Interstellar: A Visual Masterpiece with Disappointing Writing and Physics

[DaveC426913]

i don't expect time travel or things like that neither, but in an SF you can speculate about such stuff.)

This is not without precedent, though they have interpreted it rather broadly. It has been conjectured mathematically, that in the presence of certain configurations of black holes, the axes of space and time can be turned 90 degrees. This means, essentially, you can literally turn left or right and physically travel forward or backward in time.

 

[DaveC426913]

On a scale of 1 to 10, how would y'all describe this story as formulaic? A 1 being a wtf storyline, and 10 being utterly derivative.

I found it to be VERY unformulaic. I really did not anticipate anything that was going to happen, nor did I find they resorted to tired cliches. (That's not to say that sutff didn't happen here that happens in other films, simply that they handled it originally)

I would give this a 3. I found it a refreshingly original story, especially for science fiction.

 

[hankaaron]

I would give it a 3 out ten too as far as the story and script being fomulaic. But the screenplay is overall is awful. Please DaveC42693, tell me why they would need to use a Saturn V rocket to overcome Earth's gravity, but a simple shuttle leaves a planet with 130% Earth's gravity.

If NASA is supposed to be a secret organization, why are they launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of a midwest populated area?

Why is it that Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) seemly doesn't age.

Why is it apparently easier to build a space station in outer space than it is to build bio domes on earth.

Those three things simply highlight much of the problems I had with the film. And those are the easy to point out lapses in basic science.
There's a lot more on the artistic side of the story that are just a troubling.

On the artistic side Nolan introduces concepts and themes and you never hear from them again or they are concepts that are mis-applied. We hear so much about Murphy's law, but we really don't see Murphy's law applied in an intelligent way.

Nolan consider's Matt Damon destroying the spaceship Endurance as Murphy's law. The theme of anti-science was introduced, but never fully followed. Speaking of which, that theme goes against the grain of every sociological observance of cultures that have rejected science.

Every culture which has rejected science has brought cultures which lag in math, science and engineering. You need a significant portion of the population actively pursing those areas in order to succeed in those areas.

How could that culture, as portrayed the movie, have accomplished space travel we can only dream about (even without the use of wormholes and black holes).

This is simply not a thought out script. If this was Nolan's 2nd or may 3rd movie and he needed the studio to give their stamp of approval, their's no way in hell this script gets a pass.

 

[MattRob]

When they ditched the rocket, they may have been close to Earth, but they still had built up lots of speed. Alternatively, the rocket was cheaper than the fuel that the shuttle uses.

Actually, this is pretty spot-on. The trajectory for Saturn took them 2 years. A hohmann transfer to Saturn takes about 6 years. They weren't doing a Hohmann at all. The delta-vee to leave Earth orbit must've been enormous to make the flight only 2 years. So, yeah, it makes sense.

Also, according to this [I highly, highly, highly recommend that link! Very relevant, here], that was an SLS, not a Saturn-V. Not sure where the boosters went, though. But the thing had 3 engines on the bottom in the scene where Cooper first finds out it's NASA. Can't help but wonder if those were M1's or something...

I would give it a 3 out ten too as far as the story and script being fomulaic. But the screenplay is overall is awful. Please DaveC42693, tell me why they would need to use a Saturn V rocket to overcome Earth's gravity, but a simple shuttle leaves a planet with 130% Earth's gravity.

If NASA is supposed to be a secret organization, why are they launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of a midwest populated area?

'cause they don't have any alternative way of getting up there. Presumably, their other launches were from other places, but as the last launch, they must've dropped the secrecy.

Also, the Rangers were SSTO's, but couldn't carry any additional payload up.

[Just finished reading the thread - Algr answered this better]

NASA's location was so remote that they disbelieve anyone could randomly find them. The scene you described isn't in the actual movie, just the previews.

Why is it that Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) seemly doesn't age.

Why is it apparently easier to build a space station in outer space than it is to build bio domes on earth. [...]

