The only thing that stands out as odd to me is the amount of time it takes to dry out the engines. The robot tells them 45 minutes. Coop then proceeds to bitch out Brand. We don't see a time skip, just here comes the next wave. The robot then says it's just a minute out and they blast dry the engines. We kind of lose half an hour there.
The only thing that stands out as odd to me is the amount of time it takes to dry out the engines. The robot tells them 45 minutes. Coop then proceeds to bitch out Brand. We don't see a time skip, just here comes the next wave. The robot then says it's just a minute out and they blast dry the engines. We kind of lose half an hour there.
Maybe he said 4-5 minutes. You can't tell what the hell is being said in a Nolan film unless there is pure silence elsewhere. And even then...
Yeah, I'm looking forward to being able to watch it with subtitles on once it releases on dvd/bluray. I caught most of the dialog during the initial launch (love Tars' jokes), but missed some stuff elsewhere.
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I would've liked a grainy, black title card with Time Passes... written on it, myself.
And the Saturn V was another bit that threw me. Seemed odd to need that to get out of Earth's gravity well, but not the gravity well of a planet with 30% higher gravity? Yes, you can come up with your own explanation involving fuel conservation, but I don't think I should have to do that much of the movie's work for it just to justify some basic logisitical elements.
Maybe they could've sent little fuel pods down with the lander, like mini Saturn Vs, or something.
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 only thing that stands out as odd to me is the amount of time it takes to dry out the engines. The robot tells them 45 minutes. Coop then proceeds to bitch out Brand. We don't see a time skip, just here comes the next wave. The robot then says it's just a minute out and they blast dry the engines. We kind of lose half an hour there.
Maybe he said 4-5 minutes. You can't tell what the hell is being said in a Nolan film unless there is pure silence elsewhere. And even then...
It had to be 45 minutes though. Didn't they end up losing 20+ years down there? Originally I thought they planned on 2-3 years with ~an hour mission time. I think they just decided to not do a skip forward for some reason.
So, overall I really liked it. I'm also a sucker for Nolan. I'll freely admit that. Still, this was probably one of his weaker efforts (if not the weakest, when I really think about it). But weak for Nolan is still pretty damn good.
I didn't mind all the love talk, save for Brand's monologue, which really did kind of come out of nowhere. Cooper's stuff about loving his family was fine. As was Damon's crazy "survival instincts" ramblings.
I guess I'll just cut to what I didn't like, because I liked pretty much everything else but this, but it's sizable issue: This even at almost 3 hours, this movie felt really overstuffed. Even more so than TDKR, which felt like it tried to cram 3 movies into one. Once they leave earth, things happen fast. That sounds like a good thing because again, we're talking about a 3 hour film here, and moving too slow can be a knell for a movie that long. But so much happens in rapid succession that the movie doesn't have time to properly breath, or more importantly, to even let certain scenes be properly suspenseful. We're on tidal wave planet then up against crazy Matt Damon then docking with a spinning space station then slingshotting around a black hole (and I may have honestly missed something). The part from ice planet up until Cooper enters the black hole happens especially rapidly. Like I don't think the movie slowed down at all during that time to reset what the stakes are. I was never confused or anything, but sometimes you've got to slow down and let a beat land.
+1
Options
MattitudePaste Pot PeteKicking The BucketRegistered Userregular
So, I saw this in IMAX today.
It was breathaking. The movie almost had a physical impact, the sheer scale and majesty of space was astounding.
I had no problem with sentiment over taking science. I think that's absolutely acceptable in service of storytelling. Even with the plot holes and the MY GOD IT'S FULL OF BOOKS tesseract, it's still harder Sci-Fi then we are used to seeing in a big Hollywood movie.
And wowee were the practical effects beautiful. There's a shooting model of one of the shuttles on display at the BFI IMAX where I saw it today. It's a wonderful, lovely, lovely thing.
I got this Tumblr and I don't know how to use it.
Decide on the next line by the rhyme when I choose it.
Also I put songs on YouTube
The musings of this lonely rube.
So, I think there's a bit of a plot hole at the end, right?
At the end, after Cooper is finished with the Tesseract/Black Hole, he "is found."
Did they say where he was found? They were orbiting Saturn, so I assume that the appeared in orbit somewhere near the wormhole, which was orbiting Saturn.
