Behind the scenes of Interstellar's Machines, TARS and CASE. And done with little CGI - General

I really enjoyed the movie, probably one of my favorites. The only thing I kinda disliked was the whole bookcase-scene, that was kinda retarded.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47411694]it's just a movie mate. [/QUOTE] this is the worst argument ever. "it's just a game" is equally as bad. this is not an excuse to break the 4th wall in a movie where i'm supposed to be immersed into. this is why i prefer 2001 over this. ambiguity is important, not everything has to explained to the viewer. in fact this is what makes a movie more convincing; its setting so complex yet intuitive to the viewer that only the actual plot has to happen. interstellar could've boiled down many of its dumb moments and the plot would flow just fine. remember i'm not saying the movie was a complete flop. it obviously wasn't. i'm not dismissing its hard points. i'm just exalting the bad ones. i still liked the movie but i wish i could have fully enjoyed it. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47411694] 'love being a force' [/QUOTE] i preferred not to even mention this lol. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] to end my argument the example i chose to criticize the movie isn't trivial. at all. it's something that has been happening way too regularly in movies today and maybe you should pay more attention to stuff like this. or not. [QUOTE=Zuimzado;47411152]All my problems with Interstellar's writing can be found in [URL="http://www.the-editing-room.com/interstellar.html"]this abridged script.[/URL] Like the following exchanges: And the entire 'you are my ghost' exchange, which probably gets the award for 'biggest logic jump in 2014'. [B]It does amaze me how quick people will tell me I didn't understand the movie or it was too smart for me. No, I understood the science just fine- can't see how anyone wouldn't when they were explaining shit all the time- my problem was with the story itself.[/B] Nolan is a great director for setpieces and big grandiose plots, but whenever he gets down to the emotional part of things, everything's either really thin or just a second away from falling into pieces, so for him to actually start using love as a plot point is just crossing that line. Or is anyone going to tell me the best parts of Dark Knight and Inception were the complex and well-developed characters of Rachel Dawes and Dom's wife? Would it surprise anyone, what with the love-focused ending, that this movie was originally in Spielberg's hands?[/QUOTE] i couldn't agree more.

Interstellar was really good right up until Christopher Nolan threw the actual science he'd been using to build the universe under the bus and then [sp]decided to browbeat us with the message of "love conquers all".[/sp] There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but it just seemed out of place and clowny compared to the relatively sombre nature of the rest of it. I really, really liked Interstellar, mind.

automerge

i loved the movie but most of all you can't beat the soundtrack geez listen to this [video=youtube;j_zirxsW7oQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_zirxsW7oQ[/video]

[QUOTE=SFC003;47411995]i loved the movie but most of all you can't beat the soundtrack geez listen to this [video=youtube;j_zirxsW7oQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_zirxsW7oQ[/video][/QUOTE] Hans Zimmer is amazing but I don't think this soundtrack beats that of Inception

[QUOTE=MenteR;47411828]this is the worst argument ever. "it's just a game" is equally as bad. this is not an excuse to break the 4th wall in a movie where i'm supposed to be immersed into. this is why i prefer 2001 over this. ambiguity is important, not everything has to explained to the viewer. in fact this is what makes a movie more convincing; its setting so complex yet intuitive to the viewer that only the actual plot has to happen. interstellar could've boiled down many of its dumb moments and the plot would flow just fine.[/QUOTE] I get that but just because you're aware that scientists don't have to explain stuff to eachother constantly, doesn't mean everybody else is going to notice that. It's an obvious trade-off to keep the general viewer on the same page. My point in saying 'it's just a movie" is because you can't explain something like a wormhole with nothing but a shot, you need the characters to verbally communicate what it is, or use a narrator. It's just a movie, it can't portray ideas like a book. I guess he could have had the main character explain it to his daughter, that would have probably been the best way to establish that information.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47412095]I get that but just because you're aware that scientists don't have to explain stuff to eachother constantly, doesn't mean everybody else is going to notice that. It's an obvious trade-off to keep the general viewer on the same page. My point in saying 'it's just a movie" is because you can't explain something like a wormhole with nothing but a shot, you need the characters to verbally communicate what it is, or use a narrator. It's just a movie, it can't portray ideas like a book. I guess he could have had the main character explain it to his daughter, that would have probably been the best way to establish that information.[/QUOTE] you are wrong. i mentioned blade runner before because it's an example of a movie that doesn't make use of such cheap way of expressing the plot to viewers. you [I]CAN[/I] and should explain a wormhole with nothing but a shot. in fact that would've been a lot better tbh. verbally communicating with the viewer is called breaking the fourth wall. characters in reality aren't speaking to themselves, but to YOU. who's watching the movie. great way to kill off immersion.

