Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2018 15:59:06 GMT -5
Has anyone seen Interstellar? If so, what did you think of it overall, not necessarily from a Catholic perspective but just from an entertainment perspective?
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 14, 2018 17:57:29 GMT -5
Way overblown...over acted...confusing science...plotholes. ..great effects. Scene by scene pretty good...strung together a mess.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2018 20:59:24 GMT -5
Way overblown...over acted...confusing science...plotholes. ..great effects. Scene by scene pretty good...strung together a mess. Interesting. I agree with some of that, but disagree with some of it, too. Overblown? What do you mean? I agree that some of the acting was pretty bad, particularly the father-in-law. Thankfully, he's only in the first 20 minutes or so. I didn't have much of a problem with the rest of the acting, though. The science is confusing to audiences not familiar with Einstein's theories, for sure. For those who are familiar with them, however, it is the perfect sci-fi movie. Fortunately, I am fascinated with the implications of the theory, so to see them interwoven into a very personal family story was exciting beyond words. As for plot holes, I'm curious what you are referring to. Are you referring to its use of the Novikov self-consistency theory in which causality can act backwards through time and explain effects otherwise appearing to have no cause? If that's what you're talking about, then I agree: it would seem there are plot holes galore...like how the wormhole got there in the first place if humanity wasn't around to build it. But extrapolations of Novikov's principle resolve the apparent paradox very nicely to close the apparent plot holes. The only other plot holes I can think of aren't really plot holes; they are simply unlikely decisions made by the characters, such as Coopers whimsical decision to set out and find the coordinates without even telling his father-in-law, his continuing on with his daughter when for her safety he should have turned back, and his seemingly-hasty decision to leave his family in a moment's notice on a mission with more unknowns than there are people on earth. Scene by scene, I thought the beginning was weak, but then again, Christopher Nolan had a lot of essential story-telling to get in later on in the movie, so he couldn't cut much. That pretty much forced the beginning to be unnaturally and awkwardly accelerated. It happens so fast it feels rushed, but then again it had to be or the movie would have been 3.5 hours long, and the average movie goer would have walked out from shear length. After it gets going, though, I don't think its a mess at all. The last act kept me more riveted more than any movie I have ever seen. It wasn't even an action movie, and yet it kept me glued to the screen more than even the most heart-pumping horror movie. I admit: the first time I watched it, I all but hated it. I thought it was cheesy at the beginning, unrealistic, confusing, over-hyped, etc. But after the second viewing, once I had an idea of what to look for, I was so intrigued by the apparent paradox as it played out in the movie that the movie had a completely different feel. It wasn't a mess at all once I got what was going on.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 14, 2018 22:19:43 GMT -5
Sometimes Im not good to discuss films with because I have a cynical bias that makes it hard for me to ignore the "man behind the curtain" so to speak. I take into account the actors off screen personas and the directors. (I tend to enjoy films with unknowns or lower teir actors for this reason) I judge a films quality for me on the basis of its ability to forget the afor mentioned bias and without much effort get me to suspend disbelife. As far as Einstine this is a classic example because in my view his theorys gained rockstar status far to soon and now enjoy dogmatic adherence...but thats a different discussion about Jewish materialist dominence in media and the sciences. Im attaching a vidio of a comedy bit that pretty much sums up the problems I personally had with the film. Please dont get mad as this is just me...and your reasons for liking the film are valid and respected by me...but I dont agree. ( Language warning for Video) Further bias against it is not really fair because this video has Neil DeGrass Tyson WHOM I DESPISE: But his pomposity illustrates what I feel the whole tone of the Movie is:( Language warning for Video) Sorry for bad spelling
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 14, 2018 22:38:38 GMT -5
This movie however did get me to suspend my cynicism: although its not sin free....it has an underlying push for world government.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2018 17:16:38 GMT -5
You might be surprised but I have already seen the first video you posted (the "honest trailer"). But of course the man who does those videos does them about all movies, including movies we otherwise thoroughly enjoy. He is in the business of making everything look as ridiculous as possible, and most of his criticisms could be made about every movie ever created as well as almost every moment in life, the Mass, the Faith, etc., so it's very hard for me to take his approach seriously. I mean, let's be honest. I could make an equally funny video mocking his own videos. I know you aren't saying you agree with everything that he said, but let's remember that he is overly-cynical for the purpose entertainment. It's not like he has an "honest trailer" that compliments movies.
