Interstellar - Wow.

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Saw it tonight with some other nerd friends at Graumann's. 70mm IMAX format was an excellent choice. The sound system made it even better-- the seats were shaking. I've been excited to see it since my old physics professor posted about it (and the physics research papers it generated!) on his blog a while back. He has a good perspective on the finished product, too. Overall, a super positive experience :D
 
I've pulled some books and articles on cosmology after seeing it.

It was interesting to read the comments from skeptics that black holes are complete fiction, made up by theorists that simply build their theories on a big house of cards about particle physics.
One even suggested they are all in it for the money, and should all be lined up against a wall and be shot, and the world would be a better place for it.

I guess if you followed that line of thinking then you would have to put Steven Hawkings, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Carl Sagan (if he was still around) up against that wall.
 
Last edited:
Saw Interstellar tonight. I enjoyed it, but I can also see how it is not for everyone.

For the science wonks:

https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B00NUB4EVC/?tag=skimlinks_replacement-20

I've bought this book and was waiting until I saw the movie to read it as to not spoil myself. Looking forward to reading it to see how many of those "where the science is wrong" items are addressed.

I consider it hard science fiction...similar to stories written by Stephen Baxter.

And personally, Star Trek is and always has been science fiction light...not hard science fiction.

FC

To each his own I guess.

I watched Inception last night, given it was supposedly Nolan's high water mark leading up to Intersteller.
I was entertained, well made movie, great SFX.
I could've done without the third level dream Eiger sanction raid.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I watched Interstellar last night, and I have to say I was a bit let down. I really wanted to love this movie, and I fully expected I would. But I felt like the story itself was really not that great. Some of the characters' motivations and actions also do not really make any sense. And some of the dialog was awful. I felt like the movie was trying to be far more profound than it really ended up being. It felt like the movie was telling you it had important and serious themes, but it failed to ever deliver them. The science does not really hold up very well at all, and it has some major flaws, but that is not my main complaint --- the main complaint is the story telling. The science does not need to be perfect for a science fiction movie to be good, but the story telling needs to be good for any kind of movie, including SF.

On a positive note, it was visually fantastic! I liked the portrayals of the different spacecraft and the wormhole and black hole. The acting was pretty good. There were some very exciting action scenes.

All in all, I would recommend seeing it, but it's not as good as I was expecting. I saw it in IMAX 70mm, and that was pretty cool.
 
2001 was a pretty good movie, and is one of my favorite science fiction movies. That's one that delivers on its larger and more profound themes. But the part I was not crazy about was the end when Bowman goes into the giant monolith "thingy" and the crazy acid trip that follows. Now he's in a hotel room, now he is old, now he is young, etc. It was hard to understand what that was all about, and I think it may have been possible to find a better way to handle that part of the movie.

2001 is also an example of where a strict adherence to accurate science does not always serve a movie as well as you might think. For a space geek like myself, I can appreciate the accuracy of the silence of space, and the slow pace of getting anything done during an EVA. But those parts can also drag on for ever and really weigh down the pace of the movie. It's accurate, but it gets in the way of efficiently moving the story forward and engaging the audience.
 
2001 was a pretty good movie, and is one of my favorite science fiction movies. That's one that delivers on its larger and more profound themes. But the part I was not crazy about was the end when Bowman goes into the giant monolith "thingy" and the crazy acid trip that follows. Now he's in a hotel room, now he is old, now he is young, etc. It was hard to understand what that was all about, and I think it may have been possible to find a better way to handle that part of the movie.

2001 is also an example of where a strict adherence to accurate science does not always serve a movie as well as you might think. For a space geek like myself, I can appreciate the accuracy of the silence of space, and the slow pace of getting anything done during an EVA. But those parts can also drag on for ever and really weigh down the pace of the movie. It's accurate, but it gets in the way of efficiently moving the story forward and engaging the audience.

Cogent review and very good points.

I went in expecting to dislike Interstellar - since most of what is out there in the way of movies these days I think is crap, IMHO.
The trailers that came out 6-8 months in advance smelled of hype, and asides from some great special effects - did not tell me anything other than the earth is in trouble and we need to find a new planet, despite the long shot.

So I guess based on our expectations.....while you were let down, I was let up.
Got more than I expected.