[QUOTE=Zuimzado;47411804]One of my friends literally said that to me. In real life. And not as a joke.[/QUOTE] I'm not joking. He doesn't literally think he's a ghost. He used the word ghost because it's what his child daughter called the phenomenon. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MenteR;47412118]you are wrong. this is called "indicating" and it's a terrible habit in movies. i mentioned blade runner before because it's an example of a movie that doesn't make use of such cheap way of expressing the plot to viewers. you [I]CAN[/I] and should explain a wormhole with nothing but a shot. in fact that would've been a lot better tbh. verbally communicating with the viewer is called breaking the fourth wall. characters in reality aren't speaking to themselves, but to YOU. who's watching the movie. great way to kill off immersion.[/QUOTE] I'm not wrong though. Imagine explaining a wormhole with no words lmao Also the explanations were done through conversation. Not what you're referring to which would be like the main character saying "I, as the captain of this vessel shall take us on this voyage to save humanity, if my name isn't Cooper McConaughey"

imagine not being 8 and knowing what a wormhole is. also i got the wrong term when i said "indicating" is a terrible habit, this has to do with english not being my native language. it's not. it's necessary, but it usually has to be done in external, alternative ways of showing what their characters are experiencing instead of vocally announcing: THIS IS SCENE. SCENE IS X. X IS Y. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW VIEWER watch 2001 please. look at how the indicating is done subtly or through conversations happening way before the scene they're relevant to. if you still think i'm wrong i'll just stop arguing with you. also if you want another perspective on the same issue, refer to zuimzado's post in this same thread. up to the 3/5 of interstellar (before that "love is the strongest force" shit came up) they had a strong plot that felt super diluted because they kept resorting to explaining everything verbally and even worse in a stupidly toned down vocabulary. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] i'm not biased because i watch a lot of movies. you however seem to be thinking this is the greatest masterpiece ever. maybe you should just watch more movies until you're able to spot right off the bat weak points of pieces like this. or maybe you shouldn't, it's up to you. just don't convince yourself this is a flawless movie because it truly isn't, in fact i'd say the plot is heavily affected by the issues i stated.

[QUOTE=MenteR;47412151]imagine not being 8 and knowing what a wormhole is. also i got the wrong term when i said "indicating" is a terrible habit, this has to do with english not being my native language. it's not. it's necessary, but it usually has to be done in external, alternative ways of showing what their characters are experiencing instead of vocally announcing: THIS IS SCENE. SCENE IS X. X IS Y. DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW VIEWER watch 2001 please. look at how the indicating is done subtly or through conversations happening way before the scene they're relevant to. if you still think i'm wrong i'll just stop arguing with you. also if you want another perspective on the same issue, refer to zuimzado's post in this same thread.[/QUOTE] But that's not even how the explanation is done in the movie. I get everything else you're referring to though, I know the explanation could have been established a little sooner than just before they enter through the black hole. and I've seen 2001 lol. I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think I am either. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=MenteR;47412151] i'm not biased because i watch a lot of movies. you however seem to be thinking this is the greatest masterpiece ever. maybe you should just watch more movies until you're able to spot right off the bat weak points of pieces like this. or maybe you shouldn't, it's up to you. just don't convince yourself this is a flawless movie because it truly isn't, in fact i'd say the plot is heavily affected by the issues i stated.[/QUOTE] Man don't do that I love movies and I'm not saying this is some flawless masterpiece. I'm just saying the act of explaining what a wormhole is through conversation isn't that big of a deal. straight up hurt my feelings

