No SFX bells and whistles, just a solid, cerebral story to make you think...
What if we made contact with aliens who claim to talk directly to God? How would the Earth's various nations and cultures react?
This anon knows it. 2001, pic related and >>64537969 have essentially raised my sci-fi standards to unreachable levels :/
Haven't watched the remake of this one yet, as I am a bit cautious about remakes.
Also enjoyed the original film as well, and the prequel was okay, but not great.
Top tier thread guys
Gonna rewatch a lot and have picked up a few new ones.
Kinda cheesy, but I thought the central premise was interesting.
Interesting main plot, but the execution wasn't terribly well done.
I enjoyed the movie, but didn't follow the TV series at all.
Old show, but I really like it.
I think of it as a predecessor to X-Files, in a way.
Have a few beers, and a lot of laughs.
Great premise, so-so execution. But I love these old posters.
The flying car chase is probably my absolute favorite scene in any movie ever.
I know there are haters out there, but this was my first introduction into the whole Dune thing, and I thought it was very fascinating even though I wasn't really totally sure what was going on...until I read the books, and now I like it even more.
I read the books first. This was also right after the original SW trilogy, Alien & Blade Runner, heralding a new golden age of special effects. David Lynch was coming off his triumph with Elephant Man. So many of us were hoping for great things, maybe the first of a long series adapting all the books.
It ended up not living up to expectations. But I've come around to it now. It is its own thing, and it works in its own way. Lynch himself isn't at peace with it, feeling the project was compromised from the start. So yeah, I do wish it had been made with an adulterated Lynchian vision, which would have been something else.
I still can't stop thinking about this film. You won't regret watching.
Name pretty much says it all.
Also the casting was magnificent.
I'm leery of calling it sci-fi, because it doesn't really deal with time travel thematically, but either way it's a great fucking movie.
Fassbinder's "World on a Wire" was pretty good.
>twenty minute docking sequence.
Come on. 2001 was great for its visuals in its time but it's modern art of films.
> Oh your just not cultured enough to enjoy it
Fuck off, people only say its great because they are told it is. Dr strangelove is ten times the film. 2001 is a great sound track and that's it.
100+ replies and no Primer? You're slacking, /tv/.
Just saw pic related for the first time, and it's one of the most immersive scifi films I've seen.
Love Aronofsky's stuff, but wish he could do something similar to this in style again.
>How can you like 2001 and not interstellar
Think about which one works better as an art piece, anon.
autism and art cannot combine because art is about communication and empathy, that which you are medically disinclined from experiencing properly
you can be elitist about arbitrary values but by definition you cannot be an artist
one was made in 1968 and the other in 2013 or 2014
what happens at the end of 2001 is the sale thing that happens at the end of interstellar
Everything is iterally the same.
in 2001 its HAL who turns crazy, in interstellar its Mann
>Everything is iterally the same.
>in 2001 its HAL who turns crazy, in interstellar its Mann
how can so much possibly go over ones head? And then how can a person like this tell themselves that they like science fiction and then go to a thread of people talking about it competently and babble like a retard, immediately outing himself as an outsider?
I love both. I'm just saying they are very similar. It doesn't bother me at all that they are similar.
I'm just concerned when somebody hate Intertsallar but loves 2001. Like hiow do you even justify that ?
Perhaps because 2001 doesn't solve its complicated storyline with a "Love transcends all dimensions" bullshit and instead embraces the unknown as an end by itself?
No kidding. I remember seeing people saying 2001 was better. I rewatched 2001 after Interstellar came out and just thought to myself
>these people are fucking retarded, Interstellar clearly is a love letter to 2001
>Interstellar clearly is a love letter to 2001
That's exactly what it is.
yet some people are like hurr interstellar is SHIT and RETARDED, but i love 2001 though.
I asked this question in this thread, got no answers, they cant even say why. I just needed one reason, it wasnt that hard
>assuming the book matters more than the film
This is where so many Kubrick critics go terribly horribly wrong. Arthur C Clarke was a mercenary Author and mostly a boring nobody Kubrick hired to pen a book he ultimately rejected. I bet you think that hack Stephen King is good too.
interstellar obviously had a lot of problems. There was some cool sci-fi stuff, but most of it was sci-fi porn. There were problems with the story and characters which felt super obvious when I saw it.