1) Because people look similar enough in-between 70-90 that they didn't want to get a new actor for the role, and you had to recognize the character. You can say; "they should've made him look older then!," and, they did. But maybe it looked so natural you didn't notice.

2) The dust was everywhere. The dust contained the blight. It probably would've been impractical to try to keep an entire farm in a cleanroom-type environment, when many people would have to work there and a tremendous amount of goods and supplies would constantly have to move in and out regularly. Going through a cleanroom-type environment once, though, is a lot easier. And building a space station isn't too hard when you've discovered how to manipulate gravity to your advantage.

Given the context of who and where they were, it mostly seemed realistic. The only exception was when Cooper asks about the shape of the wormhole and gets the folded paper explanation. Cooper should have been telling this to his kids, not learning about it on the ship - but that would have made the movie even longer, so I guess the nature of the medium needs compromise.

Actually, it kinda made sense to me... The clock was ticking, and they were clearly in a rush. For once, a movie with astronauts has them acting very poorly for a justifiable reason: they were last-resort pickings, not "the right stuff." (Note, Gravity was another exception. Mostly. Because of Matt Kowalski - I loved to see a real astronaut in a fictional movie for once). That, and the two-year trajectory seeming to indicate that they took a less-than-ideally-timed flightpath, seem to indicate they were really pushing it for time. As one line in the movie put it; "I was trained for this and I didn't even know it?" That right there explains why we don't see a long training sequence or anything. He'd "already been trained." His dialogue with Brant near the start seems to solidify that they hadn't done any further training.

But, his training was on flying the Rangers, not on GR...

So, yeah, I really loved it. Saw it once, going to go with some friends to see it again at the nearest IMAX - more than an hours' drive away. I found it that good (though it certainly doesn't hurt that it's at the Huntsville Space and Rocket Center, so lots of neat things there, anyways).

I wish I could get a model if the Endurance or a Ranger... Neat crafts. I've long wanted to see some hard sci fi tackle the SSTO-shuttle problem for exploring Earth-like worlds. Cameron's Avatar's shuttles came close, but the aerodynamic shape was bad for re-entry, so I couldn't like them too much...
Back on-topic, this is very relevant.

And to re-iterate, it's[/PLAIN] very, very relevant.

I mean, not even relevant, but very important. Read it.

 

[GTOM]

This is not without precedent, though they have interpreted it rather broadly. It has been conjectured mathematically, that in the presence of certain configurations of black holes, the axes of space and time can be turned 90 degrees. This means, essentially, you can literally turn left or right and physically travel forward or backward in time.

Well I am not an expert of this. I just can't imagine time travel is more possible than you cremate a human, and recreate him based on a photo you saw about him. Ok so in case of high speed or gravity, changes slow down, but even if they were reversed, you won't really get back the past... or at least my limit of understanding is that.

But anyway that is SF.

 

[DaveC426913]

MattRobb covers a lot of it but I"ll reiterate.

I would give it a 3 out ten too as far as the story and script being fomulaic. But the screenplay is overall is awful. Please DaveC42693, tell me why they would need to use a Saturn V rocket to overcome Earth's gravity, but a simple shuttle leaves a planet with 130% Earth's gravity.

This is an over-simplistic viewpoint.

You think the only reason for choosing propulsion systems is based on their thrust?
You think, in a movie almost three hours long, they should have taken time out to explain the rocket equation, and how the initial stages of a rocket are 99% fuel?
They can build a small command ship with new technology. Does that mean they can (and can afford to) build an entire launch vehicle using that new technology? Where does the money come from? There are a host of configurations for interplanetary missions. How much screen time should they spend it?

I could go on, but my point is none of these are implausible, they're simply not explained in the film.

You are holding high court, and expecting the film to deliver. No film, when viewed through the yes of the critic, will survive. It is a cooperative thing.

If NASA is supposed to be a secret organization, why are they launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of a midwest populated area?

