Christopher Nolans "Interstellar" movie shines new light on black holes.

[Mr Shifty]

Neil deGrasse Tyson is tweeting about it right now. He seems to approve.

[PakledHostage]

I have learned from much experience, that often the probability of me liking a film, is inversely proportional to how much the "reputable critics" like it.

So you liked Transformers?

[vger]

So you liked Transformers?

Bwahahahahaha!

... no. I did say "often" though.

Gotta say it's interesting that critics will often whine that movies always cater to the lowest common intellectual denominator. But then one comes along that DOESN'T ask you to check your brain at the door, and they do nothing but complain anyway.

If nothing else, the film deserves attention because it's not just entertainment. It's a wake up call for humanity to continue reaching towards the stars.

[Motokid600]

Yea accuracy shmaccuracy the movie is just beautifully done. Very powerful. I dont know why McConaughey gets so much crap the guy is a brilliant actor... I mean the scene where he sits down and watches 23 years of messeges... Its powerful. It really is.. I don't think a movie has made me feel like that before.

[Mitchz95]

After reading through this thread and others like it, I'm half convinced they should just stop making science-fiction movies. If they don't use real science, like Armageddon or Star Wars, everyone complains. If they use real science with the occasional creative liberty, like this or Gravity, everyone complains even more. It's just not worth it anymore.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Mitchz95

[Firov]

After reading through this thread, I'm half convinced they should just stop making science-fiction movies. If they don't use real science, like Armageddon or Star Wars, everyone complains. If they use real science with the occasional creative liberty, like this or Gravity, everyone complains even more. It's just not worth it anymore.

On this subject... Lately I've become convinced that the "uncanny valley" also applies to scientific accuracy in sci-fi movies. The closer a movie comes to being scientifically accurate, the more people respond negatively to every detail that isn't exactly perfect.

Consider, if you look at sci-fi movies like Star Wars or Star Trek, people rarely complain that they're horribly inaccurate. The most you get is people occasionally mumbling that, "lasers don't work like that", in an effort to look clever. However, these minor complaints never impact the reviews or ratings despite the fact that these movies are so scientifically inaccurate that a reasonably bright 2 year old could come up with a list of scientific flaws as long as my arm. Indeed, it's insulting to science to apply the "science-fiction" label to them at all.

In comparison, movies like Gravity, which are vastly more accurate in every way, have professional scientists (thank you Neil deGrasse Tyson!), critics, and KSP players blasting it for comparatively minor orbital mechanics inaccuracies, which were acknowledged by the writer/director as being intentional to make the story work at all.

Instead of simply accepting that certain liberties were taken to further the story, these people get absolutely stuck on these scientific inaccuracies, and actually start hating the entire movie, whatever other merits it might have. They literally can't see the forest for the trees, and they make sure that the world knows just how deeply flawed the movie is... every chance they get.

Honestly, I expect that the "realistic" sci-fi genre will die off pretty soon as a result of this response, just as "realistic" animation all but vanished after the disastrous release of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". As soon as film makers realize that they can't overcome the scientific uncanny valley in sci-fi movies, they'll go back to shoveling out more "sci-fi" garbage like Transformers or Prometheus...

Yay...

[PakledHostage]

Honestly, I expect that the "realistic" sci-fi genre will die off pretty soon as a result of this response, just as "realistic" animation all but vanished after the disastrous release of "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within". As soon as film makers realize that they can't overcome the scientific uncanny valley in sci-fi movies, they'll go back to shoveling out more "sci-fi" garbage like Transformers or Prometheus...

While I mostly agree with you, I think you've got to be careful not to conflate the effects of a "realism uncanny valley" in sci-fi movies with bad story telling. Consider what often happens with movies that are advertised as having "great special effects". More often than not, that's synonymous with "it has a dumb plot". I worry that "it has accurate science" will come to mean the same thing. I feel like a broken record saying this again, but it isn't the science in Gravity that bugs me. And it isn't the science in Interstellar that is making me dubious about that movie. I am going to go see Interstellar though. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised.

But as to plot in films: One of my main measures of a brilliant plot in a movie is how much of the audience stays seated when the credits role. A really well done and thought provoking film will leave much of the audience seated and chatting amongst themselves. Some of the contributors to this thread have said that people clapped at the end of Interstellar, but I suspect that people seeing it on opening night are biased. I saw Gravity several weeks after it was released and people were laughing at inappropriate times (i.e. the kind of reaction you get when people think something's cheesy) during the film, and I don't remember very many people sitting around at the end. By contrast, I saw District 9 several weeks after it opened and almost nobody moved when the credits rolled.

