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.
I'm guessing, this spoiler issue should probably be a dead issue within 2 weeks. I can't think of 1, (ONE) rocketeer that could resist seeing this in that amount of time. Since this thread started on the 7th, that would take us to the 21st. Any takers on that note? Providing the thread goes the distance?

Yep. The die hard geeks like me will surely have seen it by then, - (I've just seen it twice).
But again, there may be stragglers that can't get to it.....due to whatever.

Looking back I was surprised that by the time I walked into the theatre to see "Sixth Sense" - I did not know about the surprise ending to the story.
And I'm glad I did not know.

Gary: once the arguments start,...the thread will go the distance, and BEYONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD
 
Last edited:
Neil deGrasse Tyson's review and tweets here:

https://deadline.com/2014/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar-twitter-comments-1201280567/

Don't check it unless you've seen it.

Pretty much says the science is OK but considers other parts to be science fiction.

I'm really looking forward to "The Martian" next year, having read the fantastic book. No sci-fi there, everything in it is possible, or could be in 30-40 years (the timeframe of the book's story). Except for the sad fact that the one real fiction is we will never actually get there anytime in the foreseeable future based on funding priorities from way back when going to Mars was just 10 years away.... in 1975.

- George Gassaway
 
My brother, devout Sci-Fi fan that he is, saw Inception and told me some scenes were very very impressive visually, but at the conclusion he was asking himself, WTF was that all about.
And he isn't easily befuddled by movies.
Looking forward to viewing it.
My favorite (only favorite) Adult Swim show had a great parody of Inception's highly convoluted nature. A tiny segment from it:

RICK AND MORTY
DREAM CATCHERS

https://www.adultswim.com/videos/rick-and-morty/dream-catchers/

Really looking forward to season 2. A fairly clever and funny show. Probably still available on Comcast via search.
 
And definitely don't read "15 maddening 'Interstellar' plot holes" or "21 Things in Interstellar That Don’t Make Sense." I haven't, so I don't know if a burning green corn complaint is among them.

Forget about the science, this movie's plot is like Swiss Cheese. Your web articles mention 15 and 21 things, our local club forum is adding a few more. Compare how bad Interstellar is to 2001 and you will see the difference in film making skill. But still go see Interstellar at IMAX, it is still much better than 99% of the Hollywood rubbish out there. Think about the science, not the plot, and be sure to suspend reality on the setting.
 
Forget about the science, this movie's plot is like Swiss Cheese. Your web articles mention 15 and 21 things, our local club forum is adding a few more. Compare how bad Interstellar is to 2001 and you will see the difference in film making skill. But still go see Interstellar at IMAX, it is still much better than 99% of the Hollywood rubbish out there. Think about the science, not the plot, and be sure to suspend reality on the setting.
Yeah, they were pretty impeccable with 2001's accuracy. I'll definitely see Interstellar just for the experience. Gotta' be far better than Gravity which I had high hopes for, but turning out to be a Vegas Cirque du Soleil in space.
 
Neil deGrasse Tyson's review and tweets here:

https://deadline.com/2014/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-interstellar-twitter-comments-1201280567/

Don't check it unless you've seen it.

Pretty much says the science is OK but considers other parts to be science fiction.

I'm really looking forward to "The Martian" next year, having read the fantastic book. No sci-fi there, everything in it is possible, or could be in 30-40 years (the timeframe of the book's story). Except for the sad fact that the one real fiction is we will never actually get there anytime in the foreseeable future based on funding priorities from way back when going to Mars was just 10 years away.... in 1975.

- George Gassaway

I have to say that I and many others do not consider "science fiction" to mean "fictional science".

Even with the science in The Martian being quite accurate, the novel is still science fiction. It is a great example of hard science fiction.

If a work has a lot of imaginary science made up to further the story, or the plot if it has one, plot, I have always considered it to be science fantasy....:)
 
Forget about the science, this movie's plot is like Swiss Cheese. Your web articles mention 15 and 21 things, our local club forum is adding a few more. Compare how bad Interstellar is to 2001 and you will see the difference in film making skill. But still go see Interstellar at IMAX, it is still much better than 99% of the Hollywood rubbish out there. Think about the science, not the plot, and be sure to suspend reality on the setting.

Well, you of course are comparing Interstellar to the high water mark in Sci-Fi, but I see your point.
There are more than handful of things I would've done differently, one of which was to get rid of excess expository dialogue...(ie. a top notch astronaut embarking on this mission doesn't need the folded paper explanation of how a wormhole works, .....that was obviously for the movie audience)

I would mention that the online "Plotholes" review of the movie also got a lot of flack from folks that thought the film contained 95% of the answers in the movie....that is....if you look for them.
Well, maybe, maybe not.