Not "launching Saturn V rockets", launching THE rocket. The ONLY one. This is the culmination of NASA's mission. Time for secrecy is done.

Why is it that Prof. Brand (Michael Caine) seemly doesn't age.

Reaching for straws.

Why is it apparently easier to build a space station in outer space than it is to build bio domes on earth.

The blight.

This is simply not a thought out script.

It's a story that asks questions, leaves some unanswered. The best stories don't spoon-feed you every concept, then wrap it up in the nice bow and roll the credits.Like I said before, this film takes risks. For some they will not pay off. It touches on things that people will find hard to accept. (love can cross space and time??) It doesn't spoon-feed you solutions. It doesn't pander to armchair critics, trying to hit every note that couldn't get played in a ~3 hour film. It requires a thoughtful mind to connect some of the dots.

(...I wonder if today's audience has gotten lazy, placated with processed, refined sugar stories like Independence Day and Godzilla...)

Anyway, people are going to love it, people are going to hate it. But you shouldn't miss it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Back on-topic, this is very relevant.

And to re-iterate, it's[/PLAIN] very, very relevant.

I mean, not even relevant, but very important. Read it.

You're right. It is. Before offering an opinion on the physics of the black hole in the film, you should read this. It points out two critical aspect that change everything:
1] it is a spinning black hole
2] it is a supermassive black hole

 

[Rive]

When they ditched the rocket, they may have been close to Earth, but they still had built up lots of speed. Alternatively, the rocket was cheaper than the fuel that the shuttle uses.

What's bugging me about this is the Δv necessary to cover the 'distance' of the 60000 factor time dilation. Compared to that the Δv cost of the SSTO launch of the ranger would be practically negligible. So it was like rowing on the sides of a carrier to start on it's way across the ocean.

By my view: some parts of the relevant science was clearly sacrificed on the 'small side', so they were able to show us some 'big side'. It's an acceptable compromise. Good movie.
However, it would be a waste if one stop discussing the scientific accuracies and inaccuracies in the film. What's makes this film worth to view is that there is much to discuss afterwards.

Ps.: that last was a bit rude maybe. Let's say, what makes it more than just another average SF movie :)

 

[DaveC426913]

However, it would be a waste if one stop discussing the scientific accuracies and inaccuracies in the film. What's makes this film worth to view is that there is much to discuss afterwards.

Agreed.

 

[Algr]

1. Okay, so it's our future selves doing to our past selves, and in the future we can fold space time blah blah. So if we can do all that, why can't we just send a complete message down to our past selves to tell our past selves ... well, pretty much everything. Either you can communicate or not, and if you can't, fine, but if you can, and you can create wormholes, and control the inside of black holes, and so on, why do you have to communicate at 10 bits per century?!

The film as a whole takes on the form of a causality loop. (The opposite of a paradox.) Communication to the past may be possible, but how could we today possibly know what the rules are to maintain such a thing? Say the wrong thing and you negate your existence. It seems likely that there would be complex and strange limits to what you can do. Imagine explaining to a caveman why we can fix a broken leg, but not cancer.

2. Either the black hole destroys what goes into it, or not. So, we see BOTH a huge lava-flow of the accretion disk, which is presumably mashed and superheated ... everything in the area ... but somehow Coop's ship (not to mention Coop!) manage to ride the wave through the event horizon. If it was just black, that would have made more sense; as was, it was both hell and not hell. And if you want to use "we learned to control blah blah blah", see above.

The bright spots are hot, the dark areas are cold. The caveman would understand that part.

3. Whereas I completely LOVED the David Bowman homage where Matt Damon blows himself, and the space station to smithereens, I thought that the whole "save" was ridiculous. Maybe you can match the spin of the station, but something with that much inertial could never ever even be stopped by the fine nav jets on the shuttle. It should have torn the air lock right off the top of the shuttle (or v.v.).

The presentation of time can be strange in movies. They might have spent hours slowing down that station's rotation. But would showing it have made the movie better?