it is a big deal because 1. they're scientist/astronauts and they already know that information 2. the viewer most likely knows this information, and even if they didn't the wormhole travel scene is enough for them to understand what's going on. 3. the way that scientist explains it is even worse. he straight up takes a piece of paper, draws an A and a B and twists the paper in a roll, making A and B touch. that's the cheapest, dumbest method of explaining it and there's absolutely no reason for that scene to take place because both scientists knew that beforehand. even the protagonist's daughter probably knew that. why do they have to treat viewers like dumbasses baffles me, but even more so: [QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47412120] I'm not wrong though. Imagine explaining a wormhole with no words lmao [/QUOTE] except they do? scene 1 they see the wormhole, there's a huge build up to what's going to happen when they touch it. scene 2 they're approaching the wormhole. scene 3 they're now inside the wormhole. travelling. you can tell they're travelling because of how fast the stars are scrolling through a supposed tunnel. scene 4 they're now somewhere else. however looking back now i agree with you that the protagonist should've explained it to his daughter, prior to the actual wormhole event happening. that is clever narrative that takes advantage of presenting "crucial" info to the viewer beforehand.

Guys, my opinion is the most right My sources are [URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=134505"]me[/URL], [URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=134505"]myself[/URL], and [URL="http://facepunch.com/member.php?u=134505"]I[/URL] (Karmah [I]et al., [/I]2015). Not biased because I said so, and truthful because I used the correct citation. The movie was good, the story was good, the visuals were good, and the soundtrack was good. Just like writing an essay, movies have to assume the viewer knows dick all, thus will explain points many of us may already know, at the sacrifice of realism. Luckily, non-documentaries aren't constrained by realism.

great contribution to the discussion. :^)

The same character who has to be told what a wormhole is turns around and for 23 years works on the gravity equation that NASA can't solve.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47412120]I'm not joking. He doesn't literally think he's a ghost. He used the word ghost because it's what his child daughter called the phenomenon.[/QUOTE] oh wow oh wow It's not the ghost word that's my problem, it's the fact that a. she fucking hangs on that room for an obscene amount of time for no reason when there's someone outside literally telling her to leave, b. the watch could have been with a problem because it had been there for years- and that is something she'd have to assume being, you know, a scientists and c. that this is the first option she considers, that somehow her dad is behind it all from the beginning, when there were more logical options presented to her on a place she shouldn't even be? Also, yeah, I expect the movie to follow a logic when it has a science consultant and follows science to a T up until then and keeps yelling that fact on every single one of the press interviews. The entire movie, out of nowhere, suddenly ignored all the scientific knowledge it was explaining bit by bit to the audience( I have no problem with explaining things to the audience, just make it natural, not 'okay guys we're in the mission now tell me what the mission is' is why heist movies have that preparatory montage) to suddenly go for a Spielbergian audience which boils to 'all you need is love'. I hate to break it to you but 'love' does not fit in the same category as 'wormholes' and 'gravity', no matter how important it is to us. It'd be like if Stephen Hawking was giving a TED talk or something and giving evidence as to why black holes can be a fuel source right before delivering the final evidence that wraps it all together he turns to the audience and goes 'but all you have to do is believe in yourself, really, the power of belief will make black holes a fuel source, bye everyone'. I'm not asking for the movie to be an emotionless husk. I'm asking for it to choose a line of thought and pick it. And the son. What about the fucking son? Let's talk about the son. The only guy who does everything right gets treated like shit by Cooper [I]and[/I] the movie itself. Whilst Murph is out there doing shit all and supposedly trying to save the human race, the son is the only one actively trying to raise crops and a family. And what does he get? His crops get burned down, and in the ending, he doesn't even get a visit from Cooper. It's like 'hi Murph, welp, only kid I have'. Heck, the fact I don't know his name shows just how much the actual movie cares for him.

