That's the whole appeal, really. Our knowledge of what goes on inside is virtually nil, and as far as we know, it's literally impossible to ever find out. And in the center, our scientiific models stop working.
While it's possible that there is actually something going on inside that can plausibly be thought of as a "singularity" with "infinite density", it basically just means that our mathematical description shits the bed, just like Newtonian physics do when you approach the speed of light.
The upshot of all this us that black holes are a great narrative device, because all we know about their interiors are that they fuck our models right in the ass.
As a physicist I can tell you that the inside of black holes are a terrible narrative device, because while we don't know much about exactly what is happening in there (solid bet, nothing is happening, since there is no time for the concept of 'happening' to exist in) we do know with certainty that no coherant information can ever escape the black hole. So you can do whatever you please in there, and it will never affect anything outside. It's why they are black holes, since coherent information can never leave. So, if anything interesting happens in a black hole it's just as 'hard science' as "And then I turned on my plasma drive and the ship zoomed off at Warp 5".
I don't understand what your complaint is.
Are you under some sort of impression that automated tractors would solve all their problems?
I'm questioning why the education system is putting such an emphasis on churning out more farmers when:
- the supply of tenable farmland should be astronomical
- the demand for crops should be almost nothing
- Cooper's farm shows that automation eliminates the needs for an army of farmhands to do manual labor
- there's no strong evidence to suggest corporate farming, like that done by Monsanto, still wouldn't exist
Farmers in that scenario seem about as in-demand as paraplegic skateboarders.
That's the whole appeal, really. Our knowledge of what goes on inside is virtually nil, and as far as we know, it's literally impossible to ever find out. And in the center, our scientiific models stop working.
While it's possible that there is actually something going on inside that can plausibly be thought of as a "singularity" with "infinite density", it basically just means that our mathematical description shits the bed, just like Newtonian physics do when you approach the speed of light.
The upshot of all this us that black holes are a great narrative device, because all we know about their interiors are that they fuck our models right in the ass.
As a physicist I can tell you that the inside of black holes are a terrible narrative device, because while we don't know much about exactly what is happening in there (solid bet, nothing is happening, since there is no time for the concept of 'happening' to exist in) we do know with certainty that no coherant information can ever escape the black hole. So you can do whatever you please in there, and it will never affect anything outside. It's why they are black holes, since coherent information can never leave. So, if anything interesting happens in a black hole it's just as 'hard science' as "And then I turned on my plasma drive and the ship zoomed off at Warp 5".
When it comes to Nolan, I try not to think too hard about the logic behind the worlds he creates. So far he hasn't established one that holds up to scrutiny. Which is frustrating, because minus the black hole and time travel shenanigans, there were issues with this movie that could have been avoided by changing or elaborating on certain elements of the plot while maintaining the general plot and emotional arc.
Also, Matt Damon just wouldn't shut up. I was getting pretty fed up with it, but god did it make the moment his last line's cut off feel gratifying.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
When it comes to Nolan, I try not to think too hard about the logic behind the worlds he creates. So far he hasn't established one that holds up to scrutiny. Which is frustrating, because minus the black hole and time travel shenanigans, there were issues with this movie that could have been avoided by changing or elaborating on certain elements of the plot while maintaining the general plot and emotional arc.
I think this was my issue with the whole apocalyptic thing: it just seemed half-assed and not at all thought out. There's a million ways to show that kind of doomsday scenario, but Nolan's was just kinda dumb.
When it comes to Nolan, I try not to think too hard about the logic behind the worlds he creates. So far he hasn't established one that holds up to scrutiny. Which is frustrating, because minus the black hole and time travel shenanigans, there were issues with this movie that could have been avoided by changing or elaborating on certain elements of the plot while maintaining the general plot and emotional arc.
I think this was my issue with the whole apocalyptic thing: it just seemed half-assed and not at all thought out. There's a million ways to show that kind of doomsday scenario, but Nolan's was just kinda dumb.
It comes off as really lazy when you consider all the work that went into this movie beyond the script, especially when going with an alternative that made some sense wouldn't necessarily cost more time or money to shoot, and probably not much more time to research and write.
When it comes to Nolan, I try not to think too hard about the logic behind the worlds he creates. So far he hasn't established one that holds up to scrutiny. Which is frustrating, because minus the black hole and time travel shenanigans, there were issues with this movie that could have been avoided by changing or elaborating on certain elements of the plot while maintaining the general plot and emotional arc.
