posted 11-06-2014 04:00 PM               

'Interstellar' actors sought space tips from real NASA astronaut

Actors Matthew McConaughey and Anne Hathaway, who play astronauts in Christopher Nolan's new science fiction movie "Interstellar," learned how to portray life in microgravity from a veteran NASA space traveler.

"There is an astronaut named Marsha, who consulted on the film," Hathaway told an audience of actors and press after an early screening of "Interstellar" in Los Angeles. "I am embarrassed [for forgetting her full name] because she is an American hero and has been up in space five times."

That is Marsha Ivins, a retired NASA astronaut whose five missions on the space shuttle spanned more than 1,300 hours in Earth orbit from 1990 to 2001. Ivins flights helped deploy and recover satellites, restock supplies and swap out crewmembers at the Russian space station Mir, and deliver the United States' science laboratory "Destiny" to the International Space Station.

posted 11-06-2014 08:14 PM               

Avoid all the talk and reviews and just go along for the ride - it will not disappoint.

posted 11-06-2014 09:44 PM               

The National Air and Space Museum's Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center in Chantilly, Va., will host the world-premiere exhibition of the "Ranger" spacecraft from "Interstellar," giving visitors a view of the actual spacecraft built for the film. In addition to the "Ranger," the exhibition will include an immersive Oculus Rift Development Kit 2 (DK2) experience, allowing visitors to interactively explore the film's "Endurance" spacecraft. The exhibition will be free and open to the public Nov. 6–20.

posted 11-09-2014 08:39 PM               

I, of course, love that NASA is the hero in the story, and really, really want to slap the teacher who talked of revising the history books to say Apollo was a hoax to fool the Soviets into spending too much money in space!

posted 11-09-2014 10:01 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
Seen it and I have to say massive disappointment.

---

I was very disappointed in this film.

posted 11-10-2014 06:03 AM               

'Interstellar' director, actors inspired by space history

On screen, director Christopher Nolan's film "Interstellar" invites audiences on a futuristic journey stretching the fabric of space and time.

Behind the scenes though, it was real space history rather than a sci-fi-based future that inspired Nolan to make the film, as well as gave stars Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain reason to reconsider their connections to space exploration.

"Space exploration, to me, has always represented the most hopeful and most optimistic endeavor that mankind has ever engaged with," Nolan said at a press conference preceding the film's release.

posted 11-10-2014 06:28 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
I was very disappointed in this film.

---

I didn't think it was a perfect film, some of the dialogue made me cringe and there were moments that ripped me back into reality (e.g. did Cooper really just launch into space without training at all?) but this isn't a documentary (despite the quite nice alludes to Ken Burns) and at its core it tells an engaging science fiction story.

That, coupled with the stunning visuals and performances by McConaughey, Hathaway, Chastain, Caine and Lithgow (and ...), made the three hours pass by without it feeling long or drawn out. In fact, my first thought on the film ending was that I would have liked some of the scenes to be longer than they were.

posted 11-10-2014 10:45 AM               

I like what you said about being longer for some scenes. I said the same thing to my girlfriend when we left, which she did not agree to, lol. I wish there had been just a bit more at the end to (Spoilers)

posted 11-10-2014 11:31 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSpace86:
To enjoy a movie like "Interstellar," "Inception," etc., you have to make sure you don't compare it to the real world and dive into it for the experience.

---

With "Interstellar," you had to stretch that level of acceptance to downright comical lengths. I'm at a loss as to how I could go over all the plot holes and not take a lot of my time doing so, but there were so many I gave up trying to keep track of them all. Anything that isn't explained is simply put off as "it must be us, way in the future." The science was so flawed that again, I wouldn't even know where to start.

Put simply, any movie that people rave mostly about, "how cool it looks" should be a red flag to most people that it lacks substance. That certainly applies in this case, in spades. It IS a cool looking movie, no question. But it's also a real mess of a movie, too.

And at the risk of putting out spoilers, they don't even resolve the basic premise of the movie at all.

Some will compare it to "2001," which is sort of valid in the concept of a very good-looking space film that didn't make a lot of sense to folks, but 2001 made perfect sense up to the very end. "Interstellar," for lack of any better way to put it, was an unholy mess. I'm convinced that the reviewers who have raved about it did so only because they couldn't admit to themselves that they didn't get it and assumed it was high art.

posted 11-10-2014 11:47 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
The science was so flawed that again, I wouldn't even know where to start.

