Escape to the Movies: Interstellar - Doesn't Live Up To Its Own Name
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Actually, I had to take that back. Someone has pointed out that the black hole was ROTATING, which does make the math fit well enough for a movie.SandroTheMaster said:
I just got back from this, and wow, I loved it. Sure, it gets more than a little far-fetched by the end, but I was simply swept up by the film. The story, the set pieces, some of the characters, all really engaging for me. And I only really felt that there was too much exposition when Coop first find the NASA base. That scene went on for way too long.
The movie did get a little hand-holdy when it came to relativity; but, come on, if ever there was a science fact that merited some dumbing down for the audience, relativity is probably it. Other than that though i never really felt like the movie was overly teachy. If your looking for a hard sci-fi film the first 140 minutes of Interstellar are probably the best hard sci-fi film i've ever seen, and then the last 20 minutes goes completely off the rails.mojopin87 said:
yes, aggressively. Granted i saw it in IMAX, so the regular version may not be as bad, but there were a few points in the movie (mostly in the first act) where the bass was so loud i couldn't even understand what the characters were saying. Multiple points in the movie the bass was so intense my entire seat and the floor was vibrating from it for solid 15-30 second stretches. The opening sequence, and the takeoff from earth were the two worst bits.Casual Shinji said:
I did.TippiestRook said:And to say it again if,people are going to criticise the Pay Your Respects scene then they must have laughed at this scene as well.
Well, apparently the constellations in Titanic (I saw the video down the page, so I know you're aware of this) are still such a big deal that the bit I read (not too long before looking at this review, conveniently) on Dr Tyson's thoughts brings it up as having shamed the folks behind it.MarsAtlas said:
Moral? Don't mess with Neil Fucking de Grasse Tyson, son!
Also, Gravity.
Honestly, I think Green Arrow should do it dressed up as Dr Tyson.TippiestRook said:
I guess video games ARE like movies!WarpedLord said:
Or video game fans, at least.
But hey, they have a new excuse. This must be because of his Marvel comments. I should have known that was going to show up in here. Repeatedly.
This is the best film I've seen all year. Those sequences with the worm hole and the black hole were incredible and how they get into some of the funkier planets (although they're nowhere NEAR as weird as other planets we've observed) is astounding. What really gets me is how much of it was done with practical effects.
Also, I find it funny how the black hole's 3D rendering actually gave Kip Thorne insight into black holes...to the point where there are now being PAPERS written about it:
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/
Oh yes, Interstellar might have introduced something new to astrophysics.
Also, I find it funny how the black hole's 3D rendering actually gave Kip Thorne insight into black holes...to the point where there are now being PAPERS written about it:
http://www.wired.com/2014/10/astrophysics-interstellar-black-hole/
Oh yes, Interstellar might have introduced something new to astrophysics.
Friend told me the movie is great for exo-planet porn, but goes all gainax on itself which really hurts it. Otherwise it would have been awesome, rather than just pretty good.
TBH, I saw in the trailer that it would have some artificially manufactured tension - and I'm so so very sick of that in movies these days.
TBH, I saw in the trailer that it would have some artificially manufactured tension - and I'm so so very sick of that in movies these days.
Hard science? What?! I've just seen this movie and I felt insulted that such movies even exist anymore. The fact that such an atrocity of a sci-fi movie is directed by a big name like Nolan and that it is sadly the biggest sci-fi movie this year is insulting to all the progress that was made with Gravity towards respectfully bringing back into public eye the courage and dedication of anyone involved in strapping a guy to a rocket. Do I sound pissed? You bet I am.
Sorry guys, but this very month we've landed a probe on a comet and not even 1% of you have the slightest idea of what an achievement this has been for applicable science and the future space exploration (i.e. how hard it was). Here we are achieving the impossible and all you get is 5 minutes of prime time news about it, while all of you cry like babies about going back to the Moon (or for the first time, if you're one of those...). It's not your fault, because you are bombarded with flashy documentaries about extra dimensions, parallel universes, silly explanations of quantum and relativity theories, ALIENS, etc. etc. etc. while being left in the dark about the beauty and complexity of orbital mathematics. And so, not even 1% of you will understand how utterly idiotic this movie actually is. It's not a crime to make a sci-fi movie that bends science to achieve a dramatic story (Star Wars, Battlestar Gallactica) or to base your movie on just enough science to create intelligent "what-if" scenarios (Star Trek, Alien, Moon etc.etc.). You can even base an intelligent movie on a wrong idea (Lucy). Interstellar achieves the distinction of being none of that and I know that 99% of you will disagree with me and not have the slightest idea about what the frak I'm talking about. And I feel sorry for you.