[SpaceXray]

While I mostly agree with you, I think you've got to be careful not to conflate the effects of a "realism uncanny valley" in sci-fi movies with bad story telling. Consider what often happens with movies that are advertised as having "great special effects". More often than not, that's synonymous with "it has a dumb plot". I worry that "it has accurate science" will come to mean the same thing. I feel like a broken record saying this again, but it isn't the science in Gravity that bugs me. And it isn't the science in Interstellar that is making me dubious about that movie. I am going to go see Interstellar though. Hopefully I will be pleasantly surprised.

But as to plot in films: One of my main measures of a brilliant plot in a movie is how much of the audience stays seated when the credits role. A really well done and thought provoking film will leave much of the audience seated and chatting amongst themselves. Some of the contributors to this thread have said that people clapped at the end of Interstellar, but I suspect that people seeing it on opening night are biased. I saw Gravity several weeks after it was released and people were laughing at inappropriate times (i.e. the kind of reaction you get when people think something's cheesy) during the film, and I don't remember very many people sitting around at the end. By contrast, I saw District 9 several weeks after it opened and almost nobody moved when the credits rolled.

District 9 was a serious movie. No wonder no one moved. And the ending wasn't really happy either. People clapped for Interstellar because there was so much trash released beforehand, and Interstellar was done in such an artistic and original, calm and peaceful, non-cheesy way that it looked more like a real act and non a mumbo-jumbo of CGI.

Honestly im glad Nolan used models of the ships most of the time instead of CGI.

[vger]

District 9 was a serious movie. No wonder no one moved. And the ending wasn't really happy either. People clapped for Interstellar because there was so much trash released beforehand, and Interstellar was done in such an artistic and original, calm and peaceful, non-cheesy way that it looked more like a real act and non a mumbo-jumbo of CGI. Honestly im glad Nolan used models of the ships most of the time instead of CGI.

I really want Nolan to make a more space-operaish film for one reason, I want to see how it makes me feel. I got a vibe out of it that I very rarely get anymore. Whenever something went wrong in Interstellar, I felt it. When a ship got threatened, I tensed up. Everything felt like it genuinely mattered. My wife and I were white-palmed by the time the movie was over, and her fingers had actually wrinkled from sweating the whole time. That's the kind of reaction that action and horror films wish they could get from an audience, and Interstellar is neither.

But I don't know if this just due to me having more 'compassion' for a semi-believable NASA-style mission, or if the use of models added a subtle sense of "reality" to the craft.

Edited November 10, 2014 by vger

[PakledHostage]

People clapped for Interstellar because there was so much trash released beforehand, and Interstellar was done in such an artistic and original, calm and peaceful, non-cheesy way that it looked more like a real act and non a mumbo-jumbo of CGI.

Well I'll let you all know what I think when I see it. Maybe I'll go tomorrow. I've been a harsh critic of Interstellar based on the descriptions I've read, but maybe I'll be swayed when I see it for myself.

[Technical Ben]

or Star Trek

I forgive every single mistake in Star Trek except the reboot. The entire reboot movies series is just WRONG.

[vger]

I forgive every single mistake in Star Trek except the reboot. The entire reboot movies series is just WRONG.

I got pretty cranky during the later films, when CGI artists started ignoring the mass of the ships in favor of pretending they were jet fighters.

[Firov]

I forgive every single mistake in Star Trek except the reboot. The entire reboot movies series is just WRONG.

Hey, I never said it wasn't good! I love Star Trek, well, the real Star Trek anyway, namely TNG, DS9, and Voyager. In fact, DS9 and Voyager are probably tied as my favorite science-fiction shows. Naturally, the "reboot" is an abomination. A lens flare filled abomination.

But let's be honest here, in many (most?) ways it's incredibly unrealistic, though it generally at least tries to "feel" realistic. Despite that, people don't really pan it due to it's many scientific inaccuracies. Likely because it's so unrealistic in the first place, which was my point about the scientific accuracy uncanny valley. The more realistic something is, the stronger the negative reaction is for those few things that are inaccurate.

Also, on the subject of Star Trek, I'll just borrow this from a thread in general chat...

[SargeRho]

Unpopular opinion time: I actually really like the reboot movies so far. They take away from the naïvité (I hate that word) of the "Original" Star Trek series and movies.

[vger]

Unpopular opinion time: I actually really like the reboot movies so far. They take away from the naïvité (I hate that word) of the "Original" Star Trek series and movies.

That naivety is part of the reason the originals were GOOD. People liked it because it ISN'T like our civilization. The reboot turned it into a near duplicate of our civilization, just with fancier toys, to cater to the kind of audience that wants to be told that their primal, impulsive, greed-fueled, self-centered, "jerk-ocratic" way of living is the pinnacle of evolution in the universe.

