Talk:Interstellar (film)

Poster

There are two new posters of the film, both that can be seen here. I initially uploaded the spacesuit one, but it was replaced by the farm one. I reverted it because I think the spacesuit one is more reflective of the film's science fiction genre, and another reason is that this seems like it will be the more common poster compared to the IMAX one, which will not be as widespread. I wanted to start a discussion here to see if editors feel one way or another about what poster image to use. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Now there's two more posters... the spaceship one and the crew-emerging-from-water one. Can we determine a consensus here on which poster to commit to? I think it is standard to stick with the one-sheet (in this case the U.S. one), unless there is an international non-IMAX poster forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for the spaceship poster. Such a unique beauty compared to the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammyjankis88 (talk • contribs) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is a nice poster, but I think we want to choose the most identifying image for the infobox. We want to make sure we use non-free content appropriately for as immediate recognizability as possible. I'm not really sure which poster will be most commonly seen by moviegoers. I think that the current one is the U.S. one-sheet, but I can't tell whether or not the other ones are IMAX. If one of them is an international non-IMAX poster, maybe we could use that. I sure hope there aren't more posters forthcoming. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:48, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Just to add to the debate, the spacesuit poster seems the predominant one on Australian cinema websites, based on a (very) quick search of Hoyts/Village/Dendy/Event/etc. -Oosh (talk) 01:01, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for the spaceship poster too. In addition to looking the best, it also best represents the image of the film. The MM spacesuit walk-around is too literal. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will go ahead and support the spaceship poster as well. Warner REBORN, pardon me for undoing your addition, but you can upload a new version of a file to the same file name. It will replace the original file and keep most of the template and wording the same. That makes four of us in support of the spaceship poster. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Warner REBORN, the poster you tried to upload has been around as long as the others. The discussion above determined that we would use the spaceship poster. If you want to revisit the consensus, let us know, and we can ping the other editors and invite additional editors to the discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that the poster of Mathew McConaughey on the icy planet is better as the displayed poster. The current poster has less "identifiable" elements, while the one I prefer shows the leading character/actor. Sidenote: in my opinion, the one I prefer is more visually appealing than the current. Another option that is best for "identification" is the one which has the crew in the water, though I dislike the appearence of it (too orangy), apparently worse than the current poster. Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 23:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Runtime

The runtime is reported to be 169 minutes mainly because this (a theater chain's website) states that. I am finding this source weak, especially when it calls the film a drama instead of science fiction. I would like to exclude it until we have something more widely reported (e.g., initial reviews that state the length). What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

To follow up on this, the theater chain actually changed the runtime from 169 to 175. Runtimes should not be dynamic, so I've removed it from the article body. We need a different source to reference for the runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Theater runtimes often include trailers. I would wait for reviews and/or the BBFC. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Release date

FirstShowing.net is saying that the film will be released as early as November 4th, but it is basing the information on a listings website like other sources based their runtime-related reports on a listings website. I don't think this is a strong enough source and that we should wait for greater validation before changing the article to report this date. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter mentions November 5th as the earliest. I've updated the Wikipedia article with this information. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is also this from The Hollywood Reporter that says 240 theaters through 77 markets, so it does not sound like it is just North America, like the previous article claimed. I've updated accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, "77 markets" was not international but rather within North America itself. So it is correct to say that the film will be released in North America on November 5th. This shows the breakdown. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey

This article's reference to '2001: A Space Odyssey' is of interest, and apparent in the recent trailer for the film - both in setting and cinematography.

However what may not be as apparent to some readers is the use of Saturn (not Jupiter as in the film version) as a destination, and going through a 'wormhole' of sorts. In the 1968 novel (Arthur C. Clark) version of '2001: A Space Odyssey' the spaceship Discovery goes to Saturn and visits the moon Iapetus where they find a large TMA-2 (a black monolith) which is found to be "full of stars" (like a 'wormhole') and the trip into infinity continues, including eventual images of a planet where astronaut David Bowman is taken (much like in the film version).