In the sci-fi genre, I don't think anything can compare to the benchmark set by 2001, but again, it was a movie for its time.
I think the recent movie going generations bred on fast paced action and sensory overload would not sit through the first 45 minutes of 2001, and given what is available in modern CGI , I think they would find the stargate scene too simplistic.
Now, if they could view it in context with the time it was made, maybe they would like it.
 
Last edited:
Cogent review and very good points.

I went in expecting to dislike Interstellar - since most of what is out there in the way of movies these days I think is crap, IMHO.
So I guess based on expectations.....while you were let down, I was let up.
Got more than I expected.

In the sci-fi genre, I don't think anything can compare to the benchmark set by 2001, but again, it was a movie for its time.
I think the recent movie going generations bred on fast paced action and sensory overload would not sit through the first 45 minutes of 2001, and given what is available in CGI , I think they would find the stargate scene too simplistic.

I think you may be right, that expectation played a big role in the sense of being either pleasantly surprised or slightly disappointed.

The pace of movies has definitely picked up in recent years, and some are all action with no depth whatsoever. A lot of movies from the time of 2001 were slow by our standards, but I think even back then, 2001 was a bit slow. By current standards it's almost like watching a glacier move! I agree that a lot of the modern audience would not sit through it. I'm afraid to make too much of a point about it, or we might end up with a JJ Abrams remake of 2001!
 
So, can we start posting spoilers yet? I've got more to say about the movie, but it would all involve spoilers.
 
So, can we start posting spoilers yet? I've got more to say about the movie, but it would all involve spoilers.
I don't know.

Does anyone here intend to see it and has not had the opportunity yet, and not want to see spoilers?

(Gary felt those folks that were interested in seeing it would surely have seen it by now.)

If not - I guess you can go for it.

At this point - there have been to so many comments on so many online movie review sites, with so many super positive and super negative comments about this movie - I 'm not sure there are any surprises left.
The many references to the plot holes, continuity issues, paradoxes (hey its time travel!) will likely keep us thinking over this one.
Maybe you just preface it by saying SPOILER ALERT !
 
Last edited:
I think you may be right, that expectation played a big role in the sense of being either pleasantly surprised or slightly disappointed.
The pace of movies has definitely picked up in recent years, and some are all action with no depth whatsoever. A lot of movies from the time of 2001 were slow by our standards, but I think even back then, 2001 was a bit slow. By current standards it's almost like watching a glacier move! I agree that a lot of the modern audience would not sit through it. I'm afraid to make too much of a point about it, or we might end up with a JJ Abrams remake of 2001!

Agreed.
I was reflecting recently on Interstellar while reading some of the negative comments I saw on Youtube, IMDB and other sites.
While IMDB has given it a 9 out of 10, which is an uncharacteristically high rating, and some comments were over the top "Greatest movie ever made" others say it is pure crap and a waste of money.
How can this be?
Can it be both at the same time? (how profound .....LOL).
So, what people want in a movie and what they get after two people have seen the very same movie is very interesting.

I went to see Interstellar expecting just to be satisfied seeing some good special effects - ie. how they portrayed huge theoretical phenomena like worm holes and black holes and I fully expected to see this one better "Contact", a movie which I also enjoyed.
I got unexpectedly engaged in the human interest story. The way the Zimmer soundtrack was understated but effective.


Movies I've seen that I really liked, actually had more to do with how I felt at the end than during the movie.
I will always rate Bladerunner highly just because I liked how the ending felt the first time I saw it. That Harrison Ford "voice over" with that Van Gellis synthesizer soundtrack as he rides off into the landscape.

I will watch a movie again if I can get the original feeling again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3l1iUUq_fE
 
Last edited:
I thought I'd add this..........
I have a coworker that loves cinema, she was even involved in the subject from an academic standpoint.
We don't always agree on films or TV shows..........well, honestly, ......we RARELY agree.

She did not like "Gravity".
She loved "Interstellar".

She has a keen eye for film editing as related to pacing and storytelling and thought it was done very well in this movie.
 
Thank you for pointing out my "spoiler time frame" MaxQ, I figure, most people on this forum probably wasted no time in seeing it. I, for one, did like it, but that's just me. I know I watch movies with a different set of eyes. 2001? I went shortly after it was distributed, and for the most part, I thought the space scenes were overplayed. Especially with the "astral ballet" of space stations and such. Those docking scenes come to mind as being time fillers. I will admit, the ending was befuddling to say the least, but it was a good watch at the time. Now days, I couldn't stand to watch it. And I agree, that most people today, would think it dull. I do agree with Max's point in the "Spoiler Alert". I'd say go for it also. There might be just a few that haven't had the chance to go.....still.
 