I think this was my issue with the whole apocalyptic thing: it just seemed half-assed and not at all thought out. There's a million ways to show that kind of doomsday scenario, but Nolan's was just kinda dumb.
It comes off as really lazy when you consider all the work that went into this movie beyond the script, especially when going with an alternative that made some sense wouldn't necessarily cost more time or money to shoot, and probably not much more time to research and write.
when I first saw the previews, I assumed over population, not under population. like they didn't have ENOUGH to feed everyone anymore.
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
+1
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
yeah but then people would just bitch about too much exposition.
he showed the world, he showed the effects and set up the stakes, that is more then enough.
I sure as hell didn't spend the entirety of Children of Men wondering how one woman was fertile while the entire world wasn't.
I don't understand what your complaint is.
Are you under some sort of impression that automated tractors would solve all their problems?
I'm questioning why the education system is putting such an emphasis on churning out more farmers when:
- the supply of tenable farmland should be astronomical
- the demand for crops should be almost nothing
- Cooper's farm shows that automation eliminates the needs for an army of farmhands to do manual labor
- there's no strong evidence to suggest corporate farming, like that done by Monsanto, still wouldn't exist
Farmers in that scenario seem about as in-demand as paraplegic skateboarders.
High tech solutions failed and the world collapsed, after that the government rebuilt and used wasteful spending in to the sciences by the former administration as a scape goat.
Since there's no use for a smarty pants scientist in the new world they're dumped in to the one job that requires no training.
Also it looks like he based this off of the Dust Bowl, some mentioned that the interviews shown in the movie are real interviews. Anyone got a link that elaborates on that?
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
It would never make sense.
you can't even attempt to explain the situation that they are supposed to be in without having either major scientific errors or major plot holes.
that's why 'world starves due to unknown blight and strange new dust bowl' isn't on the top ten lists of things we must fight to prevent.
+4
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
It would never make sense.
you can't even attempt to explain the situation that they are supposed to be in without having either major scientific errors or major plot holes.
that's why 'world starves due to unknown blight and strange new dust bowl' isn't on the top ten lists of things we must fight to prevent.
I just have to wonder why Nolan didn't go with any number of plausible scenarios, or at least make the world look more dire than he did.
His version of Earth looked like a redneck paradise.
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
It would never make sense.
you can't even attempt to explain the situation that they are supposed to be in without having either major scientific errors or major plot holes.
that's why 'world starves due to unknown blight and strange new dust bowl' isn't on the top ten lists of things we must fight to prevent.
I just have to wonder why Nolan didn't go with any number of plausible scenarios, or at least make the world look more dire than he did.
His version of Earth looked like a redneck paradise.
from what I've read, the beginning part on earth is largely unchanged from the original screen play which was written by his brother for steven spielberg to direct.
Dunno why that'd mean we couldn't eat beans or something though if 90% of the population is gone.
Or potatoes. Or seaweed. Or fish. Or anything else not utterly dependent on grain for subsistence.
It just took a lot of mental gymnastics to make that work. Grampa Lithgow is all, "Murph's generation will be the last to survive on Earth!," meanwhile I'm looking at an endless ocean of storable grain on her family farm to feed a handful of people.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
It would never make sense.
you can't even attempt to explain the situation that they are supposed to be in without having either major scientific errors or major plot holes.
that's why 'world starves due to unknown blight and strange new dust bowl' isn't on the top ten lists of things we must fight to prevent.
I just have to wonder why Nolan didn't go with any number of plausible scenarios, or at least make the world look more dire than he did.
His version of Earth looked like a redneck paradise.
I think he was trying to be efficient, by combining
The explanation of the need to go off-planet
The explanation of why mcconaughey, a trained engineer and pilot, is neither engineering nor piloting.
I got the impression that most plant life was dying, that the blight was some new type of organism that was out-competing plantae at its own game.
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 blight" is overthinking everything instead of just enjoying the film.
After the movie ended I started thinking about it, which caused me to think about the movie as it began.
The blight seemed like one of the few far fetched things about the movie, but I'm no biologist. Its a new disease affecting plant life, and like many illnesses popping up these days in livestock, its able to hop between species, slowly causing crops and soon all plant life on earth to collapse.