Several of the images from the film Interstellar have a parallel to 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.220 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we will probably get commentary comparing the film to 2001 that we can use in the article body. Hopefully commentators will notice what you did so we can reference them. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

References to use

• Matthew McConaughey, John Lithgow on Okotoks set of Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar at Calgary Herald
• How Imax can help Interstellar at Screen International
• New 'Interstellar' Book Will Go Behind the Scenes of Sci-Fi Film at Space.com
• Hollywood star Matthew McConaughey in Fort Macleod to film scene from ‘Interstellar’ at Macleod Gazette
• Google Promotes Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' With Interactive Digital Hub at Hollywood Reporter
• ‘Interstellar’ Oculus Rift Experience Coming To Select Theaters at Slashfilm.com
• Everything We Know So Far About Interstellar at Vulture
• Christopher Nolan's ‘Interstellar’ at Center of Unique Google Deal at The Wrap
• 'Interstellar' May be a 'Cli-fi' Classic (Guest Blog) at TheWrap
• This week's cover: Your exclusive all-access pass to Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' at Entertainment Weekly
• Inside 'Interstellar,' Christopher Nolan's emotional space odyssey at Entertainment Weekly
• Interstellar: what we know so far at The Telegraph
• 15 New Details About Interstellar at Vulture
• 'Interstellar's' Christopher Nolan, Stars Gather to Reveal Secrets of the Year's Most Mysterious Film at The Hollywood Reporter
• How Building a Black Hole for Interstellar Led to an Amazing Scientific Discovery at Wired
• Flight Club at The New York Times

References to use. Please add, and strike out when it is used in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Warner Bros. (International/Other territories)

In the distributor section of the film, I propose changing Warner Bros.' description from 'Other territories' to 'International', as I feel that 'Other territories' implies that the film is being distributed by WB in selected countries. I feel that the 'International' label should be used as it is much more common and offers a broader implication that it is being released in all other countries. I just wanted to check first and get an overall consensus. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem with using "international" is that it is part of the US-centric language to say that the United States is the domestic theatrical run and everywhere else is the international theatrical run. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we need to write for a global audience, not a US one. (That's why we avoid using "domestic" here too.) I personally don't see "other territories" as select, but we could do "remaining territories" as a possible alternative. Open to hearing what other editors have to say. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)}, @TheDarkKnight180 (talk). Difficult. If this was an only American film possibly "international", but it is a USA / UK production. Warner. Bros is not doing the whole world, only most. For Paramount we used "North America", the continent that includes US. This means it is possible to say "Europe" (continent of UK) for Warner.Bros. Per guidelines we only do the distributors for the countrny of origin and a extremely dominant world producer. So feal free to discuss.--Warner REBORN (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific accuracy"

At the current state, I think it should be moved into Production, at least renamed; "Scientific assistance" would be better (in the current state). Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Freshness For Lettuce! Thanks for your help with the article so far. I was not crazy about having the "Scientific accuracy" section this early because I didn't want to put forth only the filmmakers' claim about the film being scientifically accurate. Such a section should usually have independent commentary (with the filmmakers' claim as only part of it), per the guidelines at WP:FILMSCI. If we merged it into "Production" now, we don't even need a separate section, just to put Thorne's quote in the most appropriate place. Want to do that? A real "Scientific accuracy" section can then happen when people actually see the film and write about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To update my thoughts on this discussion, I think that the new content in this section should be moved to "Visual effects" (as well as the Thorne quote where appropriate). If there is independent commentary about the film's scientific accuracy, we can recreate the section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Another Galaxy?

Isaac Asimov pointed out years ago that one sign of a poorly-researched scifi story is that the writer says "galaxy" when he/she means "solar system", which means something quite different. "Star Trek" used the terms properly; many other movies and TV series mess them up. So when the summary says "another galaxy", is that the summarizer's mistake or the movie's? 50.180.19.238 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)