Thank you for pointing out my "spoiler time frame" MaxQ, I figure, most people on this forum probably wasted no time in seeing it. I, for one, did like it, but that's just me. I know I watch movies with a different set of eyes. 2001? I went shortly after it was distributed, and for the most part, I thought the space scenes were overplayed. Especially with the "astral ballet" of space stations and such. Those docking scenes come to mind as being time fillers. I will admit, the ending was befuddling to say the least, but it was a good watch at the time. Now days, I couldn't stand to watch it. And I agree, that most people today, would think it dull. I do agree with Max's point in the "Spoiler Alert". I'd say go for it also. There might be just a few that haven't had the chance to go.....still.

Let's give Will a chance to see it this weekend and then let the spoilers fly! :wink: LOL.

You know, I'm just as amazed and befuddled by the fancrowd out there commenting online that "this is the greatest movie of all time - Nolan is God!" as I am with the people saying this is "pure crap that only American people would swallow."

Thanks again for the comments everyone...good or bad.
 
Last edited:
SPOILER ALERT!

Agreed.
I was reflecting recently on Interstellar while reading some of the negative comments I saw on Youtube, IMDB and other sites.
While IMDB has given it a 9 out of 10, which is an uncharacteristically high rating, and some comments were over the top "Greatest movie ever made" others say it is pure crap and a waste of money.
How can this be?
Can it be both at the same time? (how profound .....LOL).
So, what people want in a movie and what they get after two people have seen the very same movie is very interesting.

I went to see Interstellar expecting just to be satisfied seeing some good special effects - ie. how they portrayed huge theoretical phenomena like worm holes and black holes and I fully expected to see this one better "Contact", a movie which I also enjoyed.
I got unexpectedly engaged in the human interest story. The way the Zimmer soundtrack was understated but effective.


Movies I've seen that I really liked, actually had more to do with how I felt at the end than during the movie.
I will always rate Bladerunner highly just because I liked how the ending felt the first time I saw it. That Harrison Ford "voice over" with that Van Gellis synthesizer soundtrack as he rides off into the landscape.

I will watch a movie again if I can get the original feeling again.

There are spoilers in my reply below.

You've been warned!

I think a lot of people connected with the movie in an emotional way that I just was not able to do. My main problem with the movie was that I didn't understand some character's motivations for the things they did, and that made the emotional story just not work for me. The central emotional storyline is the relationship between Murph and Cooper, and I just did not get it. Why did she remain so angry and resentful of him for so long? It's clear that professor Brand took Murph under his wing, and she actually devoted her life to working for NASA on the same exact project that Cooper left to be a part of, so why didn't she eventually come around to seeing the importance of what he was doing and forgive him for leaving? She forgives Brand for sending her father on the mission, but she doesn't forgive her father for going. To me, that doesn't make sense. And then after everything, when the two are finally reunited, which is the main thing they both have wanted for the entire movie, they only spend about a minute together before they agree he should take off to go find astronaut Brand.

I had problems with the motivations and actions of almost every character in the movie. Why did Cooper think astronaut Brand would want him to follow her to the other planet? Didn't she go there to find Edmunds? Why didn't professor Brand just tell the astronauts that Plan A was doomed? Didn't he think that if they did find a habitable planet, they would try to return and implement hopeless Plan A instead of executing viable Plan B? Why did Mann think he needed to kill Copper? Didn't he think they would still take him with them even if he admitted he lied? And how does killing Cooper get him out of the lie anyway? He was supposedly the best and brightest among them, but he was willing to throw away the whole plan because he was stranded on an uninhabitable planet --- that did not ring true to me. Why wouldn't the brother allow his wife and son to get medical treatment? I even question the motivations and actions of the super-advanced 5-dimensional humans of the future --- why not just communicate the secret equation or black hole quantum data directly instead of this convoluted plan to get Cooper to go on this journey and communicate it back to himself (which is also a time travel paradox)?