In a movie where your space-car computer tells you to eject into a black hole so you can be reunited with your daughter halfway across the galaxy/universe by the power of love, the blight is alright.
They also threw in that line about the blight producing nitrogen instead of oxygen or something, so the atmosphere composition would eventually be such that animal life couldn't exist any more. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, or if that's what the line was (there may have been loud music at the time), but that would be a bit more worrisome than just "we don't have any more food because all the corn is gone".
I think the Blight was written in response to how shitty Americans react to climate change now. Something has to be happening immediately and dramatically for them to assess it as a problem. This is why more Americans are afraid of Ebola than heart disease. If the blight was not there and NASA explained the crops would be fucked, it would lake emotional urgency in viewers, so bam, random species of crops just up and die and the poor farmers and their families are losing their livelihoods and doooooom...
I don't think that he said explicitly that nitrogen was going to kill everyone.
It's a bit of a tough subject since Nitrogen is kind of great for everyone, but not in it's pure form. Plants use organic nitrates which is NO3 so I guess if the bacteria ate all that up and produced nothing but pure Nitrogen it would suck to be alive.
Not that nitrogen was going to kill everyone, but that it would be produced instead of oxygen and there eventually wouldn't be any oxygen anymore. So I guess killing everyone, but only due to what it was replacing.
"The last people to starve would be the first to suffocate" was I believe the dramatic phrasing he chose.
They also threw in that line about the blight producing nitrogen instead of oxygen or something, so the atmosphere composition would eventually be such that animal life couldn't exist any more. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, or if that's what the line was (there may have been loud music at the time), but that would be a bit more worrisome than just "we don't have any more food because all the corn is gone".
I thought the nitrogen line was part of Alfred's "we were meant to move on" speech. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, and we require oxygen, so it's weird that we live on a planet with such abundant gas we don't use, or something. Nitrogen production was not increased. When plants die, there is nothing to produce oxygen. That was the asphyxiation malarkey.
Also, "the blight" wasn't just plant life. At the end when Eric Forman inspects the coughing people and says, "we need to leave" that was the persons being infected with "the blight".
I don't know. It was an awful, convoluted mess of a film.
They also threw in that line about the blight producing nitrogen instead of oxygen or something, so the atmosphere composition would eventually be such that animal life couldn't exist any more. I'm not sure if that makes any sense, or if that's what the line was (there may have been loud music at the time), but that would be a bit more worrisome than just "we don't have any more food because all the corn is gone".
I thought the nitrogen line was part of Alfred's "we were meant to move on" speech. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, and we require oxygen, so it's weird that we live on a planet with such abundant gas we don't use, or something. Nitrogen production was not increased. When plants die, there is nothing to produce oxygen. That was the asphyxiation malarkey.
Also, "the blight" wasn't just plant life. At the end when Eric Forman inspects the coughing people and says, "we need to leave" that was the persons being infected with "the blight".
I don't know. It was an awful, convoluted mess of a film.
On the plus side, inert gas asphyxiation is painless.
Unlike watching Interstellar!
I think you're over-thinking it.
I think it is as simple as the Dust Storms having become more severe since the start of the film and the dust getting in their lungs. It would only get worse if they stayed while they had a chance if they move into the dome together with the sister.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
edited November 2014
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.
ElJeffe on
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 don't understand what your complaint is.
Are you under some sort of impression that automated tractors would solve all their problems?
I'm questioning why the education system is putting such an emphasis on churning out more farmers when:
- the supply of tenable farmland should be astronomical
- the demand for crops should be almost nothing
- Cooper's farm shows that automation eliminates the needs for an army of farmhands to do manual labor
- there's no strong evidence to suggest corporate farming, like that done by Monsanto, still wouldn't exist
Farmers in that scenario seem about as in-demand as paraplegic skateboarders.
Due to (the presumed drought) and the blight killing off crops, the topsoil is exposed to wind erosion which is what creates the dust bowl conditions. With topsoil being stripped away for more than 23 years and the blight able to kill whatever crops you might be able to plant, and possible damage from the implied war, I wouldn't call the supply of farmland "astronomical". It's likely been significantly reduced.
