Yeah what does that explanation even mean? that part is just absolute speculation/invention from the writers. Until someone goes through a black hole (which for some reason destroys a metal spaceship but the astronaut is intact) and sees what the hell goes inside there, that's all fiction.
You can explain it a million times and it still will be fiction, no matter if you hire an army of astrophysics, its still speculation and theories.
AIs are much more plausible but its theoretical as well
There is still a difference between speculation that is made based on mathematical possibilities vs. something that's just purely imagined.
Point being, Interstellar takes a very big leap "out there" (as all sci-fi inevitably does), but it does so while trying to stay within the parameters of what we know from theories as much as it possibly can.
This doesn't make it a good or bad movie, but facts are facts.
At the end of the day, the movie has people arguing and curious about astrophysics...which is absurd and awesome. I can't wait to check out Thorne's book on the science of the movie.
Yeah what does that explanation even mean? that part is just absolute speculation/invention from the writers. Until someone goes through a black hole (which for some reason destroys a metal spaceship but the astronaut is intact) and sees what the hell goes inside there, that's all fiction.
You can explain it a million times and it still will be fiction, no matter if you hire an army of astrophysics, its still speculation and theories.
AIs are much more plausible but its theoretical as well
That's not invented by the writers. It's a solution of the Einstein-Hilbert equations that have been around since 1914. The specific solution of a rotating black hole has been around since ~1960. Closed timelike curves are predicted to exist near their centres.
I too think his best films are Memento and Prestiege. David Bowie as Nikolai Tesla with Jackman was Nolan's best work. His pseudo sci-fi convoluted nonsense is way too pretentious for my tastes. I couldn't stand Inception after the second viewing, I'm waiting for Interstellar to hit Redbox.
I saw it yesterday. Baffled, I was. WTF had I just seen? I didn't know what had happened, and I didn't know how I felt. Was it love, lust, or loathing? I've had a think about it...
I had an attitude towards Nolan like, well, let's see what he does next. This time, for me, he really did it. His usual problems are there, but by now they're expected and as much a part of his jig as anything. I do think his love of exposition fitted much better in this film, telling us things for the most part that we need to know (not Alfred pointing at a telly retelling everything we've just seen). There's a couple of exceptions, but certainly not as heavy handed as some of his other films.
Almost everything worked for me. I had a problem with the end of the first act until almost the end of a film:
I thought the means of him finding the base was unneeded and contrived until I found out he'd done it himself.
You know it's a good sci fi when you're beady eyed all the next day thinking about it. The more I think about it, the more I love it. The ending, and what was happening...
I didn't realise until later that it's actually Cooper and Barns that're the higher powers who have made it all possible, from Cooper's future into the past that isn't the past because it's a place/thing/dimension. We never saw the higher Cooper who constructed the 3D library to help his younger self understand time. It's a loop. It all has to happen because it's all happening all the time... So then at the end, at first I was dismissive, thinking it was a regular hero ending of Cooper heading out to keep his buddy company on the new colony, maybe find out how much she can fit in her mouth, but he's actually going there to understand and build the very thing that got him there in the first place. So, there's like three of him. You've got Cooper in the room with his daughter; you've got cooper in the book case; and there's Cooper the higher being who's already done all of that, gone back to the planet to Barns, developed the technology, created a wormhole in his past for his past self to come through, then created the book case as a 3D representation of how time is. We never see the later Cooper, and I never want to see him. It's a beautiful thing.
Love it. Could be my favourite of his. Going again on Saturday.
I saw it yesterday. Baffled, I was. WTF had I just seen? I didn't know what had happened, and I didn't know how I felt. Was it love, lust, or loathing? I've had a think about it...
I had an attitude towards Nolan like, well, let's see what he does next. This time, for me, he really did it. His usual problems are there, but by now they're expected and as much a part of his jig as anything. I do think his love of exposition fitted much better in this film, telling us things for the most part that we need to know (not Alfred pointing at a telly retelling everything we've just seen). There's a couple of exceptions, but certainly not as heavy handed as some of his other films.
