Interstellar

[problemecium]

btw, spoiler tags don't work unless you open them with "spoiler=blahblahblah" rather than just "spoiler".

True, Gargantua was presumably very large, which is why Miller's planet wasn't visibly whirling around it like a ball on a string. So we can claim that Cooper (I remembered!) escaped before getting torn up. I'll concede that.

But I thought the plot twist at the end was that there were no aliens? It had all been Cooper all along, although unless I missed it they forgot to explain how he made the wormhole.

And I presume the landers refueled behind the scenes while docked to Endurance.

I presume this part isn't a spoiler, but read with caution: Who else raised an eyebrow during the "they faked the Moon landings" part? As in what about all the other space stuff we made and put in space? All those gajillions of satellites? Even ignoring those (they didn't go to the MOON, after all...), this film's gonna be out of date as soon as SpaceX, China, or somebody else lands someone on the Moon, especially if they touch down and find an old, faded flag and lander base sitting there.

Edited November 26, 2014 by parameciumkid

[SpaceXray]

btw, spoiler tags don't work unless you open them with "spoiler=blahblahblah" rather than just "spoiler".

True, Gargantua was presumably very large, which is why Miller's planet wasn't visibly whirling around it like a ball on a string. So we can claim that Cooper (I remembered!) escaped before getting torn up. I'll concede that.

But I thought the plot twist at the end was that there were no aliens? It had all been Cooper all along, although unless I missed it they forgot to explain how he made the wormhole.

And I presume the landers refueled behind the scenes while docked to Endurance.

I presume this part isn't a spoiler, but read with caution: Who else raised an eyebrow during the "they faked the Moon landings" part? As in what about all the other space stuff we made and put in space? All those gajillions of satellites? Even ignoring those (they didn't go to the MOON, after all...), this film's gonna be out of date as soon as SpaceX, China, or somebody else lands someone on the Moon, especially if they touch down and find an old, faded flag and lander base sitting there.

Read 1984. They did just that-remake history. Replacing every historical source in existence to warp history.

[dryer_lint]

loved that scene too although during that scene, was i the only one that noticed that the o'neill cylinder that they were on isn't really wide enough to sustain a earth like gravity with a reasonable amount of rotation like say about 1 to 2 rotations a minute for a truly reasonable sized cylinder. Although considering they were doing research artificial gravity, they probably already solved problem and did not need rotation but wanted to make sure space with in the cylinder was used efficiently...

[SpaceXray]

I keep wondering two things... First of all, it didn't look like it was rotating when Cooper exited it? Also, when they need to fire the engines (if it even has things you could call "engines") do they stop the rotation? I like to imagine them switching off the rotation and allowing everyone's stuff to suddenly start floating inside

Dude, it WAS rotating. Pay attention. The stars are obvs. whirling in that shot.

[PakledHostage]

Bill Nye in response to a question from the media about whether or not he liked Interstellar:

“No, I didn’t. It was too long. I didn’t think it was especially good storytelling. It had a handful of ideas, a clutch of ideas, and they didn’t have the discipline to decide what to leave out – an old problem in storytelling.

“What was that Indian drone doing there? The tractors? The heroine of the story does all this amazing stuff, and we don’t even know about it?

“And I’m not going to be on a spaceship for 72 years or whatever with Anne Hathaway’s character and not have some sort of interaction, without banging space helmets or something,â€Â

“And I think the box office backs me up on this. The opening was huge, and word got out and suddenly it wasn’t so huge.â€Â

[Airlock]

Read 1984. They did just that-remake history. Replacing every historical source in existence to warp history.

Yes, just this. The state wanted farmers, not engineers. The film itself isn't making claims - it's just a plot device.

[Gan_HOPE326]

btw, spoiler tags don't work unless you open them with "spoiler=blahblahblah" rather than just "spoiler".

True, Gargantua was presumably very large, which is why Miller's planet wasn't visibly whirling around it like a ball on a string. So we can claim that Cooper (I remembered!) escaped before getting torn up. I'll concede that.

