I’m curious as to whether you’ve seen ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, to which coincidentally ‘Interstellar’ pays tribute imo. I’m wondering if you were similarly infuriated by the ending.
Ehh, as much as I’m apathetic toward Nolan, ‘Interstellar’ has only some vague plot points in common with ‘2001’, which don’t even develop the same way. And the meat on the bones is quite different.
After getting through a bunch of art pieces, one must accept that they will encounter works that repeat others in some aspects, like jazz tunes do.
Not the commenter you’re replying to, but for me the ending of “2001: A Space Odyssey” is clearly some abstract artsy metaphor, so it’s ok that it has zero scientific basis. Like ending on a dream.
The ending (the falling into the black hole part) of Interstellar is actually part of the plot, it actually impacts the other characters. If you want to sacrifice all logic for some emotional ending, there’s plenty of fantasy movies like that, but it’s not my cup of tea.
Hmmm, not really — it actually has elements similar to those in ‘Interstellar’. It’s just that the happenings are delivered in a much more vague manner. From what I’ve heard, Arthur Clarke’s novel describes them clearer.
The novel is more clear. Dave has evolved, literally. The monoliths are mile markers set out by ethereal aliens; the first teaching apes how to use tools, the other monitoring our progress to becoming space-faring.
Aliens ushering us into a next plane of evolution is a recurring them with Clark. Childhood’s End has the extraterrestrials taking a much more deliberate role in our species transition.
I’d say spoilers dude, but this is all sorta common knowledge around ‘2001’ the film. Afaik the novel also has some stuff about missiles and whatever, in the end phase. I should probably get through it someday, looks like it’s quite short even.
Quality rant.
I’m curious as to whether you’ve seen ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, to which coincidentally ‘Interstellar’ pays tribute imo. I’m wondering if you were similarly infuriated by the ending.
I wouldn’t so much say “pays tribute” to as arrogantly rips off… I may have given myself away as a 2001 fan and Nolan very-much-not-fan, though.
Ehh, as much as I’m apathetic toward Nolan, ‘Interstellar’ has only some vague plot points in common with ‘2001’, which don’t even develop the same way. And the meat on the bones is quite different.
After getting through a bunch of art pieces, one must accept that they will encounter works that repeat others in some aspects, like jazz tunes do.
Not the commenter you’re replying to, but for me the ending of “2001: A Space Odyssey” is clearly some abstract artsy metaphor, so it’s ok that it has zero scientific basis. Like ending on a dream.
The ending (the falling into the black hole part) of Interstellar is actually part of the plot, it actually impacts the other characters. If you want to sacrifice all logic for some emotional ending, there’s plenty of fantasy movies like that, but it’s not my cup of tea.
Hmmm, not really — it actually has elements similar to those in ‘Interstellar’. It’s just that the happenings are delivered in a much more vague manner. From what I’ve heard, Arthur Clarke’s novel describes them clearer.
The novel is more clear. Dave has evolved, literally. The monoliths are mile markers set out by ethereal aliens; the first teaching apes how to use tools, the other monitoring our progress to becoming space-faring.
Aliens ushering us into a next plane of evolution is a recurring them with Clark. Childhood’s End has the extraterrestrials taking a much more deliberate role in our species transition.
I’d say spoilers dude, but this is all sorta common knowledge around ‘2001’ the film. Afaik the novel also has some stuff about missiles and whatever, in the end phase. I should probably get through it someday, looks like it’s quite short even.
After a certain amount of time I think rights to spoiler warnings are forfeit. It’s been decades.
Sure, because everyone born later than those decades has seen those films.