P.S. Anybody else find it weird that those little shuttle things can escape orbit but needed classic Saturn 5 looking rockets to launch them to the Endurance?
No, I figured that one out. They don't use nuclear energy, not even fusion, on Earth. Taking off with a working nuke plant is a big no-no. Once away from earth, you can use neat stuff like lantern drives etc. to get around. Sure, it'll fuck everyplace you visit up slightly, but then what's a bit of radiation on an entire planet, if the only ones there are astronauts in suits?
AFAIK currently there's already legislating covering nuclear power sources in space. From the worldbuilding you can only assume that was tightened...
P.S. Anybody else find it weird that those little shuttle things can escape orbit but needed classic Saturn 5 looking rockets to launch them to the Endurance?
It's all about fuel consumption.
The rangers carry enough fuel to get down to a planet, fly around for a bit, then take off and get back to the Endurance, which presumably has a fuel reserve to refill them. Logically, it's leaving the planets that would take the largest chunk of fuel, since you're fighting gravity the entire way. Moving around in open space is mostly course corrections.
When you're launching a mission for literally all the stakes, you want to save every bit of fuel you can for as long as you can. So you launch the ranger (and presumably all the other parts of the ship) in a way that won't cost it a chunk of its fuel reserve. Depending on the distances and time involved, that may be an extra planet you can check.
klemming on
Nobody remembers the singer. The song remains.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, for a movie about saving the world, they sure did limit everything on earth to the little town of Bumfucknowhere in Whocaresistan.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
Also, for a movie about saving the world, they sure did limit everything on earth to the little town of Bumfucknowhere in Whocaresistan.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
Because it was principally a movie about the wonder of space travel and not about the nuance of post-apocalyptic corn farming.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
+14
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Also, for a movie about saving the world, they sure did limit everything on earth to the little town of Bumfucknowhere in Whocaresistan.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
Because it was principally a movie about the wonder of space travel and not about the nuance of post-apocalyptic corn farming.
Then he shouldn't be satisfied with half-assed storytelling if it's not the story he wants to tell.
I just crafted a really long response to Atomika regarding science in spec fic, and the forums ate it. So here is the much shorter version:
There are finite resources available when making a movie, and creating a 100% accurate and consistent background for a sci-fi story is generally literally impossible. So you gloss over some things and hope enough people don't notice or don't care. If only a tiny minority of people give a shit about a given inaccuracy, you succeeded.
Now, you keep harping on how the ag science in this movie was bad and stupid and terrible. While it may have been something that pulled you, specifically, out of the movie, the goal of a film is not to make you, Atomika, happy. Since almost nobody seems to give a shit, Nolan probably made the right call here.
It would be nice if every single bit of the ag science background here was super accurate, but since movies do not have budgets of infinity dollars or schedules that are infinity months long, handwaving away some bullshit science was the right call, even if it meant a small number of people would get angry about it on the internet.
See also: literally every successful big budget sci-fi movie ever made.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The focus of the story seemed to be the wonder of the situations they were in. From driving through cornfields, the rays of sunshine in the dust giving him the coordinates to NASA, the robot spotlights through the truck's windows, wormhole travel, to the image of the black hole this really felt like a Spielberg movie. Nothing in space really felt fully fleshed out, and the time spent on Earth was all about establishing the emotional stakes for each character.
With the way the movie skipped over time during the second half, it almost felt like a JJ Abrams joint. You never really got a feel for the scale of the other solar system. Their trip between planets and around the black hole all probably involved a stretch in hibernation that isn't shown on screen. I think its a credit to the script that it even feels remotely grounded in real science when this is really a journey focused on emotion.
Its a family drama, but Dad goes on a 90 year space journey instead of a business trip. Unlike a quirky Tim Allen movie from the 90's, the lesson isn't about focusing less on work and taking care of your family. Its that sometimes sacrifices have to be made, there are consequences you have to live with, and that doesn't mean you stop loving the people you left behind.
I just crafted a really long response to Atomika regarding science in spec fic, and the forums ate it. So here is the much shorter version:
There are finite resources available when making a movie, and creating a 100% accurate and consistent background for a sci-fi story is generally literally impossible. So you gloss over some things and hope enough people don't notice or don't care. If only a tiny minority of people give a shit about a given inaccuracy, you succeeded.