Anyway, so Cooper meets up with his kiddo, who tells him to go after Brand.
And then there's a cut to Brand back on the planet on the other side of the wormhole, and we're told that she's just now getting to sleep.
Wait a minute. Why would she just now be getting to sleep? Why didn't Murphy send more scouting runs through the Wormhole as soon as she found The Secret Formula?
(Ohh, as I'm typing this I'm wondering if I missed a critical detail --- Is that her planet orbits close to The Black Hole? And so time passes super slowly there. Something like a hundred years have passed on Earth, but only a couple months or years have passed for Brand?)
Almost.
Cooper's stroke of genius at the end of the movie was to slingshot the Endurance around the black hole very close to the accretion disk. At that proximity, both Brand and Cooper on board the Endurance experience severe time dilation.
Once Cooper is inside the black hole, we see parallel scenes of 30something Murphy back in her old bedroom, but those scenes aren't taking place concurrently with Cooper's timeline. Those events would have flashed by in a blink while Brand and Cooper were flying the crippled Endurance.
When Brand gets away from the accretion disk and over to Edmund's planet, Earth has progressed long past the events of 30something Murphy and her farmhouse epiphany.
For this to work, we have to presume that everything we see inside the black hole, after Cooper survives the event horizon, does not fit into any chronology, dilated or otherwise. If the movie were totally consistent with its logic, then time would get even more dilated as Cooper neared the event horizon, meaning that Brand would land, age, and die while Cooper is closing in alone on the black hole. So either that didn't happen, or the black hole ejected Cooper back in time. Either way, everything that happens after Cooper separates from the Endurance at the end is fantasy - we already have to suspend our disbelief that he could survive entering a black hole without being crushed to spaghetti anyway.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So, overall I really liked it. I'm also a sucker for Nolan. I'll freely admit that. Still, this was probably one of his weaker efforts (if not the weakest, when I really think about it). But weak for Nolan is still pretty damn good.
I didn't mind all the love talk, save for Brand's monologue, which really did kind of come out of nowhere.
Fuck, I forgot about that. "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space"... ugh.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
It was supposed to be something like a 100,000 solar mass black hole spinning at something close to light speed. Which was one of the reasons it's called Gargantua. So apparently with that spin you could theoretically survive the event horizon. Or at least that's what the science people I read about it said.
gemini also had people who could rescue the pilot in case he ejected.
floating down onto a hostile world while your up to 3 other passengers blew up, crashed or were immediately roasted by the ejection itself with no hope of survival or rescue seems a little cruel.
Yeah... And this craft is part of a three craft team with a mother ship to return to and each craft has an intelligent auto pilot for rescue missions.. So what's the problem?
There were two rangers, and at least two other landing craft that were obviously capable of most of the same stuff, so losing your ride and getting stranded on a planet or in space wouldn't be a certain death-sentence. Probable, sure, but the entire mission was about making the most of the slim chances they had.
Even if it was just the pilot, that's the only seat that'd be certain to be occupied. It's like some cars that only have a drivers airbag, as you can be pretty sure that there'll be someone in that seat if there's a collision.
Besides, I don't think they ever said that only the pilot had an ejection seat. It's the only one we saw used, but that was in the intro on Earth.
Which brings up the other point. The ranger was being used by Cooper in the intro dream/flashback, so it was clearly designed when they weren't yet planning on visiting other worlds (except maybe Mars?). When originally designing it, they'd have assumed that if it got into trouble during a descent/ascent, there was a better than 50% chance it'd be on Earth.
The only plot hole that bothered me was that in all that time, they never sent any other missions through the wormhole apparently. Couldn't they have set up colonies in the 70 years or something?
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Smaller is the wrong word. Lower in mass and lower in gravity.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
So, overall I really liked it. I'm also a sucker for Nolan. I'll freely admit that. Still, this was probably one of his weaker efforts (if not the weakest, when I really think about it). But weak for Nolan is still pretty damn good.
I didn't mind all the love talk, save for Brand's monologue, which really did kind of come out of nowhere.
Fuck, I forgot about that. "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space"... ugh.
I very much appreciated that Cooper responded to Brand's heartfelt plea with a strong "no."