4. Why, in whatever future year this is, is everything still being done on Lenovo laptops, fer k's sake!

True, they ought to be Macs.

5. The robots were, not to put too fine a point on it, mechanically ridiculous, not to mention that they (and everything else) had 24x80 green screen on them dumping linux whatnot for no reason at all.

Beats another Robby the Robot clone.

Okay, I wasn't going to complain about high level plot, but I will:

6. If you're thinking of asking M. Night Shyamalan remake 2001...don't! (Yes, I know it was Christopher Nolan, nit MNS, but the stupid "ghost" plot device was so utterly transparent, just like every stupid MNS movie, that I almost laughed aloud in the theater...or perhaps groaned aloud, because they basically gave the plot away in the first five minutes. At least in The Sixth Sense, MNS hides the reveal fairly well. CN just basically wrote "It's your father sending you messages from the future." in giant red (gravitational) letters on the screen! totally ruined the whole thing for me!)

Trying to out-guess the film is just going to ruin it for you. You know it is the father because you've seen the previews. The characters in the movie haven't. In another kind of movie it could have been Cooper's wife warning him that the secret organization was making zombies and blight.

 

[Algr]

Agreed.

We are Super Movie Defender Force! Protecting films against the evils of overzealous deconstruction!

 

[julcab12]

... I had to shutdown some of my science noodles to be fully entertained :L.. And still better than any sci-fi movies nowadays.

 

[Monsterboy]

'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?

Mars and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be as bad or as good as any of those planets.

 

[hankaaron]

A lot of the "explanations" in this thread are eeriely similar to explains for Noah's ark, Creationism and

'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?

Even though I find the screenplay dumb and poorly written, I'll say that the intent of "They"was to lead someone from Earth directly to the black hole, and not to find another planet to live on. However, how Cooper comes to the quick conclusion that "They" are future humans is beyond me. When he said that I wished that smart-ass robot would have something like- "Oh yeah, what makes you think that Coop? Still it's just a dumb, dumb movie.

 

[RoundEarVulcan]

Hi guys,

I hope everyone doesn't choose to gang up on me for this, but I actually really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't perfect, but not many movies are. If the physics behind it were 100% accurate, then it would be almost impossible to carry a storyline (or for the audience to understand). I enjoyed it - the visuals were good, the story was interesting enough and other than Matt Damon, I thought most of the characters were decent. I thought it was the most enjoyable big screen movie I've seen since Inception.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[DaveC426913]

However, how Cooper comes to the quick conclusion that "They" are future humans is beyond me. When he said that I wished that smart-ass robot would have something like- "Oh yeah, what makes you think that Coop?

It was a deduction. Obviously he can't be sure, but it makes sense. That was what his epiphany was, afterall - realizing that someone is leading them to safety from the future, just as he' doing with his daughter.

 

[Monsterboy]

Hi guys,

I hope everyone doesn't choose to gang up on me for this, but I actually really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't perfect, but not many movies are. If the physics behind it were 100% accurate, then it would be almost impossible to carry a storyline (or for the audience to understand). I enjoyed it - the visuals were good, the story was interesting enough and other than Matt Damon, I thought most of the characters were decent. I thought it was the most enjoyable big screen movie I've seen since Inception.

Just my 2 cents.

Yes ,as a source the motivation this movie is good , it reminds us that NASA and other space agencies are absolutely essential for us in the long term and we shouldn't spend our lives in a dull boring way without taking any risks but we should risk everything to get what we want. I hate people who say that interstellar travel will never be possible(simply because it is not be possible in our life time) and all we can do is just hang around in low Earth orbit and come back.
Forget about interstellar travel ,all i hope is that we build a human base on the moon and Mars within my lifetime.

 

[QuantumPion]

I presume the Saturn V was needed to launch the Endeavor craft with all of its supplies and fuel. But the ranger spacecraft were able to land and return to orbit repeatedly using what looked like jet engines if they were something akin to the SABRE design.

 

[QuantumPion]

'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?

