Interstellar - TBA

[JimDiGriz]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

?

Check the thread title.

[Sky_Captain]

Originally Posted by Impossible

The problem with Inception was that it took an hour for it to tell us, then show us, then tell us again, then show us again (incase we didn't get it the second, third or fourth time it relayed the same information to us) and then after all the buildup presented us with 3 REALLY boring dream sequences ripped off from other films we'd seen done better a million times before.

The fact that the whole film was basically one rich ******** trying to rip off another rich ******** through an elaborate scheme made it even more polarizing for me. Who gives a shit what rich psychopaths do amuse themselves!

And don't even start me on the ****ing wife cliche clumsily inserted so the bored girlfriends of Nolan stanboys had something to keep them 'entertained'......

Overcooked, terribly written MESS!

Indiana... Let it go.

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Sky_Captain

Indiana... Let it go.

...Junior... Sorry couldn't resist

[Impossible]

Lol!

[roguejp]

I don't understand why somebody keeps posting in a thread about a movie which they dislike....give your opinion once or twice and then move on to things which you like. Believe me, that's time better spent .

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by roguejp

I don't understand why somebody keeps posting in a thread about a movie which they dislike....give your opinion once or twice and then move on to things which you like. Believe me, that's time better spent .

I haven't seen Interstellar and this isn't the Inception thread.

'thread topic goes South on internet chat forum shocker'

I only gave my opinion on Inception ONCE and on the Director TWICE, by your 'rules' I've done nothing wrong.

Stan elsewhere *shrug

[DGilberts]

Originally Posted by stargazeruk

Hmm you should look up, Beowulf, The Prestige, watchmen, Zodiac.

Watchmen was distributed in the UK by paramount and was better then the US warner release.

Beowulf, Zodiac and A.I paramount in the US did a far better job than warner who released it in the rest of the world.

Disney did a far better job with The Prestige than warner ever did.
Disney release was LCPM 6.9MBps and high bitrate AVC.
Warner was lossy Dolby digital 5.1 and low bitrate VC1.

In all cases except one warner if another studio is releasing it warner is crapper compared to other studios.

The only exception was terminator salvation (not really worth mentioning). Warner did do barely slightly better than the Sony release if your anal to pause and look it up because of using 2 disks for the cuts and it was only minimal at best (3 cuts if you count the director walkthrough as well). Given the fact warner had 2 cuts on 2 different disks and Sony's was on one it should of been miles ahead.

Most of Warner's films average 19mbps and very few jump above that. All other studios have films that go up to the high 20mbps to mid 30mbps

I trust every other studio to do far better than warner ever will. I just hope this is region free.

This is great info, thank you. This film deserves the best transfer on Blu-Ray and I will be watching out on here to see which is best, UK or US.

2nd time in the imax 70mm tonight, it's that good.

[roguejp]

Originally Posted by Impossible

I haven't seen Interstellar and this isn't the Inception thread.

'thread topic goes South on internet chat forum shocker'

I only gave my opinion on Inception ONCE and on the Director TWICE, by your 'rules' I've done nothing wrong.

Stan elsewhere *shrug

Sorry, I haven't stated any rules, only my own inability to understand certain members. I'm working on it, but it's a long process.

I just wanted to save you time and energy, but I guess some people are impossible to please. Maybe direct some of that energy to your math skills, btw, I count 2 Inception replies and 5 director replies...but hey, who's really counting ... *shrug

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by levcore

It would be insane to judge a Michael Bay movie and a Christopher Nolan movie by the same criteria.

Actually that is not how the definition of insanity works

[nuttyhotspurs]

saw it last night and really enjoyed it as i have with most of his other films. i get the impression that this is the film of 2014 that's cool to hate?! it was just pure sci fi fantasy to me! any film that's able to keep me interested for 3 hrs gets a thumbs up👍lol

[levcore]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Actually that is not how the definition of insanity works

It's just the way I speak on the forum, not meant to be taken completely literally.

[DJJez]

Originally Posted by nuttyhotspurs

saw it last night and really enjoyed it as i have with most of his other films. i get the impression that this is the film of 2014 that's cool to hate?! it was just pure sci fi fantasy to me! any film that's able to keep me interested for 3 hrs gets a thumbs up��lol

every time a christopher nolan film is released, all the trolls come out of their caves to tell everyone how shit his films are and how terrible of a director he is................

[levcore]

Originally Posted by DJJez

every time a christopher nolan film is released, all the trolls come out of their caves to tell everyone how shit his films are and how terrible of a director he is................