...even though Brand was half-right in the end.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Smaller is the wrong word. Lower in mass and lower in gravity.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Yup. Ignoring all the radiation that's spiraling around the things, what kills you as you cross an even horizon is the gravitational gradient. Gravity at your feet is so much stronger than the gravity at your head that you're ripped apart, even though you're in free-fall.
If your black hole is astoundingly massive, though, the event horizon is far enough away from the singularity that the gradient isn't that steep yet.
.
Of course you'll get ripped apart later on as you continue to fall towards the singularity. Probably. It's not like we can seen inside these things! It might be full of books.
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
The only plot hole that bothered me was that in all that time, they never sent any other missions through the wormhole apparently. Couldn't they have set up colonies in the 70 years or something?
Kind of fits with the whole "governments are fickle and will revise history to fit the current political narrative" theme of the movie.
Everyone just assumed the mission failed and that Murph resolved the equation on her own.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Yup. Ignoring all the radiation that's spiraling around the things, what kills you as you cross an even horizon is the gravitational gradient. Gravity at your feet is so much stronger than the gravity at your head that you're ripped apart, even though you're in free-fall.
If your black hole is astoundingly massive, though, the event horizon is far enough away from the singularity that the gradient isn't that steep yet.
.
Of course you'll get ripped apart later on as you continue to fall towards the singularity. Probably. It's not like we can seen inside these things! It might be full of books.
Books = Knowledge = Power = (Mass x Distance ** 2) / Time ** 3
Which means that a good bookshop is just a genteel blackhole that knows how to read.
The only plot hole that bothered me was that in all that time, they never sent any other missions through the wormhole apparently. Couldn't they have set up colonies in the 70 years or something?
It takes time and resources to plan something like that. They needed to find a planet to go to, and a reasonable certainty that it would be viable to support life over a long term. Best to send someone out to get as much data as possible, and spend the rest of the time making your one shot as good as you can. If you've got no option but to put all your eggs in one basket, you make it as strong a basket as you can.
And colonies need a large number of people to be viable, and the whole point of the lie about Plan A was that it was impossible to transport that number of people.
Considering the entire planet was more or less running on fumes they did all they could do.
Information isn't lost when it falls into a black hole, it just gets turned into books.
+1
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
I mean, I took the penultimate moment of the third act that the black hole itself was a construct of some future "us", as was the 5 dimensional tesseract that we being perceived three dimensionally that he was inside. I have seen some convincing stuff from some fairly well recognized minds in the astro community who are not upset at the tesseract library at all.
This leads me to wonder though; if we got that damn cool in the future that supermassive rotating black holes that spin at nearly the speed of light are a thing we are capable of...
actually, not even finishing that thought. Massive timeline altering time travel stories are always butts. Always.
This film was worth it to see the black hole / accretion disc in IMAX. That was some hard science shit that also happened to be stunningly beautiful.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
+1
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
The more I think about the movie, the more I appreciate what it did. Numerous faults aside, it gave us some visceral eye candy and the best cinematic depiction of relativistic time dilation we're probably ever going to see.
I kinda want to see it again.
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.
Inquisitor772 x Penny Arcade Fight Club ChampionA fixed point in space and timeRegistered Userregular
This movie is probably one of the hardest to pull off successfully. That's why I have so much respect for what Nolan was able to accomplish with Inception, which had a similar conceit but much better execution.
Probably the biggest issue with Interstellar is that it purports to deal with "real" science, which brings all the science geeks out of the woodwork to nitpick and bitch and moan about all manner of trivia. So even if you bring out Stephen Hawking or Neil Degrasse Tyson or, say, Kip Thorne out to argue that the big stuff is all fine, this other stuff we don't know anyway, and all the rest was changed for purposes of telling the story, it doesn't matter because once you have breached the Impenetrable Wall of Forever True Science, the actual movie is wrong and therefore pointless and terrible. You see a similar pattern with any geekdom - cheerleading movies have to be the cheeriest, rap movies have to be the rappiest, and, of course, comic book movies have to be the comic-bookiest. Science fiction that skews heavily towards the "hard science" end of the spectrum is perhaps the most prone to this kind of problem, except that given its place as The Arbiter of Reality, is subject to significantly more criticism and scrutiny; perhaps second only to (interestingly) religion in that regard.
