The best Sci-fi movie ever?
This has to be the best sci-fi ever.
shareIt was really good but I still like 2001: A Space Odyssey the best.
share
MovieChat Forums > Interstellar (2014) Discussion > The best Sci-fi movie ever?
Although it was good, I would not even put it in the running for best scifi ever. I will say, the scene where they realize the "mountains" were not mountains, while filled with HUGE holes, was one that still sticks with me.
shareThere are "holes" in every sci fi movie. If there wasn't then they wouldn't be called sci fi movies.
shareThis is the scene which which sticks in my mind also. Watching it a second time didn't do much for me, while 2001 is very enjoyable to watch repeated times.
shareThe only thing that really bothered me was Matt Damon's crazy Dr. Mann... I get he had a rough time, but all of a sudden he turned into a stock horror villain. It seemed like enormous waves in heavy gravity might have a different,longer cycle than Earth waves so that part never bugged me. Maybe some physicists know better but I trust the Nolan brothers to have done some research on the subject.
shareIt's not the fact there might be huge waves naturally occurring in longer cycles that's the implausible bit, it's the behaviour of the characters to it and that these scientific people don't even consider this being a possibility, that is the main issue with that scene. I love the idea and the visuals but the characters act like idiots and take me out of the scene. It's ridiculous how neither of the two out in the open notice the huge wave behind them until the last minute, and then Doyle spends an age getting into the spaceship for some reason.
I too felt the part with Damon turning into a villain felt out of place and OTT. And Murph not bothering to stay in touch with her dad for the first 20 or so years he was away just because she threw a strop at him leaving, was also beyond stupid.
All of these things were my biggest bug bears with the film.
The worst is that they're scrambling for time yet they make the woman trudge out into the water slowly instead of sending the robot. They KNOW the robot can do it faster because they send it to save her AND get the beacon, which it does in no time at all, but the time is already wasted. One of the dumbest scenes EVER, betraying all the logic of "we have to go fast, humanity is dying!" Plenty more dumb illogical crap in the movie, plenty of betraying the movie's own logic, but that was the worst. Even worse is that barely anyone in the audience notices that huge glaring flaw.
shareIts actually one of the most technically superior films in history. Just because you don't understand movie it doesn't make it a bad movie. You need to watch this more than once just to understand Nolans genius film making.
shareI've seen it more than once and I do like it, and I do understand it (as it's a fairly simple storyline), but the point that you responded to is both solid and plainly stated.
I also notice you didn't actually argue against my point, so let me break it down in an even more basic way: 1) They're trying to save as much time as possible due to time dilation while on the water planet. 2) Humanity is dying off, so the longer they take, the more widespread the tragedy. 3) Even though they clearly know the robot can flit out into the water and come back with the beacon in no time at all, they send the smallest member of their crew to slowly trudge through waste-deep water, in 150% of Earth gravity, which is a waste of that incredibly valuable time. 4) When she can't make it, they FINALLY send the robot out, which gets the beacon AND saves the woman in seconds.
It's a very basic logical fault. Logic says they should have just sent the robot in the first place and all the humans stayed inside the ship. No wasted time, no fake forced drama. The scene is one of the dumbest things I've ever seen in a movie. All the logic is on "save as much time as possible" and we get to sit there watching them needlessly waste time, and then prove that they already knew they could have done it faster by sending the robot out by itself instead of a human.
Don't even make me get into the fact that the movie's "logic" about the blight is self-contradictory. Don't make me get into the incredibly anti-scientific view of starting over on a barren planet, one that hasn't had billions of years of life in order to form a biosphere (we only survive due to the biosphere of Earth).
The movie treats the concept of planetary relocation in an insanely simplified way, and also negates the need for it with other logic in the movie. The plot is completely self-contradictory.
I do love Gargantua, though. That was a new precedent in effects, because it's actually a math visualization.
I haven't seen this movie in 3 years or so, so I don't recall the exact happenings on the water planet. But if you analyse any movie you will find holes and then you will find holes in those holes.
They mastered interplanetary space travel but they can't fix the food problem on Earth? The whole movie could have been about the scientists discovering a cure or fix for the blight but that would be extremely boring.
"But if you analyse any movie you will find holes and then you will find holes in those holes."
