Interstellar - November 7, 2014

[Pagey279]

There's been an "apology" on the UK news for the volume of dialogue in the film; supposedly it's intentional that some of it is inaudible.

I'll still watch this but friends who saw it in a cinema are suggesting that it's a very unpleasant auditory experience all-round. This was at a Vue though, known for being a bit-too-loud

What do you guys think to that (very subjective) criticism?

It didn't bother me too much, there were a couple of moments where I considered putting my hands over my ears but it certainly didn't put me off the film at all.

I saw it in an Odeon for what it's worth.

 

[DK]

There were a few lines that I couldn't hear over the rustling of my bag of popcorn. Also...

Spoiler

...Matt Damon's character's death was pretty damn loud!

 

[sems4arsenal]

@sems4arsenal


This is an easily mistaken assumption to make that a lot of people are falling for. The "shuttles" or rangers could've left Earth orbit fine on their own, the large multi-stage rocket boost was used in order to be able to give them as much fuel as possible for the mission.

The goal was to get into space then start burning for Saturn, which is the first time they start using "mission fuel," so to speak. They talk about it a good amount in the film, discussing how critical fuel usage is and such.

After really diving into the film and doing deep research, I have a pretty good understanding of the story and the science behind everything. I expected to find more problems the deeper I went, but I kept finding awesome explanations and really clever story crafting. This thing is tied together extremely well.

I'm confident I can answer almost any question or concern you guys have with it, just let me know! I've never been more excited about a film, last one that got close was Contact. I just love pondering this type of stuff. I've seen it twice in IMAX and the second viewing was more enjoyable because of my better understanding going into it and new insight coming out. I want to see it at least one more time before it's out of theaters for sure. I've just got to let everything soak a little more before that .

It's definitely not for everyone though, in the way that maybe a film revolving around a sport may not be appealing to people that aren't into the sport and are going to distracted by the fact that they don't know what's going.

Spoiler

How did "They" send Matthew McConaughey to the whole time lapse black hole thing when actually human civillization would have ended in the first place (Paradox here), also why was the space city at the end curved and where was it exactly (near Hathaway's planet or next to saturn before entering the black hole? also how did TARS send Matthew McConaughey radio transmissions in a black hole?

 

[DK]

Spoiler

"They" are the descendants of the frozen embryos that were onboard Brand's ship, having evolved over hundreds of millions of years into 5D beings.

Also, that space city was probably the Lazarus base, which is a centrifuge - it would provide Earth-like gravity by rotating.

I think there's some strange quantum mechanics stuff that allowed TARS to communicate with Cooper. The one thing I found most unbelievable was the absence of lethal doses of gamma rays inside and surrounding "Gargantua".

 

[Thematic]

Spoiler

I thought TARS was sent to the black hole beforehand.

 

[Wardez]

Spoiler

1st question
===================================================
"How did "They" send Matthew McConaughey to the whole time lapse black hole thing when actually human civillization would have ended in the first place (Paradox here)"

Ok, prepare for a long answer. The short version is that there is no paradox, everything is seemingly happening at the same time to us because we can only really conceive things in three dimensions.

The key thing is that you need to think in 5D and throw out everything you know about how you experience time and space in a mere 3D.

First of all you need to understand that there was no time travel in Interstellar. There was fast-forwarding in the very simple sense due to relativity (time moving really slowly due to them being near distortions in space-time such as the black hole Gargantua), that the characters went through, but no one ever really went back in time at all. That's including "they/them" or future 5D us.

Also important to note, there is only one time line. All the graphs and such you see floating around the internet only serve to give us a primitive (lol) representation of how the events relate with each other within the context of the temporal story, albeit in a deceptive layout.

It all happens within one timescape which the 5D beings can experience all at the same time. So you can see how this doesn't simply mean that they can be on their way and just exist as gods, essentially. They need to construct the foundation of their timeline.

If you think of a house in 5D, each side of the house is literally all of time and space happening all at once infinitely. The foundation of their "house" could be considered to be the events that the story of Interstellar focuses on.

