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

Mickeroo

Thargor wrote: »

I thought in Terminator it led to a more advanced model being sent back in the sequel? Arnie even says Judgement Day is inevitable at some point.

Yeah with Terminator I think the events speed things up rather than cause them in the first place.

Shiraz 4.99

stereo_steve wrote: »

Loved the first two hours. But I hated the end with Matthew McConaughey in that room pushing books. I felt that I had been cheated of a believable ending. It felt like Indiana Jones 4 all over again.

I think MM should have died in the blackhole and then it could have just finished with the hope of mankind getting a fresh start on the new planet.

Must have only been me who loved the 5th dimension terrasact thing then, I thought this elevated the epic reach of the film even higher.
Sure the bookcase thing & NASA location lines was a bit hokey but it was a brave move in the story for Nolan.

Just allowing him to die in the black hole would have looked like too much a sacrifice as we weren't led to believe that the weight of his ship was the decided factor in breaking the gravity of the wormhole.

.ak

One thing that's funny is they're all quite happy to move to a planet right beside a giant black hole from a star gone super nova.

I'd be like, NOPE.

.ak

The black hole thing was the only thing I was disappointed in too.. I did like it, I just felt it was a bit rushed. I thought they could've made it far more epic... and perhaps longer dare I say it? I wanted to get the feeling of his frustration, of his feeling of doom, of being stuck in a purgatory for years... I also didn't like the visual representation, but the thought was good. Could've been more metaphorical rather than physical, like controlling the gravity phenomenon with his mind rather than punching invisible walls.

Bacchus

Thargor wrote: »

I thought in Terminator it led to a more advanced model being sent back in the sequel? Arnie even says Judgement Day is inevitable at some point.

Mickeroo wrote: »

Yeah with Terminator I think the events speed things up rather than cause them in the first place.

That's not the paradox I'm referring to. John Connor would never have been born unless John Connor sent his dad back in time.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic on to Terminator timelines. My point is simply that other great movies have had timeline paradoxes and they're still great movies. The "chicken and the egg" paradox of Intersteller is no worse than the one in Terminator.

srsly78

That is called "causality" and is indeed the main problem with time travel movies. It greatly amuses me that people criticise minor plot details whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

Bacchus

srsly78 wrote: »

That is called "causality" and is indeed the main problem with time travel movies. It greatly amuses me that people criticise minor plot details whilst ignoring the elephant in the room.

Wait, where the fcuk was the elephant? Was this in the tesseract?

Ole Rodrigo

' Gargantua ' has a mass of 100 million suns. Whatever about circumventing the math of an orbiting planet being there by having the black hole spinning, the planet couldn't be there in the first place. The blast radius of a super nova is measured in light years, destroying everything around it.

Did the planet drift in from a different parent star and manage to avoid becoming part of the accretion disk , whilst maintaining reasonably hospitable conditions? A bit convenient in fairness.

srsly78

Yeah, what would that Thorne guy know anyway.

Mickeroo

Bacchus wrote: »

That's not the paradox I'm referring to. John Connor would never have been born unless John Connor sent his dad back in time.

I don't want to drag the thread off topic on to Terminator timelines. My point is simply that other great movies have had timeline paradoxes and they're still great movies. The "chicken and the egg" paradox of Intersteller is no worse than the one in Terminator.

Oh yeah of course, forgot about that, I was thinking of them finding the crocked T-800. I have no problem with the paradox tbh. Time travel and paradoxes go hand in hand and it's never ruined a film for me to date.

Ole Rodrigo

srsly78 wrote: »

Yeah, what would that Thorne guy know anyway.

Maybe you can explain ?

srsly78

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/09/interstellar_followup_movie_science_mistake_was_mine.html

Ole Rodrigo

srsly78 wrote: »

http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2014/11/09/interstellar_followup_movie_science_mistake_was_mine.html

Neither of those articles explain how the planet manages to be there in the first place.

They decided to put a planet orbiting a black hole. Then they did the math to calculate the conditions required for the planets environment. But that math doesn't explain how that planet came to be in its orbit originally. It doesn't explain the changes to the environment over time.

srsly78

It's a binary system, blackhole and neutron star. Why wouldn't the planet be there? There are probably thousands of planets orbitting it, but only 3 were of interest for habitation.

