Dazzle Novak said:
No, I dislike it because it was a bad movie filled with cardboard cutouts making bad decisions over Nolan's sterile approximation of "emotions". Even the idiot girl who needed it explained loudly and repeatedly that Gargantua was a black hole and not Saturn knew enough to laugh derisively when Anne Hathaway started shrieking that, "Love is a universal constant like gravity" horseshit.
As did the film in the end. It practically scoffs at Brand when she makes that assertion. Even by the end, Cooper interprets the idea not as love being some fundamental force but just an emotional bond he shared with his daughter throughout their lives.
Honestly, did we watch the same movie? I really do not get how people take Brand's comments as the film's explanation for the ending.
As for the science, eh. I'll trust my D- in high school physics intuition that blackholes with gravity so harsh light can't escape don't double as worm holes and if it shredded the ship it would shred the astronaut inside.
Except that...actually, this will take way too long to explain and I really don't feel like typing it out. So, if you're truly interested in science, I highly recommend giving Thorne's book a read - https://vk.com/doc167609816_375081946?hash=0b9915c18cb800cdfc&dl=0c04e5acb7557dacde
I also wonder how a planet can suffer time dilation from its adjacent black hole without being affected by gravity in other ways or why astronauts would knowingly choose the "1 hour=20 years" planet orbiting a fucking black hole as a first resort.
The planets
were effected by the gravitation. Recall the tidal bulge, for example?
And they chose the planet orbiting so close to Gargantua because they received the "all clear" signal from the previous lander, Miller.
Again, did we watch the same film? I feel like you've tuned out quite a lot of details from the story.
Maybe Kip Thorne has all the theoretical equations that squares the unintuitive leaps the movie took, but none of it came across to me as a moviegoer. I suspect a lot of it works piecemeal: "In this extremely specific, borderline impossible scenario, one could theoretically..."
There are very few leaps taken in the film, and most of the scenarios presented are as grounded in real science as they could.
And let's be honest here: There's rarely anything "intuitive" about physics, relativity, and quantum mechanics.
I'm admittedly not a fan of Nolan because he can rarely write characters or thematic subtext without obnoxious exposition. Compare, for example, Inception with Paprika (the anime that inspired it).
Nolan wrote the story for Inception well over a decade before he made the film, and well before Paprika came out. I mean, maybe he made changes to the story based on Paprika (assuming he saw the film), maybe he didn't, but the story was written well before.
One's a thorough exploration of the subconscious and identity while the other's a knockoff Ocean's 11/ lecture in shifting, made-up dream logic bullshit: "Oh yeah, if you die in a dream, your brain turns to mush now. Reasons! Stakes!"
So they're the same story...but they're not the same story?
Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Either you claim Nolan ripped-off Paprika or you claim the stories are fundamentally different.
And I'll be frank: I wasn't that fond of Paprika. It was pretty to look at, and there was a lot going on, but, much like a Bethesda RPG, it lacked depth. It's "thorough exploration" was no more insightful than a sophomore's interpretation of 'that weird dream I had last week'.
All that said, what movies you enjoy or don't enjoy are of no consequence to me, as long as there are some that you
do enjoy. I just can't help but scoff at 'couch physicists' who say these films "got all the science wrong" when they actually got so much of it right.