Sorry guys, but this very month we've landed a probe on a comet and not even 1% of you have the slightest idea of what an achievement this has been for applicable science and the future space exploration (i.e. how hard it was). Here we are achieving the impossible and all you get is 5 minutes of prime time news about it, while all of you cry like babies about going back to the Moon (or for the first time, if you're one of those...). It's not your fault, because you are bombarded with flashy documentaries about extra dimensions, parallel universes, silly explanations of quantum and relativity theories, ALIENS, etc. etc. etc. while being left in the dark about the beauty and complexity of orbital mathematics. And so, not even 1% of you will understand how utterly idiotic this movie actually is. It's not a crime to make a sci-fi movie that bends science to achieve a dramatic story (Star Wars, Battlestar Gallactica) or to base your movie on just enough science to create intelligent "what-if" scenarios (Star Trek, Alien, Moon etc.etc.). You can even base an intelligent movie on a wrong idea (Lucy). Interstellar achieves the distinction of being none of that and I know that 99% of you will disagree with me and not have the slightest idea about what the frak I'm talking about. And I feel sorry for you.
Watched the movie yesterday, and while I enjoyed the imagery, the movie just doesn't connect to me.
I was really hoping for some good old scifi, but instead the movie made me hate the movie's humanity, then hate specific human behaviour, and then hate our humanity, so infatuated with tired movie twists and tropes, in what I can only describe as a kind of unintentional parabola of hate.
The 1st third drags on too long, the 2nd third of the movie is just a generic scifi plot with huge plot holes fuelled by characters not thinking properly, and the last third just suddenly goes off the rails with love and paradoxical closed time loops that didn't need a resolution in the first place.
I really want to like this movie, but I can't. I like how it looks I guess.
Really it felt like some scifi short story, more interested in showing an idea or concept, rather than a plot.
I was really hoping for some good old scifi, but instead the movie made me hate the movie's humanity, then hate specific human behaviour, and then hate our humanity, so infatuated with tired movie twists and tropes, in what I can only describe as a kind of unintentional parabola of hate.
The 1st third drags on too long, the 2nd third of the movie is just a generic scifi plot with huge plot holes fuelled by characters not thinking properly, and the last third just suddenly goes off the rails with love and paradoxical closed time loops that didn't need a resolution in the first place.
I really want to like this movie, but I can't. I like how it looks I guess.
Really it felt like some scifi short story, more interested in showing an idea or concept, rather than a plot.
Woah someone's feeling condescending today.karamazovnew said:
What if you can appreciate humanity landing on a planet...and also enjoy Interstellar? I'll just let that idea sink into your brain.
Whoa indeed. Sorry about the tone, I must've had too much coffee that day. I guess as a movie, Interstellar didn't annoy me as much as it being heralded as the most science heavy movie since Plan 9 from Outer Space (joke). My expectations were based on this, and I do know a thing or two about physics, thus my reaction. The visual depiction of the black hole is as good as it gets, but that's about it. The rest is laughable. Here's a few examples:endtherapture said:
- it takes a huge rocket to launch the small shuttle into space from Earth, but the shuttle can land and then orbit a planet with atmosphere and higher gravity, by itself.
- everybody is shocked that the pilot will aerobrake on a planet with atmosphere (gasp! are you insane?!). The side effect of having an atmosphere on a planet is that you don't need to burn as much fuel for decelerating to land, you can let the air slow you down. They then show the aerobraking as a fabulous u-turn at low altitude. Aerobraking happens anyway when you have atmosphere. The term usually refers to using the shuttle's lift to keep it as high as possible for as long as possible, else it will hit the thick atmosphere too fast and either burn up or decelerate as fast as a car hitting a tree.
- the waves are impossible. I am not going to waste my time explaining why.
- my favorite: the guys land on a planet which is close to the black hole, so close that time is changed for them. But at the same time, the guy which stays in orbit around the planet spends an equal time as the ones back on Earth. Seems logical? Well, unless he is orbiting the L2 Lagrange Point of that planet, he is going to (guess what) ORBIT the planet, which means that at times he will be closer to the black hole that the planet itself. Meaning that under no circumstance time would be "unchanged for him". However, if you try to imagine just how much time would pass for him, your head will begin to hurt, and you will realize why the planet itself would probably disintegrate if it were exposed to such variance in space-time.
- the spinning ship: ok, I'll ignore the fact that the vessel they use for propulsion is not in the center of mass, fine. But for an explosion to propel the ring (now damaged) in a perfect spin is.... idiotic. More likely, the vessel would've spun on multiple axis, making docking virtually impossible.