There were a lot of scientific inaccuracies in the movie, but I can usually suspend disbelief enough to overlook those kinds of things for a good story. But the problem for me was that the story itself seemed full of false notes with the characters acting and behaving in ways that did not make sense to me.

Anyway, that's my take. I don't mean to dump on this movie, especially considering that many people did seem to connect with it emotionally and like the story and the characters. But that part just did not work for me.
 
I would like to see it, but my work is so busy that by Saturday afternoon I only have energy enough for a nap...:sigh::sigh:
On the plus side, work is busy, which at this time of the year is good.

So on the off chance I get to see it in the next week or so, I'd appreciate a Spoiler Alert at the beginning of the post if'n you're gonna throw them out so I can breeze past those posts for now. Thanks a bunch.

Adrian
 
You know, I'm just as amazed and befuddled by the fancrowd out there commenting online that "this is the greatest movie of all time - Nolan is God!" as I am with the people saying this is "pure crap that only American people would swallow."

Max, it's part of what makes us all different. There will be positive fans, and there will be negs. Like I said before, we all see things with different eyes. Some of our expectations are focused on things that others are not. This is why I take critics opinions with a grain of salt. They have rarely influenced me with their opinions on a movie. You either like it, or you don't. Some people think (took me 10 minutes to remember the title) Rocky Horror Picture Show was the cat's ass! I thought it sucked so bad, that outer space wasn't enough vacuum for it. Right up there with Frank Zappa and the Grateful Dead. There's a certain mindset that gets these three, eh? Not everyone is going to have the same experience
or pleasure factor with anything. I admit, I will buy into the movie trailers to some degree, and I will overlook the hype, but by the same token, I can usually pick and choose what I think works for me. I'm not interested in dissecting a movie. I'm in it for the "show factor."
 
SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT! - SPOILER ALERT!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why did she remain so angry and resentful of him for so long? It's clear that professor Brand took Murph under his wing, and she actually devoted her life to working for NASA on the same exact project that Cooper left to be a part of, so why didn't she eventually come around to seeing the importance of what he was doing and forgive him for leaving? "
She forgives Brand for sending her father on the mission, but she doesn't forgive her father for going".


Good point, I didn't get it either....and this has been mentioned quite a bit online.
I think despite the obvious fact she was fully engaged in the work for the elder Dr. Brand - she still harbored resentment for her father leaving, which can only be explained when Dr. Brand had that death bed confession to her, then, well, you can understand how she felt thinking her father had left her knowing that there was an underlying hopelessness to her life time dedicated to solving something that had no solution and her father left her - knowing that as well.

"And then after everything, when the two are finally reunited, which is the main thing they both have wanted for the entire movie, they only spend about a minute together before they agree he should take off to go find astronaut Brand. "

Also mentioned quite a bit online, and I was asking myself the same question....awkward to say the least!
And maybe that was the point. As his daughter said on her deathbed..."No parent should have to see his child die..." But he was forgiven for leaving and she lived long enough to reconcile. Let's face it...this is a weird situation unknown and untested in real life given the nature of what's going on - but a question related to interstellar travel that would have to be asked...that is, if it was even possible to do it anyway. I have a mother in memory care in the last stages of Alzheimers and while the situation is different from the one in the movie I was struck by this scene on a personal level.. That said I have no kids, but likewise, I have watched people crying in the theatre over those scenes of the father leaving young Murph......not being a parent, I can't know the feeling but I can understand it. If such things as long term space travel is possible, with the effects of time dilation, this will be virgin ground that no one knows how it will be dealt with.

"I had problems with the motivations and actions of almost every character in the movie. Why did Cooper think astronaut Brand would want him to follow her to the other planet? Didn't she go there to find Edmunds?"

Good question...she was obviously keeping Cooper at a distance on the ship during the voyage. I read a comment online that proposed this question...what if Cooper shows up on Edmunds planet and Edmunds is still alive with Astronaut Brand...happily sitting out the arrival of earth colonizers. He will be like the third wheel on a date. (I got kick out of that - LOL) .
Explanations postulated have suggested his daughter and others knew more about Astronaut Brands situation on Edmunds planet and he was not going uninformed about her lonely situation.