Almost everything worked for me. I had a problem with the end of the first act until almost the end of a film:
I thought the means of him finding the base was unneeded and contrived until I found out he'd done it himself.
You know it's a good sci fi when you're beady eyed all the next day thinking about it. The more I think about it, the more I love it. The ending, and what was happening...
I didn't realise until later that it's actually Cooper and Barns that're the higher powers who have made it all possible, from Cooper's future into the past that isn't the past because it's a place/thing/dimension. We never saw the higher Cooper who constructed the 3D library to help his younger self understand time. It's a loop. It all has to happen because it's all happening all the time... So then at the end, at first I was dismissive, thinking it was a regular hero ending of Cooper heading out to keep his buddy company on the new colony, maybe find out how much she can fit in her mouth, but he's actually going there to understand and build the very thing that got him there in the first place. So, there's like three of him. You've got Cooper in the room with his daughter; you've got cooper in the book case; and there's Cooper the higher being who's already done all of that, gone back to the planet to Barns, developed the technology, created a wormhole in his past for his past self to come through, then created the book case as a 3D representation of how time is. We never see the later Cooper, and I never want to see him. It's a beautiful thing.
Love it. Could be my favourite of his. Going again on Saturday.
I'm glad you liked it! I agree that the exposition was necessary in this movie. Judging by how lost people are with the exposition as is, I'd hate to see the confusion if there were less.
No offense man, but I think you misunderstood the ending. I'll briefly summarize the science of the 3rd act.
Gargantuan was a rotating super massive black hole. Another, more technical name for this type of black hole is a Kerr black hole. This is important because rather than a point singularity as you see in traditional black holes, Kerr blackes are in the former of a 2D ring. As a result, one could survive passing through it. What lies past this point is unknown to us as known physics starts to break down. Some have hypothesize that it could act as a wormhole or an inter dimensional portal. Certainly a tesseract would be plausible with this in mind (the book shelf.)
He didn't interact via "love" either, but with gravity. This was clearly explained in the movie. Note the movie dealt with quantum mechanics, and things get really weird when it's involved. To me, love if anything served as a symbol more than anything else.
I see what you mean, there are certain possible things but mostly is all speculation and theories. I think love wasn't a symbol, its importance is clearly stated as a major deal but still its just too many things that enter the realm of fiction and speculation.
I don't criticize the movie for doing it, you cant blame them for that, and i think our understanding of reality is still close to 0. Still i think Nolan threw too much at the screen, there was so much exposition that in the end i was numb to it.
like i said science wasn't the deal for me with this movie, that was the least of its problems
Yeah, what we know about the universe is truly only the tip of the iceberg, but at the same time I think that is a big part of what the movie is about. All great sci-fi wrestles with the big questions, this movie just did it in a way that celebrates and puts emphasis on real science/theory.
It's still there. The tesseract inside gargantua that destroys itself and sends Cooper back through the wormhole to our solar system is not the same one stabilizing the wormhole. One is inside gargantua, the other is inside the wormhole. If they were the same device, then as it destroyed itself the wormhole could not have stayed open to allow Cooper to come back to our solar system. The wormhole is still there. The only reason the humans have not gone back through it is that because of time dilation from slingshotting around gargantua, Amelia only arrived on the final planet either shortly before or shortly after Cooper was deposited in our solar system. They had no idea the mission had been a success and therefore had no reason to travel back through the wormhole.
I think The Prestige is really cool especially when viewed as a "mission statement" of sorts on Nolan's part about his craft, methodology, etc. Fabulous movie and one that I really have a hard time finding any fault with. That said, I don't tend to put it on a pedestal above his other work. The bigger scale stuff is just like another category to me.