But I thought the plot twist at the end was that there were no aliens? It had all been Cooper all along, although unless I missed it they forgot to explain how he made the wormhole.

And I presume the landers refueled behind the scenes while docked to Endurance.

I presume this part isn't a spoiler, but read with caution: Who else raised an eyebrow during the "they faked the Moon landings" part? As in what about all the other space stuff we made and put in space? All those gajillions of satellites? Even ignoring those (they didn't go to the MOON, after all...), this film's gonna be out of date as soon as SpaceX, China, or somebody else lands someone on the Moon, especially if they touch down and find an old, faded flag and lander base sitting there.

The moon thing as pointed out by others wasn't meant to be true in-universe either - it was a conspiracy theory which became accepted reality because it was easier to think it like that and just stop pondering on mankind's "past greatness". It was also a not-so-subtle jab at American schools teaching creationism or such, imho.

On the ending,

it wasn't just Cooper all along, it was MANKIND all along. In some unspecified future, mankind gained the ability to mess with spacetime, and they managed to do so retroactively (well of course, if you can transcend regular spacetime, time travel shouldn't be a biggie). So they created the Tesseract for Cooper to find and use so that mankind could survive. It's one of those mind-blowey "stable time loop" things: mankind survives thanks to Cooper's success, but Cooper succeeds thanks to the fact that mankind survived. I was heavily reminded of Asimov's "The End of Eternity" there.

[rtxoff]

Yes, just this. The state wanted farmers, not engineers. The film itself isn't making claims - it's just a plot device.

Doesn't matter, still it's raising my eyebrow even if the movie isn't making claims. It just doesn't feel right. The state doesn't have the right to bend the truth. Everyone has the right to know the truth. It's some basic human need and the state lying to it's cititzen is like undermining their dignity. Probably the movie was just ment to provocate that discussion.

Very good Nolan another plus for you.

[lajoswinkler]

The state can and did warp the history numerous times. When global communications are scarce, it's enough to repeat and repeat something and it will become the truth, no matter how stupid, incorrect or evil it is.

Proof: Germany during 1930s, Soviet union for decades, North Korea today. Even China with their Tianmen massacre. People stop fighting and resisting because from one side there's oppression and chance of your life going towards death, and the other side offers nice stuff. This is carrot and stick method, and if there wasn't so many sticks, Soviet union would last longer.

People get tired after a while and less and less of them transfer their knowledge to their children. The children know less. Their children lack the knowledge. Old people die, the knowledge disappears from the society.

It is entirely possible to wipe the legacy of Apollo from this civilization, but not overnight. The society exists because of information transmission. Remove the information and we're back in the stone age.

[SpaceXray]

How do we find the elasticity of Miller's planet? I just want to do my own calculations and find out if it would withstand the tidal forces.

[Gan_HOPE326]

How do we find the elasticity of Miller's planet? I just want to do my own calculations and find out if it would withstand the tidal forces.

I just found this, it seems relevant:

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

[Pipcard]

it wasn't just Cooper all along, it was MANKIND all along. In some unspecified future, mankind gained the ability to mess with spacetime, and they managed to do so retroactively (well of course, if you can transcend regular spacetime, time travel shouldn't be a biggie). So they created the Tesseract for Cooper to find and use so that mankind could survive. It's one of those mind-blowey "stable time loop" things: mankind survives thanks to Cooper's success, but Cooper succeeds thanks to the fact that mankind survived. I was heavily reminded of Asimov's "The End of Eternity" there.

Some people theorize that the far-future fifth-dimensional beings are actually the distant descendants of the Plan B colony.

[TythosEternal]

Bill Nye in response to a question from the media about whether or not he liked Interstellar:

The Tyson quote is killing me:

More so than Gravity, the astronauts moved around in space very accurately.

I have tremendous respect for the guy, but this is making me alternate between laughing so hard my pancakes are burning, and wondering how narrow his specialty had to be if he is such an amazing astrophysicist (and he is) with such a poor grasp of the related field of astrodynamics. It seems unlikely, so there's likely something else going on here. Still doesn't help my burnt pancakes, though.