Even if it was a love letter to 2001, it just wasn't a good film imo
There's no point. You wouldn't ask that question unless you were trying to say that it just comes down to taste whether Interstellar was good or not, which could be true. To my taste, certain things about it felt campy and certain things felt "obvious," whether they be setting, or plot points, or character arcs, or whatever.
Its original points were overshadowed by a lot of poor choices and poor writing. Most of the time I just like to say if a movie is "solid" or not, and Interstellar definitely didn't feel solid to me. If you think people who disagree with you just have poor taste then I can't argue anyway
What's not "solid" about interstellar?
What poor choices are you referring to?
you're also talking a lot about your feelings Tbh, difficult in this case to avoid the whole taste argument
That's the thing when talking movies, when i don't like a movie for exemple sw7 recently i can say exactly why and name it and explain everything why this or that was stupid or why its not original etc. I can explain why.
When I ask you or other people about it, they're just like "oh its bad acting" "oh its not solid enough" "oh it has plot holes/bad writtting in it (but they never explain WHICH plot hole, what bad writting, and why is it a bad writting)
Again, just curious, maybe if you're right i'll just say "ok that was a smart critic of it, interesting point were made"
These are good science fiction movie. Just watched The Martian though.
>What poor choices are you referring to?
I'll list a few which turned me off from the start, but I saw the movie last in theaters, so some of these will only be approximately what was actually in the movie. The point is, the things that I list are cliches which were close enough to what actually happened in the movie to turn me off by a ton.
>Earth is arid and dying cliche
>this scene which i tried to describe but thankfully is on youtube (entire thing is riddled with cliches):
>main character follows a very unlikely hunch, abandoning his family, to miraculously find a nasa base or whatever
>Anne Hathaway's love speech
>the ending where they go inside a black hole (a cool idea but the execution is campy as fuck)
>seeing his daughter as an old lady scene
So much of this movie felt predictable and campy, and this is just listing the things which still annoy me a year later, much less all of the minor stuff which I've forgotten. Predictable alone is completely fine, but when they made it campy in parts it just ruined the movie for me
>I asked this question in this thread, got no answers, they cant even say why
The fact you don't agree with them doesn't mean people can't explain to you why Interstellar isn't as good as 2001. I'll do my best either way: 2001 was a cultural phenomenon that changed the history of cinema, introducing unrepresented themes and visuals in the medium that, to this day, are still impressive. Interstellar tried to follow its footsteps, and while it might have succeeded in displaying top-notch visuals and some interesting concepts, the overall movie suffers from a severe case of terminal Hollywoodness.
Ironically, Interstellar's greatest virtue is also its greatest self-conflicting issue: the desperate attempt to make everything as scientific accurate as possible. If you've seen the FlickSins video on it then you know what people talk about when saying wormholes and the string theory were brilliantly represented, there was a lot of effort in making it possibly the most astronomically accurate movie in history. That is, however, completely thrown to waste when your entire premise is defeated by pulling out love as an ex-machina element. You can't present a complex, credible scientific world and then simply say "fuck all" by solving everything through the magic power of love. That is pure bullshit, even if you assume that scientism doesn't exclude a metaphysical dimension to our conscience there is still a long stretch to using love as a deterrent to complicated time-space problems. It contradicts everything the movie worked towards establishing, and that is beyond frustrating.
But an even more complicated issue arises from its scientific accuracy. Even if you ignore the baffling and pointless inclusion of love in the equation, there is a difference between exposing science and actually generating scientific thought. Interstellar explains in detail all these complicated physical theories, and it is indeed fascinating to see them at work on the big screen, but in the end, what do you take from it? Perhaps a little more knowledge on the field, assuming you never watched 15 minutes of any documentary about astronomy, but is acquiring factual knowledge about something a good condition for art? Personally, I prefer a film that actually makes me think about scientific matters instead of just displaying science. I had a Contemporary Philosophy lecture last semester, and in literally every class we talked about the problems of consciousness, singularity and artificial intelligence, 2001 was used by our teacher as the ideal example. The underlying questions the movie presents are great, you actually wonder about the possibility of intelligent machines and all the ethical implications it might have.
