Quantcast
Interstellar.... OMG. go watch the movie NOW. *SPOILERS INSIDE*

Forums - Movies Discussion - Interstellar.... OMG. go watch the movie NOW. *SPOILERS INSIDE*

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



Around the Network
Munkeh111 said:

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

 

Honestly, I felt the love bit was just how Cooper was interpreting the situation, not really the science behind it. I think it can all be explained either by Cooper's speculation (future human beings rigged it) or some other intelligence rigged it. That means that these beings must connect Cooper and Murph so that Murph could get the knowledge necessary to reformulate gravity. It is just like such beings use a hypercube as a sort of GUI, because that is what Cooper would be able to understand and interpret. 



Well as long as Matthew McConaughey gets another best actor Oscar nomination out of this I will be happy. Once more people have seen it and re watched it I'm thinking it will settle below a 8.5/10 on imdb its currently at 9.0/10.



sc94597 said:
Munkeh111 said:

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

 

Honestly, I felt the love bit was just how Cooper was interpreting the situation, not really the science behind it. I think it can all be explained either by Cooper's speculation (future human beings rigged it) or some other intelligence rigged it. That means that these beings must connect Cooper and Murph so that Murph could get the knowledge necessary to reformulate gravity. It is just like such beings use a hypercube as a sort of GUI, because that is what Cooper would be able to understand and interpret. 

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



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?



Around the Network

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?



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?

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



allenmaher said:
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?

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.