Interstellar - Part 10

[DyeLorean]

I enjoyed this film while I watched it, but everytime I think about it and more time passes, the flaws become more apparent. Same issue I had with TDKR. Excuse me, that's not true: I didn't enjoy TDKR even on my first viewing.

 

[BatLobster]

Completely the opposite for me. I spent a lot of time after I first saw the film worrying about whether or not it was too flawed or w/e, but after re-watching it a couple of times since the Blu-ray release my appreciation for the movie has really grown and I think it's extraordinarily powerful and transcends its flaws- like any great movie does.

 

[DyeLorean]

That's very interesting.
Although, I could clarify, is not the 'scientific' flaws that bother me (there are not many, in fact the accuracy is one of the things I actually did enjoy), is the... how could I put this... mmm... the direction, the character dimensions/dynamics that didn't work for me. Like why McConaughey was so important when he just appeared there, and many other little things that the CinemaSins video (which I hate) brought up.
I don't know. I may rewatch it at some point with a more neutral position.

 

[Travesty]

It's on Epix right now, which means this will most likely be coming on Netflix in 4-6 weeks from now.

 

[Guts]

[YT]clEaI8fqcPk[/YT]

 

[redhawk23]

It's on Epix right now, which means this will most likely be coming on Netflix in 4-6 weeks from now.

Epix and Netflix cut ties and most of Epix's films are leaving Netflix over the course of October.. It might end up on HULU though.

 

[Travesty]

I just looked it up, and you're right, they cut their deals with Netflix. It doesn't say anything about Amazon Prime, though. I wonder if they'll continue there, cause the movies came to both Netflix and Amazon?

 

[Kane52630]

Amazon Prime is safe, I think.

 

[redhawk23]

That's actually why they cut ties. It wasn't worth it for Netflix to pay for the same package of movies that the other streaming services have.

 

[dude stannis]

Was it ever explained why weren't using synthetic soil and greenhouses to avoid the blight? Because that's obviously how the vegetation in the RAMA thing at the end had to have been grown.

 

[redhawk23]

^ That's basically a major problem I have with the film.

 

[DyeLorean]

Fixing Earth will always be easier than going through a wormhole to find a new planet. But logic doesn't apply here apparently.

 

[TheBat812]

Was it ever explained why weren't using synthetic soil and greenhouses to avoid the blight? Because that's obviously how the vegetation in the RAMA thing at the end had to have been grown.

It's almost certainly because they didn't have/were unwilling to invest in the required technology to do so in a big way. This speaks to the theme of people not wanting to invest in NASA and technologies, but in more 'real world' things like farming. To do so required a renewed sense of purpose with the appreciation of the possibilities technology could offer, which is brought upon by the advancements allowed by Cooper's transmission of the black hole data.

 

[batman1]

It's a year later and I don't understand why the movie was so hard for people to understand. Everything was explained especially if you watched it more than once.

 

[TeeKay]

I didn't understand this movie.

 

[batman1]

That's very interesting.
Although, I could clarify, is not the 'scientific' flaws that bother me (there are not many, in fact the accuracy is one of the things I actually did enjoy), is the... how could I put this... mmm... the direction, the character dimensions/dynamics that didn't work for me. Like why McConaughey was so important when he just appeared there, and many other little things that the CinemaSins video (which I hate) brought up.
I don't know. I may rewatch it at some point with a more neutral position.

The science is what makes it so cool.

 

[Sgt. Fury]

It's a year later and I don't understand why the movie was so hard for people to understand. Everything was explained especially if you watched it more than once.

What if they don't want to watch it again? My wife doesn't want to. I'm sure there are many others. She found it boring. I liked it, but consider it flawed.

 

[randyf]

Was it ever explained why weren't using synthetic soil and greenhouses to avoid the blight? Because that's obviously how the vegetation in the RAMA thing at the end had to have been grown.

I'm not sure about the science, but at the 29.00 minute mark Professor Brand refers to the blight problem as atmospheric-based (nitrogen) not soil-based. Along these lines, artificial atmosphere rather than synthetic soil is probably responsible for the vegetation seen on Cooper Station including the baseball field.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

It's a year later and I don't understand why the movie was so hard for people to understand. Everything was explained especially if you watched it more than once.

I had no problem understanding it from first viewing. But I do know other people who were very confused by it. Shame as in IMO they are missing out on a great movie.

 

[batman1]

It was too deep for a lot of folks.

 

[Travesty]

 

[redhawk23]

I'm not sure about the science, but at the 29.00 minute mark Professor Brand refers to the blight problem as atmospheric-based (nitrogen) not soil-based. Along these lines, artificial atmosphere rather than synthetic soil is probably responsible for the vegetation seen on Cooper Station including the baseball field.

Then why not just build biodomes rather than space stations?

I thought the film wussed out a little bit by having the problem be a "blight" rather than the real life, often man made problems of environmental destruction.

 

[randyf]

Then why not just build biodomes rather than space stations?

I thought the film wussed out a little bit by having the problem be a "blight" rather than the real life, often man made problems of environmental destruction.

From the same Professor Brand scene, the atmospheric threat is not just starvation but "suffocation." The film does not get into the origins -- the plot starts well past that and its a foregone conclusion for the characters -- but the implication is that the problem is indeed man-made. For Professor Brand, NASA, and presumably the government(s) funding them, there is no Earth-bound solution: "We're not meant to save the world. We're meant to leave it." Cooper Station is orbiting Saturn -- its just a way station -- they're making their way to Edmunds' planet.

 

[batman1]

From the same Professor Brand scene, the atmospheric threat is not just starvation but "suffocation." The film does not get into the origins -- the plot starts well past that and its a foregone conclusion for the characters -- but the implication is that the problem is indeed man-made. For Professor Brand, NASA, and presumably the government(s) funding them, there is no Earth-bound solution: "We're not meant to save the world. We're meant to leave it." Cooper Station is orbiting Saturn -- its just a way station -- they're making their way to Edmunds' planet.

It's funny. A year later and there are still folks who don't understand basic info the movie shared. Lol.

 

[batman1]

Then why not just build biodomes rather than space stations?

I thought the film wussed out a little bit by having the problem be a "blight" rather than the real life, often man made problems of environmental destruction.

It seems a lot didn't understand the very ending with Anne Hathaway.