The only farming automation we see is stuff Cooper has done himself. The neighbors got their automated stuff from him. We don't have any evidence one way or the other how farms around the world work. Plus, at least on Cooper's farm, it's not planting or havesting season (corn is grown but still green), so labor requirement would be less at that time.
Demand for food would be down with a significantly reduced population, but so would be the demand for engineers, manufacturing, etc and with a farming crisis, I'm not surprised they wanted more farmers.
What benefit does corporate farming have against the dust bowl and the blight?
Also it looks like he based this off of the Dust Bowl, some mentioned that the interviews shown in the movie are real interviews. Anyone got a link that elaborates on that?
I got the impression that most plant life was dying, that the blight was some new type of organism that was out-competing plantae at its own game.
I believe they said that the blight was able to consume atmospheric nitrogen and was somehow reducing the oxygen content in the atmosphere. So the blight wasn't just killing crops (or eating them), which is bad enough, it would have killed everyone eventually anyway. As Dan mentioned earlier, I think this blight was imagined as a parallel to the Great Oxygenation Event that poisoned most of the preexisting organisms on the planet at the time. This new lifeform arises that has a near limitless food supply, no competition, and whose waste products are toxic. That's a very bad day for everything else.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
My random/rambly thoughts and inferences on Interstellar's Earth is that the government of today continued a slide to the right. This left Inhofe and others like him in charge of stopping the climate change while they actively declared it as a hoax. This lead to problems as you might imagine, and eventually a war over resources broke out (likely started by India judging by Cooper's comments regarding the drone). This made the perceived public opinion move right which pushed the government even further right until it eventually hit authoritarian and to keep it's power it actively made the public stop questioning what it's told, which led society to scorning science. Then someone suggested dropping nukes from orbit as a solution which took off within the public/media, but NASA refused so the government disbanded and cut funding to NASA which led to the rewriting the history textbooks. The propaganda/media machine is so good that within 15 years or so everyone accepts that NASA was a joke and the moon landing never happened. Cooper was a NASA pilot before/during the war and is around 40, so what ever apocalyptic war that happened was within the last 2 decades.
When Cooper first found NASA they mentioned how they had to stay hidden because public opinion hated them, so they had to become a secret government agency. They had to recruit secretly and keep their plans hidden, so I can see why Plan A couldn't be "Save everyone" and instead was "Save those we can", or probably better put "Save those that will let us". When we are first introduced to the robots, the line Cooper says (Something like "Watch out, they weren't stable") leads me to think that they aren't produced anymore and that all the robots were a relic of a time since passed. Or at the end of the movie, Cooper asks about TARS, and they say they found it and stashed it somewhere, but not a single mention of trying to fix it or how it couldn't be fixed. Look at Cooper's son. As a boy he is bright and intelligent, but at the end he is dim and slow witted from the terrible educational system the government purposefully created. Or the problem with the dust, the solution wasn't finding where the dust was coming from or how to keep it out of the home but was keeping plates and glasses flipped upside down until needed. Either it's lazy writing and I'm adding shit for my own enjoyment, I'm being super forgetful about what was said in the movie, or that society as a whole no longer questioned the status quo as something they could do anything about.
With the government officially preventing the teaching of correct science, we lose our ability to artificially adapt and fight the "blight", which I took as a bacteria or small bug of some kind that was killing crops. The people in charge though don't let anyone investigate because they either drank their own kool-aid, or had to pretend they had to live/keep their job. Excuses would range from complete denial to letting God do his thing, but solutions wouldn't be backed by science but by public opinion making them less than helpful to maybe actively harmful.
Oh, and where is the gas coming from? I'd guess ethanol and that at least 75% of all that corn we see goes towards it's production and either the government hides this fact or doesn't realize what kind of problem that is. Take your pick from the malice/ignorance scale.
The movie was a post-apocalyptic story wrapped around a dystopian society story with the perfect sci-fi coating.
I think you're really stretching the hints they gave to fit your own biases there.
TARS had a problem with his power supply. Which Cooper asked for and got since they left together to go find Brand at the end of the movie. They probably didn't bother to fix him themselves because TARS is a non-functional 125+ year old antique at that point. The only people who know or care of his importance would be from a top-secret, century old, failed project, or you know, dead. Even if they did know what he was, due to the events in the interim making it irrelevant to the locals, it'd be like finding Pioneer 10, you're first priority probably isn't to get it back in working order just for the extra footnote in the history textbooks.
