Did anyone see 'Interstellar'?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RGCheek
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
RGCheek said:
The robot was in the black hole with him.

It wasnt magic that allowed the transmission but gravity waves.

The solution to the gravitational problem was the missing data from the inside of the black hole that Murph realized they needed to finish the equations on her side.

The watch was just a mechanism to use morse code through to transmit the message with gravitational affects on the second hand.

Maybe they should have technical background ratings for movies?
Click to expand...
Or maybe just stick to movies that have coherent plots.
 
estesbob said:
Too loud.Incoherent plot. Hated it.
Click to expand...
I actually find it odd that you call the plot incoherent. If anything, I think the movie has the opposite problem: the plot is too coherent. Everything is exhaustively explained in the dialogue, even when it doesn’t really need to be. It gets tiresome. But it’s never unclear.

Does the movie stray into “science fantasy” territory? Well yeah, of course. But so did 2001. The difference is that Interstellar overexplained itself, while 2001 explained almost nothing and just let the strange imagery speak for itself, and so it wore a little better.
 
RGCheek said:
What did you think of the movie?

What did you find hard to follow or implausible?

I totally enjoyed it.
Click to expand...
I saw it. It was out there, it more ways than one. But I liked that it had a profoundly conservative message.
 
I did. I thought it was awesome, overall. There are some plot issues, but surprisingly they don’t take away what I think of it.
 
Nogginer said:
I saw it, and I liked it, but I must say that it’s quite secular humanist. (test tube babies, United-Nations-esque society, Dr. Mann’s discussion of instinct and genetic love for your children, Cooper’s “WE did everything” realization, etc.)
Click to expand...
The secular humanist tilt isn’t as strong as you think it is. Yes, test tube babies were mentioned but then again test babies in terms of re-population when it comes to sci-fi anything is practically a staple. I didn’t get the UN society thing. Dr. Mann’s instinct/genetic narrative was balanced out by what his character did – I’m pretty confident that the audience didn’t really have much sympathy to what happened to him besides seeing him as pathetic and desperate. Though he held the more “evolved” view point in the end he loses big time. Cooper’s “We did everything” was, I take, in reference to him and his space team communicating to Murph. The Morse code, the “alien” handshake, they “accidently” finding the NASA secret station (though I think this more of a plot hole).

Remember the question that every astronaut, engineer and scientist wondered: “Who put that black hole there in a timely manner?” I don’t think Nolan’s script was referring to “we” (humans) or “them” (the “they/who” that put the black hole near Saturn that the scientists wondered about).
WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS SPOILERS
Click to expand...
The one thing I find really implausible is SPOILER ALERT… people evolving into five-dimensional beings, and everything associated with that. It’s not like there’s such things as two dimensional beings or one-dimensional beings that we three-dimensional beings can interact with and create “wormholes” for, and with the human genome degrading as it is, we would never get there anyway.
Click to expand...
One thing I don’t understand about the end is: How is Mr. Cooper going to fly all the way to the other Galaxy where Brad is? The whole movie assumed Relativity is true, and if that’s the case, then nothing can go faster than the speed of light, which would probably make it impossible to travel between galaxies, especially in that tiny little ship Cooper left in. They would have to have developed their own ability to make worm-holes or something of the sort. Maybe they’re just setting it up for a sequel, and will explain how he plans on getting there later.
Click to expand...
I don’t think the point was to broadcast that humans evolved into 5-dimensional beings. My understanding is that Cooper, through his love for Murph and the human race, was able to be in that dimension because of the black hole. His “ghost” was the “they” that gave Brand a handshake (since that was him traveling across time through the black hole) - and what Brand said about love, that it’s the only thing that “transcends” time and galaxies (which urged her to choose Edmunds’ planet over Mann’s) was able to help Cooper “transcend” time; it wasn’t humans that created that bookcase dimension allowing Cooper to peer into Murph’s memories, but love.
 
Transformer said:
I actually find it odd that you call the plot incoherent. If anything, I think the movie has the opposite problem: the plot is too coherent. Everything is exhaustively explained in the dialogue, even when it doesn’t really need to be. It gets tiresome. But it’s never unclear.

Does the movie stray into “science fantasy” territory? Well yeah, of course. But so did 2001. The difference is that Interstellar overexplained itself, while 2001 explained almost nothing and just let the strange imagery speak for itself, and so it wore a little better.
Click to expand...
There is a range of opinion, Bob to one end saying it was incoherent and you at the other saying it was overly coherent.

I was just trying to figure out how that jet got into the sky on Edmunds planet.

nah, just kidding. 😃
 
Midwest88 said:
Remember the question that every astronaut, engineer and scientist wondered: "***Who put that black hole there in a timely manner?" I don’t think Nolan’s script was referring to “we” (humans) or “them” (the “they/who” that put the black hole near Saturn ***that the scientists wondered about).
Click to expand...
Maybe its an Aspergers thing, but it wasn’t the black hole that suddenly appeared but a worm hole.
 
Midwest88 said:
Mann vs Mankind?
Click to expand...
SPOILER

Professor Mann of the infamous “Hockey Stick” used by al Gore and others to support the idea of man-made Global Warming has been debunked repeatedly. He took two totally different sets of data to build his graph; using tree rings to show past temperatures (all colder) and uses them till about 1950, then after that he uses direct temperature measurements which are all warmer than average. Had he shown the continued temps indicated by tree rings it would show the temperatures continuing to decline. His critics say this is cherry picking data and his work is a fraud.

There was an internet video entitled ‘Hide the Decline’ that got some serious traction u ntill Mann threatened them with a lawsuit.

Edit: found it youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

The lawsuit threat youtube.com/watch?v=FwTuEqqh0-g

In short, the real Professor Mann is a coward, liar and fraud, much like the persona in the movie. So I wondered if the name is not mere coincidence.
 
I saw it last night and it left me indifferent. I thought it was somehow similar to the other Nolan film, Inception. Both started off really well, with an interesting story and intriguing characters. But then both films started making everything so complicated and then over explaining it all. There was no mystery in the end, no magic.

So all in all I think that Interstellar is just OK. Nicely filmed, not dumb, but it aint’ Solaris or Odyssey 2001.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top