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 have seen 2001 and that one didn’t bother me at all.
The whole ordeal with HAL is over, the story arc has essentially closed. They just need to reveal what they find. They get to the artifact. Then… stuff happens. Nothing is explained. I always assumed it was supposed to visualise things that are beyond our comprehension, but that’s already my interpretation.
Is it a good ending? Dunno, I like it, but I can see that it’s controversial. But is it something that goes against the movie until that end? Absolutely not. The movie started with 20 minutes of monkey business.
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.
I was born after that movie. I’m not bitching about Game of Thrones spoilers as I’m just watching it. It’s your fault if you’re… let’s check… 58 years behind.
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.
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 have seen 2001 and that one didn’t bother me at all.
The whole ordeal with HAL is over, the story arc has essentially closed. They just need to reveal what they find. They get to the artifact. Then… stuff happens. Nothing is explained. I always assumed it was supposed to visualise things that are beyond our comprehension, but that’s already my interpretation.
Is it a good ending? Dunno, I like it, but I can see that it’s controversial. But is it something that goes against the movie until that end? Absolutely not. The movie started with 20 minutes of monkey business.
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.
Ain’t that 2010?
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.
I was born after that movie. I’m not bitching about Game of Thrones spoilers as I’m just watching it. It’s your fault if you’re… let’s check… 58 years behind.
Verbal is Keyser Söze.
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.