The same way the side of a cube is made up of something that's simple to us, which is one plane, the side of their penteract (5D cube) is something very simple to them, conceptually all of comprehensible existence using things like tesseracts (4D cube) as sides. This means 5D beings can see all outcomes of everything, constantly, with infinite control. It's childs play for them to venture from the beginning of the universe and before it to past the end of it the same as we can look at the grand canyon and hike up, down, and all around it.

This doesn't mean that they have total control of all aspects of it though, that's different. They're still somewhat slaves to events of the past that lead up to their establishment, so by simply existing, they're contributing to their eventual creation without even breaking a sweat. So "they" really didn't have to do anything or really plan things, they're so incredibly mighty that solutions simply spring out from them because it's necessary as it's the fabric that makes up everything around them.

The film is all about a causality (closed time) loop. The one where Cooper and his daughter are responsible for the evolution of the human race through a series of events inextricably linked with one another, all happening at the same time. As soon as one part of the plan was put in place (starting from the creation of the universe) everything leading up to the successful establishment of 5D us instantly popped into existence.

So even before the evolution of our humanity was directly made possible by the successful solving of the gravity equation because of Cooper's success in the black hole, 5D us already existed far in our "future," which really isn't a thing, if, like I said, you think of things from the perspective of a 5D being.

Only plan B worked initially but for some reason (can only speculate as to what exactly the problem was) they were not going to be able to advance enough without the help of the initial humans of Earth. So the closed time loop manifested everything necessary in order to transport our known human race to another galaxy in order to join and assist our successors because future success mandated it.

It's kind of a mind ****, I know. If you're stuck on any one part, just let me know and I can help you through it. It really is worth doing the mental gymnastics once you get it!

=====================================================

2nd question
=====================================================
also why was the space city at the end curved and where was it exactly (near Hathaway's planet or next to saturn before entering the black hole?

That's a type of conceptual space station called an O'Neill cylinder. It's built like that so it can best try to simulate life on Earth by spinning to provide artificial gravity and to easily keep sunshine hitting everything more evenly. They talk about it being built when Cooper first gets to the Nasa facility and how they wouldn't be able to get it going unless they solved the last bit of the gravity equation.

It was on our side of the wormhole, near it, orbiting Saturn yeah.

=====================================================
3rd question
=====================================================

also how did TARS send Matthew McConaughey radio transmissions in a black hole?

He was simply in the same place. Cooper was temporarily 5D being though, so he wouldn't be able to spot him visually.

=====================================================
DK's concern
=====================================================
The one thing I found most unbelievable was the absence of lethal doses of gamma rays inside and surrounding "Gargantua".

First thing is that you have to realize that not all black holes are the same of course, and the accretion disk for this one was designed by Kip Thorne as a mellow one or "cold" that mostly just puts out regular observable light instead of gamma rays. There's no way you'd be able to see anything close to what was presented in the film if it were the type of mega-violent black hole that would cause gamma rays to be emitted. It would look very different, warpy, and no life would be around it at all. In-fact, any visiting astronauts would've been cooked immediately as soon as they got through the wormhole.

He wouldn't have allowed something with the profile like what's at the center of our Milky Way to make up Gargantua due to the necessities of the story.

 

[sems4arsenal]

Mind = blown

Thanks a bunch @Wardez

 

[MoLiEG]

Awful movie with an Idiotic plot. Lots of nice science, but very little of it was explained. A movie is supposed to be a self contained medium, so when I'm forced to go online after the movie to understand the various scientific things that are happening or are mentioned, then you've failed as a writer. Few charachters were actually developed, and they were all either bland or outright annoying. And introducing some forced drama doesn't add anything but time to the already painfully long runtime of the movie... Complete garbage IMO.

I don't know whether to choose this movie as worst movie of the year, or Godzilla. I suppose Interstellar at least encourages you to go online and read up on various interesting topics.

I was afraid to be only human that completely disliked the movie...
It's too damn long and too damn stupid...

 

[Roger the Horse]

I enjoyed it, but I can't say I thought it was anything brilliant. Amazing special effects, and, as @Wardez has pointed out, some fine world building, but overall it took itself just that bit too seriously, tried that bit too hard to inject real human drama™, and desperately, desperately wanted to be 2001.