[Kulebron]

I presume this part isn't a spoiler, but read with caution: Who else raised an eyebrow during the "they faked the Moon landings" part? As in what about all the other space stuff we made and put in space? All those gajillions of satellites? Even ignoring those (they didn't go to the MOON, after all...), this film's gonna be out of date as soon as SpaceX, China, or somebody else lands someone on the Moon, especially if they touch down and find an old, faded flag and lander base sitting there.

Did not bother me. It's enough to be plausible.

[Kulebron]

On another note, am I the only one who was calculating DeltaV and ISP for that amazing atmospheric lander of theirs in his head during the movie ? That was truly something, atmospheric decent without parachutes AND take off on two Earth-like planets in a row with no refuel and no stages. Must have been an atomic motor .

I did that too and thought they had some sort of mod installed in the process. Because if they launched a usual chemical rocket from Earth, they did not have big advances in propulsion or antigravity.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Kulebron

[PakledHostage]

... laughing so hard my pancakes are burning...

I'm confused? Are you a dragon?

[TythosEternal]

I'm confused? Are you a dragon?

Dragon? No. But Yoda likes the distractions not.

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

Edited November 28, 2014 by TythosEternal
Fixed image link

[vger]

I presume this part isn't a spoiler, but read with caution: Who else raised an eyebrow during the "they faked the Moon landings" part? As in what about all the other space stuff we made and put in space? All those gajillions of satellites? Even ignoring those (they didn't go to the MOON, after all...), this film's gonna be out of date as soon as SpaceX, China, or somebody else lands someone on the Moon, especially if they touch down and find an old, faded flag and lander base sitting there.

Who is to say anyone else landed on the moon? One of the first obvious realities we get hit with in the film is, "Humanity stopped dreaming/reaching." There's obviously room for error there, but we're led to believe that we (in our IRL lifetimes) have already passed the pinnacle of human spaceflight, and nothing came after to match or surpass it. So, aside from the moon landing, there wasn't much else that they needed to debunk.

The moon thing as pointed out by others wasn't meant to be true in-universe either - it was a conspiracy theory which became accepted reality because it was easier to think it like that and just stop pondering on mankind's "past greatness". It was also a not-so-subtle jab at American schools teaching creationism or such, imho.On the ending

On the first point, I agree, but I certainly hope that wasn't meant to be analogous to Creationism. If it was, then someone completely did not understand the point. The 'conspiracy' in Interstellar, seemed to exist (as you said) for the purpose of keeping people focused on the 'herenow,' where the bantha poodoo is hitting the fan. And while I don't agree with it, I understand the logic behind it.

Creationism is more or less pointless, even if there IS a God. If you want to suggest that there could be a deity that created everything, you don't need to start nitpicking science (and/or standing in the way of it), trying to produce an alternate model of the universe. Curiosity is the foundation of human civilization, and it shouldn't be treated like some kind of cosmic abomination.

The plan in Interstellar was to preserve the existence of humanity. Creationism is about preserving a dogma.

Bill Nye in response to a question from the media about whether or not he liked Interstellar:

Sounds like he wasn't even really paying attention. Or he had decided he wasn't going to like it, even before he watched it.

Now, I love what he's done for science, and I love that he still stands up for it, but the idea that the CEO of the fricking Planetary Society can't even appreciate what this film is trying to do... that's downright sad. Equally sad is that his first guess about why the film isn't doing well, is that the story is weak. Give me a break. Hollywood is thriving on spitting out films with horrid plots. What alternate reality of humanity is he seeing?

Bill has become increasingly arrogant and senile in the past few years, and has about as much tact as a rhinoceros sitting on a cactus.

Edited November 28, 2014 by vger

[AndrewBCrisp]

People change as they get older. Some become better, some become worse, and some become strange. It's sad to see that Bill Nye is drifting towards worse.

Personally, I suspect the box office drop is not so much because the story was bad (it's not), but because the story wasn't particularly enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong - it's a compelling drama, and while I was in the theatre, the film did not bore or confuse me. At times I was literally at the edge of my seat watching what was going on, and wondering what would happen next. Plus, we now have a realistic black hole on the silver screen - and any future films with black holes in them are going to have to measure themselves against this standard. That's gotta be a plus.