Now, you keep harping on how the ag science in this movie was bad and stupid and terrible. While it may have been something that pulled you, specifically, out of the movie, the goal of a film is not to make you, Atomika, happy. Since almost nobody seems to give a shit, Nolan probably made the right call here.
It would be nice if every single bit of the ag science background here was super accurate, but since movies do not have budgets of infinity dollars or schedules that are infinity months long, handwaving away some bullshit science was the right call, even if it meant a small number of people would get angry about it on the internet.
See also: literally every successful big budget sci-fi movie ever made.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
It's a story about a man and his family. You're told there's been a global catastrophe and are shown the nasty local effects of those events on the family. That's enough for the story. Showing identical stuff happening in China adds nothing to the movie. I do wonder though if the companion book better explains the science of the blight.
But to paraphrase the movie, you're supposed to be wondering about our place in the stars, not worrying about our place in the dirt.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
I just crafted a really long response to Atomika regarding science in spec fic, and the forums ate it. So here is the much shorter version:
There are finite resources available when making a movie, and creating a 100% accurate and consistent background for a sci-fi story is generally literally impossible. So you gloss over some things and hope enough people don't notice or don't care. If only a tiny minority of people give a shit about a given inaccuracy, you succeeded.
Now, you keep harping on how the ag science in this movie was bad and stupid and terrible. While it may have been something that pulled you, specifically, out of the movie, the goal of a film is not to make you, Atomika, happy. Since almost nobody seems to give a shit, Nolan probably made the right call here.
It would be nice if every single bit of the ag science background here was super accurate, but since movies do not have budgets of infinity dollars or schedules that are infinity months long, handwaving away some bullshit science was the right call, even if it meant a small number of people would get angry about it on the internet.
See also: literally every successful big budget sci-fi movie ever made.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think your perception of how "angry" I am in this context is way off.
I just thought the inconsistency was lazy, and stood in contrast to the diligence paid to the science of space travel. It didn't ruin the movie for me. I actually thought the movie was pretty okay, albeit disappointingly underwritten and lacking the human warmth that the entire film was ostensibly predicated upon. But I expected better of Nolan, because he's done better.
I just crafted a really long response to Atomika regarding science in spec fic, and the forums ate it. So here is the much shorter version:
There are finite resources available when making a movie, and creating a 100% accurate and consistent background for a sci-fi story is generally literally impossible. So you gloss over some things and hope enough people don't notice or don't care. If only a tiny minority of people give a shit about a given inaccuracy, you succeeded.
Now, you keep harping on how the ag science in this movie was bad and stupid and terrible. While it may have been something that pulled you, specifically, out of the movie, the goal of a film is not to make you, Atomika, happy. Since almost nobody seems to give a shit, Nolan probably made the right call here.
It would be nice if every single bit of the ag science background here was super accurate, but since movies do not have budgets of infinity dollars or schedules that are infinity months long, handwaving away some bullshit science was the right call, even if it meant a small number of people would get angry about it on the internet.
See also: literally every successful big budget sci-fi movie ever made.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think your perception of how "angry" I am in this context is way off.
I just thought the inconsistency was lazy, and stood in contrast to the diligence paid to the science of space travel. It didn't ruin the movie for me. I actually thought the movie was pretty okay, albeit disappointingly underwritten and lacking the human warmth that the entire film was ostensibly predicated upon. But I expected better of Nolan, because he's done better.
Ah, okay. I guess I misread your overall opinion.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think any further exposition on the Blight would have only made it obvious that there's no feasible way for that whole thing to happen. It's like the "red matter" from the Star Trek reboot--the more you try to explain it, the dumber it's going to sound.
I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
Yes. Thank you. That was my main problem. And it's why I started to visibly shake at this quote:
"Love is the one thing that transcends time and space."
- Brand
No. Just no. You've attempted to provide a realistic portrayal of multi-dimensional travel through wormholes, engaged the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation, and shoehorned a version of inter-dimensional time travel into the mix. What the shit is this folk psychology doing in your movie?
I'll give you a bit of artistic license with your relativistic spacetime physics.