For modern standards, in a world of flicks where sequels are shilled out by the minute and experimental cinema is inconceivable, an arthouse film like like 2001 certainly wouldn't exist. It's not that we can blame modern studios for wanting money, if they are going to be financing a movie it's pretty obvious they want the best financial return possible, but we can definitely blame them for the lack of audacity in accepting new and ingenious ideas for fearing a weaker box office performance in comparison to Capeshit VII or Horror Franchise XII. The fact that making an art film is now seen as "indie" and "alternative" is a really, really sad thing in modern cinema.
The first act where it's still a murder noir mystery with some scifi elements in it was great. But when it got to the end with it's DBZ tier fighting, it's just made it really bad. The fights choreography is really awful. The special effects are also awful. The fact that Ebert compared it with 2001 is baffling.
Top tier sets and atmosphere, though.
By the way, if you think any of what I said is bullshit you should really watch that youtube clip again. It's one of the most painfully obvious and boring attempts at characterization and world-building ever. Seriously.
It's way to paint the current government as corrupt and/or bad is to demonize things which modern Americans love: space landings and machines. They even call the main character's kid bad because she believes in the moon landings.
It's way to show the main character as smart, loving, and strong is to show him defending his daughter and dead wife: "If we had any of those useless MRIs left (you awful person, teacher, and arm of the government) then my wife would've survived her disease."
"My wife was always the calmer one."
Here is the response it is supposed to ellicit in any viewer: "Wow those government types sure are bad they dislike machines. Ha! What idiots." and "Wow that main character sure is a good guy. Here he is not only defending his daughter and dead wife but also showing restraint in his anger!"
This scene is a perfect example of that old writing idea that you should "show, not tell." This scene tells you exactly how to feel about the characters and world, and it shows you next to nothing about how the world and characters work. That makes it feel campy and boring. This is what I mean when I say that the writing of Interstellar is poor, and I hope it makes sense.
>>Earth is arid and dying cliche
there's an arid and dying earth cliche?
>>this scene which i tried to describe but thankfully is on youtube (entire thing is riddled with cliches):
it was a smart scene, they bashed the Moon landing negationists, whats not to like
>>Anne Hathaway's love speech
showed how emotions are dangerous and/or a good thing because they alter judgement (turned out it was a good thing and they should have followed her "love") good stuff
>>the ending where they go inside a black hole (a cool idea but the execution is campy as fuck)
well yea a little bit
>>seeing his daughter as an old lady scene
it was obligated to have this scene but i wish they did it better yes, it could have been a better scene that what we had. Still it was an ok scene Tbh...
ok good critic.
I found the ending a bit strange too, with the book shelf thing.
However he was into a black hole, that we know nothing about. And they say it was intentionally "put" there.
Maybe they tried to answer the question of what's behing a black hole.
2001 was about intelligent machines and how they can fuck us up.
interstellar did the same thing but with human emotions, vulnerabilities to loneliness, family members becoming a weakness etc
it was pretty close, that was really ok and legit in interstellar.
i agree on the current state of hollywood and capeshits. But it's just one more reason to praise interstellar's existence dont you think?
>it was a smart scene, they bashed the Moon landing negationists, whats not to like
Painfully obvious characterization and world-building is painfully obvious, basically. Almost the entire movie had that same level of story-telling. If you liked it, then okay, but personally, I've seen that same level of poor storytelling in hundreds of movies and it gets really old after a while. Maybe it really does just come down to taste
>No Wrath of Khan
You're slippin' /tv/
I completely agree, this scene was 100% world building and characterization.
But you're attacking it for what it is, not how it is made or the utility of it. (it wasn't poorly made, it just exist)
Jokes on you, turns out i actually like world building and characterization, probably also why i open up my computer to watch a film in the first place, too.
