Interstellar. Wow, hollywood got it right.

[sublight_]

It was pretty spectacular. None of you have seen it yet?

 

[Orionblamblam]

I saw it... and was saddened at the wide variety of bad, utterly wrong science on display, coupled with tired tropes about psychotic astronauts and "love is a force of nature" and mystical woo.

Such a disappointment.

Not really sure what Hollywood got right here, other than pointing out that governments can be monumentally dumb.

 

[sublight_]

Seriously, you did not dig TARS?

 

[Orionblamblam]

An interesting character, but quite physically unwieldy and impractical.

 

[Grey Havoc]

Interestingly:

When you’re filming a scene, what did TARS look like to the actors? He looked real.

TARS was there. And Bill Irwin, who plays TARS, was there with us. He would control him; he would do the voice. And that is beautiful, the relationship that they have – the comedy duo. TARS was absolutely there, it happened live. That’s not a spoiler, is it?

And Bill Irwin is best known, maybe, as the guy who is not Robin Williams or Bobby McFerrin in the ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’ video.

And he is a gentleman of huge proportions. I loved working with him.

So that metal TARS was just there? That’s great.

As you see TARS was how he was there. They made him a fully functional moving – there’s very little CGI on him.

http://screencrush.com/interstellar-david-gyasi/?trackback=tsmclip

 

[sublight_]

Not really sure what Hollywood got right here, other than pointing out that governments can be monumentally dumb.

I thought what they got right was the message that space NEEDS to be explored. They also did something that most movies don't do, they tried, and I believe succeeded in introducing the concepts of relativity and physics in a way that the audience would find palatable. I give them some kudos for this achievement.

And I think the moon landing book scene was well needed social commentary.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I thought what they got right was the message that space NEEDS to be explored.

Maybe so, but they thoroughly mangled the message. if Earth is doomed, you do not need to travel ten billion lightyears to find a new home. You don't need to leave the solar system. There are two whole other planets in this solar system which would serve nicely, not to mention a plethora of moons, comets and asteroids.

Worse, the mesage is that space needs exploration to serve as a lifeboat to save some tiny fraction. It's a "dark" message. The reality is, space needs to be explored not to keep us from dying, but to make us Filthy Stinking Rich, to give us Awesome Adventure And Fun, and because Kate Upton In Low Gravity IS A Sight Worth Seeing.

The message of the movie is akin to, a century ago, arguing that mankind needs to develop the automocar because we need ambulances. Not because of the economic boon or cultural advantages.

"Do it or die" is a useful message, but "do it and *live*" is an uplifting one.

They also did something that most movies don't do, they tried, and I believe succeeded in introducing the concepts of relativity and physics in a way that the audience would find palatable.

A pity they were so monumentally dismally wrong in the physics.

 

[VH]

Saw it and detected echos of '2001 Space Odyssey" in the way that wormhole space was portrayed. The various planets shown seemed to reflect the latest information regarding the types of worlds being discovered outside of out solar system. In particular I recall two water worlds discovered orbiting the star Kepler-62. I took those worlds to be stand-in's for the ocean world in the movie with the massive tidal waves.

Thought the attempt to graphically depict the concept of space-time a decent attempt to present an abstract subject to the public.


What I did find annoying is the recent trend of having some smart woman 'saving the day' . Although that was balanced by the male character relying on his experience and skill in piloting the ship beyond what a mere computer could do. I would like to see things more in line with reality to where being male is celebrated when it comes time to go beyond the set norm and accomplish extraordinary things.

Also it should be noted that the female astronaut character failed to obey orders and like the movie "Gravity" that resulted in loss of life. Other than those minor points I enjoyed the movie.

 

[Stargazer]

I will pretend I haven't seen what strikes me as just the most misogynistic, macho and plain stupid post in ages.

Meanwhile...

Worse, the mesage is that space needs exploration to serve as a lifeboat to save some tiny fraction. It's a "dark" message.