Edited November 11, 2014 by vger

[Firov]

That naivety is part of the reason the originals were GOOD. People liked it because it ISN'T like our civilization. The reboot turned it into a near duplicate of our civilization, just with fancier toys, to cater to the kind of audience that wants to be told that their primal, impulsive, greed-fueled, self-centered, "jerk-ocratic" way of living is the pinnacle of evolution in the universe.

Exactly right. Star Trek showed an optimistic future where humanity had largely evolved beyond greed, hatred, and shortsightedness. That's what made it Star Trek. There were still external threats, sure, (see Romulans, Dominion, Borg, etc), but Humanity met these threats as a united species, along with fellow Federation members. Even DS9 was mostly optimistic in that respect, and it was by far the darkest of the true Star Trek series.

If you want dark and gritty sci-fi, then watch the new Battlestar Galactica, but that's not what Star Trek is, and it's not what it should strive to be.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Firov

[PakledHostage]

Well I'll let you all know what I think when I see it.

I just got home from the theater... Nobody clapped at the end but they also didn't laugh at inappropriate times. I recognized several of the settings in the movie as being near where I grew up in southern Alberta. A handful of people seemed to stay in their seats when the credits rolled. It was better than Gravity.

[dharak1]

This movie was filmed in Southern Alberta? That's interesting. Saw it last night and it got a little strange towards the end. I have to say the ammonia atmosphere planet event happening was a bit predictable and I didn't appreciate the orbital jump scare and loud noise. Over all, it was a pretty good movie just a bit long.

[nli2work]

It deserves all the praises heaped on it. The metaphysical stuff is still really bad. I like Sunshine better. After thinking about it for few days after seeing it, all I can say now is, "Get your ass to Mars".

[Mazon Del]

The thing about Star Trek though, is that up until you got into some subtle nitty gritty aspects in some of the episodes then you don't really notice the problems they have. The Federation ideal is that money is not a thing, we don't accumulate resources for power and prestige, etc. They joke in Voyager for example that in some cities there are professional pick-pockets that steal your wallet because that is part of the expected culture of that city. They are cited as 'usually' giving them back. The problem though is that in Star Trek, the vast majority of scenes you see are all in Federation property. Their starships, starbases, Headquarters, etc. One thing that the Federation embraced was that EVERY ship was a potential diplomatic ship to a new species and therefor needed to exemplify the facade of the Federation. They all look nice on the interior and exterior, their uniforms are snazzy, etc. We get to see the converse to this in other species and in how their ships are dirtier, blockier, etc, their civilizations are clearly less refined, and so on. It helps to show how the Federation is this wonderful utopian ideal. Albiet one with some external enemies, but that doesn't keep it from being a utopia. What keeps it from being a utopia is the fact that the Federation ideal doesn't apply to all of the Federation. Effectively the main colonies that exist (and anything in the Sol System of course) exists on the Federation ideal. No money, just the nigh infinite resources of the replicators. However they do hint at replicator rations as a currency. Which makes sense! They are very clear that the Federation does NOT have infinite power, and therefor you cannot have every citizen of Earth wanting to get a space ship so they can have fun in space.

From the little info I have on the subject, even in the utopian areas, you basically get this daily allotment of replicator rations and there is some system that converts them into what you want. IE: Food might cost 0.1 rations, a tricorder might cost 3 due to the much higher energy costs to synthesize the dense metals and such. They never explicitly call this out because of course, the Federation has no money after all. There is some indication that you can save up the rations and that you can go into debt, but that there isnt too much consequence for doing so.

Very clearly though, once you leave the immediate "core" of the Federation and the homeworlds of the major members of the Federation (Vulcan as an example) this drops off quite quickly. You have planets in effective poverty that need to trade goods with other civilizations for resources, etc.

I have always been fine with the existence of such worlds, but what I have always thought was a little interesting was how heavily "out of sight out of mind" the Federation gets about these worlds. They will protect them and give them some resources and whatnot, but rather then prevent them descending into this frontier-survivalist state in pretty much direct contravention with Federation ideals, they just let it happen and more to the point place the burden on THEM to get to the utopian ideal.

What is somewhat amusing is I believe (and I could be quite wrong on this part) that this is one of the things that pisses the Romulans off about the Federation. Is that the Federation gets all high and mighty and yet is clearly being a hypocrit. However, the Romulans are not this perfect Federation we have seen, so of course they are wrong and bad. Not to say they aren't. They are space Rome after all.

[Mazon Del]

It deserves all the praises heaped on it. The metaphysical stuff is still really bad. I like Sunshine better. After thinking about it for few days after seeing it, all I can say now is, "Get your ass to Mars".