Personally, I had no problems with the sound, although the cinema did have its speakers turned up just a bit too loud (this was actually more of a problem during the trailers), but I could hear all of the dialogue, and I never felt the volume in the film went up too high. I also felt that the pacing was very good and that the film's content actually warranted its length, unlike many modern films which drag out for hours for no reason other than being "epic" and are ruined as a result.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

I'm planning on going to see this with a friend, I was wondering if you guys would recommend it and whether or not it was good.

(I skipped the majority of the posts in case of spoilers)

 

[MoLiEG]

I'm planning on going to see this with a friend, I was wondering if you guys would recommend it and whether or not it was good.

(I skipped the majority of the posts in case of spoilers)

Would be baaaarely decent if you skip the 1st 30 minutes of it, maybe even the 1st hour... but that's just my opinion.

I hated it. I didn't leave the cinema because I wanted to see how it ended... and god... what a poor ending and overall poor movie...

BUT... A lot of people say it's very very good... who knows, maybe it is but I didn't get it

My advice: If you want to see it, go and see it... Let the movie surprise you, for either good or bad

 

[sems4arsenal]

I'm planning on going to see this with a friend, I was wondering if you guys would recommend it and whether or not it was good.

(I skipped the majority of the posts in case of spoilers)

Do it

 

[VEXD]

A lack of understanding promotes fear and distaste.
Imagine opening a book, reading the first page, then trying to read the rest of the story whilst flicking the pages like a flick book, before finally arriving at the last page and reading that.
You've no real understanding of what happened, and yet you may still form an opinion to offer to others.
"Yeah I read that, the guy dies in the end........ It sucked"

Interstellar requires concentration, attention, some understanding of modern day theory and an interest in what may be possible out in space.

You've either the right frame of mind when you go in to the theatre, or you haven't.
The reviews and opinions in this thread fall into one of those categories.
Those who had, and those who hadn't got their space heads on.

It is not for everyone, but you should know inside before you go into a theatre, whether this is a subject you will enjoy 2 hours and 40 odd minutes of, or not.

I went straight into Django Unchained without hesitation, because Tarantino was behind it.
Loved it. (2 hours 40 odd)
I went straight into Interstellar because it's about what could possibly be out there, and I often look up and wonder myself.
Guess what?
Loved it.

We live on one planet out of several in a solar system that we can barely travel a tiny distance across.
That entire solar system is a tiny dot hanging on the end of a tail off a spur hanging from the edge of a galaxy that would take billions of years to cross using current technology.
That galaxy is just one tiny galaxy in tens of billions in the universe that we can see.
In our lifetimes, we will more than likely never get to see what it's like on the other side of our solar system, nor our kids lifetimes, or even their grandkids' lifetimes.
But what if we got the chance to jump that distance in an instant, just to have a look before we came straight back.
Would you want to know what it looks like over there?

If you answered yes, do not miss this film before it leaves theatres.
If you answered no, Spider-Man 3 the remake will be out soon............


👍

 

[ProjectWHaT]

I ended up going with my Dad, because I don't have any friends none of my friends were interested.

I have to say, this is probably my most favorite movie now. I understood the basic science in it. I think it was very well made and very well filmed. Some scenes were beautiful, and others mind blowing.

One quote I liked among many was, " Love is the one thing that transcends time and space."

 

[Kent]

A lack of understanding promotes fear and distaste.
Imagine opening a book, reading the first page, then trying to read the rest of the story whilst flicking the pages like a flick book, before finally arriving at the last page and reading that.
You've no real understanding of what happened, and yet you may still form an opinion to offer to others.
"Yeah I read that, the guy dies in the end........ It sucked"

Interstellar requires concentration, attention, some understanding of modern day theory and an interest in what may be possible out in space.

You've either the right frame of mind when you go in to the theatre, or you haven't.
The reviews and opinions in this thread fall into one of those categories.
Those who had, and those who hadn't got their space heads on.

It is not for everyone, but you should know inside before you go into a theatre, whether this is a subject you will enjoy 2 hours and 40 odd minutes of, or not.

I went straight into Django Unchained without hesitation, because Tarantino was behind it.
Loved it. (2 hours 40 odd)
I went straight into Interstellar because it's about what could possibly be out there, and I often look up and wonder myself.
Guess what?
Loved it.

