LelekPL wrote:

nightfury93 wrote:Let me ask you. In twenty years what movie will be seen as more significant? Interstellar or Guardians?

Well, it's really hard to say. There's no real formula as to what becomes more significant. Many people felt that Cloud Atlas would become a cult classic and people I think forgot about that film entirely. Does Interstellar have potential? Sure, but so does GotG. There are many comedies that became a cultural phenomenon.

I think, in terms of how they change filmmaking... neither will be an influence in the future. Like Avatar was for 3D movies, Batman Begins for gritty superheroes and Marvel for cinematic universes. I mean, even Star Wars didn't create many space follow-ups after it.

Which one I think deserves more respect than what it gets? Interstellar of course, for its science, acting and amazing artistry in cinematography and music. Then again, I can't say it gets little praise - it's pretty much a success as it is, so it doesn't need a "final cut" like Blade Runner to make it one or time to fully comprehend like 2001.

Personally I don't see Guardians really standing out in a few decades especially considering the over-abundance of Marvel movies that have come out and another shit-ton of them still waiting to come out.

Tonight we will find out if Hans Zimmer wins a Golden Globe for Interstellar!

I wonder if Nolan is at the awards show with Zimmer?

neb4ever wrote:Tonight we will find out if Hans Zimmer wins a Golden Globe for Interstellar!

I wonder if Nolan is at the awards show with Zimmer?

I hope so, but I also doubt it. There's practically no talk of Interstellar during this award season and the movies that usually win anything are considered for many categories, not just one like Interstellar.

I would love it if the Academy gave Interstellar some love, though. The critics were less than welcome with their awards but I have been hearing the people in the industry were actually more impressed with the film. I actually wouldn't be shocked if Interstellar is nominated for Best Picture if there are 10 nominees this year. It doesn't have a chance of winning but there is an outside chance of a nomination based on the reaction of the industry.

Just watched it for the 6th and final time, (3rd in 70mm IMAX at Melbourne Museum) and I feel at peace, I was a little confused about how I felt about the film the first time I saw it but it got better and better after every viewing. This time, I got chills and every moment, felt every beat and loved every second.

Thank you Christopher Nolan, you have inspired me.

I generally feel the same - here's how I felt the 3 times I saw it:

1st time - Saw it in an IMAX Dome theater and might have missed some of the visuals on the left or right of the screen since I had to keep turning my head, but I thought the first 40 minutes were pure masterpiece material with everything right before, during, and after that launch sequence being a full movie event experience from the emotion to the sound to the music to the composition of the sequence. Then, I was a little confused over the rest of the film, in terms of how I felt about it, because sections from the 4 trailers kept showing up throughout without much "more" than that from the special effects category, so I felt there weren't enough visual effects shots to make me say, "wow, that was amazing!" But, I somehow realized that the Tesseract scene was something truly visionary - it was really the revealing moment in terms of what new ground Nolan broke with the film, in terms of "I haven't seen that before."

2nd time - I felt the whole movie was pure masterpiece material. I realized Nolan was going more for story than visual effects. But, with that said, I was completely overwhelmed over how Nolan used every single special effect in service of the story and not the other way around - and this was done even more so than 2001, A Space Odyssey. In fact, if you go back and look at 2001, it really lingers on all of the visual effects to the point where they take up large chunks of time which are not needed to drive or move a plot forward, but are rather intrinsic and there to impress, not to drive plot (i.e. lingering on visuals don't help service the story - they just allow a viewer to revel in the visuals for visuals-sake). Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate 2001 for art sake and many of the reasons I appreciate Interstellar.

3rd time - there is no other movie like this, and maybe never again - Thanks Nolan for this cinematic achievement.

Sometimes I feel like screaming at the top of a mountain my undying love for this film, but only a few people echo it back while the rest feel slightly about the film or not at all. It's a really frustrating and rather lonely feeling..

ChristNolan wrote:Sometimes I feel like screaming at the top of a mountain my undying love for this film, but only a few people echo it back while the rest feel slightly about the film or not at all. It's a really frustrating and rather lonely feeling..

It's hardly a hated film. The response from audiences have been solid, at least outside of the portion of the Internet obsessed with finding plot holes and award groups.

I was talking to a woman (an astrophysicist) who started laughing at the "silly science" in the film. Promptly told her to piss off. And someone else more eloquently explained to her why she was full of shit.

Great movie.

thegreypilgrim wrote:I was talking to a woman (an astrophysicist) who started laughing at the "silly science" in the film. Promptly told her to piss off. And someone else more eloquently explained to her why she was full of shit.

Great movie.

Good for you. I have had the good fortune of not coming across anyone in person who disliked the film. I don't know what I'd do if I did, it probably would be very bad...

Yeah, i also got the good fortune as well.