AccursedTheory said:
Love is a trans dimensional force. She claims its a force of nature they just can't measure.
It. Is. Absurd.
Oh good, I'm glad you linked that, because I went looking for it to make sure I wasn't mis-remembering it, and it made me even more resolute in my position than I was before.
I'll note before I begin that you're welcome to your opinion, so don't take this as me saying "you're wrong" or anything. But you're totally wrong, and I'll tell you why! =D
Brand is being philosophical. She is speculating about the nature of love and the force/pull it exerts, much like gravity. It's something you cannot see or perceive, yet feel and are compelled by. Note that is is not asserting that they are scientifically comparable, she's prefacing every statement with "maybe". She is speculating. She's also making a wild, emotional bid for a particular course of action, and being completely honest about her reasons why.
When we condemn scenes like this, or ***** about how "scientifically nonsensical" an obviously philosophical statement about the geas-like effect emotions have on organics is, we do two things. One, we establish an atmosphere of impossible pedantry. Everything is slaved to a "science first" perspective. There is literally not a science fiction film MADE that will not begin to fray when faced with this, and if there was it wouldn't be a "film" at all. It would be a two hour documentary about science, free of speculation or unproven hypothesis. It would basically be two hours of men in lab coats performing experiments and carefully checking results.
Two, we betray a complete lack of understanding about why films are made, or what they are even FOR. Films are just stories writ visually, and stories are essentially the life blood of human imagination. As Kearney said...
Telling stories is as basic to human beings as eating. More so, in fact, for while food makes us live, stories are what make our lives worth living.
They're the evolution of the oral history that shaped all our dreams and fears and aspirations. It's why some stories, like the Monomyth, have an unmistakable power, and come up time and time again in different forms. In GOOD science fiction, the science exists
in service to the story, not the other way around. Interstellar is a science fiction film, yes, but it is primarily and foremost a film about human ingenuity and resilience, powered by emotion. That's a powerful story. "The science checked out" is not a powerful story. A story that was scientifically accurate in 1899 wouldn't be terribly interesting to a person in 2016. A story about human emotions literally NEVER AGES.
I honestly do not understand why people who complain about this stuff
even watch films. Which is not to say they're not allowed, it's to express legitimate confusion at what they're looking for. I'm stroppy because the same issue came up during discussions of Star Wars, with bickering about "Force Power Levels" and other ridiculously idiotic minutiae. Similar issues arose with Bioshock Infinite and bleating claims of "That's not how multi-verse theory works". Over and over again there's this press to have stories slaved to science, or to game rules, or to plot machinations. The most important thing appears to be that everything is properly codified and obeys particular rules of structure. If that means the story is rubbish, so be it, but it's very important this Jedi not go past Force Power 5 for this scene, or that woman not be talking about "love" instead of bacteria or something because this is a science movie and we only do science here.
I imagine a guy writing the Bible a few thousand years ago or however long it was, and his friend being PFFT, you can't just turn someone into a fucking pillar of salt, Peter, that's not how it works. Your deity is a Mary Sue. No one is going to enjoy this. Go read Raoul's Treatise on Camels instead, it's way more grounded.