We live on one planet out of several in a solar system that we can barely travel a tiny distance across.
That entire solar system is a tiny dot hanging on the end of a tail off a spur hanging from the edge of a galaxy that would take billions of years to cross using current technology.
That galaxy is just one tiny galaxy in tens of billions in the universe that we can see.
In our lifetimes, we will more than likely never get to see what it's like on the other side of our solar system, nor our kids lifetimes, or even their grandkids' lifetimes.
But what if we got the chance to jump that distance in an instant, just to have a look before we came straight back.
Would you want to know what it looks like over there?

If you answered yes, do not miss this film before it leaves theatres.
If you answered no, Spider-Man 3 the remake will be out soon............


👍

What I find so amazing about the universe is the concept that we are actually speaking of the "observable universe" and outside the observable is a potentially infinite space with objects moving so fast (past the speed of light) leaving no chance for the light they emit to make it back into the observable universe.

The possibilities are as limitless as the universe itself.

 

[FoolKiller]

I saw this earlier and loved it. My brother-in-law didn't. But he likes Michael Bay to the point I saw him become worked up over a negative review of Transformers 2. After he tried saying it wasn't good and I started getting out to the science in response he just settled with, "not my mind if movie."

If you like your space sci-fi to be flashy and fast with whooshing spaceships, then you will be disappointed. If you ask tons of questions about the universe and theoretical physics, then you will love it.

Spoiler

There were two things I loved, that I always think about. One is gravity drives, or what Michael Caine was trying to figure out. If we can manipulate gravity we could theoretically open the entire universe to ourselves.

The other was their concept of time. Movies love to show history as an easily manipulative force. Once you can move within it you can change it. I have always felt this idea was wrong. There is one timeline. If you can travel through time then what you do in the past has already happened. Nothing you do will alter your present. This was what Cooper learned, and TARS blatantly spelled out, mainly for the audience's benefit. Otherwise, we would all be asking why he didn't just give the gravity equation to Dr Brandt before he ever met him so he could still be with his daughter. The past is passed. As Wardez explained, a being that treats time like we treat distance only acts in the past to create the events that created the present.

And as a father, the love transcends concept and the fact that Cooper saves the human race just so that he can keep his promise to his daughter was huge. When they finally reunite in the end I teared up a bit.

My only complaint is that they could have cut out Matt Damon's character and his unnecessarily created drama and saved us 30 minutes. Nolan used him the way he used Harvey Dent in the Batman films. Repeating an important underlying philosophy that is important to the film. He really only had one purpose; to reveal that there was no Plan A. That was done long before he started trying to kill people. It was a planet that was so cold it had floating clouds of frozen ammonia. I can think of at least one way that can create an issue that would make a ship go boom.

 

[Bram Turismo]

Saw it yesterday and I think it's a piece of art. The music, the acting, Nolan's world building, etc.

Though I have to admit I found the "love" part of it all rather stupid. I loved the science behind it all, but then "love" has to enter the movie and ruin it. I think I enjoyed the travelling part the most, with spectacular effects, and yet everything felt so peacefully at that point.

 

[FoolKiller]

Though I have to admit I found the "love" part of it all rather stupid. I loved the science behind it all, but then "love" has to enter the movie and ruin it. I think I enjoyed the travelling part the most, with spectacular effects, and yet everything felt so peacefully at that point.

This isn't the first time that the concept of involuntary motivations had been considered as a variable in science by science fiction writers. Isaac Asimov had luck as a genetically measurable variable in his Ringworld series. The concept of things of this nature being scientific variables is similar to finding scientific reasons for religious ideals. Tons of science fiction has some sort of space and time travel where you have to have an anchor in order to not get lost. Something you care for or love. The simplest example I can think of; think a happy thought.

There are forces that compel us in the universe. We don't realize it until we learn to observe it as such and know how to measure it. Gravity would be a perfect example.

 

[DQuaN]

Saw this yesterday and loved it.

One of the highlights for me were TARS and CASE.

Their movement and design were incredible. It looks silly to begin with but the fact that they have so few moving parts makes them great. The way they can run and roll is amazing.

