Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

I am amazed at the business Interstellar is doing, and I shouldn't be. Interstellar dropped a mere 40% this past weekend. While it's a very divisive film, people are still turning out in droves to give it its day in court and it'll reach $100 million domestic by the end of the day. And why is that? Because Big Hero 6 and Dumb and Dumber To didn't drastically cut into its audience. With the Hunger Games coming out this weekend, it will doubtlessly be affected and take a large hit, but not as big as countless blockbusters did this past summer, trampling on each other's momentum. Christopher Nolan is a smart man to open this film when he did. Internationally, it's already made $225, so even if Interstellar finishes up its domestic run with as little as its $165 budget (before P&A), it will be considered a hit.

So, he did it. He used the clout of The Dark Knight to make Inception (a $160 mil personal project) and then he did The Dark Knight Rises so he could make Interstellar (a $165 mil personal project). He's officially the most bankable person alive.

So, Neil deGrasse Tyson has more problems with Interstellar's science that first appeared, as exhibited by his series of "Mysteries of Interstellar" tweets. For example:

"Can't imagine a future where escaping Earth via a wormhole is a better plan than just fixing Earth."

and

"If you crack your space helmet yet keep fighting, the Planet's air can't be all that bad for you."

https://twitter.com/neiltyson

Greg wrote:For what it's worth, Interstellar is now #11 at IMDB.

Every Christopher Nolan movie has debuted there since "The Dark Knight" came out. IMDb is a cesspool.

Also, the best review I've heard about this film is that it "is '2001: A Space Odyssey' with an awful audio commentary track you can't turn off."

For what it's worth, Interstellar is now #11 at IMDB.

Sabin wrote:You will be avoiding, I take it?

I hope to. But I am curious as to whether the Syd Barrett song "Interstellar Overdrive" is used in the movie. Everytime I see the film's title, the song pops up in my head.

It is a pity that with it so rare to have science-fiction films that also contain good science, for Interstellar to apparently mix good science with an indecipherable plot. Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson states this succinctly with these two tweets:

In #Interstellar, if you didn’t understand the physics, try Kip Thorne’s highly readable Bbook “The Science of Interstellar"

In #Interstellar, if you didn’t understand the plot, there is no published book to help you.

https://twitter.com/neiltyson

BJ OTM. Just awful.

You will be avoiding, I take it?

Sabin and BJ, thank you for your service.

The Original BJ wrote:After the movie's set-up, we move gears into space territory, and here's where the script really starts explaining things, and by explaining things, I mean the characters start constantly talking about scientific wormhole space-time gobbledegook...and never let up! (And people thought Inception had too much exposition!)

Speaking of exposition, the best example of it I have ever seen is in JFK, where Jim Garrison testifies in court, and most of the testimony is voice-over narration for physical action. I think that is the way to do exposition, as voice-over narration rather than characters sitting and talking to each other. That way, you can explain what you need to without stopping the drama/suspense/comedy/etc.

I definitely think it's more ambitious than Gravity from a story perspective, but it's far, far messier. One of the reasons why Gravity was undeniably a bigger hit with the Academy was clarity. It's a very simplistic story but the narrative is built on a system of tasks that Sandra Bullock has to complete. The audience knows where they are and what's going on at all times. Interstellar is the complete opposite of that. In addition to that, Academy voters aren't going to know how to take the film. It's both nerdy and hokey. I think a lot of voters are going to react exactly like The Original BJ.

Comparisons to Gravity will abound and while some say it's better, the Academy isn't about to just jump aboard the very next big, expansive sci-fi epic to shower praise on. It's quite possible the film goes big, but it's equally possible that it goes small like most Christopher Nolan films have.

Depends on the competition. It's possible but I'm not banking on this movie getting much.

Sabin wrote:I feel most confident predicting it for nominations for Sound Effects and Visual Effects and maybe Original Score. It has a chance at Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing nominations but both the look and especially the sound mix are so strange that I could see voters saying "Fuck no."

What about Production Design?

I was not looking forward to Interstellar at all. After Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, and his presence on Man of Steel, Christopher Nolan moved into the avoid camp for me pretty strongly. To my surprise, I liked Interstellar more than any of his films since The Dark Knight. There is so much in this movie that is indefensibly problematic but it's such a nervy vision of things to come that I stayed on board for the ride at least until the third act which never got past the idea stage and then an epilogue which is edited into almost a montage. It also features the worst sound mix since Public Enemies. I would say the worst sound mix I've ever encountered but no sound mix is worse than Public Enemies. It is unbearably loud in parts but the effect of missing some of the dialogue to the music was a choice I found interesting at times. What I'll say in the film's defense is that every time something stupid occurs, like a character talking about the power of love, Nolan just found a way to suck me back in. And even if it's science for dummies (this isn't a smart film, but it is a pensive one), the way Nolan uses time as an antagonist as he does in Interstellar is something I haven't seen in another film.

As Nolan moves onward in his career, he shares something in common with Shyamalan. They both are clearly filmmakers who lead very insular lives. The characters in their films are increasingly archetypal and embody roles more than personalities ("Father", "Daughter", etc), but have all the feels. Deep existential self-worth issues that they can't process. This hits its fulcrum with Nolan's Interstellar but to those who say Nolan is a cold filmmaker (as I have) I would show a few scenes in particular from this film as an example to the contrary. And while the plotting is very messy (will there be a Director's Cut?), the emotions are not. I think in part I was just beguiled by what an expensive, long, imperfect vision this was. It played to me like the A.I. Artificial Intelligence that everybody else seems to think A.I. Artificial Intelligence is, which is to say a mess, not the masterpiece it is.

It's not going to be a giant flop but its inability to break even domestically will mark it as a disappointment. I see people walking out of the theaters because of the sound mix, the length, and just how depressing so much of it is. I absolutely understand what Quentin Tarantino was saying about Interstellar being Nolan's Tarkovsky film. As for the Oscars, it won't get anything. I feel most confident predicting it for nominations for Sound Effects and Visual Effects and maybe Original Score. It has a chance at Best Cinematography and Best Sound Mixing nominations but both the look and especially the sound mix are so strange that I could see voters saying "Fuck no."