Unless you can afford a house that is an airlocked, hermetically sealed bunker, you're going to get dust inside. A lot of it with the size and frequency of dust storms depicted. Flipping the glasses and plates over is a simple, and most importantly, free method of keeping you from having to wash dishes before every meal. You can't "solve" the dust problem without stopping the blight, and for plot purposes that's impossible.
SiliconStew on
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
Posts
But, but... Gravity! Tesseract! Fifth Dimension! Robots!
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.
I'm questioning why the education system is putting such an emphasis on churning out more farmers when:
- the supply of tenable farmland should be astronomical
- the demand for crops should be almost nothing
- Cooper's farm shows that automation eliminates the needs for an army of farmhands to do manual labor
- there's no strong evidence to suggest corporate farming, like that done by Monsanto, still wouldn't exist
Farmers in that scenario seem about as in-demand as paraplegic skateboarders.
THE FEEEEEEELS
Also, Matt Damon just wouldn't shut up. I was getting pretty fed up with it, but god did it make the moment his last line's cut off feel gratifying.
I think this was my issue with the whole apocalyptic thing: it just seemed half-assed and not at all thought out. There's a million ways to show that kind of doomsday scenario, but Nolan's was just kinda dumb.
It comes off as really lazy when you consider all the work that went into this movie beyond the script, especially when going with an alternative that made some sense wouldn't necessarily cost more time or money to shoot, and probably not much more time to research and write.
when I first saw the previews, I assumed over population, not under population. like they didn't have ENOUGH to feed everyone anymore.
I think you are looking for an explanation of the actual premise of the movie: earth's dying and we have to leave or die with it.
I know they don't perfectly explain why... but that's because it would be a boring movie about agriculture instead of a movie about wormholes, black holes and matt damon.
Nolan's never shied away from exposition before, and there's no reason a good explanation would require more time to establish than the poor explanation they went with.
Right, Nolan spends a good amount of time expositing the state of the world. It just doesn't make any sense without having to fill in the holes yourself.
he showed the world, he showed the effects and set up the stakes, that is more then enough.
I sure as hell didn't spend the entirety of Children of Men wondering how one woman was fertile while the entire world wasn't.
High tech solutions failed and the world collapsed, after that the government rebuilt and used wasteful spending in to the sciences by the former administration as a scape goat.
Since there's no use for a smarty pants scientist in the new world they're dumped in to the one job that requires no training.
Also it looks like he based this off of the Dust Bowl, some mentioned that the interviews shown in the movie are real interviews. Anyone got a link that elaborates on that?
It would never make sense.
you can't even attempt to explain the situation that they are supposed to be in without having either major scientific errors or major plot holes.
that's why 'world starves due to unknown blight and strange new dust bowl' isn't on the top ten lists of things we must fight to prevent.
I just have to wonder why Nolan didn't go with any number of plausible scenarios, or at least make the world look more dire than he did.
His version of Earth looked like a redneck paradise.
from what I've read, the beginning part on earth is largely unchanged from the original screen play which was written by his brother for steven spielberg to direct.
I think he was trying to be efficient, by combining
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
From what I could tell, "the blight" was whatever they needed it to be in a given scene.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
After the movie ended I started thinking about it, which caused me to think about the movie as it began.
The blight seemed like one of the few far fetched things about the movie, but I'm no biologist. Its a new disease affecting plant life, and like many illnesses popping up these days in livestock, its able to hop between species, slowly causing crops and soon all plant life on earth to collapse.
In a movie where your space-car computer tells you to eject into a black hole so you can be reunited with your daughter halfway across the galaxy/universe by the power of love, the blight is alright.
It's a bit of a tough subject since Nitrogen is kind of great for everyone, but not in it's pure form. Plants use organic nitrates which is NO3 so I guess if the bacteria ate all that up and produced nothing but pure Nitrogen it would suck to be alive.
Fun fact, Earth had an Oxygen Apocalypse that was basically 'blight' but with oxygen:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event
"The last people to starve would be the first to suffocate" was I believe the dramatic phrasing he chose.
I thought the nitrogen line was part of Alfred's "we were meant to move on" speech. Earth's atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, and we require oxygen, so it's weird that we live on a planet with such abundant gas we don't use, or something. Nitrogen production was not increased. When plants die, there is nothing to produce oxygen. That was the asphyxiation malarkey.