- So they stop the spinning but now they go from being in orbit of a planet, to being sucked in by the black hole. Uhmmm... long story short, black holes don't suck. Their gravity wells, at reasonable distances, act exactly the same as for any object of the same mass. The closer you orbit it, the faster you go. What makes a black hole a black hole, is the fact that at some point, your orbiting speed becomes the speed of light (at the event horizon). The same applies to freefalling into it (actually colliding with an object is sort of orbiting it with a very pointy orbit). You gather speed until the front of your ass goes through your mouth because of space-time dilation. And you're not even close to the event horizon. Now here's the problem. Let's suppose that you do start to fall into a black hole and you want to avoid going through it. Where do you use your engines? Answer: as far away from it as possible. Let's suppose you do want to hit it, where do you use your engines? Answer: again, as far away as possible. The only reason why you'd burn your engines near a black hole is to take advantage of the Oberth effect at high speeds. So even IF they were now going towards the black hole, due to messing up their orbit speed,
- you don't escape a black hole by burning your engines close to it, because you're not a Chuck Yeager avoiding the cornfield, you're not Nelson at the helm avoiding the lighthouse, you're not a baloonist using the heater to avoid a freaking tree, all the while dropping sandbags to get more altitude. What's worse, because the black holes don't suck, the brave hero and braver robot would now be stranded in a highly elliptical orbit, and would have to wait a few years to arrive at the other end so that they could change their orbit to hit the damn thing.
- last one, how could I forget: "Oh noes, my vessel is bombarded by black-hole meteors somehow travelling against the laws of physics, thank god I'm not outside, uuuu Eject!!!"
- everybody is shocked that the pilot will aerobrake on a planet with atmosphere (gasp! are you insane?!). The side effect of having an atmosphere on a planet is that you don't need to burn as much fuel for decelerating to land, you can let the air slow you down. They then show the aerobraking as a fabulous u-turn at low altitude. Aerobraking happens anyway when you have atmosphere. The term usually refers to using the shuttle's lift to keep it as high as possible for as long as possible, else it will hit the thick atmosphere too fast and either burn up or decelerate as fast as a car hitting a tree.
- the waves are impossible. I am not going to waste my time explaining why.
- my favorite: the guys land on a planet which is close to the black hole, so close that time is changed for them. But at the same time, the guy which stays in orbit around the planet spends an equal time as the ones back on Earth. Seems logical? Well, unless he is orbiting the L2 Lagrange Point of that planet, he is going to (guess what) ORBIT the planet, which means that at times he will be closer to the black hole that the planet itself. Meaning that under no circumstance time would be "unchanged for him". However, if you try to imagine just how much time would pass for him, your head will begin to hurt, and you will realize why the planet itself would probably disintegrate if it were exposed to such variance in space-time.
- the spinning ship: ok, I'll ignore the fact that the vessel they use for propulsion is not in the center of mass, fine. But for an explosion to propel the ring (now damaged) in a perfect spin is.... idiotic. More likely, the vessel would've spun on multiple axis, making docking virtually impossible.
- So they stop the spinning but now they go from being in orbit of a planet, to being sucked in by the black hole. Uhmmm... long story short, black holes don't suck. Their gravity wells, at reasonable distances, act exactly the same as for any object of the same mass. The closer you orbit it, the faster you go. What makes a black hole a black hole, is the fact that at some point, your orbiting speed becomes the speed of light (at the event horizon). The same applies to freefalling into it (actually colliding with an object is sort of orbiting it with a very pointy orbit). You gather speed until the front of your ass goes through your mouth because of space-time dilation. And you're not even close to the event horizon. Now here's the problem. Let's suppose that you do start to fall into a black hole and you want to avoid going through it. Where do you use your engines? Answer: as far away from it as possible. Let's suppose you do want to hit it, where do you use your engines? Answer: again, as far away as possible. The only reason why you'd burn your engines near a black hole is to take advantage of the Oberth effect at high speeds. So even IF they were now going towards the black hole, due to messing up their orbit speed,
- you don't escape a black hole by burning your engines close to it, because you're not a Chuck Yeager avoiding the cornfield, you're not Nelson at the helm avoiding the lighthouse, you're not a baloonist using the heater to avoid a freaking tree, all the while dropping sandbags to get more altitude. What's worse, because the black holes don't suck, the brave hero and braver robot would now be stranded in a highly elliptical orbit, and would have to wait a few years to arrive at the other end so that they could change their orbit to hit the damn thing.
- last one, how could I forget: "Oh noes, my vessel is bombarded by black-hole meteors somehow travelling against the laws of physics, thank god I'm not outside, uuuu Eject!!!"
Now again, I wouldn't be pissed about this so much if the movie didn't have such a "science heavy" label attached to it. I could spend hours explaining why Sunshine was flawed, but conclude by saying that I absolutely loved it and that it had some of the best/epic moments I've seen in years. Interstellar sucked on so many other levels (american flags everywhere, Nasa not bothering to call their star pilot, whinny girl with daddy issues etc., the entire plot) that the good parts (Michael Caine, a few shots of the ship, a bit o music, images of the Black Hole) can't make it up.
