Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

Falthyron

eviltimeban wrote: »

With gravity we don't need to nail things down!

Haha! I saw what you did there

orubiru

Falthyron wrote: »

Exactly! And this is what I love about Nolan's films. He has started an intellectual debate on questions we should probably be thinking about. Thanks for the information! Are there any books you would recommend that discusses these ideas? Preferably something more accessible than a university text book.

*Resists urge to say Gravity for Dummies*

There's a book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by Brian Greene that I quite like. He also has The Elegant Universe.

Also "Warped Passages" by Lisa Randall is a good read.

the_monkey

david75 wrote: »

Ummm.... Yeah. I liked it. Convincing parts all round. Amazing and believable space stuff.

But the only thing I'm wondering about
can someone please explain the whole inside the black hole / event horizon /5th dimension part? That lost me completely

This is where it gets really hairy , the problem is *no one knows* - not even Kip Thorne what the hell is at the centre of a black hole.

It seems all the laws of physics as we know them just go out the window,
The space he was in was constructed by "them" - (future humans that are incredibly advanced) for him to send messages to his daughter at whatever time he wants.

The 1st few messages were just an explantion/show for this, the real important messages he sent was the data from TARS (or CASE) about
gravity behaviour from the black hole / singularity.


This helps Murph solve the Gravity problem (moving lots of weight out of Earths orbit economically)
This is how they managed the space station orbiting Saturn we see at the end of the film.

---

Oregano_State

Falthyron wrote: »

You know it's all a theory, right? We haven't actually proved any of this yet, so it has to fall in line with some sort of possible fiction. Even the idea of gravity is still a theory, we haven't actually proved it. So applying realism to something we can't prove makes no sense.

Gravity, which is part of Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory just as there is a theory of electromagnetism, a theory of evolution, and a theory of plate tectonics in the earth's crust; in other words, it is as near bulletproof as anything the human race as a species has ever come up with.

The thing about scientific theories is that they are the best explanation that we have at the present time to explain observable phenomena, they don't claim to be absolute and room exists to adjust and improve upon them if sufficient evidence exists to support that. The theory of general relativity was published in 1916, and still stands today, almost 100 years later. To say that it is 'just' a theory is disingenuous, and to me, at least suggest that you don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about here.

Falthyron

Oregano_State wrote: »

Gravity, which is part of Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory just as there is a theory of electromagnetism, a theory of evolution, and a theory of plate tectonics in the earth's crust; in other words, it is as near bulletproof as anything the human race as a species has ever come up with.

The thing about scientific theories is that they are the best explanation that we have at the present time to explain observable phenomena, they don't claim to be absolute and room exists to adjust and improve upon them if sufficient evidence exists to support that. The theory of general relativity was published in 1916, and still stands today, almost 100 years later. To say that it is 'just' a theory is disingenuous, and to me, at least suggest that you don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about here.

As I said in a later post, I should have phrased my statement a lot better.

Oregano_State

On the movie: I saw Interstellar yesterday evening, and I absolutely loved it. During the film I had a couple of issues with the science, particularly the fact that a planet could orbit close to a black hole without being sucked in, however since reading a blog post about the science in the film by someone much more knowledgeable than I, apparently almost everything stacks up.

I thought the film was spectacular, emotionally moving, shocking, and overall really reached for ideas that many big budget directors won't go near these days. I loved the special effects; the fact that CGI was used much more sparingly than many recent blockbusters was refreshing and added to the realism I thought. I was completely captivated for the duration of the film and didn't want it to end. The final act was outrageous, but it is called science fiction for a reason, and I didn't find that it took me out of the story at all.

I've read many of the negative posts on the film, and I must say I didn't really agree with any of them. I don't think a movie such as this should have to explicitly state the exact geopolitical circumstances in the world the film takes place in, and I think Nolan did a good job of showing enough to provoke thought without spelling everything out. I think that the film was heavily cut down from a much longer initial cut, as there are little jumps here an there in exposition, but I found it easy to follow anyway.

I also enjoyed the extensive use of time dilation and relativistic effects as part of the plot. I didn't find the explanation to MMcC re: wormholes to be silly. Yes, in reality he would have known this before leaving, but is Nolan supposed to assume his audience has an undergraduate college level of physics and/or an interest in science?