That said....I had a problem with the whole Star Wars look of that last scene, it seemed like a cheap homage to Galatica/Star Wars movies...doning the crash helmet, getting in the X wing fighter, robot taking its place in the back seat....but I really liked the end scene and Zimmer score portraying Astronaut Brands desperate loneliness on that planet.
As Astronaut Mann said upon his own revival after hibernation, no one can know the loneliness of being by yourself for that long, and not even seeing a human face....THAT is the unsettling thought we were left with in the closing scenes...Astronaut Brand, basically stranded, marooned, alone on a planet with a grave and a memory. I was quite moved by that scene.


"Why didn't professor Brand just tell the astronauts that Plan A was doomed? Didn't he think that if they did find a habitable planet, they would try to return and implement hopeless Plan A instead of executing viable Plan B?"

I think Astronaut Mann actually explained that clearly...when Cooper got the message from his daughter asking ...Did you Know? Did you? Plan B in Brand's mind was the only plan...but their was a purpose to Plan A, despite it being a cover story.
Mann looks at an obviously betrayed Brand and astonished Cooper, saying the survivors of earth could not have kept the enterprise together unless they were laboring under a vision and hope, even if it was a false hope.

"Why did Mann think he needed to kill Copper? Didn't he think they would still take him with them even if he admitted he lied?"

Apparently not. After all...he is Astronaut Mann, and Man is evil - LOL. Seriously, I think this was screen writing just to contrast an individual's animal instinct or "wiring" for self preservation at all costs vs. personal sacrifice for the survival of a species."

"And how does killing Cooper get him out of the lie anyway? He was supposedly the best and brightest among them, but he was willing to throw away the whole plan because he was stranded on an uninhabitable planet --- that did not ring true to me."

It doesn't get him out the lie really.
Astronaut Mann - He was considered expendable if the planet was not habitable. And he lied about the data, to get them to come to the planet so he could get off it. For selfish reasons he therefore distracted a crew and a mission simply to save his own skin.
I'd think people leaving their families and taking a risk on a mission with limited resources and few alternatives because of Mann's lie, just might have a problem with that.
The person Mann needed to kill was anyone that figured out that despite Manns' false data Mann's planet was uninhabitable...so the bad news is he eventually would have to get rid of everyone and get to the habitable planet to save his life.
I think he even booby trapped the other robot in the habitat to hide the false data which the black astronaut had discovered.

"Why wouldn't the brother allow his wife and son to get medical treatment?"

Plot device to heighten the tension at the end. Other than heightening the feelings of dislike for his father for leaving him behind as well as his sister, and keeping the subject of parental abandonment at the forefront while they are left to face their demise...totally useless. Annoying and distracting as well. I actually started questioning the rationale of that character at that point.

"I even question the motivations and actions of the super-advanced 5-dimensional humans of the future --- why not just communicate the secret equation or black hole quantum data directly instead of this convoluted plan to get Cooper to go on this journey and communicate it back to himself (which is also a time travel paradox)? "

This was actually explained by Cooper (I didn't catch this dialogue the first time I saw the movie) to Tars in the tesseract, that "they" (the aliens or 5D inhabitants) despite being a super advanced 5D race, couldn't interact directly with people or objects in 3D space, therefore, they needed to have 3D humans to bridge that gap between the dimensions. Well...maybe I buy it. I also noticed that the first thing Cooper did, (once Tars contacted him in the tesseract and Cooper got it together), was to find out if Tars got the quantum black hole data and then assemble the data, (which he will eventually transmit touching gravity waves in the tesseract that interact with the watch on the bookshelf)...and then after confirmation Tars got the data, he asks Tars to get the coordinates for NASA on earth.......I was thinking that he was going to transmit the black hole Quantum date to NASA...but wait...he is sending coordinates for the NASA facility in binary (or morse code, don't recall which one) back to murph in the bedroom. SO, am I to understand this is how Cooper sends the information to Murph and himself to find the remote NASA facility in the old Norad missile silo in the first place ?

This is real bootstrap paradox stuff...in that instance, Nolan turns the entire movie from back to front, and we reconnect with the opening of the movie. The coordinates for NASA are sent in code by gravity waves and I believe this is the hidden message they found in the dust lines settling on the bedroom floor in the beginning of the movie, which leads them to find the NASA site.
You get the feeling yet that Time is has no boundaries and is all happening at once?
I had to hand it to Nolan at this point...he had me in that otherworldly space. My mind was for a moment comprehending the weirdness of multi-dimension time travel and the concept of no absolute time...but alas............only for a moment.
"The fool, the meddling idiot! As though his ape's brain could contain the secrets of the Krell! - Dr. Edward Morbius The Forbidden Planet

"There were a lot of scientific inaccuracies in the movie, but I can usually suspend disbelief enough to overlook those kinds of things for a good story. But the problem for me was that the story itself seemed full of false notes with the characters acting and behaving in ways that did not make sense to me."