Mars and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be as bad or as good as any of those planets.

Maybe They needed a supermassive black hole to create the wormhole, and the nearest SMBH with habital planets in orbit was said galaxy?

 

[Pete Cortez]

Indeed, seeing as it produced the most accurately detailed depiction of a black hole geometry in history.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Hi guys,

I hope everyone doesn't choose to gang up on me for this, but I actually really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't perfect, but not many movies are. If the physics behind it were 100% accurate, then it would be almost impossible to carry a storyline (or for the audience to understand). I enjoyed it - the visuals were good, the story was interesting enough and other than Matt Damon, I thought most of the characters were decent. I thought it was the most enjoyable big screen movie I've seen since Inception.

Just my 2 cents.

Physics itself isn't 100% accurate, so don't worry about it. I also enjoyed the movie, and based on my single viewing I can't think of a single physically incorrect or implausible aspect to the story. Most of the criticism surrounds the depiction of Gargantua and her planetary system. Most of said criticism relies on gross generalizations sourced from pop-sci, attributing vague properties to black holes that apply everywhere and anywhere regardless of scale. Also, I suspect most people are used to the rather crude visualizations from Vancouver produced science shows to the point where they dismiss the photorealistic depiction of Gargantua.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, I suspect most people are used to the rather crude visualizations from Vancouver produced science shows to the point where they dismiss the photorealistic depiction of Gargantua.

I saw an article recently about how the research for the film to produce a plausible BH actually turned up some new, unexpected finding about BHs.

 

[MattRob]

I saw an article recently about how the research for the film to produce a plausible BH actually turned up some new, unexpected finding about BHs.

Heh, I remember reading that Kip did a lot of his original work when he was asked to check the science for the first draft of "Contact," and started wondering how to make a traversable wormhole. Same sort of thing, I guess.

It's kind of funny, you know... A scientist is supposed to study and learn about the natural world, while engineers are supposed to make something specific happen. It seems like a lot of interesting developments come about when you throw physicists into an engineer's role, though.

Funnily enough, both the examples above involve Kip Thorne...

Anyways, any links to the new findings about BHs? I'm certainly interested.

 

[Fredrik]

'They' could have simply led humans to a habitable planet orbiting a medium sized star , in our own galaxy ,why find a planet orbiting a super massive black hole in some other galaxy and all the unnecessary complications with time ?

Mars and some of the moons of Jupiter and Saturn would be as bad or as good as any of those planets.

I think what they really needed to find was the black hole. They didn't know this from the start, but they needed to fall into one, just to improve their understanding of gravity. I wish the movie had explained these things more clearly. I think there was a comment about how he helped her understand how gravity can be controlled, and then they started using that to save the world somehow. Probably just by building a bunch of farms on space stations. The new knowledge enabled them to put those stations in space, and to get things to and from them without too much cost.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think what they really needed to find was the black hole. They didn't know this from the start, but they needed to fall into one, just to improve their understanding of gravity. I wish the movie had explained these things more clearly. I think there was a comment about how he helped her understand how gravity can be controlled, and then they started using that to save the world somehow. Probably just by building a bunch of farms on space stations. The new knowledge enabled them to put those stations in space, and to get things to and from them without too much cost.

Oh yeah! That's right. They covered that, just very quickly.

It was indeed the dive into the black hole that got "The Quantum Data" they needed to solve the gravity problem.
Earlier in the film, Caine's character had said they still hadn't reconciled relativity with QM. They needed to get a look at a singularity that might give them clues.
And it was the solution to the gravity equations that brought Earth back from the brink, by allowing us to expand into space..

 

[sunrah]

One message is “Stay”. It’s a message for him not to accept the mission and leave Earth and his family. But the other message is the coordinates to the secret NASA base. But he wanted to send messages to stay on earth, then why the hell would he also send himself the location to NASA.