I had a question on my "nit" list....and I haven't seen it posted anywhere.....and here it is: (stay calm.....it IS NOT a spoiler)

If it took a big Saturn 1 type rocket to get them started on the mission and off earth's gravity (earth's gravity being 100% or 1 G), how come they lifted off the planet that was 1.3 G of earth with a tiny single stage to orbit ship? Why couldn't they have started the mission with that ship? Pretty efficient .

I had that same question about the Star Wars movies BTW.
 
Forget about the science, this movie's plot is like Swiss Cheese. Compare how bad Interstellar is to 2001 and you will see the difference in film making skill.

Thought I would add this review, ..........just some food for thought:

Is a work of art possible if “pseudoscience” and the technology of movie making become more important to the artist than the audience?
This is the central failure of this movie.
This director, with his expensive centrifuge, in love with gigantic hardware and control panels, is the Belasco of science fiction.
The “grand plan” that justifies slaughter and ends with “resurrection” has been around before , the story line accounting for evolution by an exterior intelligence is probably the most
gloriously redundant plot of all time. Although the intentions may have been different, this movie celebrates the end of man.
It is monumentally an unimaginative movie.


This review came out in 1968...you guessed it,.....it was after the premier of "2001".
 
Last edited:
Can't we just go to the movies anymore without dissecting them to pieces? You guys sound like you have it under a microscope looking for all of the flaws! That's really upside down to being entertained....yes or no? THIS IS HOLLYWOOD! They don't always go by the book. In fact, have they EVER? When you went to Disney World, did you critique the Peter Pan ride the same way? It gave you the impression you were flying above the town, even though you weren't. Have fun with the moment. There's no fun in cutting entertainment to the bone! DAMN!
 
Can't we just go to the movies anymore without dissecting them to pieces? You guys sound like you have it under a microscope looking for all of the flaws! That's really upside down to being entertained....yes or no? THIS IS HOLLYWOOD! They don't always go by the book. In fact, have they EVER? When you went to Disney World, did you critique the Peter Pan ride the same way? It gave you the impression you were flying above the town, even though you weren't. Have fun with the moment. There's no fun in cutting entertainment to the bone! DAMN!

Just keeping the discussion lively.
I went to be entertained and I was...
The questions came up after looking at various conversations online.
Criticisms on this forum are fairly mild...on various other forums the heated argument is hotter than a black hole.
Such a ground swell of criticism out there ........leads me to believe some people really have it in for Nolan.
I got no dog in the fight...I had never seen a Nolan film until last week.

And after all, as you say, it IS only a movie.
More than that...it is a science fiction movie! ............;) LOL
You'd think it was documentary the way some people are talking.
 
Last edited:
Just keeping the discussion lively.
I went to be entertained and I was...
The questions came up after looking at various conversations online.
Criticisms on this forum are fairly mild...on various other forums the heated argument is hotter than a black hole.
Such a ground swell of criticism out there ........leads me to believe some people really have it in for Nolan.
I got no dog in the fight...I had never seen a Nolan film until last week.

And after all, as you say, it IS only a movie.
More than that...it is a science fiction movie! ............;) LOL
You'd think it was documentary the way some people are talking.

Yeah, I know. It just jerks a nerve when some movies get shredded. Just like NOAH. NOAH was not a religious movie, although all the bible thumpers thought it should have been. He was a man of faith, that heard the word of instructions, and built an ark. There was no sanctioned religion in those days. It still got bad reviews in the religious society though. NOAH was a bit of a short story really. Hollywood embellished on possible scenarios regarding parts not written. I give them some credit on said embellishment. Bottom line, if you wanna be entertained, leave the microscope at home.
 
Yeah, I know. It just jerks a nerve when some movies get shredded. Just like NOAH. NOAH was not a religious movie, although all the bible thumpers thought it should have been. He was a man of faith, that heard the word of instructions, and built an ark. There was no sanctioned religion in those days. It still got bad reviews in the religious society though. NOAH was a bit of a short story really. Hollywood embellished on possible scenarios regarding parts not written. I give them some credit on said embellishment. Bottom line, if you wanna be entertained, leave the microscope at home.

I think you have the analogy exactly right. The "Bible thumpers" to which you refer are really do different than the Science Fiction or otherwise geek purists who complain that the movie wasn't exactly like the book. If it bothers you, don't go. I still haven't decided whether seeing the Hobbit turned into three movies is worth watching. There just isn't enough book to support it. I know it's my issue, but the book is such a favorite, that I'm still on the fence.

And, for the record, I can't recall the last time I sat in a real movie theater except that it was probably when my (now) high school age children were still in booster seats.
 
I actually knew a lot about the story before I saw the movie, and what I knew kind of disappointed me as to the direction it might lead. Well, I was actually very pleased with how they made it work, I enjoyed it a lot and would recommend it and see it again. I can see a LOT of influence from "2001: A Space Odyssey" in this film. I loved that movie, so naturally I liked this one.

What I was hoping for was a movie that centered more on the SCIENCE and less on the FICTION.
 
