I am interested in this, but when has a Nolan flick ever not been a director's cut out of the gate?
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Interstellar spoiler thread. All spoilers go in here.
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
There was only one planetary system around one black hole, there wasn't a second star.
Edit: I would have like him to rejoin an old dying Anne Hathaway after taking off, on a busling new human colony of 40 people, and he ends his days helping the colonists who become future humans who open the worm hole.
The story would have gone full circle, and he could lead a life as a scientist on a new colony.
The movie already had 4 possible ending points, another would not have been too bad.
Atraveller
Banned
Maybe they have one this time because of time constraint.
Nolan's film are always rumored to have a director's cut, but they never do. I'd love one, but not expecting it.
One week later and I still can't stop thinking about this film. After leaving the theater I didn't know what to think about it (my wife immediately loved it, which is crazy because I'm the Nolan fanboy), but the longer I thought about it, the more I grew to love it.
SolidusDave
Member
I was able to ignore it, but I still think the motivation to leave Earth was not presented well in the movie.
But I can't really blame them because they basically needed a premise that literally requires another habitable planet (well, or giant space ecosystems
). The premise is that they should not be able to just move to Mars (well it would work if they had terraforming tech 
) nor would it help to create sterile bunkers on Earth etc.For the plot, the blight was fitting much better than a supernova or collapsing magnetic field etc. No argument here. But from a realistic point of view, it's just really hard to stomach why they can't deal with this at least on a small scale. (let the last few thousand people survive underground etc. No need to actually solve the problem).
Oh and I think the lower oxygen problem stems from the plants dying. (and I guess ALL life was dying in a cascade event as plankton in the seas would produce half of our oxygen anyway
)Yeah, but their small shuttles did not seems to carry any fuel tanks etc. at all. Though yeah, I don't think they ever said what kind of engine they were using. Maybe using some super rare efficient radioactive fuel and better not waste anything of it just to get off Earth.
I'm really not trying to nitpick, just discussing some plot points. Hell, even discussing wrong use of physics can be fun, you can still appreciate what they did right.
Only the premise felt to me like it was just made up to drive the plot and falls apart if you dissect it.
Nevermind a director's cut, I just want to know if Nolan ever actually filmed a scene with Cooper visiting a grave or some sort of memorial for his son before he flew off for further adventures with TARS. It just cracks me up to think that his first born son was pretty much treated as a sock puppet character. It's just so hilarious given the larger theme of love and family the show embraced.
I have my doubts about a director's cut actually coming, since Nolan has never done that nor buckled under studio pressure. He doesn't even get notes from the studio. It would be interesting if it actually came to pass, but a heck of a lot of relevant material would have to have been left on the cutting room floor for the movie to be meaningfully improved, from my perspective.
His firstborn was sacrificed to the posthuman spacegods.
It's biblical and shit.
His firstborn was sacrificed to the posthuman spacegods.
It's biblical and shit.
AdventureRacing
Member
Oh and I think the lower oxygen problem stems from the plants dying. (and I guess ALL life was dying in a cascade event as plankton in the seas would produce half of our oxygen anyway
This was also explained in the movie and it wasn't from the plants dying.
SolidusDave
Member
Cooper was spiteful because his son gave up on him after x years while his daughter never did!
But yeah, as a parent you should not be THAT blunt in showing who's your favorite kid
as in, explained-explained or mentioned? I don't remember that because it would involve them maybe mentioning the cause that fucks everything up in the first place. I only remember Michael Caine saying the last people to starve will be the first to suffocate.
No plants, no oxygen makes more sense to me though whatever the reason is.
Death Metalist
Member
Exactly. I'm in the same boat as well, can't stop thinking about the movie even though there are things that I hate about the movie like the constant cutting to earth, didn't care for Casey Affleck nor Topher Grace and that Matt Damon reminded me of the third act of Sunshine even though I know why Nolan did that, good thing that business ended sooner rather than later. Even with that said I loved the movie from the first viewing and grew to love it even more the second/third time around I got to watching it. 4 - 5 days away depending on where you are till the soundtrack releases! I NEED DAT IMPERFECT DOCK.
Here is also NDT talking in an entertaining fashion about or explaining in other words the ending to Interstellar.
Hmm, perhaps it was embedded in the message that was sent to her via the watch? I can't actually think how she would have known, other than that.
Rktk
Member
I enjoyed the film, first time seeing 70mm celluloid IMAX and it was stunning, the sound was great and an all out science fiction film such as this was the perfect choice.
It was very good, moments of awe, great tension and I found myself more emotionally engaged with the film than I had expected, I knew I was getting spectacle but didn't know that the father daughter relationship was the heart of the film. I also didn't feel the length, which for a three hour film is saying something.