Because the person saying it wasn't a trained psychologist and surprise! people sometimes have opinions not supported by evidence outside their fields.
Also the other characters called her on that immediately after. She happened to be right, but that involved 5th dimensional being cheating.
Him watching the recordings he received after the 23 Earth years on the water planet was the most effective feelings-oriented part of the movie. I kind of wish it had stopped there on the emotional manipulation point.
That line was probably the low point in a good movie.
If they needed someone for a foreshadowing rant, I think it would have worked better for Rom to be the one in love, since he spent so much time alone by that point. Lots of time to philosophize.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Also, for a movie about saving the world, they sure did limit everything on earth to the little town of Bumfucknowhere in Whocaresistan.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
For me, I can grudingly accept the corn stuff, but it's the Tesseract/Wormhole/Stargates that bother me. In odd way, it's the attempt to explain. Take the Monoliths in 2001. They don't technobabble them, they don't explain their origins, they don't know jack shit about them. So when they start doing wild stuff, it seems less jarring then, say, a black hole having a survivable interior where causality both exists and does not exist.
Also, for a movie about saving the world, they sure did limit everything on earth to the little town of Bumfucknowhere in Whocaresistan.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
For me, I can grudingly accept the corn stuff, but it's the Tesseract/Wormhole/Stargates that bother me. In odd way, it's the attempt to explain. Take the Monoliths in 2001. They don't technobabble them, they don't explain their origins, they don't know jack shit about them. So when they start doing wild stuff, it seems less jarring then, say, a black hole having a survivable interior where causality both exists and does not exist.
The area beyond the event horizon of that black hole would be survivable, because the black hole is 100 million solar masses (25 times larger than the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way) or something, and so the event horizon is very far from the singularity. Also it's rotating ridiculously fast which would contribute something I don't really understand. The causality fuckery is there because it was put there by Crazy Future Technology and had to be there because being hidden by an event horizon allows it to exist, which is maybe silly but BLACK HOLES ARE MYSTERIOUS WOOOOOOOO.
Okay, I'm trying to remember my physics, and gravity, regardless of spin, would be so immense as to be survivable, I'd think. Like, your heart would be unable to pump blood due to the blood being pulled by the gravity of the black hole. I mean, if you can pass out from just a handful of G getting pulled on you in a jet, then what the fuck would that thing do?
Okay, I'm trying to remember my physics, and gravity, regardless of spin, would be so immense as to be survivable, I'd think. Like, your heart would be unable to pump blood due to the blood being pulled by the gravity of the black hole. I mean, if you can pass out from just a handful of G getting pulled on you in a jet, then what the fuck would that thing do?
Gs are caused by the sudden change in acceleration not the effect of velocity. A slow moving jet pulling off a Cobra maneuver will cause the pilot to experience massive Gs (both possitive and far more difficult to endure negative)and may pass out. If the same jet is cruising at Mach 2 the pilot will not feel anything.
The thing that normally gets you with a black hole is the tidal forces as you approach the singularity. Basically, the variation in gravity between your head and your feet. In a normal black hole, tidal forces are immense near the event horizon. In a big enough black hole, though - like this one - the tidal forces don't become dangerous until well past the event horizon.
The only distinction of the event horizon is that once they passed it, they couldn't go back. You cross that line, you're going into the singularity one way or another.
The science on that part, at least, was pretty accurate. Past that, it was all magic, though.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
The thing that normally gets you with a black hole is the tidal forces as you approach the singularity. Basically, the variation in gravity between your head and your feet. In a normal black hole, tidal forces are immense near the event horizon. In a big enough black hole, though - like this one - the tidal forces don't become dangerous until well past the event horizon.
The only distinction of the event horizon is that once they passed it, they couldn't go back. You cross that line, you're going into the singularity one way or another.
The science on that part, at least, was pretty accurate. Past that, it was all magic, though.
One thing to remember is that gravity in low earth orbit is actually pretty much the same as gravity at the surface of the Earth - it's orbital velocity which keeps you flying above it. You can orbit a black hole of any size just the same way you orbit a planet - provided you have sufficient velocity.
