Quote:
Originally Posted by m3thods
[*]The "normal" parts to the movie somehow looked worse. The dynamic range wasn't there, so there was a lot of things in darkness that I don't remember being dark. It might be the older theatre, but maybe not.
|
think i made a comment somewhere but the normal scenes were upconverted (albeit from a 4k source) and it was reported those images looked weak/soft
I didn't know that the regular versions of the film had horrible audio though, I noticed the dialogue issues (didn't see it in imax) and thought that was just how Nolan made it; which was quite annoying
edit: well looks like Nolan and team wanted it that way http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/17/7...sound-designer
Quote:
Originally Posted by RunningFree
But I wonder if in a way, Interstellar succeeded where 2001 failed... ie. Giant space baby.
|
lol i dunno if that had never been done before and i saw it today i would be like

but since its from the 60's I guess I give it allowances
Quote:
I think the only character I really had any empathy for was Dr. Mann.
|
Damon performed well but its just a nitpick for me i guess that his type of characters profile/m.o. has been overused for me (from other films) so i didn't really care either :/
Quote:
The one thing that did have me excited, only to let me down:
*sigh* Ok it wasn't exactly as bad as I'm making it out to be... but even the people I watched it with, who aren't very critical viewers felt cheated.
|
YES! that's a complaint I've seen and heard a lot! I'm actually pretty surprised so many ppl feel the same way about that...maybe they'll release an extended version on disc with it
I think my expectations may have been too high...i dunno..so we were pretty bummed out by it however not so let down that we would walk out of the movie (which we've done before)