Sorry that you don't like those type of scenes brah.
It's true that A LOT (if not all Tbh) films have them., so yes, it really is the same as hundreds of other films.
It just doesnt bother me when its well operated.
Oblivion often gets glossed over as a clean and mainstream movie, I'm convinced there is more there if we were look into it's symbolism. It hits all the great themes, basically draws from all the major sci-fi films like Moon, AI, terminator as side plots, totally bitching out the direction of technology while looking pristinely techno-glorious and finally it lands on:
bitches be easily manipulated | glory for the individual man.
>“To every man upon this earth
>Death cometh soon or late.
>And how can man die better
>Than facing fearful odds,
>For the ashes of his fathers,
>And the temples of his gods?
Except for support for the police state
Her love speech was cute and it made a lot of sense within context. Only autists get triggered by stuff like that.
I think the part where Cooper is talking to the old man about looking up to the sky and dirt or something like that was actually very cheesy, but it still made sense cause it was farm romanticism
That's my favourite film of all time (not only SF)
Pi is the best Aronofsky film, in my opinion.
The Fountain, on the other hand, is more of an experimental film. I didn't liked it when i've seen a couple years ago; it seemed uncoherent and lacking any kind of intensity.
Probably my favourite film if I had to pick.
Its not bad, but its not pretty good, its right there on the meh line. Some pompastic fight scenes and minimalistic visual direction, but ultimately it exits the memmory hole quickly.
As far as visuals go, modern sci-fi movies look absolutely fantastic, but majority of them fall short due to writing. To justify the production costs they need to attract wider audience, and you end up with all these dumbed down crappy movies. As much as I want to blame the creators, it's more of a problem how stupid the average person is. I'll stick to literature to get my dose of thought provoking sci-fi material.
>No The Terminator
It is without a doubt the best thing Cameron has ever done.
>2001 was about intelligent machines and how they can fuck us up
This is really only a single element of the film. The thread which binds the segments of the movie together is rather the monoliths, manifest destiny, a Lacanian encounter with a reflection, and the realization of being observed.
Not to say that Hal isn't a really significant part of this equation, but I don't think you can boil the film down to just that.
They dont look as fantastic when they dip the film tapes in blue/seagreen filters and call it a day.
Straight out ruins a movies look. Sure lighting a scene might be difficult, but slapping an excessively saturated filter like that will fix the incompetent cgi and film blending is just offensive.
So why Interstellar and 2001 aren't the same movie even though there are similarities?
Let's put it this way. You make a movie about astronauts in space, largely based on hard scientific ideas about what future spaceflight would be like.
How would you do that *without* some parts of the movie resemble 2001: A Space Odyssey?
You might as well argue Gravity was a "love letter" to 2001 because both of them featured astronauts, zero gravity scenes and space stations.
But only the 4 hour cut
I liked it, but wasn't blown away either. The premise is pretty good and it kept my attention, but I just feel that I wouldn't been freaking out a lot more if I was some of the characters lol
Yes - 5/5
No - 3/5
Yes - 4.5/5
No - 3/5
No - 2.5/5
No - 3/5
No - 3.5/5
No - 3.5/5
Maybe - 4/5
Yes - 5/5
No - 2.5/5
Maybe - 4/5
Yes - 4.5/5
Maybe - 4/5
Yes - 4.5/5
Maybe - 4/5
No - 2.5/5
No - 3/5
Maybe - 4/5
Yes - 4.5/5
Yes - 4.5/5
Its pretty good. Worth a watch just for visual design and general execution. The story digests easily and is a good watch in general. I'd say it was closer to 2001 in elements than interstellar. I wouldnt even make the connections for the latter.
Beyond the Black Rainbow is legitimately my favourite film of the last ten years.
Also pic related, I don't care if it makes me a pleb but Robocop is my favourite film ever. I acknowledge that much of what I've seen from Pasolini, Tarkovsky, Kurosawa, Truffaut, etc is probably better on an objective level of artistry, emotion, etc but Robocop is a film I'll literally never get bored of. It's perfect in terms of achieving everything it sets out to and feels like it was made just for me.
