Interstellar

[Fritzo]

Spoiler

Falling into a black hole without being torn apart and converted into a brief puff of plasma and x-rays

also seemed a bit odd.


I was glad that they didn't fall back on the old "let's include an evil robot" trope.



Other weird scriptwriting: When they go down to the planet with the time differential and really need to hurry up, why not

Spoiler

send out the robot that has a sophisticated sensor suite and can move very quickly in shallow water?

An extremely large black hole will allow you to get much closer and survive because it's gravitational field is spread out over a greater area.

My biggest issue was a planet orbiting a black hole would be bathed in immense amounts of radiation. There's no way anyone would be able to survive on the surface. To put it in perspective, a black hole that size within 50 light years of year would kill us all from gamma ray radiation.

 

[destrekor]

An extremely large black hole will allow you to get much closer and survive because it's gravitational field is spread out over a greater area.

My biggest issue was a planet orbiting a black hole would be bathed in immense amounts of radiation. There's no way anyone would be able to survive on the surface. To put it in perspective, a black hole that size within 50 light years of year would kill us all from gamma ray radiation.

Would it be, for sure?

I can't be bothered to research that at the moment, but I thought black hole radiation was directional, not radiated from the body universally. That depends if the gamma radiation is concentrated in the polar jets, and not from another aspect of the black hole's behavior.

 

[Darwin333]

Is that the only point of failure for you when it comes to science? It's not the only one. Nolan even admitted some shortcuts were taken in the name of plot.


However, there exists a decent possibility: they have a newer propulsion system that, for it's type of fuel, can get to escape velocity a few times, but they needed to save it for where it mattered most. So they used conventional propulsion to escape Earth and get them to the wormhole.

Serious question: How much more fuel/thrust would be required to escape the gravity of even a small blackhole versus the thrust required to escape the atmosphere of a 1g or even a 3g planet? I am definitely not an expert but something that's gravity is so great that not even light can escape should be at least a tiny bit harder than simply escaping a relatively easy planets gravity? Right?

 

[Red Squirrel]

Is the time differential planet actually a real phenomenon? I can't really wrap my mind around how that would work, does being there just make you lose perception of time but you are actually moving extremely slowly? Like if there was a telescope outside the planet looking at the people on it where time is different, would it just appear as if it takes them forever to do a simple thing like take one step?

 

[Hugo Drax]

Is the time differential planet actually a real phenomenon? I can't really wrap my mind around how that would work, does being there just make you lose perception of time but you are actually moving extremely slowly? Like if there was a telescope outside the planet looking at the people on it where time is different, would it just appear as if it takes them forever to do a simple thing like take one step?

Because Aliens.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Is the time differential planet actually a real phenomenon? I can't really wrap my mind around how that would work, does being there just make you lose perception of time but you are actually moving extremely slowly? Like if there was a telescope outside the planet looking at the people on it where time is different, would it just appear as if it takes them forever to do a simple thing like take one step?

I thought their explanation was the planet was closer to the black hole, the gravity affected time in comparison to Earth. I've never really been able to wrap my head around that whole concept though. I would think that if the black hole was the catalyst, just being in the vicinity of the planet(and black hole) would be enough, not actually landing on the planet.

 

[Darwin333]

Is the time differential planet actually a real phenomenon? I can't really wrap my mind around how that would work, does being there just make you lose perception of time but you are actually moving extremely slowly? Like if there was a telescope outside the planet looking at the people on it where time is different, would it just appear as if it takes them forever to do a simple thing like take one step?

Yes, from what I understand of relativity that's exactly what would happen but to the people on the planet it would appear as if time was moving normally. Heck just getting close to the speed of light does the exact same thing.

I personally find it rather tough to wrap my mind around "time" too when we still aren't even remotely sure about the, relatively, "simple" thing such as gravity.

 

[destrekor]

Is the time differential planet actually a real phenomenon? I can't really wrap my mind around how that would work, does being there just make you lose perception of time but you are actually moving extremely slowly? Like if there was a telescope outside the planet looking at the people on it where time is different, would it just appear as if it takes them forever to do a simple thing like take one step?

No - time is relative. If you are on a planet that is experiencing slower timer than someone who is an outside observer, time feels normal. It's all apart of space-time and relativity. I don't know how to explain the fundamentals right now, it might come to me a little later, or surely someone can do so more easily and quickly than I.

Suffice it to say, it can be experienced even here on Earth (or more specifically, in Earth's gravity well). If you go on a spaceship, and go at a decent speed in orbit around the Earth for a fair bit of time (for this exercise, let us say years), then you would feel time normally, but when you went back home on Earth, those you knew would have aged just a little bit more. Or, more easily described, if you took a clock onboard and brought it home to compare with another clock, your clock would be "behind" the one that was left on Earth.

 

[CZroe]

I thought their explanation was the planet was closer to the black hole, the gravity affected time in comparison to Earth. I've never really been able to wrap my head around that whole concept though. I would think that if the black hole was the catalyst, just being in the vicinity of the planet(and black hole) would be enough, not actually landing on the planet.

