>2001's answer to help mankind was ayyyliums evolving

Just let this one slide to page 10, /tv/. Don't take the bait just once.

>>80714134
I'm not gonna respond to OP, but I have a question about another Nolan movie riddled with plot holes, Inception.

Leo does all this overly complicated horseshit so he can see his kids again, my question is this: Why didn't he just get his kids to move out of the US with him? Problem solved, no need to go in to a dream in a dream in a dream.

I agree and enjoy Interstellar thoroughly but you can't overlook the whole "love transcends dimensions" aspect of it.

Other than that, I like the theme of human ingenuity and self sufficiency. Humans doing what they do best: exploring and improving their lives. I'm a sucker for big epic "realistic" adventures like that, especially in space. The whole "vibe" of Intetstellar was really great.

>>80714086
>Interstellar's answer to help mankind is an illogical bootstrap paradox where humans send themselves back in time to create a wormhole that couldn't have existed in order for them to reach their new home galaxy in the first place

really made me get up and walk right out of the theatre

2001:A Space Odyssey is quite simply the worst thing to happen to cinema ever. Its forced profundity has caused millions of people all over the world to force themselves to like what is quite simply nothing more than an exercise in style.

Kubrick has no idea what he is doing here. His film jumps around with little to no sense of unity. The great film makers of the world create a series of events that contain clarity of information, something Kubrick couldn't bet his life on.

What is the purpose of what is going on here? Is there any coherent message? I have heard suggestions that it is Kubrick's message about the future of humanity, but what future is that? Does Kubrick even know?

This is Transformers for the pretend art house crowd. Pure style over substance. Nobody actually likes this film, they just like to be seen liking it.

>>80714173
He lost custody you idiot, those kids are american citizens so the state has the right to take custody of them if the parent is a criminal.

>>80714205
While I agree 2001 is terrible and Kubrick is vastly overrated, you are criticizing it for the wrong reasons.

>>80714251
But they were living with his mother, not in some orphanage. She could have taken them to see him.

>>80714086
2001's answer to help mankind was, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Interstellar's answer to help mankind was, "YOU CAN DO EET!"

>>80714197
>babies first temporal paradox

>>80714205
Could you provide some examples of movies with substance?

Where is the substance in the Mona Lisa? The Mona Lisa is 100% style over substance, and it's the crowning achievement in human art. Art doesn't have to have 'deep' and 'meaningful' or even 'coherent' messages. It's subjective.

>>80714353
Wait, what? You call it a paradox yourself. You agree with me it makes no sense, but I'm

>babbies first memes xd

because I pointed it out? You're fucking braindead. What a stupid post.

>>80714328
You forgot MUUUUUURPH

>>80714515
Not >>80714353
But I'm thinking he means that intersteller was your first paradox movie, since it made you literally or figuratively walk out as there has been other movies that do this.
Personally it does bother me but it is still a good movie and I still prefer it to 2001.

>>80714191
This

>>80714191
Love is irrelevant, Murph and the woman were just reading too much into a predestination paradox.