And yet it would be extremely naive to think that reality could ever be different. If Earth became impossible for man to survive on, only a very tiny fraction of billionaires, top brass, scientists and high-ranking politicians would get there (and probably a sample of healthy, beautiful individual meant to reproduce for the survival of the species). Billions of people on the planet... but a few thousand survivors at the most.

Dark? Probably. But the history of mankind has amply proved that when all comes to the worst, it's only a very tiny fraction of people who stay protected in their bunkers, atomic shelters and the like. Human life at large is of little relevance to the small fraction of the world population that holds the reins of power, be it economic, financial, military, religious or else. And I'm willing to bet they certainly would not bother to make their utmost efforts and spend down to their last penny to save a maximum of individuals.

Anyone who thinks different and believes in vast Earthly migrations in space with thousands of gigantic Earthly ships carrying most of the Earthly population must have watched too much sci-fi and/or have unreasonable faith in Earthly technology. Given the time and money it takes to get only a small spaceship in space, there wouldn't be enough time or money to build these thousands of ships in time for escape. It just seems preposterous to me... wake up, people, sci-fi is great but reality is a lot more grim than your wishful fantasies!

 

[flateric]

Honesty = 5%
by Duran

 

[flateric]

Short movie plot

 

[AeroFranz]

OBB, without going into the minute details, what did they get wrong as far as physics? i thought I read somewhere they had some respectable scientists advisors. If that's the case, too bad, as far as I am concerned you can make a movie both accurate and entertaining.


VH, I have spent six years in engineering school with 15% female population, and continued in a career with similar levels of ladies participation. I can only say that if showing more positive female models on screen fosters their participation in STEM, by all means. The few women I work with earn their keep in spades, more so than a lot of male colleagues whose contributions are somewhere between useless to downright detrimental.

 

[Orionblamblam]

And yet it would be extremely naive to think that reality could ever be different.

Incorrect.

Around 70,000 years ago, there was a genetic bottleneck. Due perhaps to the Toba supervolcano, humanity was virtually wiped out; everyone now alive descends from a group of something like 2,000 people, probably somewhere in Africa.

How is this relevant? Simple. If those 2,000 had been wiped out 70K years ago, that would have probably been it for the species. But if you wipe out 2,000 people in Africa *now,* who'd even notice?

So extend it outwards. If you wipe out 7 billion people on Earth now, that would be very, very bad for the species. But if you wipe out 7 billion (or however many there might be) on the Earth of 20,000 AD, the other several quadrillion humans and their descendants throughout the universe probably wouldn't even notice.

But the history of mankind has amply proved that when all comes to the worst, it's only a very tiny fraction of people who stay protected in their bunkers, atomic shelters and the like.

Nope. Ebola and other nasty diseases have gone rampaging through many regions, killing thousands, tens of thousands, millions. And for most people, it's at best some passing news they hear on the radio. Because their ancestors long ago picked up and left and bred like bunnies. The worst comes and most people don't even notice, because we have, in our on so-far limited way, gone to the stars.

Anyone who thinks different and believes in vast Earthly migrations in space with thousands of gigantic Earthly ships carrying most of the Earthly population

Nobody has suggested such a thing.

If you want mankind to survive some dark apocalypse, then support making spaceflight *fun.* Don't wait until the SHTF, instead go *now* because it's fun and profitable and full of promise. Then when the Greens take over the world and wipe out all life on Earth, the teeming multitudes living offworld can read about it in their newspapers and go "meh."

 

[Orionblamblam]

OBB, without going into the minute details, what did they get wrong as far as physics? i thought I read somewhere they had some respectable scientists advisors.

Kip Thorne was their black hole advisor, and they could not have asked for better. They clearly listened to him regarding what a BH would look like, but apparently not about how it worked. Yes, you can have a planet orbiting a million-solar-mass BH so deep down the gravity well that time dilation would turn an hour into seven years. But there's no conceivable propulsion system that would allow you to *access* that planet. I haven't done the math, but it's a safe bet that the planet is orbiting the BH at a good fraction of the speed of light. And so when the "Endurance" popped out of the wormhole far from the BH, far enough out that time dilation is trivial, it'd have no way of even reaching the inner planet, much less the BH itself.

