DotDotDotDotDash wrote:Hmmm...it was there earlier. Did a Mod remove it? (although not sure why they would)

here it is online http://www.slashfilm.com/tomorrowland-poster/

Yeah definitely similar

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:

Sky007 wrote:

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:Yes you said that already, and I understand....but I feel like we are going around in circles.

The question is - as I have stated - why? Why tease something that we aren't going to see and ESPECIALLY an important scene which contradicts the whole plot/timeline of the movie? And what about the second scene on the artwork? Your answer doesn't address this as this shot wasn't filmed (or if it was, we haven't seen it).

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I am looking to discuss the apparent decision of the writers to include scenes (whether shot and/or cut or not) of Coop STAYing behind on earth, and whether these scenes formed part of a larger mind bending story idea to feature multiverses which would actually be consistent with the finished product we saw on the screen (Murphy's Law, the whole (non)-"paradox" thing, etc)

Like I said, Many teasers used to use footage specifically to tease the actual movie. The image of Murph an Coop standing was for the poster. Again, real easy to shoot. There was no decision to cut Cooper staying on earth. That would make no sense to shoot a few things about some idea and then cut them. Nolan comes in with a clear layout and what's in the movie is what he created. You're looking for stuff that isn't there.

I understand and appreciate your answer, but I dont think there is necessarily "nothing there". Don't be so quick to dismiss the notion. I'll bet many people with a keen eye and questioning mind took one look at - for example - the BD artwork and were like "huh?". It's not rocket science (no pun intended) and one certainly doesn't have to "look for stuff", one just needs a brain and 20/20 vision And regarding the teaser, I have seen several comments just like mine elsewhere online, but they have not received answers thus far (probably because nobody knows).

But the question still remains - whether they were teaser and promotional material or not - why bother depicting Coop's apparent decision to stay on Earth? Makes no sense, unless it was something that was written into the screenplay and subsequently cut. It is the only explanation. If they are just isolated random non-scripted scenes, then they just utterly confuse everything...and I am certainly not wrong there.

In one interpretation Cooper had never really left Murph until Earth died. Because he's her ghost forever and she could just let him go on her deathbed.
By the way Nolan was literally shooting scenes for the teaser which never made to get into the final film. There was never any intention for that. Scenes like a black and white footage about a farmer family in a storm walking toward their house depicted as a kind of historical memento.

Hey there guys n gals. Look, I really hate to revisit this and I know I'll probably take some sh*t for it (but I can handle it), but I needed to post this...

The following is taken DIRECTLY from the 'making-of' book, "Interstellar: Beyond Time and Space". I'm sad to say I obviously must have missed this when I first flicked through the book at Christmas, or I wasn't paying full attention or something. Anyway, here ya go:

(with reference to the infamous shot)

"BELOW: In an emotional moment, Cooper and his daughter Murph (Mackenzie Foy) stand hand in hand in a cornfield at their family farm."

So I was right!! It isn't Donald!!! (or Nelson. Or Tom). Can't believe I didn't see this before! And before you say "oh that's just the author's interpretation", I refuse to believe that somebody could go on record making a statement like that in an offical book without authorization (as he never prefaces the comment by saying "in my opinion" or "who is this? Cooper?" or whatever. It is written very firmly as if it is fact. And I believe the only way he could be allowed to write this is if it is indeed, FACT.

So, what the hell? One last time now that uncertainty has been thrown out of the equation - how and why is this Cooper??!!! And please don't compare this to the BD case artwork as none of that was ever filmed (or at least, the footage has never been seen by the public if it exists. It wasn't in the trailer) so this isn't the same. This was filmed, and whether it was just for the trailer or cut from the film none of us know unless you were there. But either way it's not important. What's important is why choose to feature Cooper? Shouldn't he have been on the rocket that we now know he himself was watching hurtling into the air? Oooh, unless of course he DIDN'T get on the rocket and chose to tell old MyCocaine "F that, homie. If you think I am going to leave my beautiful daughter and invisible son to go on some nutso Fantastic Voyage, you're more senile than you look!". Hence the "Alternate Timeline", or a "Flash-Sideward glimpse into what COULD have happened" if that is more palatable. Or is this simply a mistake, "plothole", etc? There had to be some sort of thought process behind this surely? When Nolan was saying "ok Matt you stand there, and Mackenzie if you could please stand over there to his right. Great." he must have considered what he was doing and why. You don't just smoke a joint and say "you know what would be cooool?!......." At least I don't think he does that.

