It was pretty spectacular. None of you have seen it yet?
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.
Orionblamblam said:Not really sure what Hollywood got right here, other than pointing out that governments can be monumentally dumb.
sublight is back said: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.
Orionblamblam said:Worse, the mesage is that space needs exploration to serve as a lifeboat to save some tiny fraction. It's a "dark" message.
Skyblazer said:And yet it would be extremely naive to think that reality could ever be different.
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.
Anyone who thinks different and believes in vast Earthly migrations in space with thousands of gigantic Earthly ships carrying most of the Earthly population
AeroFranz said: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.
Orionblamblam said: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 said: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.
AeroFranz said: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
Alcides said: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.
VH said:Alcides said: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.
Alcides said: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.
Abraham Gubler said: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 said:
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.
pathology_doc said: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.
AeroFranz said: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.
shivering said:To me, all this criticism is like being upset with a leopard for the quality of its spots.
marauder2048 said: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.
AeroFranz said:Hollywood is not dumb - if you could show there was a market for intelligent SF movies, they'd make them.
AeroFranz said:marauder2048 said: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 said: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.