luvtospooge said:
Munkeh111 said:
luvtospooge said:
Munkeh111 said:
This is probably spoiler territory
So while his trip around the black hole as a slingshot was fine (though they had never really used slingshots before... but whatever, I have issuses with the planetary lander's fuel more than anything), the lander falling backwards from the ship didn't make a huge amount of sense...
So yeah, he ejects and his orbit decays into the black hole and the ship is torn apart. The question is how far did he go beyond the event horizon and at what point to weird things start to happen other than being trapped? So, I love the theory that on the other side of a black hole is another universe being created, like the big bang. But that's probably not relevant here
The question is, does his ship get to the middle of the black hole and then end up in the 5th dimensional nonsense, or is he plucked from his imminenent death by the future humans? Just don't get me started on those nonsense strings and love is the 5th dimension. I was quite tempted to walk out of theatre at that point.
|
Perhaps you went in expecting some sort of scientific documentary. I went in expecting a great movie with some real life concept of general relativity applied. Do note that I am not a physics or science major, for that matter.
Also, what's wrong with speculating what's inside a singularity? Little to nothing is known about what happens inside, so what's wrong with speculating and theorizing a bit? From what I've read, the tesseract and the whole 5th dimension thing is not so far fetched.
|
I did study physics and I did generally enjoy the film, but that doesn't mean there are so really stupid bits in it. I didn't expect a documentary, but what I got was half a documentary and half a drama of sorts. But kind of forgot what it was half the time.
I have no issue with weird stuff inside a black hole, but what was there was just so stupid. Then we get the speech about love being the 5th dimension which just made me angry
The real physics issue that annoyed me was the lander. To leave earth, they take this huge rocket to reach outerspace with no problem at all. Yet this tiny lander has enough fuel for 2 planety landings and take offs, in planets that have strong gravity. It just doesn't make any sense
My point with this is if you spend 90% of the time with "hard sci-fi" and then you get lazy, that really annoys me.
But that's not my real problem with the film! The real problem was that the dialogue was poor and everything just felt a tad sloppy. All the scenes on earth took twice as long as they needed to, I just wanted them to get into space. When they did, WOW! The imagary was just fantastic and then the plot kind of fell apart again...
If you're looking to settle humanity on a planet, why would you even consider the first planet? It's so close to the black hole that it's simply not going to be stable. There was no reason to go there other than to speed the plot along. These guys are scientists, they're not stupid! It just doesn't make any sense
I didn't think it was a bad movie, but I certainly wouldn't recomend it.
I'm no Nolan lower, I think the Dark Knight Rises is just one giant plot hole and Inception is not a masterpiece, merely a good film. Memento on the otherhand is a master piece. But yeah, I wouldn't go see this film again
|
I understand where you're coming from, and now that you mention it, the lander being able to take off twice is highly unprobable. But if I recall correctly, weren't there a lot of landers? They might not have been using the same ones, but then again, I'm unsure of that because I didn't pay any particular attention to that part.
As for your second grey area regarding the water planet, I think there is a fair explanation for that.
*SPOILERS*
The reason why they went into that planet in the first place was because of the signal sent by the astronaut who landed there prior, and so they deemed it fit to be habitable because of the signal. But little did they know that as soon as the signal was sent, the astronauts that were there prior were killed by those huge waves. Do keep in mind the extreme-time dilation of the planet, and they even mentioned that they might have missed the death of the astronaut that was there by mere minutes from their relative POV.
To me the film was really, really enjoyable. I enjoyed all the imagery and finally a good portrayal of a black hole. The third act does get clunky and I am still confused and cannot understand the paradox, but regardless, I enjoyed the movie a lot. The music (during the docking scene, the water planet and the ice planet), the acting (although they overdid a bit at first before leaving earth, but matthew's acting when he came back from the water planet was astounding), and the visuals won me over. I'm going to rewatch it again soon in IMAX as a matter of fact. It just seems that a lot of people are being too nitpicky with the movie, and letting a few unexplained phenomenon ruin their experience with the film, but I guess it is just...relativity...get it?
|