I'm not looking for an argument or abuse. Remember we are all on the same side (ie, most of us like/love the movie). I am simply updating this thread with new, concrete information that I haven't found elsewhere, and posing the question once more seen as though in the past some of you either weren't convinced it was Cooper or weren't sure (and I think at least one person seemed certain it was Donald (or Nelson) ). Well now you know.

EDIT: Oh and maybe I should post this in the relevant threaad but I am close to finishing my full read-through of the book and wanted to add this:

"Editor Lee Smith estimates a million feet of film was shot before being honed down to 14,000 feet"

WOW. So i think it's safe to say that it is entirely possible that the scene was cut from the actual movie. The difference between 1,000,000 and 14,000 is astonishing. My guess is that there were a bunch more "alternate scenes" including (dare I say it) the one from the BD case art, to form a larger storyline. Makes total sense in a mind-boggling Sci-Fi flick too, even if only shot from the POV of Cooper's conscience and difficult decison he had to make. A "what-if" if you like.

I actually posted in the general discussion thread this idea back in November so I 100% support this theory. I actually think that because it was only in the teaser trailer it actually supports the idea even more.

hotsauce32 wrote:Guys, look at what's on my copy of The Dark Knight blu-ray. It's Batman with a silly face drawn on him by the Joker. How come this never happens in the movie? Is there some alternate timeline where Batman and Joker team up and borrow each other's costumes and makeup?

game. set. match.

josephcq wrote:
game. set. match.

Um, not quite, Mr Genius Latecomer. This batman "scene" was to my knowledge never filmed. It's just artwork like the Interstellar BD artwork. BIG DIFFERENCE. The holding hands scene was filmed. Try reading next time.

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:

josephcq wrote:
game. set. match.

Um, not quite, Mr Genius Latecomer. This batman "scene" was to my knowledge never filmed. It's just artwork like the Interstellar BD artwork. BIG DIFFERENCE. The holding hands scene was filmed. Try reading next time.

Denial much?

Havoc1st wrote:

DotDotDotDotDash wrote:

josephcq wrote:
game. set. match.

Um, not quite, Mr Genius Latecomer. This batman "scene" was to my knowledge never filmed. It's just artwork like the Interstellar BD artwork. BIG DIFFERENCE. The holding hands scene was filmed. Try reading next time.

Denial much?

Of what exactly?

Anyway you're missing the point. It's not important at this moment what was and wasn't a deleted scene. If you read what I said I am simply asking why - in light of my recent discovery proving I was right all along - Cooper was the one chosen to be holding her hand when we know he boarded the rocket. What was the motivation behind this artistic decision because there has to be one. You don't just film something - for a trailer or not - just for the f*ck.of it. It either formed part of a the whole multiverse theory which is the backbone to the whole film and so would make COMPLETE sense, he did it just to f*ck with people, or it is sloppy writing and was a mistake to leave in the trailer. Take your pick.

It was a bad joke.

Of what exactly?

Anyway you're missing the point. It's not important at this moment what was and wasn't a deleted scene. If you read what I said I am simply asking why - in light of my recent discovery proving I was right all along - Cooper was the one chosen to be holding her hand when we know he boarded the rocket. What was the motivation behind this artistic decision because there has to be one. You don't just film something - for a trailer or not - just for the f*ck.of it. It either formed part of a the whole multiverse theory which is the backbone to the whole film and so would make COMPLETE sense, he did it just to f*ck with people, or it is sloppy writing and was a mistake to leave in the trailer. Take your pick.

I've already replied that picking Cooper for that scene hints a kind of alternative timeline, indeed. Lets say on a psychological layer of the film his staying with Murph comes from the duality of his mind. This artistic approach from Nolan can be noticed in his previous works prominently for example in The Prestige where Nolan intentionally gives the notion of the doubled characters hinting their struggle based on the dilemma of choosing between their normal life and their obsession. This schizophrenic perspective typifies his films because, as he says, he loves to place the audience into his character's head and maintain that subjective point of view as much as it is possible.
So yes, you're right, the teaser scene clarifies discreetly Nolan's vision, gives a hint to the film, such as the "Absolute Zero" short comic does.
It shows he is how much keen on avoiding to become didactic and likes to involve his audience.