---

I know that Phil Plait and others have pointed out other issues, but again, this is science fiction.

quote:

---

And at the risk of putting out spoilers, they don't even resolve the basic premise of the movie at all.

---

posted 11-10-2014 02:59 PM               

Those issues are all buttoned-up, and Kip has a book on the science of the film (The Science of Interstellar) about what's real, and what's speculation — because much of it is, of course, speculation. There have been a bunch of knee-jerk tweets by people who've only seen the film once, but to really take on the science of the film, you're going to need to sit down with the film for a bit and probably also read Kip's book. I know where we cheated in the way you have to cheat in movies, and I've made Kip aware of those things.

posted 11-10-2014 07:47 PM               

NASA is persona non grata, it's taught in schools that the moon landings did not happen, but at the same time there is a massive secret NASA installation and what must be billion dollar or more spacecraft have been and are being built.

The film rests on the lead character Cooper's love for his daughter. I guess his son can just go ahead and die then?

And love surpasses time, space and gravity. No it doesn't.

The "tesseract" time sequence climax has Cooper trying to get a message to his daughter in the past to tell him to stay, moments after he gave her the coordinates to the NASA base that caused him to leave... Just don't do that then.

And while we are at it, who were NASA planning would lead the mission, since Cooper essentially recruited himself? If they are so keen on him, why not just go get him?

posted 11-10-2014 08:02 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
...but at the same time there is a massive secret NASA installation and what must be billion dollar or more spacecraft have been and are being built.

---

quote:

---

Just don't do that then.

---

quote:

---

And while we are at it, who were NASA planning would lead the mission, since Cooper essentially recruited himself?

---

posted 11-11-2014 08:00 AM               

It's like discussing how the Force works in "Star Wars." Midi-chlorians are an interesting detail (for some) but you don't need to know anything about them while watching the original trilogy (even though George Lucas says he came up with the idea in 1977).

As for "attempts at emotional meaningfulness," well, whether he succeeded or not, that was Nolan's purpose for the film. In that sense, they are more critical to the story than any of the technical details presented (or omitted) from the narrative.

posted 11-11-2014 05:22 PM               

This is Nolan's, "2001," ending nobody understands included. There's no harm in that, but just don't say it all clicked.

Ask yourself this, why do you so easily accept the Cooper character found himself in some kind of Narnia-based black hole, then instantly in a hospital, and NOT ONE WORD is said about how he got there? That'd be like Bruce Willis showing up at runway 33 at KSC after the rest of the characters landed after blowing up the asteroid in "Armageddon" and nobody thinks to ask, "Hey, how'd you get here?" And then, the fans saying that it was answered in the movie, when it clearly wasn't.

I'm still befuddled at the numbers of people who'll say Bruce coming back made sense in that case.

Tell me you liked it anyway, plot holes and all, and I'd respect that.

posted 11-11-2014 06:08 PM               

How Cooper gets from the black hole to the O'Neill colony isn't critical to the plot. We know the tesseract can manipulate both time and space, so it's a rather simple conclusion that it dropped him within the vicinity of the colony, such that he could be recovered. (And it is said that he was recovered by a Ranger spacecraft.)

posted 11-11-2014 08:07 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by p51:
The fervor people will jump to the defense of this movie is downright staggering. You can tell me you liked it, you can say you personally didn't care that so many things were left unanswered, but you simply canot honestly say that there were massive holes in the plot. If you can, you just didn't see the movie. There's no other way around that.

---

The main fervor, on this forum at least, seems to be coming from those who are jumping to attack this film, not from those looking to defend it.

After Cooper (SPOILER ALERT) passes through the black hole, it is immediately obvious he is back in the vicinity of Saturn, where the colony to pass people through the wormhole is being developed (and where Cooper is taken to hospital.) As Cooper is floating in the abyss, flashing lights in the distance indicate the Ranger spacecraft coming to pick him up.

Films do not have to spell everything out for the viewer, and if you are familiar with Nolan's work you will be aware that he often leaves out the obvious. I would have to disagree in terms of there being major plot holes.

I have seen the movie twice now and while some of the physics was hard to fathom for the layman, I cannot fault it. A more developed ending with Cooper seen landing on Brand's planet might have been more pleasing, but it is strongly implied so I left satisfied.

Arguing over films is as pointless as arguing over who your favorite astronaut/mission was - every one of our opinion's is going to be completely and utterly different.