But, aside from the visuals, and apart from the underlying message ("exploration is important"), the film was not enjoyable. It was heart-wrenching, and though it had a happy ending, it was not a film I'd watch again... not for a few years, at any rate.

This is something I've noticed with Christopher Nolan's films in particular, and with any science fiction film that purports to be SRS BSNS in general. It spends far too much time drenching us in emotions of sadness, despair, desperation, and other negatives, and far too little time relieving the whole negative barrage with lighter emotions. No matter how accurate the science, no matter how compelling the plot, if the story's big accomplishment is to Make You Feel Sad, it's not going to be a keeper.

I'm glad Interstellar was made... but we do need more fun science fiction films that aren't superhero films. My two cents on the issue.

[vger]

This is something I've noticed with Christopher Nolan's films in particular, and with any science fiction film that purports to be SRS BSNS in general. It spends far too much time drenching us in emotions of sadness, despair, desperation, and other negatives, and far too little time relieving the whole negative barrage with lighter emotions. No matter how accurate the science, no matter how compelling the plot, if the story's big accomplishment is to Make You Feel Sad, it's not going to be a keeper.

Interesting thoughts. I hadn't really looked at it that way, but I don't think this is a problem limited to sci-fi either. Dark & gritty is everywhere now, and any film that doesn't adhere to it, gets accused of having the naivety of a 5-year-old reading a fairytale.

Drama seems to be pretty much the only thing that separates modern semi-hard sci-fi from the classics. But walk up to someone who only likes modern sci-fi and ask them about the classics, and they'll probably say that they're too dry.

Great modern example: look at what had to be done to Star Trek in order to boost its popularity.

Maybe this is just a problem with 'relatability' though. Humans are a ridiculously emotionally screwed up bunch, so they probably have trouble relating to people who are more rock-solid, like realistic space-travelers sort of need to be. This is why so many adventure stories aren't about experienced adventurers, but about 'John Does' being thrust into situations they're completely unaccustomed to.

[AndrewBCrisp]

I don't think it's just a modern problem, vger. I heard writer John Scalzi mention in his film-critic days that one reason why Star Wars was so popular when it first came out was that it was the first fun film in a long while. During the late 60s and through the 70s, Hollywood had gone off the deep end with dark films such as Soylent Green, the Planet of the Apes films, Colossus: the Forbin Project and so on. So when Star Wars showed up with its sword-fights and space battles, it was like someone had opened a window into a dungeon.

Not that it didn't prevent people from combining drama and fun. I'm no big authority on films, but I personally think that Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was a good, smart film for its day - with the right mix of fun and drama.

As for "relatability" - well, maybe. We are drawn to interesting characters, be they larger-than-life heroes, complete monsters, or somewhere in between. Space travelers can be rock solid and interesting, but it requires effort to combine the two in the writing. Bringing this back to Interstellar for a moment, the characters are sufficient to their roles, but no more. The only characters I'd define as "interesting" are Cooper, Dr. Mann, and TARS. Everyone else got a meh reaction from me.

[lajoswinkler]

The Tyson quote is killing me:

I have tremendous respect for the guy, but this is making me alternate between laughing so hard my pancakes are burning, and wondering how narrow his specialty had to be if he is such an amazing astrophysicist (and he is) with such a poor grasp of the related field of astrodynamics. It seems unlikely, so there's likely something else going on here. Still doesn't help my burnt pancakes, though.

Yes, I have the exact same feelings. He is an amazing person and did a lot for popularizing science, but sometimes he can be a downright fool. Some things he said about "Gravity", wow... And I know he's not socially inept, so what's the deal with him?

People change as they get older. Some become better, some become worse, and some become strange. It's sad to see that Bill Nye is drifting towards worse.

Personally, I suspect the box office drop is not so much because the story was bad (it's not), but because the story wasn't particularly enjoyable.

