- No text -

"Set humor to 75%"

">Humor set. Self-destruct sequence in 10... 9.."

"Make it 70%"

">Humor set. [beat] Knock, knock"

"Wanna make it 65%?"

"So you need two numbers to measure your own ass, but only one to determine my son's future?"

Best part :-p

"What's your trust setting, TARS?"
"Apparently lower than yours!"

Those robots just stole the show. I'm amazed that they were mostly practical effects.

Yeah, when they first showed up, I thought it was a stupid, impractical design and then I spent the rest of the movie understanding how stupid I was.

"Lois said I should let go" and his reaction was almost as hard-hitting as him driving off to the launch.

This. The camera work was so brilliant here, because while he's watching his son grow up, you see him crying as he's overwhelmed by everything, then when Murph finally gets on screen it stops showing us his face while she talks. Then it does this hard cut back to him at that point and he's just losing it... and I lost it... and the whole audience lost it.

Man what a great movie. I haven't had such an emotional experience in a film in years.

Also, exactly because an hour on the planet is seven years, wouldn't the signal be distorted as hell? Thumbs up on the insanely overpowered tidal waves due to the black hole, though.

Yeah, there'd be a shift in frequency. A shift that any first-year signal analyst at NASA would surely have realized was due to the time differential. Or the signal wouldn't have been received at all, depending on the capabilities of the radio equipment. Either way, it certainly wouldn't have appeared to be working normally.

Also, exactly because an hour on the planet is seven years, wouldn't the signal be distorted as hell? Thumbs up on the insanely overpowered tidal waves due to the black hole, though.

It would be red-shifted to Hell, yes.

In addition, the frequency of visible light (400-789 Terahertz) reaching Miller's planet from outer space would be blue shifted into hard X-rays (~30 Exahertz). Not only did life not have enough time to arise, the environment would be too hostile to support any kind of life we know.

I'm also wondering what the planet was made out of to be outside its Roche limit.

There are several call-backs to 2001 (another favourite of mine) in Interstellar. If you love it, then I can only suggest you see Interstellar at your earliest convenience. :)

I loved 2001, loved loved loved it. I have found only one other person in real life that's felt anywhere near what I did about that movie/book.

Solaris was good, but didn't grab me like 2001 did. Hearing Interstellar being compared to 2001 makes me want to see it all the more.

You definitely should see it just for the visuals. There are some amazing scenes. I like the actors, for the most part. It's attempting to update 2001, but where 2001 leaves you to ponder the meaning of the wordless final act, INTERSTELLAR beats you over the head with Hallmark card sentiments, accompanied by Hans Zimmer's bombastic music. For me, it didn't so much tug at my heartstrings as attempt to rip them out. In the end, I just think it needed a good script doctor who could spot the darlings that needed to be killed.

Just as an example, take Dr. Mann: I loved the idea of that character, and what being alone out there did to him. But he shouldn't have needed to say anything to explain what he was doing in his climactic scene with Cooper. It all could have been communicated later, when the data is dug up from his robot. In fact, as I remember it WAS all explained then. Even as that scene was happening, I was thinking there must be a better way to reveal his motivations than to just have him spell it out.

Having him spell it all out drove home how lonely he was. When you go that long without human contact, the gap between what you think and what you say out loud wears down to nothing.

This is what happens when you spend a measly six months alone in an arctic wasteland. By comparison, Dr. Mann was doing pretty well.

I was disappointed by it. I wanted to love it, and was very excited to see it, but sometimes movies try to do too much, and in my opinion this one did. MOON was superior, as was GRAVITY. The original SOLARIS mined the same territory and packed a bigger emotional punch for me, but what do I know? Modern audiences find that movie even more boring than its contemporary rival, 2001.

Solaris is an excellent film, and I guess you can color me a weirdo that I thought the remake in 2012 was good too. But about the only similarity between Solaris and Insterstellar is the space part. The story and arc are completely different.

- M

Yeah, it's broad strokes at this point for me. It's been almost 20 years since I've seen it, and 12 since I've seen the remake. Is the remake with Clooney the one you mean--the one that came out in 2002?

In fairness I saw the original SOLARIS while deep in my Tarkovski phase, and was steeped in his "vocabulary" at the time. I might have a different reaction now.