I hope so, the speech still made me angry.

The fact that it was going to be Cooper/Murph/Brand or future humans was fairly obvious from the start of the film. Basically, I felt I would have known if there were aliens and also the fact that the film had enough things to do without dealing with other species

It makes sense from the perspective that the tale would have been passed on through the next generations of humans. He was famous for transmitting the data and Murph was famous for finishing the calculations. Then they simply find their technology and make sure humanity can survive.

Yes it's a bit circular, but time travel can never be entirely logical can it. I actually liked the slightly ambiguous ending as well, it was never really clear where humanity would end up

Or maybe I just over analyse films? Probably why Scott Pilgrim is my favourite film, it never tries to make sense

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?

If you have read this far into the thread I doubt you are worried about spoilers so...

Was anyone else bothered by a gravitational slingshot around a star/black hole/plot device for travel to an in system planet? For those who don't know, gravitational slingshots try to translate angular velocity of the planets into a velocity gain for the space craft by dipping into the gravity well. Problem is you can't use a black hole or star to do that to get to one of the planets orbiting the same body (no relative angular velocity). No only that but the amount of delta v needed to bring down the periapsis is tremendous, if you are short on fuel and not planning a very long interstellar voyage (the target planet is not orbiting the thing you are slingshotting around) there are much lower delta v orbitals that would get you to the other planet.

Of course as a plot device so that you can have a love story take place at the end of the movie between two people who show absolutely no on screen chemistry during the movie after one of them falls into and out of a black hole (crossing time and space in the process while altering his own past and creating a time paradox because ... love is magical??? ... oh and this way we tie up another plot line back on earth) it still sucks.

Did anyone see any fuel tanks on this interstellar ship? Apparently F=qVe+(Pe-Pa)Ae does not apply when it might get in the way of a really bad unbelievable love story?

But they should have realised that the strength of the gravity and the proximity to the black hole meant it could never serve as a potential new home for humanity

The science wasn't what broke it for me, I just don't think I ever hugely cared about the characters

The point of that slingshot was to launch the robot in to the black hole in a desperate attempt to transmit the data (in their magical binary nonsense way...)

They had 2 landers and 2 rovers with no external fuel pods.

I think some of the components of the rings were fuel. I'm not quite sure

Looking at the comments, I fail to realize how can someone be overly critical of a film. It is just a film, it doesn't even have any kind of agenda, any kind of preeching. It is just a film, it is sci fi whether you like it or not. What is the problem of being very accurate in things that were never portrayed before, like the most accurate black hole ever simulated or the realistic worm hole representation. Films are films, you can't just expect that it portrays relality strictly. Even biographies have to have different pace and structure so it is interesting to anyone to watch. Sure, Interstellar has mistakes, but to some people, it only bothers them because it is a big budget film. And to say Memento is Nolan's best film is subjective, as well as saying Mathew acting is bad. I have watched more than 300 films (who cares?) and I can still enjoy a film for what it is, without being over critical. Sure, I have cringed with the SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER event horizon and 5th dimension explanation and the love is almighty thing but if I think about it, this is a film about humanity struggle, and how we can "conquer" the universe, it is told from our perspective, not the perspective of the universe. And we have feelings and emotions, and it is what allow us to do great things. And anyway, who the hell knows what is inside a black hole? SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER

Glad you liked it. No sequel, please. This really isn't that kind of movie. I'm just excited to hear what he's cooking up next. Over the last 10 years he's been doing his own film, followed up by a Batman sequel. This will be the first time in a while we get to see him work on two projects in a row that are truly new to him. I know he won't dip into comedy as he's said as much. I would love to see a coming of age story out of him, ala Stand By Me, but with all the creepy, twisty stuff he normally puts in his movies as well.

It was that, and also the fact that they were too heavy and did not have enough fuel. So that's why cooper went in as well.

well since you have a strong understanding on physics, and i honestly dont, always hated it and never really got into it. could you explain relativity in a simple manner to me? is it just a theory or can time really shift like that? (not time travel, but time moving slower for one person than the other depending on location in the universe)

A simple experimental measurement of general relativity's description that higher gravitational fields => slower time are GPS satellites. Because GPS depends on time between pings to measure location the clocks on the satelites must be very accurate. We knew the clocks on the GPS satellite would require corrections because of the lower gravitational force in orbit would mean that time runs faster for them, very slightly. These micro-seconds add up after a while, so there needs to be a correction. If we didn't correct for this time difference GPS would only be accurate to about many hundred feet to even miles. That is one example of time dialation due to a gravitational field.