And if the world had tides strong enough to make kilometer-high waves, they would turn the bedrock into magma.

And an accretion disk around a BH would produce so much in the way of Xrays that the planet would probably evaporate.


Plus: Love, love, love. Blah, blah, blah. Just once I want to see a movie where the fundamental forces of nature are influencable not by "love," but by "anger" or "hatred" or "ennui." Imagine if "meh" powered hyperdrives, "goddam-hippies-get-off-my-lawn" activated time machines but "love" was only able to make a lightbulb flicker.

 

[AeroFranz]

Ok, thanks. I thought a couple of those were iffy but i must confess my astrophysics are a little weak...

Plus: Love, love, love. Blah, blah, blah. Just once I want to see a movie where the fundamental forces of nature are influencable not by "love," but by "anger" or "hatred" or "ennui." Imagine if "meh" powered hyperdrives, "goddam-hippies-get-off-my-lawn" activated time machines but "love" was only able to make a lightbulb flicker.

I'm going to speak for everyone here and say we're all eagerly awaiting OBB's very own movie script featuring crotchety Clint Eastwood trying to escape a planet in a dystopian future where hippies run everything and firearms are not allowed

 

[VH]

OBB, without going into the minute details, what did they get wrong as far as physics? i thought I read somewhere they had some respectable scientists advisors. If that's the case, too bad, as far as I am concerned you can make a movie both accurate and entertaining.


VH, I have spent six years in engineering school with 15% female population, and continued in a career with similar levels of ladies participation. I can only say that if showing more positive female models on screen fosters their participation in STEM, by all means. The few women I work with earn their keep in spades, more so than a lot of male colleagues whose contributions are somewhere between useless to downright detrimental.

There have always been female scientists protrayed in popular movies. As far back as Rocketship XM-1 there has been the super smart female on a space crew. My complaint is how they make men today the dinosaur who somehow is out of touch with the reality around him. I subscribe to the Patton theory which shows a man behind glass and has the caption: "In case of war break glass". I think that by showing women being all weather and all purpose, the reality is being manipulated to somehow compensate for the lack of women in technical fields.


Women have their point of view. But at the end of the day its an all male crew that is the most effective in stressful tight situations.

 

[AeroFranz]

I don't know that there is any hard evidence to substantiate this. Personally i don't think that there is anything that makes women intrinsically less apt to lead or be equal within a team. I will definitely grant you physical strength differences. That being said, it's pretty much a given that diversity strengthens teams.

As for portrayal of strong female characters, they have so far tended to be occasionally smart, but inevitably in need of being rescued by the brawny man at some point in the movie, whereby they get to their "senses" and become romantically attracted to the male lead. Which tells me that somehow to the collective male psyche Hollywood is targeting (whatever that is, and i guess i'm part of that), it's less scary/threatening to be dumber than to be physically weaker. Come to think of it, that's the thing that should be offensive to dudes.

FWIW, I don't consider myself a feminist by any stretch of the imagination (and i even find it weird pointing these things out), but we definitely have a different reading of female vs. male portrayal in movies.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I'm going to speak for everyone here and say we're all eagerly awaiting OBB's very own movie script featuring crotchety Clint Eastwood trying to escape a planet in a dystopian future where hippies run everything and firearms are not allowed

Why would he leave? With a pointed stick, he could conquer the joint.

 

[Michel Van]

Let face it

INTERSTELLAR got some flaws and allot Death horse cliche*
but it great entertainment, who equal Kubrick 2001 (who got also some flaws)

*= like Dr. Mann in INTERSELLAR
Those guys volunteer for One-way trip to Mars,
find out that Mars is hell and goes bananas
and if First international mission land (with Return option)
He start to kill the crew for launch seat back home

Hey Hollywood that much better scenario as that stupid Mars Zombi Movie "the Last Day on Mars"
Let's hope that Ridley Scott get "the Martian" better as "Prometheus"

 

[theponja]

I think any movie who install scientific concepts in the mainstream media is significant even with flaws.
I like the space scenes, the very good use of "silence" on that scenes, the music and the worm-hole visualization.



