sheep and I'm so much more cultured."

[Sorrow]

Yes, completely ignoring everything I said and applying stigma to my opinion. It works both ways, though. Would you think it preferable to be considered inept or full of yourself?

I don't need to pretend something was good to avoid a label; if someone thinks my "attitude" is problematic, or I'm kidding myself because I don't like something I consider terrible, then it's their problem. The reverse would be along the lines of "I'm not sorry. I happen to think your interest is poor, and through no choice of my own appreciate other things".

[Guy Nacks]

Just in general, if you don't like Interstellar, fine. But dismissing it in such an extreme fashion as vapid, uninspired, inept shit seems like a childishly extreme opinion given the amount of positive reviews and buzz the film has going for it, which, by the way is as follows:


73% on Rotten Tomatoes

74% on Metacritic

8.9/10 on IMDB with about 369,000 votes


I still simply do not understand why I see articles listing Interstellar as a failure when it has statistics like these. It's actually detrimental to the industry in general because we need more films of this nature that are daring, epic in scope, and at the very least try to be original ideas helmed by a auteur, rather than commercialized franchises pumping out sequel after sequel after sequel every year. It may not be perfect, but we should still recognize it for being a valiant effort.

[Sorrow]

Well, the answer one may give would only offend a large majority. To be objective:

Around 81% who have seen the film and gave it a score would probably consider 19% stuck up, snobbish, pretentious, boring, and perhaps kidding themselves.

Around 19% who have seen the film and gave it a score would probably consider 81% to be dull, uninspired, incapable, typical, and probably stupid.

A portion of the 19% probably are kidding themselves, as they want to appear a certain way, but certainly not all. From there it's just a matter of which side you happen to be on. I'm not saying one category is better than the other, but wherever we fall, we subjectively consider it better taste - it's unavoidable.

Though, can we consider the average consumer giving a thumbs up to a film as important as someone's opinion who watches many, many films, as a hobby and a profession? Ticket sales aren't an indicator either, as they reflect the times and the economy more than achievement. Having an excess of funds and a desire to avert boredom is very frequent right now. Certainly more so than people who are devoted, or interested in artistic merit.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Well, the answer one may give would only offend a large majority. To be objective:

Around 81% who have seen the film and gave it a score would probably consider 19% stuck up, snobbish, pretentious, boring, and perhaps kidding themselves.

Around 19% who have seen the film and gave it a score would probably consider 81% to be dull, uninspired, incapable, typical, and probably stupid.

Could you source these objective numbers for me, please?

[Sorrow]

Going by what Guy Nacks provided, I used the 74%[s:2tpdfsv9]---[/s:2tpdfsv9]the higher number, so as to avoid being considered bias[s:2tpdfsv9]---[/s:2tpdfsv9]and the 8.9 (89%) scores, and concluded that 81% is an appropriate representative percentage for the positive scores.

Subjective? No.

Is my math off? You tell me.

[Nuclear Lunchbox]

Sorrow, pulling numbers out of your head without backing them up is generally a poor tactic in a discussion of any kind. In the meantime, I'd appreciate it if you stopped hijacking a thread that I made to talk about the film Interstellar (and not to analyze moviegoing audiences.)

[pwhodges]

There seems to be a lot of confusion around here between opinions and facts. Looking at the history of any art you will see countless works and artists that are considered great in one time and despised in another with little rhyme or reason.

[Blue Monday]

Like others have said, it's not perfect but Interstellar is easily forgiveable for its flaws because it's sincere filmmaking with genuine emotional heart. Would be nice to get more of its kind.

[Guy Nacks]

Like others have said, it's not perfect but Interstellar is easily forgiveable for its flaws because it's sincere filmmaking with genuine emotional heart. Would be nice to get more of its kind.

WE HAVE A WINNER

[Sorrow]

Nuclear Lunchbox: I got the numbers from Guy Nacks, not from my head. At first I thought the numbers all represented positive reviews, but it's actually 8.9 out of 369030, not 369030 positive reviews equating to the 8.9 score. I apologise for my mistake.

89% of 369030 (IMDb) = 328437
369030 - 328437 = 40593
40593 out of 369030 = 11% -- Therefore, the 8.9 equates to 89%. As I suspected.

Including the Metacritic scores that I used, before I checked to see whether the numbers Guy Nacks provided did not include negative reviews or before I saw how many people reviewed on each site[s]---[/s]a serious mistake, I admit[s]---[/s]still amounts to 89%. Rotten Tomatoes (the other number Guy Nacks provided) doesn't effect the percentage either.

Replacing my previous 81% and 19% with 89% and 11% (or just IMDb on it's own, wasting my time) my point still stands about how the opposing percentages probably view each other. Which was more my point than the actual numbers involved. I wouldn't care if 99% of reviews were positive, my opinion would be the same.

I didn't just make something up to appear to have authority, though my working out was incorrect. Also, remember it was Guy Nacks (my "opposition") who pulled out numbers to assist his point of view. I just used them to explain a question he posed, without offending those in the (now) 89%.

I didn't hijack anything, either. You stated your opinion of others opinions in regards to film - outside of Intersteller, and therefore off-topic before me. I stated why I think you're wrong and how I look at it. What do you gain by telling me this isn't the place to do so after making it clear you disagree, here?

Mr Hodges: I never stated the large percentage of positive reviews spoke for the film therefore being good. I disagree with that. But it's a fact that 89% who wrote a review on these sites, wrote positive reviews. When Guy Nacks asked how these numbers could possibly mean it was anything less than an absolute success, I responded that they only speak of the difference between those who enjoyed it and those who didn't. Therefore explaining how people in either group would most likely look at the other - objectively.

We can all take from this that the scores IMDb issues are in fact the percentages, and far more reviews are written there than the other rating sites.

[Gob Hobblin]

^

......huh?

[Sorrow]

What's confusing you?