I did have an issue with Anne Hathaway, she is not a good actor, amongst the rest of the cast she was weak and let the film down. I also found it distracting that Brand, an astronaut, was wearing mascara and eyeshadow throughout her time in space.
There were other issues to do with characters making decisions that didn't make sense, Doyle hanging around to get killed, not the most satisfying ending but overall I thought it was really good. Saw Nightcrawler last week, I thought it was the more original, more gripping film.
It was very good, moments of awe, great tension and I found myself more emotionally engaged with the film than I had expected, I knew I was getting spectacle but didn't know that the father daughter relationship was the heart of the film. I also didn't feel the length, which for a three hour film is saying something.
I did have an issue with Anne Hathaway, she is not a good actor, amongst the rest of the cast she was weak and let the film down. I also found it distracting that Brand, an astronaut, was wearing mascara and eyeshadow throughout her time in space.
There were other issues to do with characters making decisions that didn't make sense, Doyle hanging around to get killed, not the most satisfying ending but overall I thought it was really good. Saw Nightcrawler last week, I thought it was the more original, more gripping film.
Someone probably put Murphy up to speed on Cooper's debrief on her way to the station. That part doesn't require much imagination I think. She took weeks to arrive, and people have been talking to Cooper and it's not like he would have hid anything from them.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
Oh, I forgot to mention: Communicating that much data via morse code? Was she sitting there for years?
It is interesting to think about but difficult to fully comprehend given that our perception of time is so linear. But I'm not entirely sure how we could evolve into higher dimensional beings (yes, I know it is sci-fi nonsense), so I'm going for some future advanced technology or... Cooper suggesting they were future humans was pure guess work and that the beings were actually native to that higher dimension and just took pity on us at a crucial moment in our development.
The Nolanite in me has justified all of the "flaws" as perfect film making by this point.
Already got the OST preordered on iTunes. Ready to go!
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
This was cut from the film, along with other things I remember noticing. I am glad there's a director's cut. Will see it when it's available.
I won't believe there's a Director's Cut until Nolan himself confirms it.
EDIT: The article referenced this book (Beyond Time and Space), is this where the Director's Cut is confirmed?
EDIT: The article referenced this book (Beyond Time and Space), is this where the Director's Cut is confirmed?
Zoe
Member
It was implied. With the blight killing everything, the nitrogen was rising and there was more oxygen getting consumed than produced.
It's not just his apathy toward his son that's ridiculous. He spends the entire movie trying to get back to his children, and we're continually beaten over the head by how important family is (to the point where the love between parent and child is a legitimate threat to the entire future of the human race), but when Cooper succeeds over all his trials and tribulations, after he travels across a galaxy and across decades of lost time, after he is reunited with his family, which has blossomed into something much larger than last he saw, he completely ignores them, spends about two minutes talking calmly to his daughter, and immediately heads back into space. It's as if once he gets back, he can't wait to get away.
I've tried to visualize what spacetime would look like from a higher dimension. The tesseract of Interstellar is designed as a concession to visual storytelling, and works to create an understandable context. But real time is not divided into a series of chunks or scenes or events. It is continuous. The closest analogue to frozen spacetime I can think of is a long-exposure photograph. Imagine a long-exposure photograph of the entire universe, from beginning to end: the lower four dimensions, from a higher one, might look like a confused mess of wormlike shapes weaving into and out of one another. Each person begins as a small worm branching off from a larger one, which has previously touched a different worm, and each smaller worm grows in size until it reaches a certain breadth, until it perishes and becomes conjoined with a larger mass (the Earth), itself following a similar pattern. It is a series of interconnected bodies. But since movement is the traversal of space across time, I have no idea how it could be defined from a higher dimension. You can't "move" from one place to another because you are at both places simultaneously. There is no causality, things have no beginning or end, and so you could never take a first step from point A to point B because first is not defined.
The tesseract, by comparison, is like a shelf full of DVDs, where you look along the spines and pick the one you want to watch. Everything within each room plays scenes starting from a particular moment, but they don't overlap, and they don't flow into each other continuously. I'm not nitpicking. I think its presentation in the movie was the way to go. But it doesn't make sense to me as an accurate representation of what time would look like from the outside. It is more like a device that lets you set a time and then experience it as if you were within a traditional 4D space.
Atraveller
Banned
Yeah, don't want to be excited over nothing.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains the ending in new video: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar-ending-2014-11
and if it makes sense scientifically. this is essential viewing for those who have questions about the ending, the 5th Dimension and black holes
and if it makes sense scientifically. this is essential viewing for those who have questions about the ending, the 5th Dimension and black holes
Death Metalist
Member
Yup, linked it above. Pretty entertaining as always when it comes to NDT. The talk about a rumored director's cut reminded me of when people were saying that we may get a director's cut of TDKR lol.