As a way of direct comparison, the oft-mentioned Inception was a similar film with similar themes (and similar flaws), and yet has been much more well-received than Interstellar. This is probably due to the fact that Inception didn't try to be realistic - it created its own fictional rules by which the world operated. Once you cross that threshold, the only trick there is consistency to a handful of rules of your own creation, rather than fidelity to the complexity and chaos of actual reality.
Similarly, the movie struggled with the plot and the final twist. I think this is one place where the weakness of the writing really showed. Amelia's characterization was, unfortunately, shallow and poor. Coop was basically an asshole the entire time for no reason. And that only served to contrast the lack of characterization for the other crew members, who could have easily taken on the sarcasm and douchiness themselves rather than placing it on the main protagonist. Dr. Mann's arc was poorly executed, with no fault lying in the actor who portrayed him. Michael Caine's Dr. Brand could have been a Morgan Freeman caricature, given his role in the film. The primary theme of the movie was so cliche and heavy-handed that I winced at the foreshadowing and groaned when it finally came to fruition.
All those caveats aside, I thought the movie was gorgeous. You don't even need an actual story to watch this thing. It's an experience all on its own. Go to a theater, preferably with IMAX, and just take it all in. At several points in the movie, I stopped breathing, and didn't realize it until I was gasping for air when the scene was over. That's how beautiful this movie is. The visuals are literally breathtaking. This is one of a handful of movies which you can legitimately say must be seen in a theater in order to fully appreciate. Watching it in any other medium, except maybe a planetarium, will just not do it justice.
And besides the sheer scope and beauty of the film itself, there is something to say for the amount of imagination it captures against what is supposedly the "real" world. From the accretion disks of Gargantua to the deceptive simplicity of T.A.R.S., there are real moments that make you stop and really, truly, wonder. And I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that made me feel that way.
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Smaller is the wrong word. Lower in mass and lower in gravity.
For a black hole mass and radius of the event horizon are linked things, more massive => bigger => gentler gradients on the horizon in the absence of infalling matter.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I was a bit hazy on the relative geography of all these planets. The ones they visited were all in the same star system? And all of them happened to be in the habitable zone, and there was no actual main sequence star, just the black hole? Which was apparently like twenty times more massive than the supermassive black holes you find at the center of standard galaxies, yet still had planets orbiting it because movie
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
Smaller is the wrong word. Lower in mass and lower in gravity.
For a black hole mass and radius of the event horizon are linked things, more massive => bigger => gentler gradients on the horizon in the absence of infalling matter.
Does that also apply to a rotating black hole, or is it just the non-rotating variety?
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 sound track is 50/50. The parts you can hear (shit exploding and score) are beyond phenomenal, the parts with the weepy eyed mumbling is Bane level annoying.
Posts
Maybe he said 4-5 minutes. You can't tell what the hell is being said in a Nolan film unless there is pure silence elsewhere. And even then...
And the Saturn V was another bit that threw me. Seemed odd to need that to get out of Earth's gravity well, but not the gravity well of a planet with 30% higher gravity? Yes, you can come up with your own explanation involving fuel conservation, but I don't think I should have to do that much of the movie's work for it just to justify some basic logisitical elements.
Maybe they could've sent little fuel pods down with the lander, like mini Saturn Vs, or something.
It had to be 45 minutes though. Didn't they end up losing 20+ years down there? Originally I thought they planned on 2-3 years with ~an hour mission time. I think they just decided to not do a skip forward for some reason.
I didn't mind all the love talk, save for Brand's monologue, which really did kind of come out of nowhere. Cooper's stuff about loving his family was fine. As was Damon's crazy "survival instincts" ramblings.
I guess I'll just cut to what I didn't like, because I liked pretty much everything else but this, but it's sizable issue: This even at almost 3 hours, this movie felt really overstuffed. Even more so than TDKR, which felt like it tried to cram 3 movies into one. Once they leave earth, things happen fast. That sounds like a good thing because again, we're talking about a 3 hour film here, and moving too slow can be a knell for a movie that long. But so much happens in rapid succession that the movie doesn't have time to properly breath, or more importantly, to even let certain scenes be properly suspenseful. We're on tidal wave planet then up against crazy Matt Damon then docking with a spinning space station then slingshotting around a black hole (and I may have honestly missed something). The part from ice planet up until Cooper enters the black hole happens especially rapidly. Like I don't think the movie slowed down at all during that time to reset what the stakes are. I was never confused or anything, but sometimes you've got to slow down and let a beat land.