It's still there. The tesseract inside gargantua that destroys itself and sends Cooper back through the wormhole to our solar system is not the same one stabilizing the wormhole. One is inside gargantua, the other is inside the wormhole. If they were the same device, then as it destroyed itself the wormhole could not have stayed open to allow Cooper to come back to our solar system. The wormhole is still there. The only reason the humans have not gone back through it is that because of time dilation from slingshotting around gargantua, Amelia only arrived on the final planet either shortly before or shortly after Cooper was deposited in our solar system. They had no idea the mission had been a success and therefore had no reason to travel back through the wormhole.
i'm with DarthMuppet, that's how i took it when i walked out of the theater, i actually thought the movie was clear on it, though i guess it was never outright stated one way or the other.
I think The Prestige is really cool especially when viewed as a "mission statement" of sorts on Nolan's part about his craft, methodology, etc. Fabulous movie and one that I really have a hard time finding any fault with. That said, I don't tend to put it on a pedestal above his other work. The bigger scale stuff is just like another category to me.
I think this is going to be debated for a while, as Jonah Nolan said in a recent interview that
yeah, The Prestige might be his least "flawed" film, and it's a really good movie, but it just doesn't have the same emotional or visceral impact for me that Inception, Interstellar, and TDK have and on a similar scale I enjoy Memento more. also, i think Memento, Inception, Interstellar, and TDK all have a little bit more going on thematically than The Prestige.
repeat viewings will tell the tale but Interstellar might be one of Nolan's most flawed films along with TDKR, Batman Begins, and Insomnia (though i guess Insomnia, while decent enough, is more a pointless remake than anything). however, i read what people find to be flaws in Interstellar and either disagree or see Nolan's reasoning behind a lot of his semi-questionable choices, so I dunno. and Interstellar, for me, absolutely has a lot of Nolan's highest highs, is a whole other level for him in terms of aesthetic and visceral power, and has probably the most noble and ambitious overall goal of any of his films yet. so, yeah, really love it, can't wait to see it again.
I think The Prestige is really cool especially when viewed as a "mission statement" of sorts on Nolan's part about his craft, methodology, etc. Fabulous movie and one that I really have a hard time finding any fault with. That said, I don't tend to put it on a pedestal above his other work. The bigger scale stuff is just like another category to me.
I think this is going to be debated for a while, as Jonah Nolan said in a recent interview that
yeah, The Prestige might be his least "flawed" film, and it's a really good movie, but it just doesn't have the same emotional or visceral impact for me that Inception, Interstellar, and TDK have and on a similar scale I enjoy Memento more. also, i think Memento, Inception, Interstellar, and TDK all have a little bit more going on thematically than The Prestige.
repeat viewings will tell the tale but Interstellar might be one of Nolan's most flawed films along with TDKR, Batman Begins, and Insomnia (though i guess Insomnia, while decent enough, is more a pointless remake than anything). however, i read what people find to be flaws in Interstellar and either disagree or see Nolan's reasoning behind a lot of his semi-questionable choices, so I dunno. and Interstellar, for me, absolutely has a lot of Nolan's highest highs, is a whole other level for him in terms of aesthetic and visceral power, and has probably the most noble and ambitious overall goal of any of his films yet. so, yeah, really love it, can't wait to see it again.
That's exactly my feeling. Interstellar is probably my favorite of his films, but one of the most flawed to me. It's so strange. It could be what the movie represents to me and the fact that several of the scenes in the movie were IMO among the best in his entire filmography. It was just a very powerful film when all is said and done and IMO most of the complaints that I have are far overshadowed by the highs of the film.
I see what you mean, there are certain possible things but mostly is all speculation and theories. I think love wasn't a symbol, its importance is clearly stated as a major deal but still its just too many things that enter the realm of fiction and speculation.
I don't criticize the movie for doing it, you cant blame them for that, and i think our understanding of reality is still close to 0. Still i think Nolan threw too much at the screen, there was so much exposition that in the end i was numb to it.
like i said science wasn't the deal for me with this movie, that was the least of its problems
I think the "love" theme is certainly open to debate. I took the "quantifiable, tangible" quotes regarding love as more metaphorical.