The way I choose to interpret it, during the scene of "love" he is less trying to use the "love compass" and more attempting to abuse the parental instinct of "I see a crowd of people but the half second glimpse of my child lets me know where she is." to find the right spot in the crazy place to use.

The girl scientist though, yeah she was just trying to love compass everywhere.

[Sky_walker]

Exactly right. Star Trek showed an optimistic future

Star Trek is showing a communist utopia. Whatever it's optimistic or not is a separate matter - but there were quite solid arguments made that world in Star Trek is closer to 1984 than anything we'd describe "optimistic". (google is your friend)

where humanity had largely evolved beyond greed, hatred, and shortsightedness.

Every Star Trek episode ever contradicts that statement. Especially in regards of shortsightedness.

The girl scientist though, yeah she was just trying to love compass everywhere.

Cause you know, women need to be emotional beyond reason. Otherwise they can't make it to become a primary characters in the plot. (Water planet being probably the major example - man use logic, woman uses emotion, through good 90% of the whole sequence - heck: even at the ending, which is the most emotional part on the "man" side of the cast, main hero still uses logic most of the time, even when he is all in tears).

Edited November 11, 2014 by Sky_walker

[Motokid600]

This movie was filmed in Southern Alberta? That's interesting. Saw it last night and it got a little strange towards the end. I have to say the ammonia atmosphere planet event happening was a bit predictable and I didn't appreciate the orbital jump scare and loud noise. Over all, it was a pretty good movie just a bit long.

The scene when Matt Damon blew up the airlock? Yea it was loud and scary, but there's another realism feature. In real life it would 've been louder to the point where your ear drums explode out the side of your head. That was a MASSIVE depressurization when that airlock blew. Silly Matt Damon...

Oh and btw MATT DAMON. Lol... I was surprised.

Edited November 11, 2014 by Motokid600

[Firov]

Star Trek is showing a communist utopia. Whatever it's optimistic or not is a separate matter - but there were quite solid arguments made that world in Star Trek is closer to 1984 than anything we'd describe "optimistic". (google is your friend)

Ah, yes. I see what's going on here. You're confusing "post-scarcity" with "communist", which is a word that itself is now so wrapped in jingoistic fear mongering, such as the kind that you're displaying here, that it is effectively useless. Also, no, there were no "solid arguments" that the Federation was basically the government of '1984'. Even DS9, the darkest of the Trek series, wouldn't give anyone that idea. Granted, the outer colonies weren't perfect, especially in areas like the Cardassian DMZ, but Earth was described, and shown, as a a Utopian paradise. Even in DS9, which attempted to "deconstruct" the ideal of the Federation utopia. I think Sisko says it best...

Do you know what the trouble is? The trouble is Earth! On Earth there is no poverty, no crime, no war. You look out the window of Starfleet Headquarters and you see paradise. It's easy to be a saint in paradise, but the Maquis do not live in paradise. Out there in the demilitarized zone all the problems haven't been solved yet. Out there, there are no saints, just people. Angry, scared, determined people who are going to do whatever it takes to survive, whether it meets with Federation approval or not.

So yes, while the outer colonies may be far from perfect, Earth itself, and the other Federation core worlds, are, for all intents and purposes, "paradise". This is a concept that is explored, in depth, by Deep Space 9, and as a result I would definitely recommend watching it.

That said, I realize you're heavily tied into the current political party system, and so are incapable of viewing anything from outside of the allowed narrow confines of your preferred party, but I would suggest understanding that in the largely post-scarcity universe of Star Trek, terms like "communist" or "capitalist", "republican" or "democrat" have basically no meaning.

Every Star Trek episode ever contradicts that statement. Especially in regards of shortsightedness.

And, since that's such a gigantic and sweeping statement, I'm betting you'll be happy to provide plenty of examples that we can discuss, right?

[Mazon Del]

You're confusing "post-scarcity" with "communist"

Frankly you cannot have a large scale communist economy function with real stability over the long term unless you are super post-scarcity. Not quite unlimited resources, but effectively so. In the Federation it was pretty clear that if you were on Earth, for free you basically could have anything you wanted with only a time delay involved. Replicators and antimatter power, yay. Really one thing I've never had explained to me is how they are generating all the antimatter they are using all over the place. Clearly they have some method of production for it.

What could make for an interesting setup, lets say they have a crazy solar collector near the sun that sucks up the light, generates the antimatter, they ship it around. I could imagine a series or something where some group slams in and significantly ruins the production facilties, thus forcing the Federation for a period of time to deal with the fact that things are scarce again.