It was breathaking. The movie almost had a physical impact, the sheer scale and majesty of space was astounding.
I had no problem with sentiment over taking science. I think that's absolutely acceptable in service of storytelling. Even with the plot holes and the MY GOD IT'S FULL OF BOOKS tesseract, it's still harder Sci-Fi then we are used to seeing in a big Hollywood movie.
And wowee were the practical effects beautiful. There's a shooting model of one of the shuttles on display at the BFI IMAX where I saw it today. It's a wonderful, lovely, lovely thing.
Decide on the next line by the rhyme when I choose it.
Also I put songs on YouTube
The musings of this lonely rube.
I made a thread once. It didn't end well for me.
Almost.
Cooper's stroke of genius at the end of the movie was to slingshot the Endurance around the black hole very close to the accretion disk. At that proximity, both Brand and Cooper on board the Endurance experience severe time dilation.
Once Cooper is inside the black hole, we see parallel scenes of 30something Murphy back in her old bedroom, but those scenes aren't taking place concurrently with Cooper's timeline. Those events would have flashed by in a blink while Brand and Cooper were flying the crippled Endurance.
When Brand gets away from the accretion disk and over to Edmund's planet, Earth has progressed long past the events of 30something Murphy and her farmhouse epiphany.
For this to work, we have to presume that everything we see inside the black hole, after Cooper survives the event horizon, does not fit into any chronology, dilated or otherwise. If the movie were totally consistent with its logic, then time would get even more dilated as Cooper neared the event horizon, meaning that Brand would land, age, and die while Cooper is closing in alone on the black hole. So either that didn't happen, or the black hole ejected Cooper back in time. Either way, everything that happens after Cooper separates from the Endurance at the end is fantasy - we already have to suspend our disbelief that he could survive entering a black hole without being crushed to spaghetti anyway.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
The black hole was explicitly described as "gentle" - relatively small, as black holes go.
Supposedly, this was the only reason that sending a probe inside of it was feasible at all.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Fuck, I forgot about that. "Love is the one thing that transcends time and space"... ugh.
Smaller black holes are more dangerous aren't they? Tighter gravitational gradients, more tightly churned accretion disks, more hawking decay.
...In case the pilot needs to eject?
It was supposed to be something like a 100,000 solar mass black hole spinning at something close to light speed. Which was one of the reasons it's called Gargantua. So apparently with that spin you could theoretically survive the event horizon. Or at least that's what the science people I read about it said.
gemini also had people who could rescue the pilot in case he ejected.
floating down onto a hostile world while your up to 3 other passengers blew up, crashed or were immediately roasted by the ejection itself with no hope of survival or rescue seems a little cruel.
floating in the middle of space, even less so.
Even if it was just the pilot, that's the only seat that'd be certain to be occupied. It's like some cars that only have a drivers airbag, as you can be pretty sure that there'll be someone in that seat if there's a collision.
Besides, I don't think they ever said that only the pilot had an ejection seat. It's the only one we saw used, but that was in the intro on Earth.
Which brings up the other point. The ranger was being used by Cooper in the intro dream/flashback, so it was clearly designed when they weren't yet planning on visiting other worlds (except maybe Mars?). When originally designing it, they'd have assumed that if it got into trouble during a descent/ascent, there was a better than 50% chance it'd be on Earth.
Smaller is the wrong word. Lower in mass and lower in gravity.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I very much appreciated that Cooper responded to Brand's heartfelt plea with a strong "no."
...even though Brand was half-right in the end.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I think he means the size of the event horizon
Yup. Ignoring all the radiation that's spiraling around the things, what kills you as you cross an even horizon is the gravitational gradient. Gravity at your feet is so much stronger than the gravity at your head that you're ripped apart, even though you're in free-fall.
If your black hole is astoundingly massive, though, the event horizon is far enough away from the singularity that the gradient isn't that steep yet.
.
Of course you'll get ripped apart later on as you continue to fall towards the singularity. Probably. It's not like we can seen inside these things! It might be full of books.
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Kind of fits with the whole "governments are fickle and will revise history to fit the current political narrative" theme of the movie.
Everyone just assumed the mission failed and that Murph resolved the equation on her own.
Books = Knowledge = Power = (Mass x Distance ** 2) / Time ** 3
Which means that a good bookshop is just a genteel blackhole that knows how to read.