It's the same way with the "Everything Wrong With..." channel. It refuses to lend any benefit of doubt and if something isn't explained but is implied, they fill in the gaps with something ridiculous and obviously not intended by the movie. It's like intentionally misreading an author or a speaker to try to find any way to draw attention to yourself instead of the speaker. This guy's videos are amusing as stand-alone videos, but they are very unreliable critical analyses of movies. I can only every make it through about a minute of his before the shear dishonesty and hyper-criticism becomes too much to bear. I mean, seriously: he counts "foreshadowing" as a movie "sin." Foreshadowing is a plot aid that is used to assist the audience with remembering important things that won't be revisited by the story until the end, so it's more of a strength than a sin. And since when are movies not allowed to use cliches? We use them in everyday life, so why shouldn't a script that is trying to make it as real life as possible?
It's hard to take either of these critics (and their attempts to try to make problems even when there really are none) seriously when their whole shtick is to make money off silly mockery. I am a very cynical person myself, but I have found that I have to be in all other aspects of my life without a choice, so why let it get in the way of my entertainment? I mean, after all, the very purpose of entertainment is to escape reality, not use reality to ruin it. I get that it's hard to do sometimes, but if it can be done than I do whatever I can to do it. It makes entertainment that much more...well, entertaining--which is the whole point of taking time out of your life to use it to begin with.
Interstellar is definitely a movie you either completely get or you don't get at all. If you get it, it's "sins" are very easy to forgive, considering no movie is perfect and none of its sins is so bad that the rules set down for the movie aren't followed. The biggest "sin" is not getting the rules it sets down from the get-go. I had the same cynical view the first time I watched it. I didn't like it at all. The second time was much better, since I was watching it looking more for the good than the bad. And when I removed that bias, the movie was thoroughly entertaining.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 15, 2018 21:59:57 GMT -5
I didnt say I hold them defide...I only said they picked up on many of the same problems I saw myself. I didnt watch the vids and change my mind. The movie just reminded me of the pompous attitude of this type of science. I have a similer reaction to films that rely on evolution theory as a fact. These thought vacations can be enjoyable however...thats why I brought up the Movie "arrival"...Did you see that?
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 16, 2018 21:45:47 GMT -5
I didnt say I hold them defide...I only said they picked up on many of the same problems I saw myself. I didnt watch the vids and change my mind. The movie just reminded me of the pompous attitude of this type of science. I have a similer reaction to films that rely on evolution theory as a fact. These thought vacations can be enjoyable however...thats why I brought up the Movie "arrival"...Did you see that? I know you didn't. That's why I said "I know you aren't saying you agree with everything that he said...," but like I said, the problems are much easier to forgive once you "get it." The movie could have been so much worse, and it's the first of its kind sci-fi movie. No one has ever put that much effort into making a sci-fi movie that scientifically accurate. Original material developed for the movie actually created new scientific discoveries about black holes that went on to produce multiple scientific papers on the topic. While I get your critique of modern science, Kip Thorne's (the Novel Prize-winning physicist who acted as the astrophysical adviser of the film) seminar on "The Science of Interstellar" is definitely worth the watch. Everything the characters experienced was mathematically or speculatively justified to a painstaking degree. While the allusion to evolution as a key to mankind's survival is annoying, evolution can be viewed in two ways: as disorder creating order (the pagan, "emergence" view), or as order creating order (the Christian, "Catholic" view). Again, the movie's purpose being entertainment, I can choose to let my cynicism interpret the movie in light of the first position (probably, the intended position), or I can choose to interpret in light of *my * view, which is that God has guided man to an existence closer to Himself, but some men still choose to call it "evolution," as though it all happened by accident. Again, that is me choosing to try to be entertained as opposed to watching movies with the attitude of being forced to be entertained. As for Arrival, no, I haven't seen it. My brother recommended it to me, and it looks pretty good (like all trailers do), but I loathe the idea of aliens for many reasons. The most important is that it's so anti-Catholic that God would created other intelligent beings that, believe it or not, it's easier for me to believe that humans are guided by God to escape the 3rd dimension then that He would create an alternate race that He didn't save. I could probably enjoy it, but I HATE it when movies are so unoriginal that they have to make it about...aliens. That has been done for over a hundred years. At least Interstellar did something no one had done before, and it didn't require some alternate race in a galaxy far, far away with superior knowledge just because they are far, far away. The chances they would be even as intelligent as worms is ridiculously low, but once again we have a movie where they manipulate gravity and nature like they created it. But again, this is coming from someone who hasn't seen it but simply finds aliens to be a convenient un-Catholic plot cop-out. I do intend to watch it, though. I'll let you know what I think.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 16, 2018 23:24:29 GMT -5