We haven't had the chance to observe a system like this yet, but that doesn't mean it cannot be supposed.

Ole Rodrigo

How did the black hole get such mass without creating an extreme environment ? If the parent stars were sucked into the accretion disk, how would it or any other planet remain in a stable orbit ? It doesn't add up.

Grudaire

ror_74 wrote: »

How did the black hole get such mass without creating an extreme environment ? If the parent stars were sucked into the accretion disk, how would it or any other planet remain in a stable orbit ? It doesn't add up.

Who says it 'remained' in orbit?

Anyway this is a film, I don't think you're focusing on the right things when watching it!

orubiru

ror_74 wrote: »

Neither of those articles explain how the planet manages to be there in the first place.

They decided to put a planet orbiting a black hole. Then they did the math to calculate the conditions required for the planets environment. But that math doesn't explain how that planet came to be in its orbit originally. It doesn't explain the changes to the environment over time.

To be honest, I'm not sure many people would fancy watching your proposed Interstellar : 12 Hour Every Little Thing Explained Edition.

I thought that they have a fictional planet orbiting a fictional black hole because it makes for a pretty interesting story, at least in the writers opinion.

You know that it isn't a documentary right?

orubiru

ror_74 wrote: »

How did the black hole get such mass without creating an extreme environment ? If the parent stars were sucked into the accretion disk, how would it or any other planet remain in a stable orbit ? It doesn't add up.

Why are you asking these questions though?

If you already know the answers then I bow to your knowledge while being glad that my ignorance allowed me to enjoy the movie.

If you don't know the answers then I reckon it's pretty weird to watch a film thinking "i don't know if this is possible or not so f*ck you movie director for not explaining".

A fictional black hole can have a fictional planet orbiting around it because... well... basically because they are fictional.

Sad Professor

ror_74, if you are interested in all the science stuff you should read Thorne’s book. He goes into *a lot* of detail about the black hole. He also speculates about how Miller’s planet came to orbit it. He doesn’t seem to take issue with the idea of the planet forming in its existing orbit, but given the massive time dilation, he suggests it might be too young to look the way it does.

Ole Rodrigo

I'm interested in discussing the films science. I did enjoy the film. However I was expecting realism from the pre release marketing. Where the realism stops and fiction starts is interesting.

DoYouEvenLift

the_monkey wrote: »

I'm wondering will this come back to the 70mm IMAX in London once it's finished?

for special screenings ?

Because I regret that I won't get the chance to see it in IMAX format..

Yeah, they'll show it from time to time down the line I'd say. A couple of weeks before Interstellar they were showing a back-to-back screening of TDK trilogy in 70mm all night. Hope I get to see it in 70mm again, I saw it in the format twice in Manchester and all I can think is how I'll probably never have a movie experience like it again...until Nolan's next movie, or if other directors start putting in the extra effort for true IMAX which...they should

the_monkey

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Yeah, they'll show it from time to time down the line I'd say. A couple of weeks before Interstellar they were showing a back-to-back screening of TDK trilogy in 70mm all night. Hope I get to see it in 70mm again, I saw it in the format twice in Manchester and all I can think is how I'll probably never have a movie experience like it again...until Nolan's next movie, or if other directors start putting in the extra effort for true IMAX which...they should

Great, I must keep an eye out so I can get cheap flights and combine
a Chelsea game maybe ...

See what I did there - I managed to mention Chelsea in a thread about Interstellar ...

davidrowe

I saw it on 35mm in the Light House. I can see why some people wouldn't have liked it: it was probably too long and the story got a bit odd towards the end. But I enjoyed it as a spectacle. Comparing it to the rest of Christopher Nolan's films, I suppose the only one that I like less is The Dark Knight Rises. On the 35mm format, I'm not sure. If the Light House did it properly, then I think I prefer digital projection. The difference may be a similar situation to music: CD is better quality than vinyl, but some people prefer the analogue format.

dia squish

Sorry, don't want to read the whole thread as I haven't seen it yet but going tonight and I'm wondering if people would recommend the IMAX in Cineworld or 35mm in Lighthouse?