I completely agree with your assessment, but just on this one point. At first, he does try to make himself stay by sending a message coded in morse. Then the robot TARS tells him that they're not there to change the past. That's when he changes his mind and asks TARS to give him the NASA coordinates in binary.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Let me turn this discussion around, since I have not seen Interstellar yet so can't comment as to its scientific accuracy. Can any of you here on PF actually a single science fiction film which presents the science realistically and accurately? I can't name a single one apart from 2001: A Space Odyssey, and even that film has issues with accuracy.

 

[nsaspook]

That a good science 'fiction' film should present the science realistically and accurately seems an unnecessary requirement. A classic film like 'Forbidden Plant' has all the elements of science like space travel, alien civilizations, robots and god-like computers without any pretext of rigid physics reality but it still manages to tell a smart story about a possible future that is good science fiction (A sense of wonder and awe) because of the writing and origins of the story (The Tempest).

 

[Mr.CROWLER]

I think what they really needed to find was the black hole. They didn't know this from the start, but they needed to fall into one, just to improve their understanding of gravity. I wish the movie had explained these things more clearly. I think there was a comment about how he helped her understand how gravity can be controlled, and then they started using that to save the world somehow. Probably just by building a bunch of farms on space stations. The new knowledge enabled them to put those stations in space, and to get things to and from them without too much cost.

Thanks for that...cuz I was trying to figure out why "they" would put a wormhole near a black hole if "they" wanted to save the human civilization, but it makes sense that it wasn't the new planets "they" were leading them to it was the black hole. But what I don't understand or didn't catch was how did cooper get out of the black hole? And cooper and his daughter saved the world, but the female astronaut at the end must've found a habitable planet because she was walking aground without a helmet.

 

[hankaaron]

... but the female astronaut at the end must've found a habitable planet because she was walking aground without a helmet.

More stupidity. Now of course since anything is plausible in this movie, there could be an explanation. But one of the core problems with Interstellar is that the filmmakers can't or are unwilling to work within a framework.

 

[DaveC426913]

More stupidity. Now of course since anything is plausible in this movie, there could be an explanation. But one of the core problems with Interstellar is that the filmmakers can't or are unwilling to work within a framework.

Can you elaborate?
The intent of the scene was clearly to indicate that the atmo was breathable. Other than merely being unlikely and very lucky, what is stupid about it?

And I'm not sure what your final sentence means. What framework?

 

[RoundEarVulcan]

Can you elaborate?
The intent of the scene was clearly to indicate that the atmo was breathable. Other than merely being unlikely and very lucky, what is stupid about it?

I agree, I don't understand the fuss. I love Star Trek, but let's face it.. they go on (unlikely) missions on new planets without extra gear all of the time. But no one talks about how unrealistic Star Trek is (because it's awesome). It's show biz.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

I agree, I don't understand the fuss. I love Star Trek, but let's face it.. they go on (unlikely) missions on new planets without extra gear all of the time. But no one talks about how unrealistic Star Trek is (because it's awesome). It's show biz.

My understanding which may be incorrect was that the movie was advertised as scientifically sound? Star Trek never attempts to be such.

 

[PeroK]

My understanding which may be incorrect was that the movie was advertised as scientifically sound? Star Trek never attempts to be such.

Yes, Matthew McConaughey turned up on British TV to tell us how much physics he'd had to study to play his part! It was laughable.

 

[OmCheeto]

My understanding which may be incorrect was that the movie was advertised as scientifically sound? Star Trek never attempts to be such.

I disagree. From what I remember from the movie, was that the worm hole technology was developed by an advanced human race in the future. So certain parts of the movie are still "Science Fiction". And as RoundEarVulcan pointed out, Star Trek was awesome. And how much of that "Science Fiction" have we now exceeded? They originally used flip phones, as I recall. Ha! So last millennia.

I may be wrong, but has anyone confirmed the physical properties of a singularity? Black holes can easily calculated by the Schwarzschild radius around a neutron star. That's a no brainer. But I think that's what one message was from the "iffy" stuff; "We need to figure out this part of how things work".
aka, quantum gravity mumbo jumbo.