He heh don't get me started on that one......not yet anyway.

I got a few more for 'ya but it's getting late.
 
Last edited:
Ya see? Different minds see different ways. You guys can shred this movie all you want to, but the bottom line is, it took you on a journey. That's what Hollywood does. They're not interested in facts. They're interested in entertaining you. Whether you follow their lead, is not important to them, just that you bought a ticket. Wake up America.
 
Ya see? Different minds see different ways. You guys can shred this movie all you want to, but the bottom line is, it took you on a journey. That's what Hollywood does. They're not interested in facts. They're interested in entertaining you. Whether you follow their lead, is not important to them, just that you bought a ticket. Wake up America.

And I REALLY enjoyed the ride........
 
Ya see? Different minds see different ways. You guys can shred this movie all you want to, but the bottom line is, it took you on a journey. That's what Hollywood does. They're not interested in facts. They're interested in entertaining you. Whether you follow their lead, is not important to them, just that you bought a ticket. Wake up America.

I don't think they are only interested in selling you a ticket and not concerned about disappointing you. They want you to enjoy the movie.

All of these questions struck me as false notes while watching and before I even left the theater. These kinds of doubts are enough to take you out of the movie, and they definitely cut into my enjoyment of the movie.
 
I think given the highly sensitive nature of TRF Care Bear readership there should be big spoiler alerts required until at least two weeks after Red Box release of the DVD. Keep it nice and slow like the docking scene in 2001. Let the rest of the silly internet speculate in the fast paced, immediate gratification, high tech nature of the modern movie going world.
 
The book, "2001, A Space Odyssey", by Arthur C. Clarke makes considerably more sense than the same movie "2001, ..." by Stanley Kubrick, especially on the ending. Arthur Clarke explained why this happen in another book, which as I recall has the title The Lost Worlds of 2001. The movie was being made at the same time that Clarke was finishing the novel. (The novel is actually an expansion of a previous short story by Clarke about finding the monolith on the moon.) Kubrick was strongly influencing the ending of the movie and perhaps even the book at the same time Clarke was writing the book. There is quite a bit of narration in the sci-fi book that is absent in the movie. The part about the astronaut turning old is not in the book, but the part about the astronaut envisioning himself as a baby is.

I am amazed by some of the same parallels between Interstellar and 2001. The Star Gate in the 2001 book is on the moon Iapetus of Saturn, even though the movie has the Star Gate orbiting Jupiter (Kubrick felt that the movie would be too long if the expedition went to Saturn). Likewise, in Interstellar the wormhole is in orbit around Saturn. In the movie 2001 a subplot has the computer HAL having a mental breakdown threatening the mission. In Instellar there is a subplot where an astronaut has a mental breakdown threatening the mission.
 
I've been reading "The Science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne, and it's been pretty interesting. I haven't gone through it completely yet, but so far I've enjoyed it. Besides the more basic things we've talked about (black holes, worm holes, etc), he gets into topics such as the Blight and how it could happen (depressing reading), why Gargantua looks like it does, how you can actually avoid spagettification if your black hole is massive enough, etc. A neat point...they actually had to tone down the visual size of Gargantua on screen. In reality, the visual size of a black hole of Gargantua's mass would have been MUCH larger.

I have to say, the more I think about Interstellar, the more I enjoyed it. When I think about it verses 2001, I tend to consider 2001 closer to a 'tech demo', verses Interstellar which has more interesting characters - even if the dialogue was a little clunky.

FC
 
SPOILER ALERT!

I've been reading "The Science of Interstellar" by Kip Thorne, and it's been pretty interesting. I haven't gone through it completely yet, but so far I've enjoyed it. Besides the more basic things we've talked about (black holes, worm holes, etc), he gets into topics such as the Blight and how it could happen (depressing reading), why Gargantua looks like it does, how you can actually avoid spagettification if your black hole is massive enough, etc. A neat point...they actually had to tone down the visual size of Gargantua on screen. In reality, the visual size of a black hole of Gargantua's mass would have been MUCH larger.