DoYouEvenLift

dia squish wrote: »

Sorry, don't want to read the whole thread as I haven't seen it yet but going tonight and I'm wondering if people would recommend the IMAX in Cineworld or 35mm in Lighthouse?

Whichevers cheapest. If you'd be paying the full price for the liemax at cineworld then definitely lighthouse

tunguska

dia squish wrote: »

Sorry, don't want to read the whole thread as I haven't seen it yet but going tonight and I'm wondering if people would recommend the IMAX in Cineworld or 35mm in Lighthouse?

Probably too late with the reply, but Id go with the lighthouse. Saw it there myself and had a great experience.

Soft Falling Rain

I think it's good to point out that while Kip is a respected scientist, we're talking about theories on wormholes and time travel.

Lofty stuff, so I'm not sure why some people are going mental over the science in the film. The theories that inspired the story are hardly fact or in any way tangible in this moment in time like!

Maybe keep that in mind if you end up watching it again and you might end up enjoying it more.

PhiloCypher

Soft Falling Rain wrote: »

I think it's good to point out that while Kip is a respected scientist, we're talking about theories on wormholes and time travel.

Lofty stuff, so I'm not sure why some people are going mental over the science in the film. The theories that inspired the story are hardly fact or in any way tangible in this moment in time like!

Maybe keep that in mind if you end up watching it again and you might end up enjoying it more.

Wouldn't help me in the slightest, my problems were in the narrative structure of the film, I wasn't able to carry over any emotional investment across from young Murph to Chastains murph let alone Burstyns. And the way it flitted back and fourth between the earth and endurance crews exploits was random and clumsy and didn't didn't serve the momentum of either story. I mean I understand they needed to keep tabs on the goings on on earth to try and make us care about Chastains character but cutting away from the action on Manns planet for the fairly inert goings on on earth did nothing for the film for me.

Any issues I had with the science of the film were secondary to that. If a film invests me emotionally throughout I'll forgive it anything. If it doesn't I tend to look at it with a more critical eye. I only nit pick the small things if I've found it wanting as a whole, which was the case with this film.

danrua01

You found no emotion when Coop was watching 23 years' worth of videos from his kids? Or when he found himself stuck in the other dimension, seeing his previous mistakes, and watching his daughter, knowing he'd probably never see her?

nyarlothothep

PhiloCypher wrote: »

Wouldn't help me in the slightest, my problems were in the narrative structure of the film, I wasn't able to carry over any emotional investment across from young Murph to Chastains murph let alone Burstyns. And the way it flitted back and fourth between the earth and endurance crews exploits was random and clumsy and didn't didn't serve the momentum of either story. I mean I understand they needed to keep tabs on the goings on on earth to try and make us care about Chastains character but cutting away from the action on Manns planet for the fairly inert goings on on earth did nothing for the film for me.

Any issues I had with the science of the film were secondary to that. If a film invests me emotionally throughout I'll forgive it anything. If it doesn't I tend to look at it with a more critical eye. I only nit pick the small things if I've found it wanting as a whole, which was the case with this film.

I agree that it was very clumsily edited and annoying as it took you out of the much more interesting action on Mann's planet but I think it was "thematically significant" as it was demonstrating a 5D quantum continuum between the "souls" of the characters, basically the transcendentalist dimension of the film, human souls are higher dimensional and so you get these "coincidences" because of the soul connection. It's not an unreasonable idea, that consciousness might be higher dimensional (which where the love speech comes in which at the time made me think lame, lame, lame, and it's still a lamely written speech). But that is a major problem with Nolan films, I think he's improved, I really don't like anything before TDKR but I wouldn't call this a masterpiece, though it could have been easily, because important plot details and concepts aren't fully explained, some significant bits are just mumurred or glossed over briefly, the whole love thing could have been better linked to the consciousness transcendentalism angle for example.

Something that the film reminds me of is the lack of progress in space and how this is really frustrating. I think we're in a dark ages for space travel, private enterprise isn't really going to cut it because they're unwiling to take the big risks to make real technological leaps. We need a new space race/space renaissance and some form of interstellar travel because space travel is extremely limited without it.