Interstellar: A Visual Masterpiece with Disappointing Writing and Physics

[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! :-)

 

[HomogenousCow]

One of the lamest serious movies I have ever seen.
The dialogue is laughable and just immature, melodramatic and preachy at every instance.
The story was just nonsensical. The resolution is one of the biggest macguffins in recent memory.
Love transcends time and space? How is that scientifically accurate at all?
How does quantum gravity solve the problems of space migration? The vessel at the end didn't seem like it made use of any phenomena currently unknown to us.
The characters are utterly, utterly wasted.
The son might as well not have been there, pointless character.
Michael Cane plays such a lame and uninteresting character.
Matt Damon was just awkward and confusing, his motives are all over the place.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
Clearly the movie writer/director is not going the capture the physics as PFers would like...

I liked the physics. But it's only the 3rd movie I've seen in 10 years at the theater.
I still haven't seen that "unobtainium" movie.

hmmm... Is it just me?
You can have an excellent, educational, multifaceted story, with known physics, and end up with:
Domestic Total Gross: $774,048^[1]

Or, you can make Interstellar:
Gross to date(10 days): $76,919,855

No brainer.

People love rocket ships zooming around, and lightsaber sword fights. (See Star Wars 1, 2, and 3. Not so much 4, 5, and 6. I fell asleep during those three.)

My brother, who has seen an average of a movie a day since he was 18, would probably say the movie was full of cliches. And I would probably agree with him about that about this movie. But, IMHO, one of the final scenes, was obviously a tribute to A.C. Clark.

About a year ago, someone I was arguing about politics with one day, blurted out to me; "That sorry old excuse"!?
Just because something is old, does not make it sorry, nor wrong. Old geezers, like Mr. Clark, were way ahead of their time.

One of the few regrets I've had in life, was not developing my antigravity, nor warp drive engines before his death. Upon hearing the news, I had dreams of landing in Sri Lanka, on his beachfront property, and saying, in a most "Contact" way; "Mr. Clark. You inspired me to build this craft. Wanna take a ride, to Mars? It'll only take about an hour".
[1] Mindwalk, not adjusted for inflation. Still one of my 5 favorite movies. But then, I liked "My dinner with Andre".

 

[DaveC426913]

Love transcends time and space? How is that scientifically accurate at all?

:audible blink:

What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

Did you go into the theatre expecting the film was actually simply a recounting of a published scientific paper?

 

[Jim Kata]

I just saw the movie. It was weird hearing the word relativity that many times in a major motion picture. The takeaways from the movie are that love solves M-theory and if you eject out of your spacecraft into a black hole you'll end up in your daughters bedroom as a ghost. I wonder Kip Thorne advised him on that part.

 

[HomogenousCow]

:audible blink:

What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

Did you go into the theatre expecting the film was actually simply a recounting of a published scientific paper?

What an utterly bizarre thing to say.

Does scientifically accurate and within the realm of reality mean something else as soon as Christopher Nolan takes the reins?

At least have some respect for your audience and not treat them to idiotic plot devices.

You know what, my problem with the movie isn't even that much to do with the science.
It's the fact that the plot is just so convoluted and lame.
They didn't even put a shred of effort into making the resolution reasonable and clever, nope just "love tarvis, love connects us all" *bam some alien fifth dimensional magic happens.

The science in the ending is about as realistically grounded as Alice in Wonderland.