[QUOTE=Zuimzado;47412789]oh wow oh wow It's not the ghost word that's my problem, it's the fact that a. she fucking hangs on that room for an obscene amount of time for no reason when there's someone outside literally telling her to leave, b. the watch could have been with a problem because it had been there for years- and that is something she'd have to assume being, you know, a scientists and c. that this is the first option she considers, that somehow her dad is behind it all from the beginning, when there were more logical options presented to her on a place she shouldn't even be? Also, yeah, I expect the movie to follow a logic when it has a science consultant and follows science to a T up until then and keeps yelling that fact on every single one of the press interviews. The entire movie, out of nowhere, suddenly ignored all the scientific knowledge it was explaining bit by bit to the audience( I have no problem with explaining things to the audience, just make it natural, not 'okay guys we're in the mission now tell me what the mission is' is why heist movies have that preparatory montage) to suddenly go for a Spielbergian audience which boils to 'all you need is love'. I hate to break it to you but 'love' does not fit in the same category as 'wormholes' and 'gravity', no matter how important it is to us. It'd be like if Stephen Hawking was giving a TED talk or something and giving evidence as to why black holes can be a fuel source right before delivering the final evidence that wraps it all together he turns to the audience and goes 'but all you have to do is believe in yourself, really, the power of belief will make black holes a fuel source, bye everyone'. I'm not asking for the movie to be an emotionless husk. I'm asking for it to choose a line of thought and pick it. And the son. What about the fucking son? Let's talk about the son. The only guy who does everything right gets treated like shit by Cooper [I]and[/I] the movie itself. Whilst Murph is out there doing shit all and supposedly trying to save the human race, the son is the only one actively trying to raise crops and a family. And what does he get? His crops get burned down, and in the ending, he doesn't even get a visit from Cooper. It's like 'hi Murph, welp, only kid I have'. Heck, the fact I don't know his name shows just how much the actual movie cares for him.[/QUOTE] You have a point there. I only watched the movie once but I guess it's pretty odd that she would come to that conclusion, and also the timing is hilariously convenient. They should have just left it with Cooper coming to that realization and having Murph still get the data through morse on the watch . Also I don't understand how gravity alone can make a watch tick a morse pattern on a loop either.

[QUOTE=Zuimzado;47412789]oh wow oh wow It's not the ghost word that's my problem, it's the fact that a. she fucking hangs on that room for an obscene amount of time for no reason when there's someone outside literally telling her to leave, b. the watch could have been with a problem because it had been there for years- and that is something she'd have to assume being, you know, a scientists and c. that this is the first option she considers, that somehow her dad is behind it all from the beginning, when there were more logical options presented to her on a place she shouldn't even be? Also, yeah, I expect the movie to follow a logic when it has a science consultant and follows science to a T up until then and keeps yelling that fact on every single one of the press interviews. The entire movie, out of nowhere, suddenly ignored all the scientific knowledge it was explaining bit by bit to the audience( I have no problem with explaining things to the audience, just make it natural, not 'okay guys we're in the mission now tell me what the mission is' is why heist movies have that preparatory montage) to suddenly go for a Spielbergian audience which boils to 'all you need is love'. I hate to break it to you but 'love' does not fit in the same category as 'wormholes' and 'gravity', no matter how important it is to us. It'd be like if Stephen Hawking was giving a TED talk or something and giving evidence as to why black holes can be a fuel source right before delivering the final evidence that wraps it all together he turns to the audience and goes 'but all you have to do is believe in yourself, really, the power of belief will make black holes a fuel source, bye everyone'. I'm not asking for the movie to be an emotionless husk. I'm asking for it to choose a line of thought and pick it. And the son. What about the fucking son? Let's talk about the son. The only guy who does everything right gets treated like shit by Cooper [I]and[/I] the movie itself. Whilst Murph is out there doing shit all and supposedly trying to save the human race, the son is the only one actively trying to raise crops and a family. And what does he get? His crops get burned down, and in the ending, he doesn't even get a visit from Cooper. It's like 'hi Murph, welp, only kid I have'. Heck, the fact I don't know his name shows just how much the actual movie cares for him.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube;l7tV7v71k-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71k-I[/video] Neil De Grasse Tyson isn't as upset by the physics in the movie as you are.

[QUOTE=Zuimzado;47412789]And the son. What about the fucking son? Let's talk about the son. The only guy who does everything right gets treated like shit by Cooper [I]and[/I] the movie itself. Whilst Murph is out there doing shit all and supposedly trying to save the human race, the son is the only one actively trying to raise crops and a family. And what does he get? His crops get burned down, and in the ending, he doesn't even get a visit from Cooper. It's like 'hi Murph, welp, only kid I have'. Heck, the fact I don't know his name shows just how much the actual movie cares for him.[/QUOTE] I had figured the son died long before Cooper got shat out of the black hole. I mean the movie even implies his daughter was going to die soon and was taken out of cryo just because Cooper appeared, and the daughter was already a few years younger than the son. What confused me was how when the daughter figured out the gravity equation, they went to live on space stations and everything was fine. I mean I'm guessing they suddenly were able to solve all these previously unsolvable problems and so they eradicated the blight and dust storms and stuff, but it just feels like those are the pieces that don't really line up to me.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;47413813][video=youtube;l7tV7v71k-I]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7tV7v71k-I[/video] Neil De Grasse Tyson isn't as upset by the physics in the movie as you are.[/QUOTE] I don't think you understand. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, do not give a shit about the physics of Interstellar. Is it nice they did their research? Sure. It's fantastic. I love it when people show their work. But what I'm complaining about is not physics, it's storytelling. You don't need a rocket scientist to sit down, look at the script and figure out that maybe, just maybe, going from 'science science science' to 'nah bruh love is the answer' is a bit of a jump for your movie. Especially when the entire movie was pointing towards a different theme altogether. In fact, the only person who brought up love up until then was Anne Hathaway's character, and even in that context it's framed a bit as if she's saying the wrong thing, like 'I know we have the data but let's follow [I]looove[/I]'.