I have to say, the more I think about Interstellar, the more I enjoyed it. When I think about it verses 2001, I tend to consider 2001 closer to a 'tech demo', verses Interstellar which has more interesting characters - even if the dialogue was a little clunky.

FC

Spoilers in my post ahead.

This sounds like a really interesting book.

What did Thorne have to say about the Blight? In the movie, it is some kind of organism that breathes nitrogen, which was something I did not buy scientifically, but I can accept for the sake of the story. Did he talk about how such an organism's metabolism would work or how a new emergent life form like that could evolve? Something that bothered me about the Blight was that on the huge Cooper space station/colony near the end of the movie, they were growing crops that were susceptible to Blight on Earth. How were they able to protect those crops from contamination with Blight, and why couldn't they just use the same methods on Earth? It seems like it would be easier to build a sealed and decontaminated greenhouse environment on Earth than it would be to do it in orbit around Saturn.

Another scientific flaw that you just have to ignore if you are going to enjoy the movie is the plot element where they go to Miller's planet orbiting Gargantua and experience time dilation --- only a few hours pass on the planet, while 23 years goes by on the ship left in orbit. Those time dilation effects are a physical possibility and really do exist around black holes. My main quibble with it is that if you were to approach such a supermassive black hole to the point where you were experiencing such extreme time dilation effects, there is no spacecraft powerful enough to climb back out of that kind of gravity well to rendezvous with the orbiting ship again. It's not a theoretical impossibility, like escaping from within the event horizon, but it is a plot problem for the movie. Any ship that could climb back from being that close to a supermassive black hole would be powerful enough to accelerate to almost light speed, and the movie has already established that they don't have ships that fast. Certainly the landing craft would not be powerful enough to go that fast. It is an internal consistency problem for the movie. Does Thorne talk about these kind of issues at all?

These kinds of questions were not real problems for me enjoying the movie. Sometimes you just have to accept some scientific flaws in order to enjoy a good story. But since he did actually write a book about the science of the movie, I wonder if he addressed any of the scientific plot holes. I think it would be fine to just acknowledge there are scientific flaws for the sake of storytelling, and use the book to teach the reader something about the real theory.

If you reply to this, FC, be sure to start your post with a spoiler alert!
 
The book, "2001, A Space Odyssey", by Arthur C. Clarke makes considerably more sense than the same movie "2001, ..." by Stanley Kubrick, especially on the ending. Arthur Clarke explained why this happen in another book, which as I recall has the title The Lost Worlds of 2001. The movie was being made at the same time that Clarke was finishing the novel. (The novel is actually an expansion of a previous short story by Clarke about finding the monolith on the moon.) Kubrick was strongly influencing the ending of the movie and perhaps even the book at the same time Clarke was writing the book. There is quite a bit of narration in the sci-fi book that is absent in the movie. The part about the astronaut turning old is not in the book, but the part about the astronaut envisioning himself as a baby is.

I am amazed by some of the same parallels between Interstellar and 2001. The Star Gate in the 2001 book is on the moon Iapetus of Saturn, even though the movie has the Star Gate orbiting Jupiter (Kubrick felt that the movie would be too long if the expedition went to Saturn). Likewise, in Interstellar the wormhole is in orbit around Saturn. In the movie 2001 a subplot has the computer HAL having a mental breakdown threatening the mission. In Interstellar there is a subplot where an astronaut has a mental breakdown threatening the mission.


I believe the short story inspiration for "2001" was called "The Sentinel".
I have a book called "The Making of 2001", in it, it mentions that Kubrick changed the star gate to Jupiter as they did not have a realistic special effect portraying Saturn and its rings that met his expectations......
 
Last edited:
SPOILER ALERT!

Here is an article that helps to explain why certain parts of Interstellar don't make logical sense, and it is also a great mental trick for making many movies and TV shows seem better than they really are. The article contains spoilers.

https://www.slate.com/blogs/browbea...y_the_simple_mind_trick_that_makes_every.html

Well, I guess that article is amusing , in an "Onion" kind of way.

Actually, if this article is supposed to be a hallmark for understanding the complex, then you could follow the logic or humor, carry it to its ultimate conclusion and say everyone in this forum is also already dead.
Then we can stop the discussion.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top