And while the science of the 3rd act is largely untested and unproven as of now, it's completely based on already existing theories and mathematics. While they may or may not end up being proven, remember that General Relativity was once just a "theory" once upon a time as well.
I've heard several people say they feel this strange confliction with this film, on one hand the flaws really bug them and yet they still say they've witnessed something amazing. I can't think of many films where people feel such an odd confliction. I can relate to a degree because I didn't walk out of the film feeling as if I just watched the best film of the year and yet I still feel as if it's the most amazing film I've seen this year, perhaps it's almost some weird case of shock that a film like this exists.
I wasn't as conflicted as everyone else was to be honest. Ultimately the film as a whole didn't work for me. There were times I was really in it, and times I was really taken out of it. The acting was good and there are some interesting ideas , but ultimately it was kinda all over the shop and not as tight as Inception, TDK Trilogy, and the Prestige. I still recommend seeing ,it just so you can make up your own minds, about it but I give it a B-.
I wasn't as conflicted as everyone else was to be honest. Ultimately the film as a whole didn't work for me. There were times I was really in it, and times I was really taken out of it. The acting was good and there are some interesting ideas , but ultimately it was kinda all over the shop and not as tight as Inception, TDK Trilogy, and the Prestige. I still recommend seeing ,it just so you can make up your own minds, about it but I give it a B-.
That's understandable. I think for me I've always been fascinated by space since I was a young child. I was the kid that would read about the physics of a Type 2A Supernova - go figure I'd love this movie :-p
I've heard several people say they feel this strange confliction with this film, on one hand the flaws really bug them and yet they still say they've witnessed something amazing. I can't think of many films where people feel such an odd confliction. I can relate to a degree because I didn't walk out of the film feeling as if I just watched the best film of the year and yet I still feel as if it's the most amazing film I've seen this year, perhaps it's almost some weird case of shock that a film like this exists.
Yes that would have been pretty interesting. Its funny that Spilberg was the first director of this, he has been trying to do this movie for years and many of his ideas i think were in the video game The Dig. It talked a lot about the 5th dimension, time and space, beings that were beyond our universe etc. Astronauts were taken to another planet as well by a spaceship the aliens brought to us. Its an old game and is difficult as hell, but its funny how some concepts of interstellar are in that game which must be almost 15 years old now. Its been Spilbergs baby for years, its a shame we will probably never see what he has in mind beyond the script
In all honesty I can't see Spielberg's version of Interstellar having any resemblance to this version in the slightest. Spielberg is happy to play within a more fantastical playground whereas Nolan is far more by-the-book. I understand his reasoning behind having such a grounded approach, he wants to give the audience something that has far more weight to it. It took me a while to figure out what some Batman fans meant when they said his film were not great Batman movies, it's not that they were bad or weren't true to the character, it's that Batman was placed in an environment that was a little too close to home for them, to many fans the Batman world should be larger than life and Nolan took that away to some extent. Interstellar has the same thing happen, it could easily be a more fantastical sci-fi film.
In all honesty I can't see Spielberg's version of Interstellar having any resemblance to this version in the slightest. Spielberg is happy to play within a more fantastical playground whereas Nolan is far more by-the-book. I understand his reasoning behind having such a grounded approach, he wants to give the audience something that has far more weight to it. It took me a while to figure out what some Batman fans meant when they said his film were not great Batman movies, it's not that they were bad or weren't true to the character, it's that Batman was placed in an environment that was a little too close to home for them, to many fans the Batman world should be larger than life and Nolan took that away to some extent. Interstellar has the same thing happen, it could easily be a more fantastical sci-fi film.
He's had two big opportunities to really take his vision to otherworldly places; dreams and alien planets. Both times he somehow managed to still "ground" the visual spectacle.
I just don't think it's in him for his imagination to play outside normal bounds.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