[QUOTE=Zuimzado;47414306]I don't think you understand. I truly, from the bottom of my heart, do not give a shit about the physics of Interstellar. Is it nice they did their research? Sure. It's fantastic. I love it when people show their work. But what I'm complaining about is not physics, it's storytelling. You don't need a rocket scientist to sit down, look at the script and figure out that maybe, just maybe, going from 'science science science' to 'nah bruh love is the answer' is a bit of a jump for your movie. Especially when the entire movie was pointing towards a different theme altogether. In fact, the only person who brought up love up until then was Anne Hathaway's character, and even in that context it's framed a bit as if she's saying the wrong thing, like 'I know we have the data but let's follow [I]looove[/I]'.[/QUOTE] But really it's just the characters being all "looove", there's nothing actually happening that has to do with that.

Interstellar was honestly my movie of the year last year. Granted I still need to see Grand Budapest Hotel and Birdman.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;47412120]I'm not wrong though. Imagine explaining a wormhole with no words lmao[/QUOTE] Multiple movies have done that. Take a piece of paper, draw a start location and an end location at opposite ends. Draw a line between them. Now, fold the paper so that the two points are touching. Tada, wormhole!

[QUOTE=Trumple;47412017]Hans Zimmer is amazing but I don't think this soundtrack beats that of Inception[/QUOTE] I do.

The only problem I had with Interstellar was the fact that there was no possible benefit, not a single thing, to going and visiting the time dilated planet when they did. Seriously. Potential colonization? Everyone on Earth is fucking dead by the time they break ground. The time dilation would just make it a shitty planet in general. Retrieving the scientist? Come back in twenty years, it'll be barely an afternoon for her. There was just no reason to do so. Unfortunately [i]literally every other conflict in the movie[/i] stems from this completely pointless fuckup that none of the presumably competent characters had any reason to do, so I guess they gotta go down there anyways.

[QUOTE=darunner;47416081]Multiple movies have done that. Take a piece of paper, draw a start location and an end location at opposite ends. Draw a line between them. Now, fold the paper so that the two points are touching. Tada, wormhole![/QUOTE] I don't think you've watched interstellar. [editline]29th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=lightningstreak;47416629]The only problem I had with Interstellar was the fact that there was no possible benefit, not a single thing, to going and visiting the time dilated planet when they did. Seriously. Potential colonization? Everyone on Earth is fucking dead by the time they break ground. The time dilation would just make it a shitty planet in general. Retrieving the scientist? Come back in twenty years, it'll be barely an afternoon for her. There was just no reason to do so. Unfortunately [i]literally every other conflict in the movie[/i] stems from this completely pointless fuckup that none of the presumably competent characters had any reason to do, so I guess they gotta go down there anyways.[/QUOTE] It was their best chance at finding a sustainable planet, and also retrieving their lost comrade.

i still get alot of feels thinking about this movie.

I loved the CGI in Interstellar, but I hated the writing. I can't even remember any of the characters names except TARS and Cooper, they were so forgettable.

[QUOTE=IrishBandit;47419880]I loved the CGI in Interstellar, but I hated the writing. I can't even remember any of the characters names except TARS and Cooper, they were so forgettable.[/QUOTE] your right, maybe it was to keep the focus on the the powerful connection between cooper and murph. tars was just amazing

I had no clue there were going to be Cage and Tars going into this movie, so when they appeared, and throughout the movie when they showcased them doing more, I was pretty impressed at the originality of the design and the creative way they implemented them in the film. Also the movie was fucking amazing