[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]What pissed me off is the silly history: the cheap trick of the communication between the "future" cooper and the girl in the past. [/font]
[font=verdana, arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Tell us how the reach that point whiteout the help of a ghost in the future and that could be interesting. I'm very tired of that kind of loop in the movies. [/font]

 

[VH]

The movie Intersteller brought several interesting concepts regarding space-time phenomenon:


When Cooper the astronaut falls into the black hole his attempts to communicate or send information outside of the black hole suggests the phenomena of Hawking Radiation at work to where information does escape from the black hole as a virtual particle. This emission of information as virtual particle could explain the "poltergeist effect' Cooper's daughter detected as Cooper attempted to communicate his findings back to his daughter.


Complex numbers could describe the information field, i.e. the virtual particle . Like many others I had always thought that the imaginary part of a complex number represented a Tachyon particle but new research suggests that faster than light Tachyons might actually exist and could possibly carry information by 'burrowing' out of a Black hole to emerge into the fabric of space time as we experience it. Hence back to Hawking Radiation.


Great stuff.

 

[VH]

I think any movie who install scientific concepts in the mainstream media is significant even with flaws.
I like the space scenes, the very good use of "silence" on that scenes, the music and the worm-hole visualization.



What pissed me off is the silly history: the cheap trick of the communication between the "future" cooper and the girl in the past.
Tell us how the reach that point whiteout the help of a ghost in the future and that could be interesting. I'm very tired of that kind of loop in the movies.

Remember the reference in the movie to the compasses behaving strangely? That could be attributed to the warping of space-time as Cooper was attempting to communicate with his daughter.

 

[theponja]

I think any movie who install scientific concepts in the mainstream media is significant even with flaws.
I like the space scenes, the very good use of "silence" on that scenes, the music and the worm-hole visualization.



What pissed me off is the silly history: the cheap trick of the communication between the "future" cooper and the girl in the past.
Tell us how the reach that point whiteout the help of a ghost in the future and that could be interesting. I'm very tired of that kind of loop in the movies.

Remember the reference in the movie to the compasses behaving strangely? That could be attributed to the warping of space-time as Cooper was attempting to communicate with his daughter.

I remember. I'll simplify. My point is:

1) Young Murph get coordinates for NASA.
2) Cooper went to NASA site
3) Cooper becomes the pilot
4) He ends up in the black hole and gives coordinates Murphy.

So, the point 1 happens because the point 4. It's a time loop. If Coop isn't in the black hole in the point 4 he can't give her daughter the coordinates so How he went to the NASA site the first time?

I don't like this kind of situation in the plot. The writer avoids a lot of uncomfortable questions leaving it unexplained.

 

[VH]

The only plausible explanation is that time is not linear in non relativistic space. Maybe Cooper was already 'there' before he left for the mission. But in reality I don't know.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I think any movie who install scientific concepts in the mainstream media is significant even with flaws.
I like the space scenes, the very good use of "silence" on that scenes, the music and the worm-hole visualization.

I agree. It was a lot of fun to watch and the science was a lot harder than the usual “mutant neutrinos” crap that Hollywood loves. It also had plenty of great paternalistic string pulling and didn't follow the miserabilist “gaia is great, man is bad” meme that dominates most cultural products these days. Any film that can make docking between space ships more dramatic than a typical alien invasion while still keeping the science mostly right is great in my books.

But for plot holes you don’t need to go to time travel, psycho cowards, black hole science or their lack of noticing giant tidal waves destroying a planet from their freaking space ship (look out the window Rust!).

What I want to know is how did this future world lose the ability to build greenhouses? They aren't that complex? And if a nitrogen breathing blight is destroying all farm life on your planet then just farm in a green house. You can control the atmosphere and dirt inside and still get the free sunlight needed to grow food. No need for six billion people to starve or even the depopulated remnants of a post-apocalyptic world. Anyway it was still lots of fun even with plot holes big enough to build an intergalactic wormhole inside.