True, but it's always fun to see a movie put such heavy emphasis on one thing, like saving time, and then completely contradict that logic only minutes later. It makes the crew look like idiots who can't even accomplish their main goal.
"They mastered interplanetary space travel but they can't fix the food problem on Earth?"
That's one of the weird things about the entire plot. Michael Caine shows McConaughey that they can't even grow crops in isolation, because those crops will have blight too. However, SOMEHOW, Caine knows that they can grow the crops in space, and there will be no blight.
Somehow, moving into space will make the blight disappear. How is that possible? It's never stated because it's impossible. There is no difference between "in space" and "in isolation" because they're the same plants from the same source, Earth. In fact, at the end of the movie, they have moved into space and the blight has completely vanished with zero explanation.
Yes, the driving threat of the entire plot simply VANISHES. Like if the Death Star just disappeared.
For a movie proclaiming itself to be so scientific that Nolan had it shown to astronauts, who were not impressed, these kinds of things are embarrassing. Star Wars can get away with errors here and there because it's just adventure fantasy. Interstellar pretends to be hard sci-fi yet it's not even close.
I reanalyzed the movie again and just found out none of it is real. Its just a movie directed by Nolan with the guy from Dazed and Confused in it. That is one big plot hole!
sharehaha you are correct sir, as always!
shareSo you went with "it's not real it's just a movie" and have officially abandoned "Its actually one of the most technically superior films in history."
Not even a Nolan fanatic can deal with analyzing the flaws in his form of logic. The guy went full George Lucas.
Its still one of the best "Sci Fi" movies. In case you didn't know, Sci Fi means science fiction which means its a fictional story. If you over analyse any movie you find that they are all fake.
shareAbsolutely retarded reply. Just because a movie is Science Fiction doesn't mean it can't adhere to an internal logic.
shareHas a science fiction movie ever adhered to internal logic? Can you at least name one movie or series that has so I can over analyse it for you?
shareThere are lots out there. Where for instance does Alien or Blade Runner (not the final cut) not adhere to internal logic?
shareBlade Runner is set in the future of 2019 which hasn't happened yet and Han Solo is in the movie. Alien: there is no such thing as an android and the girl from Ghostbusters is in it as well. So basically neither of them conform to internal logic. On the other hand both are awesome science fiction movies. I still think Interstellar is one of the best sci-fi movies ever.
shareAre you kidding me??? Do you know what internal logic means??? It means that the things happening make sense INSIDE THE WORLD OF THE MOVIE! Yes, there are androids in Alien, it is established in this world. Harrison Ford play Deckard in Blade Runner and it is established in the movie that he is not Han Solo! It follows its internal logic. This has to be one of the most stupid things I've read in these forums.
shareHaha well I told you I would over analyze it for you. What were you expecting? Here is the title of my thread just in case you forgot.
The best Sci-fi movie ever?
What did you analyse? That actors star as different persons in different movies?
shareHere is how the whole thing got started:
[–] k_m_simpson (3) a year ago
Although it was good, I would not even put it in the running for best scifi ever. I will say, the scene where they realize the "mountains" were not mountains, while filled with HUGE holes, was one that still sticks with me.
reply share ignore report
[–] Bubbathegut (2959) a year ago
There are "holes" in every sci fi movie. If there wasn't then they wouldn't be called sci fi movies.
Its called a sci-fi movie for a reason. To me that scene makes perfect sense in a sci-fi movie, if it was reality then I could understand the dilemma. Interstellar being the best sci-fi movie ever is still my opinion. I watched it 3 times in a row which is very rare for me. I am rarely that inspired by a movie to watch it that many times.
Sci-Fi doesn't mean that people behave illogically. There is a certain premise for a Sci_Fi movie that you have to except (for instance, that there are androids), but that doesn't mean that everybody just behaves like an idiot.
share"Sci-Fi doesn't mean that people behave illogically."
Thats true but if you over analyze and break down any particular scene in a sci fi movie you will find faults. Example with Rey in The Force Awakens, in a scene she is running with Finn to a Quadjumper but it is blown up so they run to the Falcon. Rey says she has never flown the Falcon before and it hasn't flown in years, yet she takes off from the planet in a few minutes. Also why didn't the Tie Fighters just blow up the Falcon while Rey and Finn were inside? So here we have 2 instances of people behaving illogically. How did Rey know how to fly the Falcon and why didn't the Tie Fighters just blow it up?
