Interstellar

[hypermetric]

It presents liberalism as a black man telling the main protagonist that his children had to be share croppers, and a woman feminist school teacher telling him that science and technology wasn't needed. The protagonists wife was killed by Obama care. The movie stands as a stunning indictment of liberalism, with old fashioned self sufficiency and family vales saving the day.

The movie takes apart liberal/progressive politics so of course Phil Plait hated it...

I thought the textbook scene was a not so subtle anvil to the heads of the conservative legislature behind Texas's education system. But the truth is conservative and liberal politics will probably be unrecognizably different in a post military world 60-70 years from now or whenever the movie is supposed to take place. The movie does have a strong political message though and that message is that humans aren't meant to save the earth, we are meant to leave it.

[MockKnizzle]

I really enjoyed the visuals (who wouldn't?), I thought the acting was pretty good, and the astrophysics and orbital shenanigans (the KSP-esque docking sequence especially) were pretty refreshing for a Hollywood movie. But the whole movie left me with a big, giant question: why did the entire movie need to happen at all? If the 5-dimensional future-humans were powerful enough to create a wormhole around Saturn that led to 12 different habitable planets, as well as manipulate space and time in such a way as to allow Matthew McConaughey to communicate backwards in time to Murph and then subsequently bring him back from beyond Gargantua's event horizon... why could they not just solve the whole problem in an easier way? Why not just communicate the necessary data to Michael Caine so he could complete his magic formula and save everyone the trouble? Or the secret to eliminating the "blight" that's poised to de-oxygenate the atmosphere? Or even just inform NASA of the existence of Edmunds and arrange to teleport people straight there?

[hypermetric]

I really enjoyed the visuals (who wouldn't?), I thought the acting was pretty good, and the astrophysics and orbital shenanigans (the KSP-esque docking sequence especially) were pretty refreshing for a Hollywood movie. But the whole movie left me with a big, giant question: why did the entire movie need to happen at all? If the 5-dimensional future-humans were powerful enough to create a wormhole around Saturn that led to 12 different habitable planets, as well as manipulate space and time in such a way as to allow Matthew McConaughey to communicate backwards in time to Murph and then subsequently bring him back from beyond Gargantua's event horizon... why could they not just solve the whole problem in an easier way? Why not just communicate the necessary data to Michael Caine so he could complete his magic formula and save everyone the trouble? Or the secret to eliminating the "blight" that's poised to de-oxygenate the atmosphere? Or even just inform NASA of the existence of Edmunds and arrange to teleport people straight there?

This movie subscribes to a model of time travel where only one timeline can exist though free lunch paradoxes are OK. Believe it or not some scientist like this as opposed to time travel that can create alternate timelines because it allows internal consistency within a single universe. To quote TARS "They didn't bring us here so we could change the past."

My theater was literally packed, and in the end everyone clapped. I haven't seen people clap for a movie in ~2 years.

At the end of the movie everyone ran out to use the bathroom. The only thing this movie needs is a brief intermission.

They didn't show any "documentary" clips? Also, I had a question about whether they will show reentry effects.

The opening sequence blends real interviews of dustbowl survivors with original footage.

Was it accurate on science? Gravity wasn't really that accurate.

Well there are some sticking points. My biggest issue is that during the climax they perform a slingshot maneuver around Gargantua, the massive black hole which they were already in orbit of. Now I am a big fan of gravity assists and doing it with black holes is genius if you are on a trajectory that can take advantage of it's relative angular momentum. But have you ever tried to get to Minmus from Mun via Kerbin? Dunna from Kerbin via Kerbol. Of course not. Gravity assists don't work that way.

Edited November 8, 2014 by sal_vager

[MockKnizzle]

This movie subscribes to a model of time travel where only one timeline can exist though free lunch paradoxes are OK. Believe it or not some scientist like this as opposed to time travel that can create alternate timelines because it allows internal consistency within a single universe. To quote TARS "They didn't bring us here so we could change the past."

Well sure, in the context of the events of the film that's fine. I'm not saying that McConaughey should have changed the past, but rather that his positioning as the sole savior of humanity is a bit of a stretch for me given that the 5-D future-humans are portrayed as having nearly godlike powers. It's not a quibble with the internal consistency of the narrative, but with the writer who decided that Cooper's love for his daughter was somehow the key to saving humanity.

I suppose this kind of incredible coincidence is par for the course in any movie, though.

[vger]

Well sure, in the context of the events of the film that's fine. I'm not saying that McConaughey should have changed the past, but rather that his positioning as the sole savior of humanity is a bit of a stretch for me given that the 5-D future-humans are portrayed as having nearly godlike powers. It's not a quibble with the internal consistency of the narrative, but with the writer who decided that Cooper's love for his daughter was somehow the key to saving humanity.