This is why I try to avoid knowing anything about directors. It brings an unnecessary bias that warps the experience of the movie.
I get that it's his job (and he needs stuff to talk about to fill the time slot), but it has become very clear over the months that Bob's viewpoint and preferences don't align with my own. This makes his judgment of movie worthless to me. I'm not saying his views are wrong in general, but they are wrong for the average movie viewer like myself.
I get that it's his job (and he needs stuff to talk about to fill the time slot), but it has become very clear over the months that Bob's viewpoint and preferences don't align with my own. This makes his judgment of movie worthless to me. I'm not saying his views are wrong in general, but they are wrong for the average movie viewer like myself.
Hm. This is the first time i actualy 100% disagree with Bob. For me Interstellar was on of the best films i've seen in my life. I almost cryied through 1\4 of the movie and that's a hard thing to achieve. And i didn't know ANYTHING about the movie until it appeard in cinemas and thus had no expectations. So may be knowing film production stuff do hurt.
Though i also love to play Kerbal Space Program and overall love space theme, so may be the movie simply pushed all the right buttons to make me happy.
Though i also love to play Kerbal Space Program and overall love space theme, so may be the movie simply pushed all the right buttons to make me happy.
Read through the spoiler list, loved the rant. As someone who posted something in a similar vein*, I appreciate the look at it from a hard sci-fi angle.karamazovnew said:
That you bring up Sunshine (which I regrettably haven't seen) makes me want to reference another film - Gravity, a film I absolutely loved, and would easily rank it among a top list of sci-fi movies I've seen. Like Interstellar, Gravity goes towards the "hard" end of the sci-fi spectrum. Unlike Interstellar though, even if Gravity slips up on its science a few times, it's engaging enough in its own right, with both its characters and the themes in the background (humanity's place in space, the concept of (re)birth, survival instinct, etc.). I can imagine if Nolan made Gravity the entire film would be filled with monologue to explain every idea the film is trying to convey. Interstellar is a symbol of why I often stay clear of hard sci-fi. I don't mind the science, but so often it feels like writers of hard sci-fi forget the "fiction" part of the equation.
Of the points in the quote, I will say though that the American flag aspect didn't bother me (this coming from someone who doesn't live in the US). I have to kind of give it props, that it's a mix of the US flag on the moon, and flags one might plant in colonial times (how they blow in a planet's atmosphere, something that obviously can't occur on the moon). However, I'm still left to ask why only the US chose to preserve its space program, and by extension, how this 'super blight' has apparently managed to affect the entire planet, nevermind areas of the globe that don't grow crops like corn and wheat. I'm practically begging for a botanist to come and explain this to me, because even the worst blights in history (e.g. Irish Potato Famine) didn't prevent an area of land from ever growing that crop again, while the movie has this blight/series of blights going on for 30+ years. Or how the blight could apparently release so much nitrogen from the soil to screw up the atmosphere, when again, there's no evidence of it affecting plants that aren't among the staple crops listed in the film.
*Said rant being at http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/6.864661-How-Interstellar-Crashes-in-Its-Third-Act?page=2#21620665
I admit the movie gets little funky at some points, but I absolutely LOVED this movie. Every nerdy friend I know liked this movie.
Some of the emotional stuff indeed did not flow as well as I would like, but this movie is the first time I can remember you can really see some cool space exploration stuff. Like really marvel at the stuff on screen.
If you have any interest in space and Sci-fi, watch this movie before its out of theaters!!!
Some of the emotional stuff indeed did not flow as well as I would like, but this movie is the first time I can remember you can really see some cool space exploration stuff. Like really marvel at the stuff on screen.
If you have any interest in space and Sci-fi, watch this movie before its out of theaters!!!
Appreciate the insight as always Bob. Great review, speaks closely to my own opinion after seeing the film last night.
I feel like I am coming from a completely un-biassed place with my next statement based on the fact that I do not even know or care really who has directed what in the past, just cannot be bothered to remember I guess.
This is the best science fiction film I have ever seen, Absolutely adored it from start to finish, I loved the planets, I loved the end of the world setup, I loved the twists, I loved the space scenes, I loved the pseudo science, and I loved the "boring exposition".
This is the best science fiction film I have ever seen, Absolutely adored it from start to finish, I loved the planets, I loved the end of the world setup, I loved the twists, I loved the space scenes, I loved the pseudo science, and I loved the "boring exposition".
This beautiful visual sci-fi movie is brilliant with awesome performances by both actors. It is very moving and touching. You must give it a try.