Also, "the blight" wasn't just plant life. At the end when Eric Forman inspects the coughing people and says, "we need to leave" that was the persons being infected with "the blight".
I don't know. It was an awful, convoluted mess of a film.
Edit:
Unlike watching Interstellar!
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Maybe? I thought it was a sick cough. Might be incorrect.
I think you're over-thinking it.
I think it is as simple as the Dust Storms having become more severe since the start of the film and the dust getting in their lungs. It would only get worse if they stayed while they had a chance if they move into the dome together with the sister.
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.
The only farming automation we see is stuff Cooper has done himself. The neighbors got their automated stuff from him. We don't have any evidence one way or the other how farms around the world work. Plus, at least on Cooper's farm, it's not planting or havesting season (corn is grown but still green), so labor requirement would be less at that time.
Demand for food would be down with a significantly reduced population, but so would be the demand for engineers, manufacturing, etc and with a farming crisis, I'm not surprised they wanted more farmers.
What benefit does corporate farming have against the dust bowl and the blight?
The interviews are excerpts from the Ken Burns documentary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dust_Bowl_(film)
I believe they said that the blight was able to consume atmospheric nitrogen and was somehow reducing the oxygen content in the atmosphere. So the blight wasn't just killing crops (or eating them), which is bad enough, it would have killed everyone eventually anyway. As Dan mentioned earlier, I think this blight was imagined as a parallel to the Great Oxygenation Event that poisoned most of the preexisting organisms on the planet at the time. This new lifeform arises that has a near limitless food supply, no competition, and whose waste products are toxic. That's a very bad day for everything else.
http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/dustbowl/
When Cooper first found NASA they mentioned how they had to stay hidden because public opinion hated them, so they had to become a secret government agency. They had to recruit secretly and keep their plans hidden, so I can see why Plan A couldn't be "Save everyone" and instead was "Save those we can", or probably better put "Save those that will let us". When we are first introduced to the robots, the line Cooper says (Something like "Watch out, they weren't stable") leads me to think that they aren't produced anymore and that all the robots were a relic of a time since passed. Or at the end of the movie, Cooper asks about TARS, and they say they found it and stashed it somewhere, but not a single mention of trying to fix it or how it couldn't be fixed. Look at Cooper's son. As a boy he is bright and intelligent, but at the end he is dim and slow witted from the terrible educational system the government purposefully created. Or the problem with the dust, the solution wasn't finding where the dust was coming from or how to keep it out of the home but was keeping plates and glasses flipped upside down until needed. Either it's lazy writing and I'm adding shit for my own enjoyment, I'm being super forgetful about what was said in the movie, or that society as a whole no longer questioned the status quo as something they could do anything about.
With the government officially preventing the teaching of correct science, we lose our ability to artificially adapt and fight the "blight", which I took as a bacteria or small bug of some kind that was killing crops. The people in charge though don't let anyone investigate because they either drank their own kool-aid, or had to pretend they had to live/keep their job. Excuses would range from complete denial to letting God do his thing, but solutions wouldn't be backed by science but by public opinion making them less than helpful to maybe actively harmful.
Oh, and where is the gas coming from? I'd guess ethanol and that at least 75% of all that corn we see goes towards it's production and either the government hides this fact or doesn't realize what kind of problem that is. Take your pick from the malice/ignorance scale.
The movie was a post-apocalyptic story wrapped around a dystopian society story with the perfect sci-fi coating.
TARS had a problem with his power supply. Which Cooper asked for and got since they left together to go find Brand at the end of the movie. They probably didn't bother to fix him themselves because TARS is a non-functional 125+ year old antique at that point. The only people who know or care of his importance would be from a top-secret, century old, failed project, or you know, dead. Even if they did know what he was, due to the events in the interim making it irrelevant to the locals, it'd be like finding Pioneer 10, you're first priority probably isn't to get it back in working order just for the extra footnote in the history textbooks.
Unless you can afford a house that is an airlocked, hermetically sealed bunker, you're going to get dust inside. A lot of it with the size and frequency of dust storms depicted. Flipping the glasses and plates over is a simple, and most importantly, free method of keeping you from having to wash dishes before every meal. You can't "solve" the dust problem without stopping the blight, and for plot purposes that's impossible.