Here's a short version:
This is a spinning black hole. This means a fuck load of things are different about it and a non spinning singularity, namely that there is an Ergosphere which is a secondary event horizon that is much further from the gravity well of the center, meaning that it wouldn't have the same sharp change in forces as you'd enter it. It also picks up matter and spins it around at speeds exceeding the relative speed of light outside of it.
This is cool because it's an event horizon that matter can escape by picking up a black hole's energy.
I think one of the movie's flaws is that it was scientifically accurate for the specific fringe conditions that it portrayed, but came off as inaccurate to a lot of the film's core audience. Reasonably educated people - and I was one of them - watch the movie and think that they bullshited a lot of the science, because those people are familiar with non rotating black holes, which are a whole different beast.
The film could've used a couple of lines of audience insert, to the effect of, "wait, won't tidal forces rip us apart if we try to cross the event horizon?" "With a traditional black hole, yes, but..."
A bunch of super accurate physics doesn't do you much good if your audience thinks you're making it up as they watch it.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think they said exactly that in the movie, so it mainly falls on the prejudices of the audience. Some will just go with it, some will be inspired to look up the facts and some will reject it based on their preconceptions.
I think one of the movie's flaws is that it was scientifically accurate for the specific fringe conditions that it portrayed, but came off as inaccurate to a lot of the film's core audience. Reasonably educated people - and I was one of them - watch the movie and think that they bullshited a lot of the science, because those people are familiar with non rotating black holes, which are a whole different beast.
The film could've used a couple of lines of audience insert, to the effect of, "wait, won't tidal forces rip us apart if we try to cross the event horizon?" "With a traditional black hole, yes, but..."
A bunch of super accurate physics doesn't do you much good if your audience thinks you're making it up as they watch it.
Here is how writing spec fic often works, speaking as someone who writes spec fic:
Okay, I have my cool idea for a premise: everyone on earth is dying and needs to escape. Blah blah, black holes and stuff, interstellar travel, time dilation, blah blah, this is great stuff.
Let's see, need a reason for all the people to be dying... hmm... how about all the crops are failing, cool, done. Works great, since it's easy to communicate that in ten minutes so we can move onto all the cool black hole stuff.
Wait, shit, the food thing implies X. Now I need to explain X. Okay, fine, X happens because Y. Wait, dammit, if that happens, though, it means Z. Fine, add in a scene to summarize X, Y and Z.
Crap, that means Q has to happen, or else Y doesn't make sense, except Q contradicts Z. Guess I have to add a scene with P, that should do it. But now why is the protagonist doing R? Q means he should want to do S, so I need a scene establishing T, because then he'll want to U, and then I just have to mention V and W and goddammit the first act of my movie is now 163 minutes long fuck it it's a magic blight that kills everything because fuck you, that's why.
The blight worked fine to establish that people were screwed unless Cooper became a secret astronaut and flew to another galaxy.
It probably would have been best to just make the cause of the cataclysm unrevealed. Sort of like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.
Here is how writing spec fic often works, speaking as someone who writes spec fic:
Okay, I have my cool idea for a premise: everyone on earth is dying and needs to escape. Blah blah, black holes and stuff, interstellar travel, time dilation, blah blah, this is great stuff.
Let's see, need a reason for all the people to be dying... hmm... how about all the crops are failing, cool, done. Works great, since it's easy to communicate that in ten minutes so we can move onto all the cool black hole stuff.
Wait, shit, the food thing implies X. Now I need to explain X. Okay, fine, X happens because Y. Wait, dammit, if that happens, though, it means Z. Fine, add in a scene to summarize X, Y and Z.
Crap, that means Q has to happen, or else Y doesn't make sense, except Q contradicts Z. Guess I have to add a scene with P, that should do it. But now why is the protagonist doing R? Q means he should want to do S, so I need a scene establishing T, because then he'll want to U, and then I just have to mention V and W and goddammit the first act of my movie is now 163 minutes long fuck it it's a magic blight that kills everything because fuck you, that's why.
The blight worked fine to establish that people were screwed unless Cooper became a secret astronaut and flew to another galaxy.
It probably would have been best to just make the cause of the cataclysm unrevealed. Sort of like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.
This is why good writers do not utilized detailed MacGuffins.