Since a large percentage of the "science" is conjecture...cant see how it can be claimed to be scientifically accurate. I would hold the science in 2001 by kubrick closer...except for the monkey bits. And there are a great many atheistic themes in intersteller...especially the anticreationist bits in the beginning...the psudo global warming claptrap...the fact that there are habitable planets through wormholes. Im also an unabashed geocentrist. I also despise matt mcoughnehy...which might be a large factor I admit. And any film degrasse tyson loves is suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 16, 2018 23:27:58 GMT -5
The aliens in arrival are secondary...its a plot devise...I cant say more since I dont want to spoil. Since I saw intersteller and we discussed it...why not see Arrival and we can duscuss that. Im very sure your intellect will not be offended.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2018 20:45:17 GMT -5
Since a large percentage of the "science" is conjecture...cant see how it can be claimed to be scientifically accurate. I would hold the science in 2001 by kubrick closer...except for the monkey bits. And there are a great many atheistic themes in intersteller...especially the anticreationist bits in the beginning...the psudo global warming claptrap...the fact that there are habitable planets through wormholes. Im also an unabashed geocentrist. I also despise matt mcoughnehy...which might be a large factor I admit. And any film degrasse tyson loves is suspect. The movie went to great lengths to ensure that none of it violated established laws of physics, which was why no one traveled faster than light speed (Kip Thorne and Chris Nolan fought about that for 2 weeks), the effects of time dilation were mathematically calculated, the size of the waves were true to the tidal forces that close to a black hole, the worm hole was exactly as Einstein's equations would dictate, the events near the black hole all occurred as they the established laws of physics demands, etc. But I will grant you the framework that the film was built on, however, was speculative physics about how the fifth dimension might interact with the four dimensions. We can conjecture about true these speculations really are, but at least the speculative physics in the movie was in keeping with the most educated speculations of theoretical physicists to date. It wasn't meant to be real. They weren't trying to make a space documentary. It was a science fiction movie, not a documentary. Instead it sought to entertain by employing a physically-speculative framework regarding the fifth dimension and filled it in with established, demonstrable physical laws entailed by Einstein's field equations. The time dilation, the effects on the planets outside the black hole, the gravitational lensing, the appearance of the wormhole, the gravitational slingshots, the nature of the accretion disk, and much more were all built solidly upon known physical laws; each facet was calculated mathematically in order to put it in the movie. In other words, if this actually happened, this is how it would go for us. Of course, like any movie, you have to accept the "if" as a condition of enjoying the movie, but once you accept the "if", the movie stays true to its rules and the rules of demonstrable physical laws. It isn't speculative that traveling that close to a black hole would dramatically slow down time; satellites already account for the slowing of time on earth (be it minuscule, since earth's mass is marginal) relative to their position away from earth in order for GPS systems to work properly. It isn't speculative that gravitational waves exist; extremely large instruments on earth have detected these waves and have replicated the results several times caused by the collision of black holes. It isn't really speculation that a wormhole does traverse space; the question is getting enough negative energy to hold it open long enough to pass through it. Again, these things can be mathematically proved. The speculation--and think this is your biggest issue--is how we could ever leave the four dimensions by entering into the fifth, and then build things back in the four dimensions without altering the past but instead causing it. That is the big "if" of the movie. I'll grant you the interpretation of the events by the scientists is atheistic, but then again the movie is about scientists, so of course you get their atheistic perceptions of what is happening. But like in said in my last post, their interpretation of what is happening doesn't make it the correct one. After all, the fifth dimension is really God's perspective of His creation. What they interpret as evolved fifth dimensional humans helping the struggling human race in ways we don't understand is the theological equivalent of miracles caused by the intercession of saints or angels who do have a fifth dimensional vantage point, or perhaps directly willed by God Himself. I'm not saying the movie intended this, but I'm saying that the movie can't exclude that interpretation. In fact, that is exactly what came to mind after seeing it the second time: what the characters are describing as fifth dimensional humans is what as Catholics know to be those who are right now with God. They would have exactly the same characteristics, qualities, and vantage points as interpreted by the atheistic scientists to be evolved humans with powers beyond our comprehension, to see the past as a valley to climb into and the future a mountain to climb up. I don't really see how the existence of another habitable world is atheistic though. I am a geocentrist, in the theological sense, but not in the cosmological sense. That God created man here in His imagine and likeness, took upon that same form, and then redeemed mankind here makes Earth the true center of His creation. After all, the universe does truly revolve around him, not necessarily physically but definitely spiritually. Why there can't be other worlds with similar habitable characteristics to ours only doesn't fit in a literally geocentristic model, whereby even the most dense objects in the universe, objects that telescopes see stars orbiting, are somehow orbiting the earth. But if you take that approach, then no wonder you disliked the movie. The film operates off all the mountains of evidence confirming Einstein's field equations. Every one of his theories has been evidenced to be true, the last one just last year (his theories, not his opinions). If you reject his equations, then of course you're going to reject the movie. But if that is the case, I'm surprised you even wasted any time in seeing it to begin with!