Then there was their personalities. They were like regular members of the crew. The way their Honesty, Trust, Compassion could be set to make them better companions was great.

Copper: Set humor setting to 75%.
TARS: Self destructing in 10... 9... 8...
Cooper: Better make it 60%!

 

[Thematic]

Isaac Asimov had luck as a genetically measurable variable in his Ringworld series.

Nu-uh. Larry Niven.

One of the highlights for me were TARS and CASE.

Their movement and design were incredible. It looks silly to begin with but the fact that they have so few moving parts makes them great. The way they can run and roll is amazing.

I remember hearing laughter at the movement. But I heard it in some quite serious parts as well.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

This YouTuber made the docking sequence in Minecraft with the song using noteblocks. Pretty cool imo.

 

[jeffgoddin]

Whelp, he did it again, shame on me for giving him another chance. Just like Inception, despite all kinds of nice movie-making and acting, when I finished Interstellar all I wanted to do was hop on a forum and rant about how annoyingly and unnecessarily unbelievable it was. I almost feel like watching it again so I can take notes.

Initial premise was good, planet dying due to biological disaster. Could've just been a nice go to space to save the race movie with Brand starting us over. Mysterious "they" nudging us along, fine. 8/10.

But to tie the love theme in, and dad communicating across time because he loved his daughter.... Yes, suggesting love is somehow a dimension was the big one. Time travel is another plot device I can do without. Surviving into a black hole? Not complicated, black hole because the normally weakest of forces is multiplied by so much mass that at the event horizon nothing can escape, not even light. In this I'll have to agree, mind blowing.

And so many details. Steering a ship that has just exhausted all its fuel? How's that work again? And being unable to fight the controls? Against what? In air, using flaps or whatever maybe. Floating ice clouds? They'd have to be the same density as the atmosphere. And if that was the case everybody would've been crushed by the pressure. And did that rocket blast off out of the middle of the NASA installation without destroying it somehow? Giant waves in 2 feet of water?

Aside from all that, yes, a lot of unnatural tension that made character behavior unbelievable at times, which broke my suspension of disbelief enough to make me notice that a lot of the story was just "what do we need to connect the dots between our forced plot points and keep people on the edge of their seats." When I notice that in a movie, it makes me want to leave my seat entirely...

There was an hour or so in the middle that kept me pretty glued, and for that, and the great acting, I'll give it 6/10. But somebody kick me next time I'm about to go see a Nolan movie.

 

[FoolKiller]

Nu-uh. Larry Niven.

I can't believe I did that. Before I read your response I just read what you quoted and had to double check that I actually typed that.

But to tie the love theme in, and dad communicating across time because he loved his daughter.... Yes, suggesting love is somehow a dimension was the big one.

Maybe it's because I'm a dad that has had a few close calls with life/death situations and his daughter, but I found this idea to not be outside the realm of possibility, particularly considering the idea of these not known variables is not new in the world of sci-fi.

Floating ice clouds? They'd have to be the same density as the atmosphere.

Unfortunately, all we got was an 80% Earth gravity explanation of the atmosphere.

Spoiler

Mann also mentioned there being no detectable surface. With no solid mass at the core of the planet it's not impossible, but then the gravity doesn't really make sense either.

But personally, the entire Mann part of the story could have been skipped, in my opinion. I think it was just a chance to do some stunt casting with Matt Damon.

Giant waves in 2 feet of water?

Um, yes. The bigger the wave the lower the troughs. The 2 feet of water was not sea level, it was a trough. A large enough tsunami can suck water out to sea nearly to the horizon.

Due to displacement, the difference between the still level point and the trough is the same as the difference between the still level point and the crest. A wave a mile taller than the still water level will have troughs a mile below the still water level, making a 2 mile tall wave.

The bigger issue with that scenario is that the gravitational and tidal effects should destroy the planet.



Basically, Interstellar was a practice in theoretical physics at the cost of known physics in order to allow the plot to reach a point where the theoretical physics must be tested. Time dilations, unknown dimensional variables, wormholes, etc. needed to be shown and so getting there took some artistic license.

 

[jeffgoddin]

The bigger issue with that scenario is that the gravitational and tidal effects should destroy the planet.