In Kip’s writing I found the question of whether a singularity, the heart of a black hole, is always hidden, or whether you can have what’s called a naked singularity. If we knew what was going on in there we would understand a lot more about how to reconcile quantum physics with larger physics. I grabbed that like a magpie. It’s one of the greatest mysteries in the universe. The gravity thing, it wasn’t a question of us intuiting it. It was all the discussions that Jonah had with Kip.
He found some things he liked, and then smashed them together, mostly haphazardly.
Posts
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
AFAIK currently there's already legislating covering nuclear power sources in space. From the worldbuilding you can only assume that was tightened...
It's all about fuel consumption.
The rangers carry enough fuel to get down to a planet, fly around for a bit, then take off and get back to the Endurance, which presumably has a fuel reserve to refill them. Logically, it's leaving the planets that would take the largest chunk of fuel, since you're fighting gravity the entire way. Moving around in open space is mostly course corrections.
When you're launching a mission for literally all the stakes, you want to save every bit of fuel you can for as long as you can. So you launch the ranger (and presumably all the other parts of the ship) in a way that won't cost it a chunk of its fuel reserve. Depending on the distances and time involved, that may be an extra planet you can check.
I was thinking about that just today, and how despite the movie's depiction of the grandeur of space, it didn't even really attempt to convey the level of global calamity that had occurred.
There's so many plot points in this film that were underdeveloped in service of telling the story at hand, but the throughline of that story was kinda just meh . . . hoary and schmaltzy. I'm struggling to figure out why Nolan wanted the science of space travel to be portrayed so exactingly realistically if he was just going to handwave and ignore the rest of the science that the film's plot was driven by.
Say what you will about the final mixing, this is still cool as hell.
Because it was principally a movie about the wonder of space travel and not about the nuance of post-apocalyptic corn farming.
Then he shouldn't be satisfied with half-assed storytelling if it's not the story he wants to tell.
They plant stuff! Then it grows!... sometimes.
There are finite resources available when making a movie, and creating a 100% accurate and consistent background for a sci-fi story is generally literally impossible. So you gloss over some things and hope enough people don't notice or don't care. If only a tiny minority of people give a shit about a given inaccuracy, you succeeded.
Now, you keep harping on how the ag science in this movie was bad and stupid and terrible. While it may have been something that pulled you, specifically, out of the movie, the goal of a film is not to make you, Atomika, happy. Since almost nobody seems to give a shit, Nolan probably made the right call here.
It would be nice if every single bit of the ag science background here was super accurate, but since movies do not have budgets of infinity dollars or schedules that are infinity months long, handwaving away some bullshit science was the right call, even if it meant a small number of people would get angry about it on the internet.
See also: literally every successful big budget sci-fi movie ever made.
With the way the movie skipped over time during the second half, it almost felt like a JJ Abrams joint. You never really got a feel for the scale of the other solar system. Their trip between planets and around the black hole all probably involved a stretch in hibernation that isn't shown on screen. I think its a credit to the script that it even feels remotely grounded in real science when this is really a journey focused on emotion.
Its a family drama, but Dad goes on a 90 year space journey instead of a business trip. Unlike a quirky Tim Allen movie from the 90's, the lesson isn't about focusing less on work and taking care of your family. Its that sometimes sacrifices have to be made, there are consequences you have to live with, and that doesn't mean you stop loving the people you left behind.
It's a story about a man and his family. You're told there's been a global catastrophe and are shown the nasty local effects of those events on the family. That's enough for the story. Showing identical stuff happening in China adds nothing to the movie. I do wonder though if the companion book better explains the science of the blight.
But to paraphrase the movie, you're supposed to be wondering about our place in the stars, not worrying about our place in the dirt.
I'm inclined to agree with you, but I think your perception of how "angry" I am in this context is way off.
I just thought the inconsistency was lazy, and stood in contrast to the diligence paid to the science of space travel. It didn't ruin the movie for me. I actually thought the movie was pretty okay, albeit disappointingly underwritten and lacking the human warmth that the entire film was ostensibly predicated upon. But I expected better of Nolan, because he's done better.
Ah, okay. I guess I misread your overall opinion.
Yes. Thank you. That was my main problem. And it's why I started to visibly shake at this quote:
"Love is the one thing that transcends time and space."
