How did I sit through this messs?
I don't know how I sat through this mess of a movie. It was absolutely absurd.
shareI watched it twice because after the first time, I was sure I missed whatever it was that made everyone hyped for it.
It was crap the second time as well.
could we see one example of what you are calling crap from this movie?
shareWhere did all the seafood go?
shareperhaps in the 90 hour version they will explain everything about every question that everyone asks.
where did all the fast food go?
Where there still television shows?
what was minimum wage at during this time?
I never understand how modern audiences don't get that movies don't explain absolutley everything about everything. Can't they just kick back and enjoy whatever is being shown? This is a NEW issue thanks to the internet, giving everyone a voice making them FEEL important.
This is not at YOU, progsreturn, just internet in general.
Seafood? You know that worm holes and hibernation are not real. Fiction should be fun and entertaining. Not real.
Since the STORY didn't talk about seafood, you have to go with it didnt work out. Who knows? Who cares? One could ask a billion side questions unrelated to a plot told in 2 to 3 hour movie.
What happened to the Russians?
Did that blond teacher love cooper?
Was Murph a lesbian?
What kind of tires were on the truck?
What day of the week was the second scene on?
on and on and on.....
Instead of sprouting rhetoric, how about answering the question?
share...because that is not part of the movie. You missed the point of my post.
Why are you pondering sea food? Is that the ONLY answer? What about sheep, cows, chickens, horses, dogs, hydroponics, GMOs.... there are a billion side questions one could make up for every movie... EVERY MOVIE. This film does not address your question in the story. Thus, it is not relevent.
What about politics? Who is president? Is it marshal law, democracy, communism?
Do they still use money, or bitcoin?
What is the fashion of the day?
My God, this could go on forever.
So, because THIS FILM doesn't cover one specific topic of science in it's already overly long run time, that makes it crap?
I could ask ALL of the above questions of EVERY FILM in existence. If it doesn't answer MY questions, that were never in the scope of the writing of the film, they are all crap.
>...because that is not part of the movie. You missed the point of my post.
The planet is covered in dust-storms and everyone is slowly starving to death because the only food they have is corn. I asked a perfectly legit question and you go off on a tangent.
>Why are you pondering sea food? Is that the ONLY answer?,
To quote you, "could we see one example of what you are calling crap from this movie?"
>What about sheep, cows, chickens, horses, dogs, hydroponics, GMOs.... there are a billion side questions one could make up for every movie... EVERY MOVIE.
Wrong. *this* movie, as this movie is constantly rubbing in the audiences' faces the fact that everyone is growing corn and doing nothing else to survive. Even more so, the crew bring only human embryos on the mission and give no indication of what they are supposed to survive on once they gestate into humans.
> Thus, it is not relevent.
It is %100 relevant. If you had watched the movie, then you would know that food supply is a major issue.
>What about politics? Who is president? Is it marshal law, democracy, communism?
>Do they still use money, or bitcoin?
You raised these questions, why not have a go at answering yourself?
>My God, this could go on forever.
You asked me to provide one example of what is crap in this movie. I complied, you go into melt-down.
>Fiction should be fun and entertaining. Not real.
...and make sense. The actions of the people in this movie do not.
>Since the STORY didn't talk about seafood, you have to go with it didnt work out. Who knows? Who cares?
Given the planet is starving to death, I'd say that _everyone_ cares, or at least should do. Instead everyone just surrenders to the dust-storms.
I'm ignoring the rest of your ramblings as clearly you haven't watched the movie.
What is your favorite movie? I have questions about it :)
shareSounds cliché but Bladerunner is high on the list. Can't single out a movie out of so many genres.
shareBLADE RUNNER... (a personal favorite)
was a nonsensical movie full of loose ends, unanswered questions, and plot holes:
1. they can build offworld colonies, create perfect human clones, but why didn't they put ANY kind of a TRACKING DEVICE in them? GPS existed in 1982, what a stupid movie
2. why didn't they simply make them all identical for safety? stupid movie
3. Why didn't Dekard retire Rachel immediately when he saw her outside Tyrell's place? That's his job, init? GOSH what a stupid movie
4. Why would Batty kill his maker, when he was the only guy bright enough to maybe come up with a way to fix him in the future? What a dumb, nonsensical movie
5. What exactly were those noodles made out of? Why would it leave out such important details? stupid stupid
6. Those cars were impossible. The amount of force coming out of the little steams shooting out of the bottom couldn't lift it. VERY unrealistic. What did they run off of? The weight ratio version the size for displacement is completely impossible and unrealistic. Therefore....Stupid movie
7. Where were the farms? Surely people ate corn, why didn't they tell us, or show us any of that?
8. What about seafood? Why didn't they show anyone eating seafood? Why didn't they show us the oceans???????
9. I don't think there were really any offworld colonies since they didn't show us those.
Such complete, utterly unrealistic fiction.... not even sure why they made such a stupid movie.
Why don't you post questions relating to Bladerunner on the Bladerunner forum?
sharehaha well played.
shareHave you considered watching the move 'Bladerunner?' that answers your questions.
share...yeah.... I've NEVER seen Bladerunner... on my laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray set...
weird trolling, but whatever floats you.
no movie answers every random question people MAKE UP about it.
(in case you are not "getting it", I actually don't have questions about blade runner. it was make believe. still not sure you are getting it)
>...yeah.... I've NEVER seen Bladerunner... on my laserdisc, DVD, Blu-ray set...