Yeah, that too, orbiting a black hole right on its event horizon??? All the water and gas would've been pulled away from whatever solid core the planet might have. And it looked sunny down there, so how did they not see the giant waves before landing?

But why giant waves can't exist in shallow water is friction. These waves aren't tidal, they're wind generated. You'd need something like 400mph constant wind and no continents for them to get that big, especially with 1.3g's. And I don't remember even a breeze in that scene. And even if that was a trough, remember that water isn't actually moving with the waves, essential water follows a circular path under the waves to create what we see as a wave. That pull back and forth that you see at the beach between waves is what you would have seen around the ship, water rushing towards the next wave, and then after it, back and forth. In shallow water, this creates a lot of friction, which dissipates the wave energy quickly. That's why you can't have big waves in shallow water. And yes, this is shallow water. Even if we use half the wave's height as the depth, that's still shallow compared to the height of the wave. Even when the depth is like 20 times the wave height, it's considered shallow water, because you'll get the friction effects.

Sorry to go on about it so much, but the way the scene progressed, at the moment the giant wave was spotted, I had to stop and say "no freaking way!" There would have been so many signs of something like that approaching that we never saw, that it just wasn't possible. Aside from my point about giant waves being unable to exist in shallow water.

Basically, Interstellar was a practice in theoretical physics at the cost of known physics in order to allow the plot to reach a point where the theoretical physics must be tested. Time dilations, unknown dimensional variables, wormholes, etc. needed to be shown and so getting there took some artistic license.

Ageed. I loved that they made the wormhole round, that was one thing that made me go, "finally! not a stupid flat or even worse cone-shaped wormhole!" In general, there was a lot of great explanation of the higher physics.

 

[FoolKiller]

These waves aren't tidal, they're wind generated.

Did they say that? Orbiting a black hole right at the event horizon, if the planet could hold together, would have massive tidal forces.

There would have been so many signs of something like that approaching that we never saw, that it just wasn't possible.

Um, watch it again sometime. From the time they land you can see the wave way in the background. When I saw them land I first thought the lack of depth was odd. Then in the background I noticed it was a very dark blue. As the scene progressed I noticed the "horizon" kept rising up. If I recall, there was even a point where they mentioned the mountains on the horizon.

But yes, movement of the water until just before the wave hit was missing. That was something they didn't even show until the wave began to hit them.

 

[ProjectWHaT]

It was just a fictional movie, sheesh.

 

[FoolKiller]

It was just a fictional movie, sheesh.

But when you play with hard science you don't get to start skimping when it suits your story.

 

[Mikeybc]

My guess is the majority of people who see this movie don't care about wave physics or any other physics for that matter, they just want to be entertained. It's hollywood and it's really no more unrealistic than an episode of Quincy.

 

[CodeRedR51]

My guess is the majority of people who see this movie don't care about wave physics or any other physics for that matter, they just want to be entertained. It's hollywood and it's really no more unrealistic than an episode of Quincy.

This explains my love of movies. If I thought about them too hard, I wouldn't enjoy them. Solid entertainment is what I am after.

 

[jeffgoddin]

My final word here...

To compare, I'm watching The 100, and the bad science in it doesn't bother me at all. Radiation sickness that causes instant blistering of the skin within seconds of exposure, and a cure that somehow reverses the physical damage? Much worse than any broken science in Interstellar.

But that's the difference between fantasy and science fiction. Both can take place in the future, but fantasy clearly asks you to suspend your scientific beliefs about the world and let them make up their own rules (which still have to be consistent.) Science fiction asks what may be possible given what we know now, and is careful not to contradict accepted scientific theories.

While there's no label on the cover, I took Interstellar to be science fiction, not fantasy. An exploration of what may be possible. Supporting that, a real science guy was employed to help make the details fit with what we currently know and hypothesize. In this context, being negligent of simple physics is inexcusable. It's not that I'm thinking too hard, or sitting there analyzing to find fault, it's that I can't help but notice. Without trying at all.

To me, the difference between fantasy and science fiction comes down to whether or not I can switch off my inner science editor when sitting down to watch. Muddling the genres puts me in a very uncomfortable place.