Iku-Turso
Member
You speak like if they spontaneously appeared as an out of time species, the problem is that for them to attain this state of out-of-timeness we had to survive in the first place. Dinosaurs will never be able to go back in time and save themselves.
I understand that there are some things about the universe that our brain cannot grasp (especially stuffs at the atomic level) : particles being at 2 different spots at the same time, energy popping in and out of existence, past present and future cohabiting... but them entering the 5th dimension is the result of a chain of events so elaborate that it couldn't simply happen without a basic premise : our survival.
Paradoxes are the laziest explanation anyone can give for a time travel movie but that's unfortunately what happens most of the time. Elaborate events in the macroscopic world (like a species evolving) rely on cause and effect.
Now that being said, it doesn't mean that's what happened in this movie. As another poster said maybe some humans somehow survived the apocalypse and then millions of years later their 5th dimensional descendants decided to create a complicated scenario to save more people. But that raises another question : why would a species so advanced do something like that ? Even if we had the ability to time travel today we wouldn't go back in time and stop WW2 per example.
I'm just sad that this movie had to rely on such a cliché (two if we count the leap of love) while it had so many other sciency things right.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I think for a movie it seems fine and it worked for 12 monkeys, Donnie Darko, Terminator and Dr Who episodes
Here is another explanation
So the water planet was affected by a magnitude of two to three times stronger gravity than on earth, how did they manage to pull out their shuttle effortlessly without much energy, while on earth they needed a huge ass oil reserved rocket which barely climbed to get into space? Speaking pf water planet I guess it also had winds, since the shuttle followed aerodynamics. Yet the water seemed very still.
Maninthemirror
Banned
The earth to Endurance, had the supplies for Embryos, Supplies to sustain and develop on a planet, 4 passengers, their supplies, additional fuel for Endurance, so on and so forth
Iku-Turso
Member
I guess it boils down to personal taste, I personally can't stand it. I love science fiction but I don't expect much from time travel movies anymore because I know that's what they are going for 80% of the time.
KingofGourds
Member
I almost never notice plotholes on a first watch, and immediately when they took off from the water planet >Earth gravity I was thinking "Why the fuck did they need the rocket back on Earth?"
EDIT/Maninthemirror: Okay, that makes sense. And now I am at peace with the film.
Maninthemirror
Banned
explained above
I liked it and in keeping with the movies themes, I choose to conclude that Coop went back to his daughter's room and their final moments together because in the moments before his death he chose to be with the person (people?) he loves. Maybe there was another way for him to save humanity but that is not what the movie was concerned with.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I think the thing that really bugs people (at a fundamental level) about closed-loop time travel movies is that is tosses aside the notion of free will, as well as some sort of notion of rational causality. I love that about such movies, though. I love 12 Monkeys as well, it's an even more sophisticated take on the idea. I always thought the "different timelines" approach was too much of an easy out.
To go off on a completely different direction, this is my favorite Nolan pic so far (disclaimer: I think he tends to be overrated). One of my biggest complaints about a lot of his other movies (particularly Inception and Prestige, which are really great) is that hey are very emotionally cold. There's no heart to those movies, at least not convincingly. Everyone is very emotionally repressed. In contrast, Interstellar gives us a ton of characters who wear their emotions on their sleeves, who are driven by them (right and wrong) and where it really matters to the story.
In that regard, it's a bit of a breakthrough for Nolan.
To go off on a completely different direction, this is my favorite Nolan pic so far (disclaimer: I think he tends to be overrated). One of my biggest complaints about a lot of his other movies (particularly Inception and Prestige, which are really great) is that hey are very emotionally cold. There's no heart to those movies, at least not convincingly. Everyone is very emotionally repressed. In contrast, Interstellar gives us a ton of characters who wear their emotions on their sleeves, who are driven by them (right and wrong) and where it really matters to the story.
In that regard, it's a bit of a breakthrough for Nolan.
Iku-Turso
Member
Still not convinced, it sounds like wishful thinking to me and I know about the time plane as I said in my post "past present and future cohabiting".
But hey, we know so little about time travel that even scientists are divided betweem many theories so let's just say that paradoxes are not my cup of tea, I'm more of a "split timeline" kind of guy
I loved the scene where Cooper watched 23 years of videos, and if there were more of that I would agree with you. Nolan trips himself up by writing more than he has to, and unless he learns to cut the extra and stop telegraphing what we are supposed to feel he will not be able to stop crippling the emotional backbones of his films.