Good. It has been an extremely long time since a decent Sci-Fi movie was produced.

You gravely mistaken!!! There have been two star trek picture out in the last 5 years. Yes, I did see Interstellar. It was good but of course it was no "Star Trek." Hands down all sci-fi movies try to copy the success that star trek has had. A wagon train to the stars. That is why I love star trek to the extent that I do. It is our future, its our galaxy. Its us in 200-300 years. Some of the technologies in start trek are technologies in there infancy for us now. What I am trying to get at is yes star trek is scif-fi, but its very believeable to us. Its not like damn star wars....in a galaxy far far away. C'mon. My problem with it was Earth was dieing. The idea was to repopulate the species on another planet. If they had the technology to find a worm hole and travel through it wouldn't you think they had the technology to build a replicator similar to star trek. Where they could replicate things like food???
 
Well, you of course are comparing Interstellar to the high water mark in Sci-Fi, but I see your point.
There are more than handful of things I would've done differently, one of which was to get rid of excess expository dialogue...(ie. a top notch astronaut embarking on this mission doesn't need the folded paper explanation of how a wormhole works, .....that was obviously for the movie audience)

I would mention that the online "Plotholes" review of the movie also got a lot of flack from folks that thought the film contained 95% of the answers in the movie....that is....if you look for them.
Well, maybe, maybe not.

I had a question on my "nit" list....and I haven't seen it posted anywhere.....and here it is: (stay calm.....it IS NOT a spoiler)

If it took a big Saturn 1 type rocket to get them started on the mission and off earth's gravity (earth's gravity being 100% or 1 G), how come they lifted off the planet that was 1.3 G of earth with a tiny single stage to orbit ship? Why couldn't they have started the mission with that ship? Pretty efficient .

I had that same question about the Star Wars movies BTW.

I agree about 95% of it is explained/inferred from the film, but the average Joe like myself needs to see it twice. The other 5% doesn't make sense, but there are some explanations that can be made to fill in those holes as well. It was good to get the old rocket guys out of the house and they actually all found the right IMAX theater. They all had a really good time and some even got caught up in the emotional aspects of the film. But then reality sets in and they all have a good old time nit picking the science, At least it gives them something else to talk about than the usual nit picking of igniters, motors, TLP kits and oddrocs at the launch. Now all that is left is the conversation about how hot Anne Hathaway is in the pantheon of Sci-Fi chicks.

Anne Hathaway.jpg
 
You could also do a drinking game. One shot for every 2001 homage you see in the film. You would be pretty trashed at the end of this three hour film.

P,S, To include Field of Dreams in the game would require the use of near beer shots.
 
Last edited:
It has been an extremely long time since a decent Sci-Fi movie was produced.

You gravely mistaken!!! There have been two star trek picture out in the last 5 years.

He said GOOD.

The new "re-imagined" ST movies are EXTREME over-the-top special effects at the expense of plot and good writing.

And the worst offense was the first one destroying the planet Vulcan. Thereby destroying the Star Trek Universe as we knew it.

- George Gassaway
 
Last edited:
OH MY GOD! I just went to see "Interstellar" in the theatre. First time I actually went out to a big-screen theater in years in fact. And what an experience! I gotta say, I walked out of there thinking, "THAT was just...................






just........................







alright, I suppose."





Sure, SOME of the science was better done than most "films" these days, and the story/acting/visuals/etc. were fine enough,
but was it spectacular?, something really special/extraordinary?, a "game-changer"? Did it "blow me away?"

hardly.

I'm not sorry I saw it, and I enjoyed myself enough that it was a fun evening, but honestly I wasn't all that impressed.
go figure,
s6
 
OH MY GOD! I just went to see "Interstellar" in the theatre. First time I actually went out to a big-screen theater in years in fact. And what an experience! I gotta say, I walked out of there thinking, "THAT was just...................






just........................







alright, I suppose."





Sure, SOME of the science was better done than most "films" these days, and the story/acting/visuals/etc. were fine enough,
but was it spectacular?, something really special/extraordinary?, a "game-changer"? Did it "blow me away?"

hardly.

I'm not sorry I saw it, and I enjoyed myself enough that it was a fun evening, but honestly I wasn't all that impressed.
go figure,
s6

Exactly my impression.
 
Ironic you should mention that Gary.
I needed to take a leak half way through the movie but there was so much going on in the dialogue at critical parts (they ladled on the scientific stuff pretty heavy) - I couldn't find a slow part to get out of my seat and leave.....didn't want to miss something.

www.runpee.com -- lists available 'break times' for movies. Dunno if it has Interstellar covered yet tho. Has mobile app.
 
I was fortunate to see 2001 at the theatre it premiered, a week after it premiered in 1968...

Little bit of nostalgia for the kids here... Movies didn't open 'nationwide' in the '60's. Relatively few prints were made and they 'traveled' from city to city. 2001 didn't open here until May, 1969.
 
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top