I was pretty happy with the interviews I went through for my current position, although that might be selection bias because I passed them. They all shared some important attributes:
1: Fairly open-ended, there was no "bzzt-wrong" moment like the Office 97 case in TFA, so I didn't feel a lot of pressure. It was definitely enough rope to hang oneself, so the interviewers could form an actionable and objective judgment, but as a candidate, I didn't feel that I was on trial, more just chilling and talking tech with some other nerds.
2: The underlying skills (understanding one's audience, breaking a large problem into pieces, making reasonable assumptions) were obviously directly applicable to the position. I never felt that I was doing senseless work, even when the questions were clearly contrived, because the connections were self-evident.
3: Despite the above, the actual questions didn't require a lot of domain-specific knowledge. Even the one that sorta did, could be answered by assuming that it was similar to a more common system, and that's how I approached it.
4: In every case, there were "plan B" options and accommodations for having a gap in one's knowledge. "I don't know this off the top of my head, but here's where I'd go to find out and here's the guess I'm going to use in the meantime" was a valid answer. Perhaps the best answer in some cases.
The result is that I work with a team of people who are super adaptable, can think on their feet, but have a keen interest in pushing towards correctness as soon as real information is available. Whenever I think about possibly going elsewhere, I remember that most HR departments don't select for any of those attributes, often quite the opposite. (And those places tend to be the clients whose problems we get called in to help solve, as a result.)