If all sci-fi movies stuck to internal logic and characters behaved in a logical manner then the movies would be incredibly boring.
Star Wars isn't even proper Sci-Fi. It's Science Fantasy, a fairy tale set in space. It has Sci Fi elements, but it's not hard Sci-Fi.
shareI guess you didn't get the point of my analysis. Rey behaved illogically.
Would Interstellar be classified as hard sci fi?
Yeah, but it's more forgivable in a piece of escapist fluff like Star Wars.
And yes, Interstellar is hard Sci Fi, even with its schmalzy ending.
So if Interstellar is hard sci fi then that means all the characters behave logically and there is internal logic to the movie, right?
shareYes, it does.
shareSo you agree that Interstellar is the best sci fi movie ever?
shareI agree.
shareIf you admit to overanalysing, Bubbathegut, then maybe you should back off.
shareYes! Most Asimov books. Dune.
Sci-Fi is not a genre that's restricted to movies ...
And a movie being "the most advanced technically" means exactly shit. Let me guess, Transformers MUST be the second best SciFi movie EVER ...
What if blight didn't like changes of gravity and thus can only live on Earth? It's a perfectly plausible explanation.
shareWe mastered intergalactic space travels because of five dimensional humans from future, we could all die from hunger/drowning if they didn't create wormhole near Saturn. So all events happen in right time so one day we can become that five dimensional humans.
Wormhole is created in right time, we simply doesn't have time to "fix" the Earth, or colonize Mars in time and stuff like that. But Gargantuan system have planet which can be habitable in no time.
another issue is how they had a choice between three different planets, and they *know* that one of those planets has a time dilation issue, where if they screw up the right way they could lose decades, centuries, or even millenia, but *that's* the planet they visit first... with that time dilation problem, that planet should be the absolute last resort. the writer wanted to force the "oh my god we've lost 15 years" moment in there without making it make proper sense. (as soon as I heard the title of this movie for the first time, I assumed it would have something to do with time dilation, but it ended up forced rather than being properly explored.)
(another issue with the movie is how it's named *Interstellar*, when there is not actually interstellar travel here; they actually travel intergalactically through a wormhole.)
Interesting argument. Interstellar sounds good as a title, so that's probably why they chose it.
The definition is "occurring or situated between stars." That certainly implies between two stars in the same Milky Way galaxy, but it doesn't specifically LIMIT it to that. If I travel from a star in one galaxy to a star in ANOTHER galaxy, that is interstellar. It is additionally intergalactic.
Best? More like dumbest. This movie is really really bad.
share"Seconds," with Rock Hudson, was better.
shareRight? It's like everybody went into mass hysteria over Little House in the Prairie sentimentality and fortune cookies philosophy. What a load of crap.
Looove will save the world. And now let's blow a ton of money on special effects for 3 hours just to give the media something to talk about. Oh and let's add a "twist" of course so that the morons who didn't see it coming (despite it being announced many many many times in the first 30 minutes of the movie) can wet themselves about how smart the movie is.
Little House in the Prairie ?
shareYou need to watch it more than once to really understand it.
shareOh god, not the "you just don't understand it" spiel. No, the problem is, we understand it all too well. It's a movie designed in a way that average people think they're smart for understanding it. In reality, it's mediocre to the core.
Cooper: Don't you get it yet, TARS? I brought myself here! We're here to communicate with the three-dimensional world! We're the bridge! I thought they chose me. But they didn't choose me, they chose her!
TARS: For what, Cooper?
Cooper: To save the world!
...
Cooper: Love, TARS, love. It's just like Brand said. My connection with Murph, it is quantifiable. It's the key!
Kill me please
I rolled my eyes so much watching this cringefest movie.
shareI'll never watch this slop more than once. It's one of the worst movies I've seen in theaters. Let's send everyone to a solar system where the star is a friggen black hole. Yeah, sounds much more prosperous than a planet that takes 5 years to not grow anymore Okra! Dear god no! Not the Okra! Also, lets just ignore the huge ass space station near Saturn. That's not good enough. We need to live on planets revolving around a BLACK HOLE!
shareMasterpiece!
share