The Motion Picture is actually god-tier if you want a visually-stunning, thoughtful sci-fi film. Prefer Wrath of Khan though, muh space Moby Dick.
>Primer: genuinely intelligent time travel movie made by a mathematician/engineer
>Coherence: pseudointellectual pap made by people who saw Primer and read an introductory quantum physics textbook
I don't trust anybody who actually likes Coherence, it's shit.
god tier flick
It's one of the few films I'd give a perfect rating to be honest.
Not even that much of a Tarkovsky fanboy, but Solaris put me under some kind of spell. I liked the highway scene in particular.
Interstellar was like a very poorly done version of Voice of a Distant Star. It's obvious the Nolan brothers wanted to make something Shinkai-esque but instead it just turned into a standard hollywood action film with a very cheesy hollywood twist at the end.
My biggest problem with Interstellar was the portrayal of scientists & engineers. Working alone without peer review on a big project (so big the future of the human race depended on it.) Advising the pilot of what to expect AFTER entering the wormhole. The people in it just kept doing really dumb things.
I'm sorry I triggered you so hard. Maybe you should go do something to calm yourself down instead of sperging out when you see someone with a different opinion than you on the internet. You might be healthier that way. I hope you enjoyed the attention that you wanted from me at least. I won't be responding again.
overall this is not a super good movie but some of the stuff in the first half hour or so in this movie is some of the best in the sci-fi genre
and fuck they need to make something like this again, dead space movie or something idk
with this as an OST
three must watch classic sci-fis, third one pic related.
Nice interpretation, especially since the creature itself was expressly intended to suggest homosexual rape.
Alien is my favorite film, and I fancy myself an expert.
I've always interpreted the bottom-element in the poster as being suggestive of an egg-carton, suggesting in a non-literal way (and not corresponding to the film itself) the egg-nest that Kane discovers. Since I'm on the subject, it's worth mentioning that the egg in this poster doesn't open like the one in the film; OTOH both in the trailer (below), the poster, and the film itself, the texture of the eggs is suggestive of the planet itself, which in one sense (among others) is really where all the trouble starts.
That said, I'm embarrassed that I don't know off the top of my head who exactly made the poster and trailer, but the style of both advertising media seem to be expressly linked by a more "literal" egg, cracking. Both are suggestive of the film itself, but not literal "stills" of anything from the picture, AFAIK.
Two other things while I'm on a favorite subject: the laser lights in the egg chamber were loaned to the filmmakers by The Who, who were doing something else nearby IIRC. Furthermore, one of Weaver's next big "sci-fi" roles would be Ghostbusters, and early in that film, she would again have trouble with "egg cartons".
Adding to this (without checking just yet), I have the vague idea that Giger was not directly involved with that creative process, but rather that the film was mostly in the can and another design team put the poster/trailer/ad media together.
Not to defend Interstellar which I thought was decent but not great, but contrary to what you might have read on shitty propagandistic sites like rationalwiki or been told y shitty pop-"scientists" like Bill Nye and the like, peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method.
It's solely a bureaucratic matter.
I liked this, kinda pushing it as sci-fi but well crafted and I liked the slow pacing and disorientating vibe.
On another note how is Everything & Everything & Everything (and how do I find it on a torrent site lol)? Hope Shane Carruth keeps on doing these type of movies. They're refreshing.
OK. Maybe not "official" peer review, but a theoretical physicist is going to compare notes & have equations reviewed by his/her colleagues, assistants, etc. If the whole thing was a sham, people are going to know about it. Yes, Mann knew about it. So it would have been a sizable conspiracy. Yet Murph wasn't in on it? It all feels wrong.
I wanted my goddamn money back after seeing that, and I torrented it.
well i didn't see Gravity yet but if it follows the same characteristics and development then yes it will be a love letter to 2001 too.
>discovered a monolith that was "put there", it's a big secret
>found a worhole thats was "put there", didn't tell anyone about it