 

[OmCheeto]

Yes, Matthew McConaughey turned up on British TV to tell us how much physics he'd had to study to play his part! It was laughable.

I'd like to watch that. Do you have a link?

 

[Rive]

I agree, I don't understand the fuss. I love Star Trek, but let's face it.. they go on (unlikely) missions on new planets without extra gear all of the time. But no one talks about how unrealistic Star Trek is (because it's awesome). It's show biz.

That's where that 'framework' kicks in. There should be at least some self-imposed rules otherwise the movie would be a fantasy with spaceships, not a sci-fi - and when the framework is set, we can start searching for the flaws.

For Star Trek there are so few real rules that I watch it for the story, not for the sci-fi: but this movie was supposed to have a solid foundation/framework, so I bought the tickets because I wanted to see more sci- than -fi.
Well, I got what I wanted. The 'big sci' was superb, the 'small sci' was more or less acceptable. Clearly beats most of the recent scifi movies.

I can barely recall the acting and some parts of the story. That's not a good sign.

 

[PeroK]

I'd like to watch that. Do you have a link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29929730

Watch and learn (or laugh).

 

[nsaspook]

Once you cross the threshold of FTL flight with 'wormholes' and "exotic matter" what is scientifically sound? Scientifically sound in Hollywood means someone not falling of the edge of disc-shaped planet due to the planets gravity because kids would laugh at how stupid it would look.

 

[OmCheeto]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29929730

Watch and learn (or laugh).

O.M.G.
I did not laugh once.
"...everything we do... in the film, is based on the plausible theories, in astrophysics".

And he got to spend a day with Kip Thorne!
Ok. I'm laughing now. But only in a very Pythonesque; "You lucky, lucky, *******" [warning! strong language!]

 

[DaveC426913]

I agree, I don't understand the fuss. I love Star Trek, but let's face it.. they go on (unlikely) missions on new planets without extra gear all of the time. But no one talks about how unrealistic Star Trek is (because it's awesome). It's show biz.

I'm not suggesting it's forgiveable; hankarron doesn't think it is. So I'm asking what hankarron found stupid about the scenario in which, after 11 heavily researched and rejected candidates, she found herself on a habitable planet.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have conflated two things that have no business being conflated.

Once you cross the threshold of FTL flight with 'wormholes' and "exotic matter" what is scientifically sound?

Wormholes (including exotic matter) are legitimate, if hypothetical, constructs being studied by physicists.

Scientifically sound in Hollywood means someone not falling of the edge of disc-shaped planet due to the planets gravity because kids would laugh at how stupid it would look.

To suggest that the wormholes are as fanstastically fictional as Hollywood disc-worlds is disingenuous at best.

Further: there was no FTL flight in the film. None at all. So at worst, your mention of 'FTL flight' suggests perhaps you're not understanding the difference between FTL and wormholes, and are therefore lumping the whole thing as fiction.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nice little interview at The Daily Beast:

Meet Kip Thorne...

[Anne Hathaway] amazed me. She characterized herself as something of a physics geek, and she was asking questions I never expected to be asked by anybody who was not pretty deep into physics. She wanted to know whether there is any observational or experimental evidence for quantum gravity, for example.

(Thorne says their initial conversation later branched off into shooting the breeze on jazz, family, and general scientific inspiration.)​

Jazz? I think the first sentence I learned in Russian, back in my college days, was; "I love Jazz". I remember it as being pronounced; "Moy eez jazz". Though I can find no evidence of such a phrase now.

 

[OmCheeto]

Nice little interview at The Daily Beast:
...

Further into the interview, regarding Kip and Stephen Hawking's thoughts:

Neither of them are convinced that the interstellar travel of Christopher and Jonathan Nolan’s imagination can happen in the real world. The laws of physics probably forbid wormholes from existing anyway, according to Thorne. But the two of them are enthusiastic supporters of getting the human race to far-off stars.