Overall I found it to be one of the most enjoyable films I've seen in years, and might very well return to the cinema to see it, which would be a first ever for me. I must also add, that based on previous positive reviewers here getting labelled as Nolan fanboys, I definitely am not, and judged this movies on it's standalone merits. I didn't like TDKR or Inception, for example. Incidently, I've seen a few posts saying that if people like Inception they'll like this. I couldn't agree less tbh. Inception has absolutely no basis in reality or science and tries to be a lot more clever that it actually is. Interstellar is nothing like that.

Mark Hamill

Calibos wrote: »

I'd imagine they are talking about the theoretical physics of wormholes, Blackholes and Time dilation which I said I didn't have a problem with.

What did they have to say about the nitrogen consuming blight, floating glaciers, terraforming a new planet in another galaxy no less (What? No habitable or terraformable planets amongst the 200 Billion stars in our own galaxy?) it somehow being easier than re-terraforming earth(ie. fixing it), why their spacecraft needs to be lofted into orbit atop a Saturn V multistage rocket and yet can reach escape velocity under its own power from a planet they say had gravity 40% greater than that of earth? etc etc

There are nitrogen consuming bacteria, so I don't see a blight consuming it as a huge leap.

Did the film say the ammonia glacier was completely floating above the planet? It may have been just separated from it except at the highest mountains.

How do we get to the nearest planet without a wormhole? It takes 2 years for a spaceship to reach Saturn in the film (average distance of 1.435 billion km). The nearest star to the solar system is about 4.22 light year (~40 trilllion km!) so it would take the same ship about 57000 years to reach it.

The weren't going to terraform the planets, they were specific looking for a planet that was already like earth and which could support human life.

Amalgam

Falthyron, dig around on YouTube for videos concerning the late physicist Richard Feynman. People tend to fix on to more modern personalities I find, and neglect the older generation, such as Feynman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

About securing (satisfying) answers to some fundamentals, ignore some of the preening in this thread, with gravity, there is no finality to it, currently.

I like this rather annoying (but once you watch it, very understandable) outburst by Feynman..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMFPe-DwULM

Ole Rodrigo

Falthyron wrote: »

Thanks for the information! I have started reading 'A Brief History of Time', but is there anything else you would recommend? Perhaps something more accessible than a university text book.

Yeah - About Time: Einstein's Unfinished Revolution, by Paul Davies. Also, as mentioned already, the Elegant Universe by Brian Greene.

From youtube, a brilliant lecture from Lawrence Krauss:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0HqZxXZK7c

From TED:

George Smoot:

http://www.ted.com/talks/george_smoot_on_the_design_of_the_universe

Brian Greene:

http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_why_is_our_universe_fine_tuned_for_life
http://www.ted.com/talks/brian_greene_on_string_theory

Andrea Ghez:

http://www.ted.com/talks/andrea_ghez_the_hunt_for_a_supermassive_black_hole

eviltimeban

So, rate Nolan's pictures anyone? Choose your favourites rather than what you think are the "best". For me:

1. Inception
2. Batman Begins
3. Interstellar
4. The Prestige / The Dark Knight Rises (I can't choose)
5. The Dark Knight Rises/ The Prestige :-)
6. The Dark Knight
7. Memento
8. Insomnia

(I haven't seen Following). I did have a hard time placing the second two Batman films in fairness. I could choose one or the other. Interstellar is placed quite high I admit, and that might be something to do with the freshness of its release, but also a genuine feeling that I prefer it to the other movies. I'd be less in a rush to see The Dark Knight, even though its great, than I would want to see Interstellar again. However, after I see Interstellar a few more times, when it comes out on DVD, the order of the list may change. The Prestige may move up, along with one of the Batman sequels. Then again I remember being slightly unimpressed by "Batman 2". Memento I probably have to see again to re-rate it. And I fell asleep during Insomnia. Ironic, huh?

the_monkey

eviltimeban wrote: »

So, rate Nolan's pictures anyone? Choose your favourites rather than what you think are the "best". For me:

1. Inception
2. Batman Begins
3. Interstellar
4. The Prestige / The Dark Knight Rises (I can't choose)
5. The Dark Knight Rises/ The Prestige :-)
6. The Dark Knight
7. Memento
8. Insomnia

(I haven't seen Following). I did have a hard time placing the second two Batman films in fairness. I could choose one or the other. Interstellar is placed quite high I admit, and that might be something to do with the freshness of its release, but also a genuine feeling that I prefer it to the other movies. I'd be less in a rush to see The Dark Knight, even though its great, than I would want to see Interstellar again. However, after I see Interstellar a few more times, when it comes out on DVD, the order of the list may change. The Prestige may move up, along with one of the Batman sequels. Then again I remember being slightly unimpressed by "Batman 2". Memento I probably have to see again to re-rate it. And I fell asleep during Insomnia. Ironic, huh?