- Brand
No. Just no. You've attempted to provide a realistic portrayal of multi-dimensional travel through wormholes, engaged the phenomenon of gravitational time dilation, and shoehorned a version of inter-dimensional time travel into the mix. What the shit is this folk psychology doing in your movie?
I'll give you a bit of artistic license with your relativistic spacetime physics.
But, no.
Dopamine does not transcend time and space.
Also the other characters called her on that immediately after. She happened to be right, but that involved 5th dimensional being cheating.
It was the most irritating point. The low point was
Early: "There is no evil in space. There is only the evil we take with us."
Later: Hi, Dr. Man. Oh, you're evil? Dr. Man brought evil into space? The evil in space was brought by Man, PhD.?
Subtle.
Inquisitor77: Rius, you are Sisyphus and melee Wizard is your boulder
Tube: This must be what it felt like to be an Iraqi when Saddam was killed
Bookish Stickers - Mrs. Rius' Etsy shop with bumper stickers and vinyl decals.
Ooooh. I missed that.
Now I understand the symbolism.
If they needed someone for a foreshadowing rant, I think it would have worked better for Rom to be the one in love, since he spent so much time alone by that point. Lots of time to philosophize.
For me, I can grudingly accept the corn stuff, but it's the Tesseract/Wormhole/Stargates that bother me. In odd way, it's the attempt to explain. Take the Monoliths in 2001. They don't technobabble them, they don't explain their origins, they don't know jack shit about them. So when they start doing wild stuff, it seems less jarring then, say, a black hole having a survivable interior where causality both exists and does not exist.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
The area beyond the event horizon of that black hole would be survivable, because the black hole is 100 million solar masses (25 times larger than the supermassive black hole at the center of the Milky Way) or something, and so the event horizon is very far from the singularity. Also it's rotating ridiculously fast which would contribute something I don't really understand. The causality fuckery is there because it was put there by Crazy Future Technology and had to be there because being hidden by an event horizon allows it to exist, which is maybe silly but BLACK HOLES ARE MYSTERIOUS WOOOOOOOO.
Shitty Tumblr:lighthouse1138.tumblr.com
Gs are caused by the sudden change in acceleration not the effect of velocity. A slow moving jet pulling off a Cobra maneuver will cause the pilot to experience massive Gs (both possitive and far more difficult to endure negative)and may pass out. If the same jet is cruising at Mach 2 the pilot will not feel anything.
The only distinction of the event horizon is that once they passed it, they couldn't go back. You cross that line, you're going into the singularity one way or another.
The science on that part, at least, was pretty accurate. Past that, it was all magic, though.
One thing to remember is that gravity in low earth orbit is actually pretty much the same as gravity at the surface of the Earth - it's orbital velocity which keeps you flying above it. You can orbit a black hole of any size just the same way you orbit a planet - provided you have sufficient velocity.
Here's a short version:
This is a spinning black hole. This means a fuck load of things are different about it and a non spinning singularity, namely that there is an Ergosphere which is a secondary event horizon that is much further from the gravity well of the center, meaning that it wouldn't have the same sharp change in forces as you'd enter it. It also picks up matter and spins it around at speeds exceeding the relative speed of light outside of it.
This is cool because it's an event horizon that matter can escape by picking up a black hole's energy.
The film could've used a couple of lines of audience insert, to the effect of, "wait, won't tidal forces rip us apart if we try to cross the event horizon?" "With a traditional black hole, yes, but..."
A bunch of super accurate physics doesn't do you much good if your audience thinks you're making it up as they watch it.
"A little knowledge is a dangerous thing."
Could you orbit a singularity from within an event horizon?
And I went and looked it up and APPARENTLY YOU CAN!
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/423608/planets-could-orbit-singularities-inside-black-holes/
Man there could actually be planets on the other side of an event horizon.
It probably would have been best to just make the cause of the cataclysm unrevealed. Sort of like the briefcase in Pulp Fiction.
This is why good writers do not utilized detailed MacGuffins.
Christopher Nolan is not a good writer.
Edit: He says as much when interviewed.
He found some things he liked, and then smashed them together, mostly haphazardly.
Like when you let a seven year old cook.