I suppose this kind of incredible coincidence is par for the course in any movie, though.

Factoring Inception into it, I think it's pretty obvious that the power of a relationship between parents and children is one of Nolan's favorite plot hooks. However... <<<incoming spoilers>>>

There may be clues (intentional or unintentional) in the script, that this story goes even deeper into metaphysics and spirituality than it appears to. It's interesting that the first "question" presented to us in the film isn't, "Will we survive?" but is actually, "Do ghosts exist?"

Yes, the film makes it quite obvious that Cooper became a 'ghost,' but I'm starting to think the term isn't just being used 'tongue-in-cheek.' I've seen discussions about ghosts before that touched upon the idea of entities that exist in higher dimensions, that death could be such a form of transcendence, that they might be from the future or the past, etc. I believe there's a clever fusion of science and myth at work here, presented in a very technical way. Let's look at the build-up to it.

Murph tries to tell Cooper that ghosts exist, which he skeptically ignores.

Amelia tries to tell Cooper to trust that love transcends dimensions and even death, which he also skeptically ignores.

Dr. Mann tells Cooper that the last thing you see before you die is your kids.

At the climax, Cooper experiences all of these things. He discovers he is Murph's ghost. He uses love to navigate the tesseract. Upon crossing the event horizon, he immediately finds himself at the threshhold of Murph's bedroom.

In popular myth, can ghosts move things? Sure, but it takes a LOT of effort. In spite of Cooper's "God-like ability" to walk through time, he has to pound away repeatedly like someone with a battering ram, just to knock a book on the floor. Furthermore, ghosts are often believed to be trapped in places that have some history of great emotional or physical trauma, and at no point in his life did Cooper have more regret than when he walked out that door. Is he actually dead in the tesseract? It's quite possible. Would we expect anything less of someone who entered a black hole? The last thing that happened was Cooper screaming from the pain of the supergravity. It's not much of a stretch to assume that the black hole actually killed him.

So wait, if he died then why isn't he still dead? The answer to that is in the name of the mission. Lazarus.

I'm probably way off, but dayum, this is exactly what a good sci-fi movie SHOULD do. Get people to actually think, analyze, and hypothesize. In having Cooper give Murph a summarized rundown of the scientific method, Nolan was practically inviting the audience to do that very thing.

And now maybe someone can answer something that I might've overlooked. Was it ever directly implied that Gargantua was an artificial black hole? Or that falling into Gargantua merely led to the tesseract?

Edited November 8, 2014 by vger

[Mitchz95]

My biggest issue is that during the climax they perform a slingshot maneuver around Gargantua, the massive black hole which they were already in orbit of. Now I am a big fan of gravity assists and doing it with black holes is genius if you are on a trajectory that can take advantage of it's relative angular momentum. But have you ever tried to get to Minmus from Mun via Kerbin? Dunna from Kerbin via Kerbol. Of course not. Gravity assists don't work that way.

It was a powered gravity assist; they burned their engines at periapsis to take advantage of the Oberth effect. We do basically the same thing in KSP all the time.

[comham]

Amazing film, 11/10, go see it.

Miles better than gravity.

[panzerknoef]

Hi guys

I just saw the movie Interstellar in the cinema and I must say I was absolutely stunned by it! That movie is so well set up. There's not a single moment where you can just stop being impressed.

So I say to you guys, if you got the time to see it, go see it, you will not regret it!

(No spoilers here)

[Tex_NL]

There has been an Interstellar thread on this forum since may this year: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80281-Interstellar

[Bekiekutmoar]

Just saw the movie too; simply astounding ... ! And with Hans Zimmer, you know the soundtrack is fantastic to say the least.

[OrbitalSolutionsLtd]

I...I have no words. This is the best film I've ever seen in a long, long time.

[tygoo7]

I...I have no words. This is the best film I've ever seen in a long, long time.

Went to go so it tonight....this comment pretty much sums up my thoughts.

[PTNLemay]

[spoilerS. I shouldn't have to warn people in a thread like this, but just in case.]

I loved the robots! The non-humanoid design is super original, they were almost cute in their own way.

I especially liked when he goes all transformer and goes to rescue the girl.

http://i.imgur.com/cOHinZ9.jpg

http://www.nerdist.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Interstellar-Trailer-Tech-2.png

http://img.over-blog-kiwi.com/0/93/22/43/20141006/ob_9e0e13_interstellar-monolith-robot-dans-l-eau.jpg

I also quite liked the bit where the docking goes horribly wrong, the whole time I kept thinking "I wonder how I could attempt a docking challenge like that in KSP..."