For me :

Has to be

1. The Prestige
2. Interstellar (but was really really hoping it was to be #1 )
.
.
3. The Dark Knight
4. Batman Begins
5. The Dark Knight Rises
6. Inception
7. Memento
.
.
.
8. Insomnia

FlyingIrishMan

1. The Prestige
2. Interstellar
3. Memento
4. Dark Knight
5. Batman Begins
6. Inception
7. Rises

Haven't seen Insomnia or Following.

Shiraz 4.99

1. The Prestige
2. Inception
3. Interstellar
4. Memento
5. Dark Knight
6. Batman Begins
7. Insomnia
8. TDKR

I much prefer his own work over the Batman trilogy.

eviltimeban

Shiraz 4.99 wrote: »

I much prefer his own work over the Batman trilogy.

I hear ya, which is why I rated Batman Begins so highly - its not even a Batman film for most of it!

the_monkey

Empire have a good review up :

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/review.asp?FID=138121

Has some mile spoilers as would expect...

brevity

Oregano_State wrote: »

I also enjoyed the extensive use of time dilation and relativistic effects as part of the plot. I didn't find the explanation to MMcC re: wormholes to be silly. Yes, in reality he would have known this before leaving, but is Nolan supposed to assume his audience has an undergraduate college level of physics and/or an interest in science.

While it's a good thing that the movie doesn't have a character specifically for exposition (see Inception) it would have been nice to maybe have a doctor on the ship that might not have knowledge of worm-holes and the like.

I think Sphere handled it well when trying to explain Black Holes, Dustin Hoffman's character basically puts his hand up and says he doesn't understand what they (the other physicists) are talking about and they explain it to him.

paulieeye

Oregano_State wrote: »

Gravity, which is part of Einstein's theory of general relativity is a theory just as there is a theory of electromagnetism, a theory of evolution, and a theory of plate tectonics in the earth's crust; in other words, it is as near bulletproof as anything the human race as a species has ever come up with.

The thing about scientific theories is that they are the best explanation that we have at the present time to explain observable phenomena, they don't claim to be absolute and room exists to adjust and improve upon them if sufficient evidence exists to support that. The theory of general relativity was published in 1916, and still stands today, almost 100 years later. To say that it is 'just' a theory is disingenuous, and to me, at least suggest that you don't know a whole lot about what you're talking about here.

Just a little side note on scientific theories...

When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use. In science, a theory is not a guess, not a hunch. It's a well-substantiated, well-supported, well-documented explanation for our observations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Standman

I did enjoy it but it was not the film I was hoping for. Not really sure what I was expecting but I was hoping that with Nolan at the helm it could have been something really groundbreaking. I would have preferred more of the focus to be on exploration of the unknown/ feeding the old sense of wonder like the Space Odyssey books did.

Good example was the Matt Damon resuscitation/going crazy part. It was entertaining in and of itself but I found myself kind of hoping it would hurry up and get things back into space/ start figuring out who "they" were, etc. Not everything has to be about that but I just thought the whole Matt Damon thing was pretty irrelevant to the rest of the story and just a bit of a detour in order to inject some more action and a chase scene into the movie.

Also I did find myself throwing my eyes up to heaven a couple of times, specifically when Amelia was trying to convince everyone that they should go to a particular planet because a guy she loves is there, and "science can't explain love so maybe it means something more blahblah". Then of course we find out that yes, she was right, love is the only thing that can transcend dimensions, for no reason! Take that you cynical scientists!

Having said all that it was still a good movie that I enjoyed, it just wasn't the mind blowing, instant classic that I was hoping it would be since I first heard about it a year ago.

Falthyron wrote: »

Thanks for the information! I have started reading 'A Brief History of Time', but is there anything else you would recommend? Perhaps something more accessible than a university text book.

Personally I find these concepts way easier to understand in video form. Check out the Wonders of the Universe series by the BBC, a lot of the topics are covered there & really got me more interested in physics in general.

Also this video from Carl Sagan explaining the 4th physical dimension & tesseracts blows my mind every time.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnURElCzGc0

catallus

This film was about as scientific as The Exorcist!

Wormholes, indeed. :pac:

Roquentin

brevity wrote: »

While it's a good thing that the movie doesn't have a character specifically for exposition (see Inception) it would have been nice to maybe have a doctor on the ship that might not have knowledge of worm-holes and the like.