 

[pathology_doc]

I watched the first trailer silently because I didn't want to wake sleeping people in the same room.


The general vibe I got was one of despair and hopelessness, with a side order of "We can leave space colonisation to the last minute; something will pop up to save us". A reflection of reality in the US space programme, with an inward-looking, restrictive, depressing, antiscientific, anti-human way of seeing the world. So much for seeking out new life, new civilisations or boldly going anywhere at all. Well done, NASA. Not.


I have long since decided I will not be going out of my way to see the film. Too much of a chance I'll leave angry.

 

[theponja]

But for plot holes you don’t need to go to time travel, psycho cowards, black hole science or their lack of noticing giant tidal waves destroying a planet from their freaking space ship (look out the window Rust!).

What I want to know is how did this future world lose the ability to build greenhouses? They aren't that complex? And if a nitrogen breathing blight is destroying all farm life on your planet then just farm in a green house. You can control the atmosphere and dirt inside and still get the free sunlight needed to grow food. No need for six billion people to starve or even the depopulated remnants of a post-apocalyptic world. Anyway it was still lots of fun even with plot holes big enough to build an intergalactic wormhole inside.

I think they just wanted an excuse to search for a new planet. The excuse isn't very well explained.

I have long since decided I will not be going out of my way to see the film. Too much of a chance I'll leave angry.

Go and enjoy the images, the sound and ignore the details. I'm think is worth to watch. I'd go again just to see the space scenes in big screen.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

The general vibe I got was one of despair and hopelessness, with a side order of "We can leave space colonisation to the last minute; something will pop up to save us". A reflection of reality in the US space programme, with an inward-looking, restrictive, depressing, antiscientific, anti-human way of seeing the world. So much for seeking out new life, new civilisations or boldly going anywhere at all. Well done, NASA. Not.

Yeah but the whole point of the movie is the opposite of that attitude. They live in a world being devastated by an environmental catastrophe (not climate change) and the dominant attitude is to try and ride it out by being “caretakers” not by innovation and exploration. The protagonists in the film are challenging that attitude and trying to find a solution through space and science against the opposition of the misrabilist antagonists. Apart from that positive theme it is a very well made movie with plenty of drama without the need to resort to ridiculous cartoonish nonsense like most other contemporary films.

 

[marauder2048]

I'm not sure what you guys were expecting from a recent Nolan film; they are strong on message and visuals but weak on plot, pacing and plausibility.

 

[shivering]

It is interesting to see movies being criticized for not being "plausible" or based on "reality". By definition, movies are
fictions, even the most "real" ones. This criticism can even more obliquely be applied to documentaries. In my opinion,
it is highly disingenuous to criticize such an artificial and fictive thing as a movie for not being based on reality. Seldom
is anything known as entertainment based on reality, by definition it is escapist.

Yes, I get frustrated at how much "bad" science is out there, and Hollywood is terminally guilty of such, but then again
I do not expect that much either. Interstellar is ahead of the pack because at least it tries to get some of the science to
agree with what we as a species know about the universe at this point.

To me, all this criticism is like being upset with a leopard for the quality of its spots.

 

[AeroFranz]

I think people should do well to remember what the average Sci-Fi movie offerings are like.I love SF as much as the next guy, and as a result I have seen some remarkably horrendous B- and C-movies. Compared to craptastic movies like "Event Horizon", this is pretty much a masterpiece.

 

[marauder2048]

I think people should do well to remember what the average Sci-Fi movie offerings are like.I love SF as much as the next guy, and as a result I have seen some remarkably horrendous B- and C-movies. Compared to craptastic movies like "Event Horizon", this is pretty much a masterpiece.

The "average" Sci-Fi movie doesn't have nearly the budget, depth of casting, connections and marketing of Interstellar and its creative team; give the struggling, visionary creative teams behind some B and C movies a small fraction of the above resources and watch Hollywood's box office crisis disappear.

 

[Orionblamblam]

To me, all this criticism is like being upset with a leopard for the quality of its spots.

