hankaaron said: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.
Doug Huffman said:Do you have criticism of specific points which are not constrained by the medium?
Man, that's disappointing. Looks like it's just Prometheus all over again.hankaaron said:I don't think I could provide a better critique than this review:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...vie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.2.html
What do you mean? Should we cite only peer reviewed papers from reputable journals when talking about movies?Doug Huffman said:So, Slate is somehow equivalent or appropriate to PF?
KrisOhn said:This is very disappointing, I was very excited to go see the movie in its full IMAX glory. Oh well...
Yes, I know what you mean. I liked Prometheus somewhat right after seeing it. But the more I thought about it... yikes! I completely disliked Interstellar when I left the theater. In fact during the "wrestling match" scene I consider walking out of the IMAX theater.Bandersnatch said:Man, that's disappointing. Looks like it's just Prometheus all over again.
hankaaron said:I don't think I could provide a better critique than this review:
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...vie_s_black_holes_wormholes_relativity.2.html
Wait. What?Bandersnatch said:-no spaghettification
No spaghettification. More like an airplane flight through a turbulent hail storm. You'd think maybe we'd see a minor character meet there demise via spaghettification. But nope.DaveC426913 said:But did assume that, when I heard they were talking black holes for travel, they would at least address the giant elephant - i.e. how you get through a black hole without spaghettification.
Sounds like more fun too. That's on my definite list.I'm a sucker for animation.DaveC426913 said:I'm going to push for 'Big Hero Six' instead. Prolly more scientifically accurate.
That's probably the most positive Big Hero Six review I've seen so far. :PDaveC426913 said:Wow. Wow. Wow.
Too much movie for one skull to hold...
I take back all the doubt I had. It has been a long long time since I have sat so slack-jawed in wide-eyed wonder in a movie theatre.
No, I know exactly how long it's been. Since Inception hit the theatres.
You could love this or you could hate it. It takes some risks, and for some they might be deal-breakers. But you shouldn't pass on it.
Heh.Bandersnatch said:That's probably the most positive Big Hero Six review I've seen so far. :p
DaveC426913 said:Wow. Wow. Wow.
Too much movie for one skull to hold...
I take back all the doubt I had. It has been a long long time since I have sat so slack-jawed in wide-eyed wonder in a movie theatre.
No, I know exactly how long it's been. Since Inception hit the theatres.
You could love this or you could hate it. It takes some risks, and for some they might be deal-breakers. But you shouldn't pass on it.
Bandersnatch said:Go away Drakkith and DaveC426913! This thread is a bonding experience for people who like bitching about movies so that we can feel superior.
We don't need your kind around here.
But seriously, would those of you who have seen it say it's a big screen-only experience? Sort of like Gravity, where it loses enough impact viewed on a small screen to feel bland?
It's certainly much better than Gravity. I think it's a "must see" in spite of the flaws, but you'll have to decide for yourself if you must see it now or if you must see it later. It depends on the answer to questions like:Bandersnatch said:Go away Drakkith and DaveC426913! This thread is a bonding experience for people who like bitching about movies so that we can feel superior.
We don't need your kind around here.
And you, DaveC426914... you played us with your false promises. "Oh, I'mma going to see a cartoon instead!", "Sphaghettification grumble grumble".
We trusted you. We were invested in your vitriol. You're like that conservative 13 year old who turned liberal as soon as he grew up a few inches and started shaving. Shame on you.But seriously, would those of you who have seen it say it's a big screen-only experience? Sort of like Gravity, where it loses enough impact viewed on a small screen to feel bland?
I had the same idea last night. And I would have if the LSU-Alabama game wasn't on last night (which btw, was another classic).jshrager said:I'm going to watch 2001 again sometime soon to clear my nausea.
Wait, what? The real problem isn't with the science, but the science was (way) off? What the hell is that supposed to mean?Plait
The real problem isn’t with the science, it’s with the story. I’m sure Thorne knew the science was (way) off, but I can guess that director and screenwriter Christopher Nolan chose to ignore those issues in order to advance his story.
Thorne
Science: Is there anywhere the moviemakers strayed outside your guidelines?
Thorne: Not seriously. The one place where I am the least comfortable is on [a] planet where they have these ice clouds. These structures go beyond what I think the material strength of ice would be able to support. But I’d say if that’s the most egregious violation of physical law, they’ve done very, very well. There’s some artistic license there.
Followup: Interstellar Mea Culpa
Phil Plait
Every now and again, I screw up. Sometimes it’s small, sometimes it’s big, and I try to admit it when I do. It helps you, the reader, understand things better when I ‘fess up, and it keeps me honest. Also, after all, science is all about admitting mistakes and learning from them!
...