I think Sphere handled it well when trying to explain Black Holes, Dustin Hoffman's character basically puts his hand up and says he doesn't understand what they (the other physicists) are talking about and they explain it to him.

the sphere was great until it turned ****.....towards the end

eviltimeban

Can't it be just a movie, that we watch, and enjoy, and it doesn't have to be ground breaking or amazing? Like a band's third or fourth album. Consolidation rather than ground breaking. Rubber Soul rather than Revolver.

Its the weight of expectation around Nolan's movies I guess, which is what makes everyone expect groundbreaking-ness. (!) Like the recent Boards Of Canada album (to compare to music again). It was just a good electronic album, but people were disappointed as it didn't signal a way forward for modern music.

Adamantium

I hope Nolan keeps Hoyte Van Hoytema as his DP for the future.

Oddly enough the Earth scenes were incredibly beautiful and intriguing (which I thought would be front loading filler), the scenes were the teachers to a former astronaut, remark about the rewriting of the history books regarding the Apollo landings to push people out of science and into becoming low skilled if necessary worker drones was great world building, there was something oh so despotic about that. They could have made a whole other film here.

pixelburp

Adamantium wrote: »

Oddly enough the Earth scenes were incredibly beautiful and intriguing (which I thought would be front loading filler), the scenes were the teachers to a former astronaut, remark about the rewriting of the history books regarding the Apollo landings to push people out of science and into becoming low skilled if necessary worker drones was great world building, there was something oh so despotic about that. They could have made a whole other film here.

Funny, I actually found the scene in the school pretty terrible, a really clunky attempt at social commentary coupled with a clumsy method to demonstrate how exasperated Coop was with this imagination'less world. Apollo conspiracy nuts rub me up the wrong way at the best of times with they're broken logic, but in a movie that consisted mostly of exposition, that exchange felt like something from another movie and really stuck out like a sore thumb; dare I say it had all the grace and subtly of Michael Bay's attempt at satire.

Dempsey

pixelburp wrote: »

Funny, I actually found the scene in the school pretty terrible, a really clunky attempt at social commentary coupled with a clumsy method to demonstrate how exasperated Coop was with this imagination'less world. Apollo conspiracy nuts rub me up the wrong way at the best of times with they're broken logic, but in a movie that consisted mostly of exposition, that exchange felt like something from another movie and really stuck out like a sore thumb; dare I say it had all the grace and subtly of Michael Bay's attempt at satire.

The reediting of the books was propoganda by government. That teacher had bought into it hook line and sinker. It was a social commentary on how the government had tricked their people north Korean style

EoghanIRL

Wow one of the worst films I have ever seen . Equally as bad as gravity . The movie had no suspense / action . It had a predictable and see through plot . Really disappointing .
4/10 at max for overall film rating . Anne Hathaway's performance was very poor I thought.
The movie is also too long I felt .

However the special effects were decent . I enjoyed nothing else about the film . Not the film I was expecting at all.

Roquentin

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wow one of the worst films I have ever seen . Equally as bad as gravity . The movie had no suspense / action . It had a predictable and see through plot . Really disappointing .
4/10 at max for overall film rating . Anne Hathaway's performance was very poor I thought.
The movie is also too long I felt .

However the special effects were decent . I enjoyed nothing else about the film . Not the film I was expecting at all.

its getting kind of mixed reviews alright.......cant wait to see for myself what its like

Squeedily Spooch

catallus wrote: »

This film was about as scientific as The Exorcist!

Wormholes, indeed. :pac:

They're a valid scientific theory. And it's a movie...

Squeedily Spooch

EoghanIRL wrote: »

Wow one of the worst films I have ever seen . Equally as bad as gravity . The movie had no suspense / action . It had a predictable and see through plot . Really disappointing .
4/10 at max for overall film rating . Anne Hathaway's performance was very poor I thought.
The movie is also too long I felt .

However the special effects were decent . I enjoyed nothing else about the film . Not the film I was expecting at all.

I thought the spinning docking sequence was brilliant, one of the better setpieces I've seen in a film lately.

the_monkey

pfft ... no accounting for taste ..

Mickeroo

Squeedily Spooch wrote: »

I thought the spinning docking sequence was brilliant, one of the better setpieces I've seen in a film lately.

Yeah that was easily the stand out set piece of the film for me (along with the drone chase which was beautifully shot).