And if the leopard has been touting the quality of its spots and they turn out to be not as advertised, then the criticism is valid and appropriate.

 

[AeroFranz]

The "average" Sci-Fi movie doesn't have nearly the budget, depth of casting, connections and marketing of Interstellar and its creative team; give the struggling, visionary creative teams behind some B and C movies a small fraction of the above resources and watch Hollywood's box office crisis disappear.

Box office success requires people to go watch a movie. What does the median spectator care about?
Not necessarily in this order: T&A, romance, CGI, not having to think too hard lest their brains melt and drip out of the ears.
Hollywood is not dumb - if you could show there was a market for intelligent SF movies, they'd make them.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Hollywood is not dumb - if you could show there was a market for intelligent SF movies, they'd make them.

But this argument assumes there is something intrinsic in an “intelligent SF” film that isn’t commercial. It’s just not supported by history.

Also you could make Interstellar be effectively the same movie but without the various plot holes or criticisms that have been levelled at it in this thread. It would just require the writers of the story to be more informed. For example I criticised the implausibility of the plant destroying blight meaning a collapse in food production. But something could be invented to takes its place that is also scientifically more accurate and plausible. And so on for the various flawed plot devices in the film.

 

[marauder2048]

The "average" Sci-Fi movie doesn't have nearly the budget, depth of casting, connections and marketing of Interstellar and its creative team; give the struggling, visionary creative teams behind some B and C movies a small fraction of the above resources and watch Hollywood's box office crisis disappear.

Box office success requires people to go watch a movie. What does the median spectator care about?
Not necessarily in this order: T&A, romance, CGI, not having to think too hard lest their brains melt and drip out of the ears.
Hollywood is not dumb - if you could show there was a market for intelligent SF movies, they'd make them.

Even more vacuously: The success of a film requires receipts to exceed costs; modern Hollywood is especially risk averse because it absolutely can't or won't control its underlying cost structure like it used to.

"District 9" is a good example of intelligent, highly successful sci-fi partly because it was made for a mere $30 million.

Like most films these days it had strong visuals because CGI has leveled the playing field. The other things you mention also feature quite prominently
in other intelligent sci-fi works as well. There are many scripts or stories like "District 9" that could be successful movies if costs could be controlled.

 

[Orionblamblam]

I criticised the implausibility of the plant destroying blight meaning a collapse in food production. But something could be invented to takes its place that is also scientifically more accurate and plausible.

Two ideas immediately spring to mind:
1) The threat isn't something ongoing, but like in the forthcoming "Ascension," there's a looming nuclear war or some such. Thus it's not just a race against time to get colonies set up, but a race between nations.
2) No threat of extinction. NONE. But holy crap... look over there! A whole bunch of colonizable planets! Awesome! Let's go! Because we don't need a depressing threat of DOOOOOooooommm in order to do something spectacular!

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I thought the whole second dust bowl thing was very well done in the film. It also sets up nicely the cultural change misrabilist fantasies of climate change extremists. That whole “caretaker generation” thing. I’m sure if you were to talk to some biologists they could provide you with a plausible fictional reason why effectively all carbon based life on the planet was going to die. Something like the Permian Extinction with some massive volcanic eruptions (once every 500 million years massive) pouring methane and CO2 into the atmosphere. The effects of such were so varied and intense it could make even Mine Shaft survival near impossible (plus they lasted for millions of years).

You could have something like that kicking off slowly causing a collapse of worldwide outdoor agriculture leading to a die off of the world’s poor (sorry Africa and India) and all the troubles that would cause (WWIII). Then everyone thinks the worst is over and start to rebuild from the chaos as “caretakers” and further eruptions could lead to some of the more drastic changes and impending global doom.

 

[Stargazer]

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/arts-entertainment/time-dilation-effect-means-interstellar-takes-23-years-to-watch-2014111492780

 

[VH]

Sure there were several plot holes in Interstellar like that planet they traveled to orbiting a black hole somehow having daylight while we know that black holes do not emit light. But so what? It was an interesting yarn that raised several interesting questions in an entertaining way and that in my mind is all that matters.