One little hick was that I watched it in IMAX and it was WAY too loud. Should have brought ear-plugs. But all in all it was still very enjoyable. It's a huge leap forward in science-fiction cinematography.

Edited November 9, 2014 by PTNLemay

[vger]

I also quite liked the bit where the docking goes horribly wrong, the whole time I kept thinking "I wonder how I could attempt a docking challenge like that in KSP..."

I thought of that too, but I have a feeling that KSP wouldn't care whether or not the ships were spinning at the same speed. As long as the ports got close enough, they'd connect and that would be the end of it.

Also chuckled a bit at that too because my more evil side saw it as a bit of a middle finger to Armageddon. "THIS is how you dock with a spinning craft, by NOT fighting against Newton's laws the whole time."

[Whirligig Girl]

I just saw this today, and I will never stop saying that this movie is the BEST Sci-Fi movie. Period. Better than 2001. Better than Gravity.

I cried several times, especially during the Launch scene and on the spinny-docky-scene I was on the edge of my seat because I had actually had to do something VERY similar to this in KSP once!

[Mitchz95]

One little hick was that I watched it in IMAX and it was WAY too loud. Should have brought ear-plugs.

Same thing happens in regular theatres. I saw a couple of critics mentioning it as well.

[tygoo7]

When does this movie take place anyways?

[meve12]

There's one thing I'm confused about. If the Shuttles can SSTO from any Earth-like planet, then... why did they need a massive rocket to launch them?​

Maybe they didn't have enough B types to assemble the Endurance quickly at the time? It's carrying a pretty small piece of cargo in the trailer; The Endurance would need hundreds of launches with Bs, and they might have had only the two. Conventional boosters might have been the cheaper/(edit) quicker option.

Edited November 9, 2014 by meve12

[Conrad]

Just saw it yesterday. I liked every scene, i liked the rangers' design, i liked the robots. I liked how the story wraps up loose ends, even if i could tell some of the plot twists

15min. in the movie. But, again, that happens me with many sci-fi movies. And i liked the poem as hell.

Maybe they didn't have enough B types to assemble the Endurance quickly at the time? It's carrying a pretty small piece of cargo in the trailer; The Endurance would need hundreds of launches with Bs, and they might have had only the two. Conventional boosters might have been the cheaper/(edit) quicker option.

Basically, i agree.

They probably were on a budget anyways for the ship, and even if they were SSTO they hadn't infinite fuel, using a vector to send them up would make them arrive with almost full fuel tank, without the need for another ship to be sent up to top off the tank.

Also, Rule of Cool. Big saturn-like rockets are awesome.

[Bekiekutmoar]

I usually hate when family-relationships and other 'drama' is forced into a sci-fi movie, but in this case it actually added to this film. There's an abundance of very impressive scenes; >>>SPOILER>>> launch of the rocket, scenes of Saturn, the wormhole, the giant tidal waves, the black hole, and more ... Interstellar is in my opinion simply a masterpiece.

[SpaceXray]

I did some research and I'll clear up some misconceptions:

1. It's actually an SLS without the SRB's

2. They are launching 2 Rangers at once back-to-back on top. They end up in orbit full of fuel and they don't need 2separate launches.

[ZodiaK]

this. film.

this. film.

THIS. FILM.

HOLA CARP THIS FILM

AAAAAAAAA

MACARENA THIS FILM

AEIO

This. Motherhussing. Film.

damn

[SpaceXray]

this. film.

this. film.

THIS. FILM.

HOLA CARP THIS FILM

AAAAAAAAA

MACARENA THIS FILM

AEIO

This. Motherhussing. Film.

damn

My impression exactly. My friends think I am weird for wanting to watch it again after just a week...

[PTNLemay]

Another thing I noticed, when they arrive at the first planet (the water world) and they need to save time and fuel as much as possible, he pulls off something very much like a suicide burn. Aerobreak as much as possible, then wait until the last moment before blasting your engines to fully decelerate and stop right above the ground (or above the water in this case). That was pretty damn cool.

Edited November 9, 2014 by PTNLemay

[SpaceXray]

Yeah, my fav scene was the docking part mid-way. I made sure to watch the navball, and as I expected everything was right in that department. The centripetal force generated by the spin was cool too. Anyhow, I loved the chasecams on the ship exteriors like that, mixed with aerodynamic noises and huge speakers it made for an awesome experience. The speakers even made my seat shake.