It takes time and resources to plan something like that. They needed to find a planet to go to, and a reasonable certainty that it would be viable to support life over a long term. Best to send someone out to get as much data as possible, and spend the rest of the time making your one shot as good as you can. If you've got no option but to put all your eggs in one basket, you make it as strong a basket as you can.
And colonies need a large number of people to be viable, and the whole point of the lie about Plan A was that it was impossible to transport that number of people.
Considering the entire planet was more or less running on fumes they did all they could do.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Like did she build a singularity based propulsion engine or something?
The film had a lot of positive qualities, but ultimately I was dissatisfied and found the film schmaltzy and ill-conceived.
Information isn't lost when it falls into a black hole, it just gets turned into books.
This leads me to wonder though; if we got that damn cool in the future that supermassive rotating black holes that spin at nearly the speed of light are a thing we are capable of...
actually, not even finishing that thought. Massive timeline altering time travel stories are always butts. Always.
This film was worth it to see the black hole / accretion disc in IMAX. That was some hard science shit that also happened to be stunningly beautiful.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
I kinda want to see it again.
http://www.vulture.com/2014/11/interstellar-tars-great-character-movie-posters.html
Probably the biggest issue with Interstellar is that it purports to deal with "real" science, which brings all the science geeks out of the woodwork to nitpick and bitch and moan about all manner of trivia. So even if you bring out Stephen Hawking or Neil Degrasse Tyson or, say, Kip Thorne out to argue that the big stuff is all fine, this other stuff we don't know anyway, and all the rest was changed for purposes of telling the story, it doesn't matter because once you have breached the Impenetrable Wall of Forever True Science, the actual movie is wrong and therefore pointless and terrible. You see a similar pattern with any geekdom - cheerleading movies have to be the cheeriest, rap movies have to be the rappiest, and, of course, comic book movies have to be the comic-bookiest. Science fiction that skews heavily towards the "hard science" end of the spectrum is perhaps the most prone to this kind of problem, except that given its place as The Arbiter of Reality, is subject to significantly more criticism and scrutiny; perhaps second only to (interestingly) religion in that regard.
As a way of direct comparison, the oft-mentioned Inception was a similar film with similar themes (and similar flaws), and yet has been much more well-received than Interstellar. This is probably due to the fact that Inception didn't try to be realistic - it created its own fictional rules by which the world operated. Once you cross that threshold, the only trick there is consistency to a handful of rules of your own creation, rather than fidelity to the complexity and chaos of actual reality.
Similarly, the movie struggled with the plot and the final twist. I think this is one place where the weakness of the writing really showed. Amelia's characterization was, unfortunately, shallow and poor. Coop was basically an asshole the entire time for no reason. And that only served to contrast the lack of characterization for the other crew members, who could have easily taken on the sarcasm and douchiness themselves rather than placing it on the main protagonist. Dr. Mann's arc was poorly executed, with no fault lying in the actor who portrayed him. Michael Caine's Dr. Brand could have been a Morgan Freeman caricature, given his role in the film. The primary theme of the movie was so cliche and heavy-handed that I winced at the foreshadowing and groaned when it finally came to fruition.
All those caveats aside, I thought the movie was gorgeous. You don't even need an actual story to watch this thing. It's an experience all on its own. Go to a theater, preferably with IMAX, and just take it all in. At several points in the movie, I stopped breathing, and didn't realize it until I was gasping for air when the scene was over. That's how beautiful this movie is. The visuals are literally breathtaking. This is one of a handful of movies which you can legitimately say must be seen in a theater in order to fully appreciate. Watching it in any other medium, except maybe a planetarium, will just not do it justice.
And besides the sheer scope and beauty of the film itself, there is something to say for the amount of imagination it captures against what is supposedly the "real" world. From the accretion disks of Gargantua to the deceptive simplicity of T.A.R.S., there are real moments that make you stop and really, truly, wonder. And I can't remember the last time I saw a movie that made me feel that way.
For a black hole mass and radius of the event horizon are linked things, more massive => bigger => gentler gradients on the horizon in the absence of infalling matter.
Does that also apply to a rotating black hole, or is it just the non-rotating variety?
And the soundtrack. The soundtrack was awesome.
nolan plz
Hmm.