Don't get me wrong - it's a compelling drama, and while I was in the theatre, the film did not bore or confuse me. At times I was literally at the edge of my seat watching what was going on, and wondering what would happen next. Plus, we now have a realistic black hole on the silver screen - and any future films with black holes in them are going to have to measure themselves against this standard. That's gotta be a plus.

But, aside from the visuals, and apart from the underlying message ("exploration is important"), the film was not enjoyable. It was heart-wrenching, and though it had a happy ending, it was not a film I'd watch again... not for a few years, at any rate.

This is something I've noticed with Christopher Nolan's films in particular, and with any science fiction film that purports to be SRS BSNS in general. It spends far too much time drenching us in emotions of sadness, despair, desperation, and other negatives, and far too little time relieving the whole negative barrage with lighter emotions. No matter how accurate the science, no matter how compelling the plot, if the story's big accomplishment is to Make You Feel Sad, it's not going to be a keeper.

I'm glad Interstellar was made... but we do need more fun science fiction films that aren't superhero films. My two cents on the issue.

There is a box office drop? First news for me.

Regarding your critique on the sad movies - reality is sad. Space is tough. The minimum of happiness is here on Earth under a warm atmosphere. Out there you're in a tin can against the Void.

While I understand the human nature that wants to feel good and better and happier, when you offer "Gravity", the humanity spits on it because "there's no way she could survive". No sh*t?

People are a weird crowd, never truly happy. I enjoyed "Interstellar" and would like to see it again.

[PakledHostage]

There is a box office drop? First news for me.

A quick Google search found this site: Box Office Mojo. There's a lot of red in the %change week over week values. The first weekend seems to have been really big and then it dropped off. I don't know how the drop for Interstellar compares to other films but maybe you can find other sites with your own search?

While I understand the human nature that wants to feel good and better and happier, when you offer "Gravity", the humanity spits on it because "there's no way she could survive". No sh*t?

People are a weird crowd, never truly happy. I enjoyed "Interstellar" and would like to see it again.

You can't shoehorn people's dislike for "Gravity" into such a narrow category. There would have been a full spectrum of reactions to that movie, from those who loved it to those who hated it. Their reasons were almost certainly equally varied. I really didn't like Gravity because I felt that they were trying too hard to get me to empathize with the character's plights and it came off as cringe inducing rather than moving. Others were moved by the plot. That's fine. Likewise, the physics in Gravity didn't bother me while others went on ad infinitum about some perceived "lack of realism".

As for Interstellar, I thought it was better than Gravity and I wasn't bothered by the liberties that they took with the physics to advance the plot. I think they could have made it a better movie by simplifying the plot into something more in line with Mr Shifty's suggestion from earlier in this thread, but they had their reasons.

I don't think Interstellar's "sad story" was a handicap. Sad stories don't make for bad movies. Twelve Year's a Slave, American Beauty and No Country for Old Men all won Oscars for best picture and they aren't happy stories. Was Interstellar entertaining? Sure. Do I agree with Bill Nye's assessment? Maybe a bit. Would I go see it again? Probably not. But that's just my opinion. Others are entitled to theirs.

Edited November 28, 2014 by PakledHostage

[Skylab]

The only problem I had with the movie was some of the dialogue about "love binding people together" or something like that. I thought it was pretty cheesy and didn't really go anywhere. Other than that, I absolutely LOVED Interstellar. It's a great science fiction movie that I think will stand the test of time. I can't believe that it only has a 73 on Rotten Tomatoes.

[dryer_lint]

I did that too and thought they had some sort of mod installed in the process. Because if they launched a usual chemical rocket from Earth, they did not have big advances in propulsion or antigravity.

I read an analysis of the Endurance somewhere online and it stated that the Rangers use jet engines for atmospheric flight, and ion (or plasma?) rockets for space maneuvering. The Endurance itself also uses ion/plasma propulsion... I totally called it when I saw that engine shot in the trailer!

And as others have said, the chemical rocket was built so that it would look cool they could conserve as much fuel as they could. And who knows, perhaps in the future, chemical rockets are a lot cheaper and they just dragged it out of a warehouse?