Well I suggest you do, that way you'll discover the answers for yourself.
really? are you acting stupid or not acting?
shareI'm simply stating that - ok - not all the answers are in Bladerunner, but most of them are.
share1. you really dont GET that all my questions are superfluous? made up simply for example? I dont care about anything this is not given to us in the movie. That's my entire point here. questioning things not in the movie and an endless mistake.
2. you dont think I have seen bladerunner, after stating - very honestly too - that I already OWN a laserdisk of it, a DVD, and the latest Bluray set with ALL the edits? SMH
>only food they have is corn
THIS movie was about a farmer and his family, not every family that grows anything on the planet, and not about fisher men. Again, a movie isn't going to cover every facet about everything. What about indoor hydroponics? What about that? Why didn't the movie get into the science of that? Hmmm??
Everyone growing corn that WE are watching. Again, we are not watching the whole planet in a 3 hour movie.
>If you had watched the movie
I have watched the movie. On two IMAX screens, on DTV, online streamed, and on my personal Blu-Ray many times. Why would you assume I had not watched the movie? That's just super silly.
>why not have a go at answering
Because I don't bother answering questions that are outside of the world created in a filmed movie. I know that is a huge waste of time, and completely pointless when it comes to entertainment.
>...and make sense
Fiction. You want FICTION to make sense. It's called fiction for a very specific reason. Besides, this whole movie made perfect sense with almost everything it delivered. I would call sleep pods, black holes, and worm holes non-sense, seeing as they are all 100% not real, but it is for entertainment. So it gets a pass on the making sense bit.
>everyone_ cares
Maybe they will make a sequal: "INTERSELLAR: The history of the seafood issue" for you.
Again, again, and yet AGAIN, movies DO NOT cover every single aspect of everything in the world they create. That's insane. So is asking a random question that wasn't inside this movie's story delivery.
You should ignore this movie. It apparently isn't for you. I've seen this a dozen plus times and enjoy the ride every time as a fun escape. Other's don't enjo it, and that's cool. But it certainly isn't "crap".
Nor was it a mess, nor absurd as the OT Troll posted.
I doubt I will watch LEGALLY BLOND 3, as it is not for me, but I would never call it "CRAP" because that would simply be my perspective since it wasn't FOR ME.
>THIS movie was about a farmer and his family, not every family that grows anything on the planet, and not about fisher men.
It's a movie about the whole planet dying from dust storms, and what people are doing about it.
>What about indoor hydroponics? What about that? Why didn't the movie get into the science of that? Hmmm??
Because that's using common sense which is not in the movie. You should know that corn is not the only food in the movie, but had you watched it, you should know that.
>Why would you assume I had not watched the movie?
Your complete ignorance of its issues.
>Fiction. You want FICTION to make sense. It's called fiction for a very specific reason.
"It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense."
Mark Twain
"if fiction doesn't make sense it's nonsense."
Me.
>I would call sleep pods, black holes, and worm holes non-sense, seeing as they are all 100% not real, but it is for entertainment
And are well established in the sci-fi world. You bought up the subject of hydrophonics, why aren't they in the movie? Worried that will totally undermine the entire plot?
>You should ignore this movie.
I will. Keep enjoying it though, I'm not stopping you.
Everyone growing corn that WE are watching. Again, we are not watching the whole planet in a 3 hour movie.
really? So we get to see what EVERYONE IN THE WORLD is doing about the issue? Or was it only showing us this one farm family?
not watching it... wow, I just... I don't get your point of me not watching it. I watched many times, understood all of it. And that a movie only shows you so much - not everything. Just wow. I just dont bother making up a bunch of side questions like one can do of any movie.
Mark Twain is not God. Fiction has many forms. Making fiction only out of non-fiction, makes it... well... NON FICTION. I think you are just trying to troll me now. Oh well. ...internet...
thats quite the back and forth you two are having.
Wsnt the whole point of finding another planet because the food supply was bad?
not just to keep that one farmer in work.
therefore if , as u say , hydroponics is viable, or as he says , seafood is useable.
Then the whole plotline of the film is rendered unnecessary isn't it?
i think that is what ProgR is trying to get across.
Although i doubt i've got it across either.
yes, and one could easily render ANY plot non-functional, is my point. We are not shown absolutely everything in existance in ANY movie EVER. Ever. Every movie.
They don't show you every characters childhood, teen years etc. Movies would pointlessly be 90 hours long and unwatchable. Nor the background of everything on earth concerning food. They tell you its all failing. Isn't that enough info? Your brain is told to go ahead assume it is dire. Seafood and cows, chickens, spam, all of it.
It's a bit of silliness making up stuff outside the universe of what they show you inside the movie. The movie is all you get.
I wasnt aware that movies now are constantly seeking people to rewrite the scripts fixing everything. Was there a memo?
It's just a movie.
ok , i take your point , we arnt shown *everything* , but theres a line somewhere where "stuff relevent to the story" must be mentioned .
If the whole premise is "we cant produce food so we need a new planet" , they could go a little deeper than "its all dusty and the corn wont grow". Just a few throwaway lines to cover the other options
They certainly went very in depth with the spaceship building ,
as a movie about being "Interstellar", I liked the spaceship stuff and it seemed to fit the movie's main course.
Had it been more of a documentary about food, I wouldn't have watched it. :D
I really liked the different planets they went to, all the visuals and the adventures and such. I really liked the planet with the huge waves. Cool idea! I liked the fact that his daughter kept aging while he was space traveling. I liked the theme of him wanting to get back to his daughter and how he was torn between that and the need to get the mission done. I liked the interviews with people who went through the Dust Bowl. But the whole tesseract thing and the time travel, I didn't like that. It didn't ruin the movie for me though.
share