I respect the fact that you and others might not have enjoyed the film. In stark contrast, I thought it was one of the most powerful, emotional and enjoyable films I have ever seen.

The complete contrast in our opinions sum up the beauty of cinema if you ask me.

posted 11-12-2014 09:18 PM               

It's being reported that "Interstellar" co-writer Jonathan Nolan is working with HBO on an adaptation of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.

posted 11-12-2014 10:54 PM            

I saw the film at an early IMAX screening with my wife and 12 year old daughter. I have to say that I think she was the youngest one in the theater.

The IMAX sound was loud initially. The "crash" scene at the beginning was so loud that I could feel my clothes shaking around me. This was an intense experience, and through sheer coincidence brought to me thoughts of the recent SpaceShipTwo accident.

The sound level settled down after that and we were all totally enthralled by the movie. It's nearly three hours long and I never moved. The story is good, the acting is great, and the visuals deserve all the credit Hollywood deems necessary to dole out every year. (I'm NOT a fan of the multitude of annual awards shows.)

The film is very large in scope... every bit what 2001 was in its time. Some "film critics" got completely lost in the Einstein physics of it and gave up, leaving themselves to berate the parts they couldn't understand to fill their column inches and earn their paychecks. Sad.

I think some critics had already made up their minds about Nolan and his social/political leanings and went into the theater looking for reasons to bash the film for some deep ambiguous meaning behind it. I enjoyed his "Dark Knight Rises," but found the overt presentation of the current issue of "income inequality" to be too central to the plot. But I certainly didn't take that bias with me when I went to see "Interstellar."

It was earlier said "you take away from the film what you bring to it." I think this is perfectly stated, only I would advise not to take anything into the theater with you. Leave your preconceptions, biases, or opinions at the door. Go see it, enjoy it on the big screen while you can, and don't try to compare it to anything else. You'll be amazed.

When I went, toward the end of it people were crying in the theater. Yup, crying out loud. When it ended, people applauded. You don't see that very often. The story and the intensity of it affected every viewer differently.

posted 11-13-2014 11:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Captain Apollo:
I wonder if being a Brit not an American makes a difference.

---

Well, I for one am Irish not American if that means anything, and I loved it. (Not convinced nationality has anything to do with enjoyment of the film though.)

328KF summed up my own experience of this film to be honest - I had the same reaction of people crying, applause at the end (both times I've seen it) and a multitude of questions and intrigue about space in the following days from my siblings who saw it with me. A powerful cinematic experience.

posted 11-14-2014 10:42 PM               

It all made sense to me and I like how it all kind of tied in the past "ghosts" from Murph in the early part of the movie. I didn't think it was boring at all, and really liked how the strange things made sense and tied together — but you have to pay close attention.

I'm one of those strange people that really liked "2001" and have seen it many times. Yeah, it's a slow movie, kind of boring, but it's always fascinated me. I did see some hints (even in the soundtrack) of "2001" in this movie also.

posted 11-17-2014 12:24 AM               

A few days ago, a group of us from SpaceX took the afternoon off to watch Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar'. We loved it. Then again, we don’t get out very often. We probably could have sat through 'Gigli' and loved it...

posted 11-17-2014 10:41 AM            

Special effects were spectacular.

Plot was not only full of holes but lacked continuity. In retrospect it seemed like three scripts combined into one movie, and not very well at that.

posted 11-18-2014 04:10 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sev8n:
Plot... lacked continuity.

---

posted 11-18-2014 05:15 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by sev8n:
Plot was not only full of holes but lacked continuity. In retrospect it seemed like three scripts combined into one movie, and not very well at that.

---

posted 10-09-2024 11:40 AM               

Celebrate ten thrilling years of "Interstellar" with this deluxe collector's edition exclusively featuring "The Future is Now," a new featurette looking back at this landmark epic from Oscar-winning director Christopher Nolan.

A team of pioneers undertakes the most important mission in human history — to discover whether mankind has a future among the stars. Oscar-winner Matthew McConaughey stars as the ex-pilot turned farmer who is forced to leave his family and a foundering Earth behind, to lead an expedition traveling beyond this galaxy.

This limited set includes the feature film on both 4K Ultra-HD and Blu-ray, a separate disc containing Special Features, reproductions of five costume patches, five theatrical poster reproductions, and a never-before-seen storyboard sequence from the director’s archives.