But like me, they're both old dudes, and don't have much of an imagination.

 

[nsaspook]

You have conflated two things that have no business being conflated.

Wormholes (including exotic matter) are legitimate, if hypothetical, constructs being studied by physicists.

To suggest that the wormholes are as fanstastically fictional as Hollywood disc-worlds is disingenuous at best.

Further: there was no FTL flight in the film. None at all. So at worst, your mention of 'FTL flight' suggests perhaps you're not understanding the difference between FTL and wormholes, and are therefore lumping the whole thing as fiction.

IMO using the wormhole prop is a great scientific cover for FTL travel/communication in the 'movie' as you have the time travel/dilation effects/etc... on Earth without the pink elephant in the room. The dividing line between the fictional and the hypothetical is pretty slim IMO when it comes to wormholes and human space travel. Showing pretty pictures doesn't make it more probable, just more entertaining.

 

[DataGG]

I find this title to be quite offensive. According to the community, "looks like interstellar got its science right"... An admin should change it to "Interstellar - A discussion" or something similar. It is stupid to title something as "stupid" when:

1. Is it really stupid? According to this article, the science seems to be pretty good. (I haven't read the article, nor would I understand most of it tbh. I'm basing this comment on stuff I've read on reddit/r/physics.)

2. OP doesn't provide any reasons for the adjective.

very bad basic physics

Like what?

 

[DaveC426913]

IMO using the wormhole prop is a great scientific cover for FTL travel/communication in the 'movie' as you have the time travel/dilation effects/etc... on Earth without the pink elephant in the room. The dividing line between the fictional and the hypothetical is pretty slim IMO when it comes to wormholes and human space travel. Showing pretty pictures doesn't make it more probable, just more entertaining.

Prop? It's the very core of the film. The very premise.

That's like saying the monoliths in 2001 were "mere plot devices" to get Bowman to Jupiter.

It's like saying this would be a better movie if it were a completely different movie.

It's like saying Raiders of the Lost Ark could have worked just fine with a more "believable" prize such as a chest of gold coins.
Aliens, but instead of Aliens, use really angry grizzly bars.
Star Wars, but instead of the Force surrounding us and binding us, it's just little critters in our veins...

 

[nsaspook]

It's a very entertaining premise of time-travel/alternate futures that blends modern science to render the backdrop of an advanced (space-time manipulators) 5D human civilization modifying its past or different past time-lines with the use of wormholes for some strange reason as humans did survive and advance to the point of creating/using the devices in the first place. This was the stupid part of the movie for me (Bootstrap). If there was some possible past time-line of all infinite time-lines where humans perished why would they care to create a paradox in it?

 

[Astronuc]

I saw "Interstellar"in IMAX. Fantastic visuals, but lazy dumb writing and very bad basic physics. Kip Thorne should be embarrassed to have is name so prominently associated with the movie.

Perhaps that's a bit unfair as afterall, it's science fiction, and one only has two to three hours to entertain an audience, not educate them on the physics.

As for using a Saturn V, well, it's a historical fact to which the audience can relate, and Nolan can use actual footage rather than graphics. I remember seeing it during my childhood in the late 1960s. I also remember the plants for an even larger rocket, Nova, as well as nuclear propulsion systems that stalled in the 1970s. From a practical engineering standpoint, a Saturn V is an economical way to get mass up the gravity well in which we found ourselves.

I hope they didn't make rocket sounds in the deep vacuum of space, as is the case in Star Trek movies.

I thought McConaughey's interview was pretty good. He's asking the same questions as the audience. He seem pretty enlightened.

Clearly the movie writer/director is not going the capture the physics as PFers would like, but PFers will be a small minority in the audience of moviegoers. Hopefully, folks will be motivated to learn more about science, astronomy/astrophysics, and technology.

 

[jshrager]

Oddly, the exact same wormhole imagery is used in the new-to-DVD and absolutely hysterical Mr. Peabody and Sherman. Way more fun at way smaller cost with way less pretension! :-)