Interstellar General Film Discussion Thread

Christopher Nolan's 2014 grand scale science-fiction story about time and space, and the things that transcend them.
Posts: 77
Joined: November 2014
I really appreciate the effort and ambition Nolan puts into his movies especially Interstellar, love the old school feel of interstellar, that is real cinema not cgi over the top crap like hobbit, transformers etc, I mean cgi is good for certain things, but when it gets used to much it looks like shit, interstellar felt real, loved it.
I hope the new star wars is not a cgi mess, star trek combined cgi and some practical stuff and came out ok, 2nd star trek was fairly messy just to much, we will see. I think a nolan star wars would kick ass. A dark and grounded star wars.

User avatar
Posts: 685
Joined: January 2012
So good news for any Nolan Fans in Los Angeles. The California Science Center will be getting an Interstellar print! They have a legit 70mm IMAX, so we can see it in all its glory :D

http://californiasciencecenter.org/imax/interstellar

They're playing it 12/26 thru 12/30, then select days in January

User avatar
Posts: 521
Joined: December 2012
Location: The Endurance
Wouldn't the ice clouds be pulled down by gravity? Not trying to nitpick the film. Just curious.

User avatar
Posts: 260
Joined: July 2014
Location: Tower 49
Bale Fan wrote:Wouldn't the ice clouds be pulled down by gravity? Not trying to nitpick the film. Just curious.
Kip Thorne proposed that the clouds are not literally frozen. The Ranger scraped the bottom of an overhang of frozen carbon dioxide, whose outer surface was vaporizing in the sunlight and producing opaque clouds that obscured the overhang itself.

User avatar
Forum Patron
Posts: 7183
Joined: January 2014
I've been pondering a thought lately but I need confirmation on something. The final shot of the film is not followed by the title card on black correct? It goes straight to "Directed by Christopher Nolan", right?

User avatar
Posts: 8136
Joined: May 2014
ChristNolan wrote:I've been pondering a thought lately but I need confirmation on something. The final shot of the film is not followed by the title card on black correct? It goes straight to "Directed by Christopher Nolan", right?
Yup. The title card is only at the beginning.

User avatar
Forum Patron
Posts: 7183
Joined: January 2014
Alright, thanks. Anyway, as we all know the majority of Nolan's films end with the title on black which becomes the literal representation of the ending of the film. One could even say it's a literary homage (the ending in text) because of Nolan's background. Interstellar is the first to break this pattern that has repeated since Batman Begins. This could merely be a simple decision made in the editing process or simply forgotten (highly doubtful) by Nolan himself. I believe it to be neither, but rather a way of Nolan keeping the adventure, the exploration that the ending signifies "alive". The final time we see Cooper he's eagerly looking onward into the vastness of space in his ship, ready for the new journey towards Brand. The last shot of his sequence is that of black space, stars, and the frame of his hangar bay that is rather reminiscent of Star Wars (as is the entire ending in many ways). The final shot of Brand is her trekking back to the new home base as she leaves the fresh grave of her dead lover, leaving the past behind and the future ahead.

Zimmer's score swells up slowly and beautifully in this ending sequence, and it ends on a very specific abrupt end (similar to Inception). We cut to black and....no title card. It goes straight to main credits. Nolan seems to be saying "here is where we're going (heh), but the adventure itself lies ahead for you to play out". Any other director and this would be considered sequel bait, but we know Interstellar is a one and done. Sure, this ending echoes Inception from a technical POV but not from a thematic one. Interstellar's ending is a beginning, the start of a grand journey. I refuse to believe Nolan simply left out the title card for any other reason than this. Especially since the opening title card is an exact mirror of The Prestige's which shows an obvious narrative choice.

User avatar
Posts: 8086
Joined: October 2012
Location: Gran Pulse
Never thought of any other reasoning, or why Nolan wanted to make that decision, other than Nolan wanted it to happen.

User avatar
Posts: 685
Joined: January 2012
There is a black title card, but it doesn't show up until about a minute and a half into the credits

In the DVD screener, it's at 2:45:37

User avatar
Posts: 1073
Joined: July 2011
ChristNolan wrote:Alright, thanks. Anyway, as we all know the majority of Nolan's films end with the title on black which becomes the literal representation of the ending of the film. One could even say it's a literary homage (the ending in text) because of Nolan's background. Interstellar is the first to break this pattern that has repeated since Batman Begins. This could merely be a simple decision made in the editing process or simply forgotten (highly doubtful) by Nolan himself. I believe it to be neither, but rather a way of Nolan keeping the adventure, the exploration that the ending signifies "alive". The final time we see Cooper he's eagerly looking onward into the vastness of space in his ship, ready for the new journey towards Brand. The last shot of his sequence is that of black space, stars, and the frame of his hangar bay that is rather reminiscent of Star Wars (as is the entire ending in many ways). The final shot of Brand is her trekking back to the new home base as she leaves the fresh grave of her dead lover, leaving the past behind and the future ahead.

Zimmer's score swells up slowly and beautifully in this ending sequence, and it ends on a very specific abrupt end (similar to Inception). We cut to black and....no title card. It goes straight to main credits. Nolan seems to be saying "here is where we're going (heh), but the adventure itself lies ahead for you to play out". Any other director and this would be considered sequel bait, but we know Interstellar is a one and done. Sure, this ending echoes Inception from a technical POV but not from a thematic one. Interstellar's ending is a beginning, the start of a grand journey. I refuse to believe Nolan simply left out the title card for any other reason than this. Especially since the opening title card is an exact mirror of The Prestige's which shows an obvious narrative choice.
I like this theory. I can't imagine it not being intentional, I just never thought about what that could mean thematically. On a more superficial note, Nolan did liken Interstellar as almost a mirror image of Inception. Which would mean... you guessed it, title card at the beginning! Ahem, ok not really. Maybe. More seriously though, and I've said this before, I wish the movie had ended on those shots of Cooper's face and looking out into space. That's not to say remove any of the Brand stuff (or the narration by Murph), just swap them. That would mean removing the guy that walks past to see the Ranger gone, but that's hardly a vital shot to begin with. God damnit I love this movie.
hotsauce32 wrote:There is a black title card, but it doesn't show up until about a minute and a half into the credits

In the DVD screener, it's at 2:45:37
Isn't that something that appears in all or most movies, regardless of where the main title card is? Even in something like The Dark Knight where the title card is at the end, you'll see that title again after the main cast, producers, etc, just before it scrolls the complete cast and crew.

Post Reply