Interstellar (2014)
- Thread starter Fedor
- Start date
Joeboo
Molten Core Raider
- 8,157
- 140
Watched the Blu-Ray rip of this, first re-viewing since seeing it in an IMAX theater last year. Still a great movie. Not Nolans best(I still like Inception, Prestige, and Memento better) but it's still one of the best movies of last year, and one of the best Sci-Fi movies of the last several years. Is it an all-time great? No, probably not, but it's damn good. I'd probably put it on par with Contact, which I also really enjoy but I wouldn't classify as an all-time SciFi great.
Gavinmad
Mr. Poopybutthole
- 42,496
- 50,685
None of the science is accurate...because they took 100% accurate science and then fudged it so it would actually work for a movie. None of it is just strictly wrong like, say, the Enterprise drifting from the Moon to Earth in about 5 minutes at sub-light speed.
Jysin
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 6,278
- 4,035
People even remotely suggesting 100% real legit science have no idea what they are asking for. It would make for some god-awful Sci-Fi. Gravity first comes to mind.. it wasn't the best movie of all time but it was entertaining. Real version of events? Satellite debris hits the Shuttle, if the space walking astronauts somehow survived that, they then run out of oxygen and die, the end. Pretty fucking boring.
Interstellar? (Assuming the wormhole stuff is legit in the first place) TARS and McC get ripped to shreds in the black hole, Earth dies, Anne Hathaway is the sole survivor of humanity and the rest of the movie is watching her raise plan B's frozen space babies.
Lighten the fuck up negative Nancys.
Interstellar? (Assuming the wormhole stuff is legit in the first place) TARS and McC get ripped to shreds in the black hole, Earth dies, Anne Hathaway is the sole survivor of humanity and the rest of the movie is watching her raise plan B's frozen space babies.
Lighten the fuck up negative Nancys.
Lanx
<Prior Amod>
- 60,977
- 134,387
I think it's that they've been espousing that kip thorne is the scientific lead on this, so all the science is up and up.
"Kip Thorne, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists and experts on relativity, was an executive producer and consultant for the movie. And Neil DeGrasse Tyson has praised the flick for featuring scientific principles "as no other feature film has shown."
But in the end all it is, is a faith based sci-fi flick, love, what the shit?
The movie is trying to rope you in by saying it's 100% science based, we have this kip thorne bitch as a producer, it's all legit.
what's the main plot point of the story? oh, love conquers all.
"Kip Thorne, one of the world's leading theoretical physicists and experts on relativity, was an executive producer and consultant for the movie. And Neil DeGrasse Tyson has praised the flick for featuring scientific principles "as no other feature film has shown."
But in the end all it is, is a faith based sci-fi flick, love, what the shit?
The movie is trying to rope you in by saying it's 100% science based, we have this kip thorne bitch as a producer, it's all legit.
what's the main plot point of the story? oh, love conquers all.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,501
- 3,389
- 141
People seem to either love or hate it. For me, it's one of my favorite movies of all time.
No one has a problem with the science in the movie. The problem is the plot fucking blows.
I get lost in the argument that the "science fiction" isn't accurate enough. If the science was all accurate wouldn't it just be.....you know.....science. Science fiction takes what we know, makes several gigantic assumptions, and then tries to make those assumptions work into a compelling plot. Interstellar is compelling from a character standpoint. Where I get lost is the stupid chicken/egg thing. If you accept the fact that future human beings created the wormhole and the black hole thing that allowed him to see the new reality was also created by us........... Who did it the first time? The Looper thing I kinda understand, because humanity evolved to a point where time travel was invented, then everything went to shit with the timeline. But with Interstellar...... the earth was doomed and we didn't have the tech yet..... so how did we evolve to the point where we could go back in time and teach ourselves how to save ourselves?
I don't really let that bother me liking the movie....that's just a plot point I didn't get and it certainly didn't explain.
I don't really let that bother me liking the movie....that's just a plot point I didn't get and it certainly didn't explain.
- 3,389
- 141
This isn't it at all. "We" are 3 dimensional beings unable to comprehend the universe in the way "they" are. "They" are 5 dimensional beings that can manipulate spacetime. They and We all exist together. There is no linear timeline. This is what the whole ending of the movie is about, where we get to see a representation of how the universe really works that our 3 dimensional selves can understand: the tesseract.
There is no timeline that has to happen for our current selves to become future humans. Both of those things exist right now.
Ambiturner
Ssraeszha Raider
- 16,040
- 19,501
There also could have been a "Plan B" scenario that survived and evolved into the 5th dimensional beings.