Still, the gravity impacting the planet was so powerful it affected the relative time stream where 7 minutes on the surface was equivalent of 17 years on earth. That is like a 1,200,000x difference. To lift off from the water planet's surface would require massive amount of energy and fuel, because the mass of the shuttle would be in very high numbers, hell it should be crushed. Every person on that planet should have been crushed, but let's pretend they weren't and could walk on it. Let's pretend the shuttle sustained the pressure well.
That still leaves us a shuttle which needs to spend an enormous amount of energy just to hover in the air as it's mass on this planet is equivalent propably to ten fuel rockets. They even build a super massive space station that needed a gravity algorithm to lift off the earth.
Not to mention that when the wormhole appeared, they said that it affected the physics around the earth, leaving a lot of phenomena which allowed such massive super space stations be build and that was 40 years ago from the present of the film's timeline. The question still stands, because they could have easily have made an oversized shuttle to do the tasks a rocket does and still outperform it's requirements. Because it was very clearly capable to sustain overload.
Good point, skipped over that he'd been chilling back on the ranch for a while before they met.
Wasn't the formula itself relatively small, given that she was able to write across three/four blackboards (inferred, as she started rubbing Brands equation off of them).
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
I am confident there will be a fan cut that ignores the rest of the film completely after Cooper gets inside of the singularity.
Maninthemirror
Banned
I guess we will have to wait for the discovery channel version, 1 HOUR on Miller's planet is equal to 7 years on Earth.
1.3 Gravity wont crush a human, it only means its as if a 200 pound man is wearing a 45 pound backpack and so on and so forth. Again, a decision was made to make it excitable as a movie which is why the ship was used to escape the planet, it wasted fuel but it escaped.
GeekyDad
Gold Member
I thought she was great.
Or be excited over something. The cut we have now was disappointing. A director's cut could simply offer more to be disappointed by.
freeofgreed
Member
huh? Where are you getting these numbers from? 1 hour was equal to 7 years on earth.
Atraveller
Banned
The water planet is 1.3G, time dilation effect came from the black hole, and this planet is the closest to it.
To you , maybe
This video removed one of my two issues with the film.
I didn't like Cooper altering the timeline/messing with gravity but Tyson makes some good points. It's obviously still crazy but it doesn't bother me.
Nothing can fix the whole love monologue though. Luckily it's minor.
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
Couldnt the wormhole be placed close to Earth? Like near Mars?
I thought she was good too, especially during that exchange with Cooper right when they get off of Miller's planet.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Love monologue is actually pretty much explained. Think of us as 3D beings, to 2D beings, we will only appear as a flat line if the 2D world is absolutely flat. if we as 3D beings stepped into a 2D world we would see them as flat and only being able to move left right forward back but never up and down, that is the 3D plane we are used to. we as 3D beings see things that a 2D being could not. Similarly that which is 5D would see things totally different than us and like 2D cannot comprehend the 3D environment, we cannot comprehend the 5D environment. This means that emotions in 5D can be quantified physically. anger, love, happiness could have a physical representation in 5D universe. The fact that the last moment for Cooper was his thought of dying and love for his daughter, in the tesseract, built by 5D was able to extract that representation of love for his daughter to populate the past to affect the future
No? They're in relative free-fall compared to the black hole so they feel no gravity, and it's a time-dragging frame anyway.
You're making the same argument as the people who said the earth couldn't move because else the winds would have destroyed everything. Frame of references how do they work?
Zoe
Member
Think of it like the 2001 monoliths. They were placed at different places so that they could only be reached once certain scientific achievements have been met.
They wouldn't have been able to survive past the wormhole if they didn't have fast yet long range travel, stasis capabilities, etc.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
It's more than that scene, it the whole of Coop's character. He's got strong feelings about just about everything that drive him and they make him one of the most alive characters in any Nolan film. Most of his characters seem emotionally impacted (often for good reasons, but still). Memento (as I recall) is actually an exception to this, as Pearce's character seems to be a walking wound.
Maninthemirror
Banned
Another simpler explanation of why rocket was needed if ship could go from Millers planet upwards.
A rocket was used from Earth because it could and the ship was used in Miller's planet because there was no rocket, what was the alternative for getting off miller's planet or any planet for that matter when there are no facilities down there? you guessed it, you use the one thing which will waste fuel but is necessary
A rocket was used from Earth because it could and the ship was used in Miller's planet because there was no rocket, what was the alternative for getting off miller's planet or any planet for that matter when there are no facilities down there? you guessed it, you use the one thing which will waste fuel but is necessary
- Status