Lol.

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by DJJez

every time a christopher nolan film is released, all the trolls come out of their caves to tell everyone how shit his films are and how terrible of a director he is................

I don't think he's a terrible director, I think he's better when he stops with his pretentious "let's confuse the audience" gimmick and tells actual stories. But apparently people seem to like his gimmicky films, so sadly I can't see him moving away from them any time soon and that disappoints me....

If that makes me a troll, then I should probably find a bridge to guard, or something...

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by DJJez

every time a christopher nolan film is released, all the trolls come out of their caves to tell everyone how shit his films are and how terrible of a director he is................

Does the same message go to the trolls who say he is beyond reproach and faultless?

[Tech-UK]

Originally Posted by Buzz201

I don't think he's a terrible director, I think he's better when he stops with his pretentious "let's confuse the audience" gimmick and tells actual stories. But apparently people seem to like his gimmicky films, so sadly I can't see him moving away from them any time soon and that disappoints me....

If that makes me a troll, then I should probably find a bridge to guard, or something...

He doesn't confuse the audience, but gets them to think. And that is what modern films lack these days, more precisely blockbusters.

It's a film, it doesn't have to make perfect sense.

2001: ASO doesn't make sense, the whole point is for the viewer to draw their own conclusion, if that conclusion is one of confusion, perhaps one should stop watching those types of films and go back to watching Transformers, Thor, etc.

Nothing wrong with those films either, but those films provide fun rather than food for thought.

[dvdmike]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

He doesn't confuse the audience, but gets them to think. And that is what modern films lack these days, more precisely blockbusters.

It's a film, it doesn't have to make perfect sense.

2001: ASO doesn't make sense, the whole point is for the viewer to draw their own conclusion, if that conclusion is one of confusion, perhaps one should stop watching those types of films and go back to watching Transformers, Thor, etc.

Nothing wrong with those films either, but those films provide fun rather than food for thought.

Getting people to "think" by leaving out half the script is not good film making, instead of seeing in more than once they need to go and see the imitation game and actually think.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

He doesn't confuse the audience, but gets them to think. And that is what modern films lack these days, more precisely blockbusters.

It's a film, it doesn't have to make perfect sense.

2001: ASO doesn't make sense, the whole point is for the viewer to draw their own conclusion, if that conclusion is one of confusion, perhaps one should stop watching those types of films and go back to watching Transformers, Thor, etc.

Nothing wrong with those films either, but those films provide fun rather than food for thought.

Erm, how does he make you think when he shows you the same thing over and over again and over explains everything to labour his point.

I actually yelled 'ok I get it' at the screen in the cinema while watching Inception.

The only thing he made me 'think' was Jesus you're a shocking writer.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by dvdmike

Does the same message go to the trolls who say he is beyond reproach and faultless?

I think we already know the answer to that one......

[Buzz201]

Originally Posted by Tech-UK

He doesn't confuse the audience, but gets them to think. And that is what modern films lack these days, more precisely blockbusters.

It's a film, it doesn't have to make perfect sense.

2001: ASO doesn't make sense, the whole point is for the viewer to draw their own conclusion, if that conclusion is one of confusion, perhaps one should stop watching those types of films and go back to watching Transformers, Thor, etc.

Nothing wrong with those films either, but those films provide fun rather than food for thought.

Inception made perfect sense to me, I just felt he could have written something better if he'd spent less time to confuse the audience (or "make them think" as you'd put it). The entire thing just came across as pretentious with delusions of grandeur, but with no real world application, connection, or conclusions to draw, which is what I would argue constitutes "food for thought", rather than 'what dream layer are they in now?'. The whole thing could have been improved immensely if he spent less time focussing on the whole (rather silly) set up and more time focussing on character development.

In your second paragraph you misguidedly attempt to forgive Inception by claiming it doesn't have to make sense (I'd argue there's a difference between making sense and being ambiguous, and you can both make sense and be ambiguous - see Duncan Jones' Source Code), amusingly forgiving Transformers of it's biggest flaw in the process. I appreciate many can't, but I can forgive poor editing, general sexism and the sexualisation and otherwise inappropriate treatment of a children's toy. What I can't forgive is that it makes no bloody sense and nobody either side of the camera seems to care. Maybe Inception is a pretentious version of Transformers?

(For reference, I do appreciate the hypocrisy of calling something pretentious then using the term "delusions of grandeur".)