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 18, 2018 7:30:12 GMT -5
Im not a luddite..I like accurate science fiction. I mostly dismiss this movie on the aesthetic level...not its science. I only referred to it for your sake. I saw it in theater in imax with my wife because it was date night...and nothing else was playing. Now you do seem to be envincing one of the moral problems I have with the quantum interdemensional theorys to be examples of Gods Heavenly Kingdom the beatific Vision. This is a materialist worldview in my opinion. Much like the God used evolution theory. Christ tells us...eyes have not seen...nor has it ENTERED into the mind of man what Gods presence is like. All the mechanics and forces of physics are part of Gods MATERIAL creation. I dont appreciate btw the "im sorry your so scientifically illiterate tone"...this is in fact the tone used against people who dont like the movie. Bill nye and degrass tyson absolutly pollute the world with this snobbery.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2018 19:48:09 GMT -5
Well, I apologize if my tone allowed itself to be misinterpreted. There was no intellectual condescension intended at all. I just hadn't considered that you would have watched the movie at all if you fundamentally disagreed with Einstein-ian physics. It was an oversight and an assumption on my part. I apologize in advance if you perceive this as disingenuous, insincere, or dishonest. I truly did not mean it the way you read it. I was more laughing at myself for hastily assuming that the only reason you would have watched it was for the same reasons as myself. I assumed that you only watched it in the same way I watch movies: after much research and interest in the foundation of the topic. I only watched the movie because I am fascinated with the study of Einstein's predictions; that is the only reason I watched it at all--because I was already interested in the topic, and no other science fiction movie had been as faithfully insistent on not violating these predictions. I didn't know it was just a spurious date night last resort sort of film for you. Again, no condescension was intended at all.
True, it has not entered into the mind...but the movie states that almost literally. It acknowledges that we have no idea at all what the fifth dimension is like, how to get there, or how it works. TARS even states quite emphatically that it is so beyond even his artificial intelligence created by humans that humans could never build even a representation of the fifth dimension. The characters only speculate in vague terms while shaking their heads about how far it is beyond our understanding. In the Tesseract, what Cooper experiences isn't the fifth dimension; it is simply a fifth dimensional representation of how the four dimensions appear from a fifth dimensional vantage point. They had to create a separate matrix that the four dimensional mind could comprehend because the true fifth dimension was so far beyond human comprehension that he wouldn't have been able to complete the mission. The only "understanding" of it at all on the part of the characters is the hasty conclusion by one of them that we must have evolved to get there, since the materialist can't conceptualize any other explanation. But again, that is coming from an atheistic scientist. We don't have to agree with his highly speculative conclusion, even if the movie would like us to. Sure, it is materialistic, because that is mindset of the character through which we are perceiving the movie. The movie doesn't try to portray the fifth dimension at all. It simply shows its inter-active effects on the four dimensions. It never even tries to describe life in the fifth dimension beyond the characters speculating about how limitless these beings must be.
In the same way, The Exorcism of Emily Rose tries to portray the Faith as a lot of superstitious cacophony, but allows enough room for pious sympathy that we are allowed to form our own conclusions. While I believe the attempt of the Exorcism film was to materialize the Faith while saving enough face not to be boycotted by Catholics, that doesn't mean we as Catholics have no choice but to view it through the eyes of the anti-Catholic prosecution. I still enjoy the movie through the eyes of a Catholic, even though the perception of the characters in the movie is agnostic at best. But again, I think that is just the fundamental difference between how we watch movies. I watch movies trying to be entertained, if my intellect can allow it, hoping not to let my biases ruin a movie I might otherwise enjoy more than all others. You watch movies in a way that forces only the absolute best movies to entertain you, in spite of your attempt not to let them. In a way, this really separates the best movies from all the rest. Neither is objectively "better," so to speak. Just different strokes for different folks.
|
|
|
Post by Voxxkowalski on Jan 18, 2018 23:18:25 GMT -5
I dont agree with yoir conclusion. I like all kinds of movies good and bad...I just try to reserve my 15$ go to an actual theater for the best movies since its expensive. I never said intersteller wasnt entertaining...the effects...soundtrack and Ann hathaway were eminently watchable.
|
|
Deleted
Past Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2018 1:52:41 GMT -5
I dont agree with yoir conclusion. I like all kinds of movies good and bad...I just try to reserve my 15$ go to an actual theater for the best movies since its expensive. I never said intersteller wasnt entertaining...the effects...soundtrack and Ann hathaway were eminently watchable. Oh, ok. Based on your focus on only the negative, and only mentioning the effects as good, I got the impression you didn't find it entertaining.
|
|