Spoilers ahoy! I have to reveal critical plot points about the movie, so if you haven’t seen it and wish your viewing experience to remain pristine, then you should stop here.
...
Latin for my fault. It's from:OmCheeto said:Does anyone know what "mea culpa" means?
Physics doesn't suddenly change like a knife's edge near the event horizon.hankaaron said:1. Being anywhere near a few billion miles of a black hole- much less surviving one.
In another discussion on this forum, I was told, to my annoyance, that you basically aren't allowed to even THINK about what is happening inside an event horizon. Given that, it seems to me that neither can you criticize a movie's speculation about same.2. Escaping a black hole.
The Saturn V rocket was needed to reach the wormhole in the outer solar system. The three planets near the black hole were much closer together.3. They need a Saturn V rocket to escape Earth's gravity. But have no problem leaving in a small shuttle craft from the surface of a planet (on the other side of the wormhole) with 130 percent of Earth's gravity.
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.4. In the movie NASA is a stealth organization. People have been led to believe that the moon landings were faked and that NASA had been disbanded decades ago. However this stealth NASA has no problem launching Saturn V rockets in the middle of populated areas. There's even a scene where Cooper’s (Matthew McConaughey) family watches the launching of his rocket from their farmhouse.
It is the nature of the medium that someone has to play cabbagehead for the audience. I don't like it either, but a movie that only PF members could understand would bomb at the box office.5. Apparently during Cooper's training no one bothered to ask if he knew anything about wormholes.
Human beings have emotions. Also, Cooper was unsure what the rules were and was trying different strategies. Was he dead and a ghost? Could history be changed?6. The movie has one of those chicken or the egg plot devices where Cooper (near the film's end) uses gravity to move books and manipulate dust to send coded messages to himself and his daughter. But wait, that’s not the worst part.
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.
Hint: Why isn't the Earth sucked into the sun? A man-made wormhole is not the same thing as a black hole.7. A wormhole is barely just outside of the planet Saturn’s orbit. Just on the other side of the wormhole is a supermassive black hole. Why the gaseous planet isn’t sucked into the wormhole is a question Kip Thorne should answer.Cooper
There’s a lot more than that. Including one of the worst lines in a Hollywood movie since “Love is never having to say you’re sorry”.
GTOM said:Those who liked it, so didnt you think, the conversation lines was so forced, as the Plait review wrote?
(Well about the inside of the event horizont, i surely don't expect anything but Hawking radiation to come out, i don't expect time travel or things like that neither, but in an SF you can speculate about such stuff.)
There were some really bad moments, in particular when Anne Hathaway talked about love, and when Matt Damon talked about evolution. But I think most of the remaining dialogue was OK.GTOM said:Those who liked it, so didnt you think, the conversation lines was so forced, as the Plait review wrote?
You have a point there. I've been thinking that it's not obvious that a pilot would understand that the entrance to a wormhole is spherical, but this particular pilot must have been told what to expect.Algr said: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.
I've seen comments like that from time to time. I strongly disagree with that view. The same solution (of Einstein's equation) that describes the exterior also describes the interior. If that's somehow completely invalid, then there's no reason to trust what the solution says about the outside either, since this is part of the same solution.Algr said:In another discussion on this forum, I was told, to my annoyance, that you basically aren't allowed to even THINK about what is happening inside an event horizon.
Didn't they ditch the rocket much earlier? Like, as soon as they had escaped Earth's gravitational pull? This thing does seem like a plot hole to me. Also, if the planets are so close together, how is one of them so close the the event horizon that time is dilated by a factor of more than 8000, and the others have negligible gravitational time dilation?Algr said:The Saturn V rocket was needed to reach the wormhole in the outer solar system. The three planets near the black hole were much closer together.
Earth doesn't fall into the sun because even though it's falling towards the sun, it has such a high speed in the "sideways" direction that it keeps missing the sun. Earth isn't broken into pieces which are then sucked into the sun, because the tidal forces from the sun are negligible.Algr said:Hint: Why isn't the Earth sucked into the sun? A man-made wormhole is not the same thing as a black hole.
Fredrik said:Didn't they ditch the rocket much earlier? Like, as soon as they had escaped Earth's gravitational pull? This thing does seem like a plot hole to me. Also, if the planets are so close together, how is one of them so close the the event horizon that time is dilated by a factor of more than 8000, and the others have negligible gravitational time dilation?
The sound was horrible. Way too loud, and it drowned out the dialog. This movie needed a bunch more editing, there was so many poorly created scenes with sounds effects that overshadowed the movie. My wife and I had to wear ear plugs to make it watchable.hankaaron said:IMAX was great visually. Visually, its stunning. But the sound was a mix bag. Great for loud passages and effects, awful for dialog. It may still be worth seeing. I kind of expected to be disappointed- just not to the extent that I was.