All time is relative, all movement is relative, everything needs an arbitrary point of reference and in an ever expanding universe.

 

[Kev]

I thought their explanation was the planet was closer to the black hole, the gravity affected time in comparison to Earth. I've never really been able to wrap my head around that whole concept though. I would think that if the black hole was the catalyst, just being in the vicinity of the planet(and black hole) would be enough, not actually landing on the planet.

Yes it was the gravity of the black hole that caused the time dilation. However the way they did it in the movie was absurd. Going from a spaceship orbiting the planet and then landing on the planet is not going to cause such a drastic difference in the passage of time for both observers. It's not like you pass a barrier where it goes from 'time passing normally' to '7 years for every hour' or whatever they said. There's no way that tiny ship they used to land could travel enough distance to where the time difference was that massive.

 

[Phoenix86]

that is how I interpreted it when I watched the movie. makes perfect sense, no need to waste the fuel getting off earth when you can just strap it to a giant rocket

I know this is an old comment but I just recently watched the show. This is exactly how real rockets are designed. Various stages are built using different engines and fuel for a specific task. Shed the weight of that stage once the task is complete/fuel is used.

Heavy lifters to get to space, medium engines to get into orbit, smaller engines for transfer (in this case to Saturn, iirc this wasn't actually a separate stage in the movie), then the main craft (endurance), and finally the landing crafts (ranger). Each would have 100% fuel at the start of it's stage, with the stage below it having enough fuel/thrust to carry the engines and fuel for the stages above it.

 

[Phoenix86]

I thought their explanation was the planet was closer to the black hole, the gravity affected time in comparison to Earth. I've never really been able to wrap my head around that whole concept though. I would think that if the black hole was the catalyst, just being in the vicinity of the planet(and black hole) would be enough, not actually landing on the planet.

Correct, and they somewhat accounted for this in the movie by positioning the endurance in a higher orbit away from the gravity well of the planet. They were in orbit around black hole, however, this isn't realistic because the endurance wouldn't be able to maintain that orbit-planet distance. If it was out of the gravity well of the planet then it would have been on a much slower orbit of the black hole vs. the orbit of the plant. After all those years it would have been much farther away from the plant than when they started, possibly on the opposite side of the black hole, or possibly back where they started depending on the orbits/time spent.

Minor stuff really.

 

[Kaido]

Finally caught this film:

1. Fun movie. Enjoyed the nods to 2001.

2. I liked the silence in space. I'm all for rocket noises & explosions, but I appreciated the noiselessness.

3. Didn't like the robots at first, but they grew on me. By the end, it was pleasant to see a different take on your standard robot with AI.

4. Good ending. Nice little tearjerker at the end.

5. It didn't feel as cohesive, character-wise, as his other films. I never really connected with the characters, which was surprising for such a long movie. That portion of it felt really uncharacteristic for a Nolan film. Like with Memento or Batman, you really got into the main characters. This was more for the story than for the characters.

It could have easily gone another hour with character development, and I think it would have been better off for it...perhaps splitting it into two movies. The first focusing on the dustbowl situation, his family, building up the characters, building up the NASA story, and culminating in the rocket launch, and the second dealing with the space stuff. You almost have to look at it as a popcorn flick otherwise...like, he just happened to stumble across NASA, who just happened to have a rocket ready to launch with him in it, and he, being the best pilot ever, was never searched for to fly the mission, even though he lived right down the street? Obviously, that wasn't the focus of the story, but perhaps splitting it into two 2 or 2.5-hour movies would have helped. I felt like this could have been another cinematic masterpiece in the same vein as Space Odyssey, but instead, I really enjoyed it...for one watch.

6. I watched this in the wrong order...I saw the Martian, and then Matt Damon turned out to be a bad guy in this one Totally saw it coming though...if space or killer robots weren't going to kill them, then it had to be a human to throw a wrench in the plans! I think the Martian was better executed though - they fit everything they needed to within their time window and kept the pacing snappy, which I enjoyed. Although the pacing, despite the lack of character development, was quite good in Interstellar - I didn't feel like it was "long movie", so they did a good job with that.

Fun to see what they can do with graphics these days, especially since they didn't really go over-the-top with anything.

 

[Kaido]

As mentioned, the music was wonked up. Way to loud in places it should have been more subtle. Jarringly so.

I had it turned down a bit lower than normal because I stayed up late watching it. I have two subs hooked up & they were rattling the walls at the loud parts, to the point where I had to turn the volume down until those parts were over. I think that was the point tho...they wanted to envelope you in the atmosphere of the rocket & space.

 

[Kaido]

I think the only miss was the whole "love" aspect - but I cannot complain if that is the only thing I found with which to disagree. I feel like they treated the theoretical physics wonderfully, and ultimately I think this will be one of the greats of the space genre that remain in our culture for generations.

Yeah, that theme wasn't developed enough to have any real impact. Brandt flew to the planet to the man she loved (RIP), and now Matthew stole a spaceship to go be with her. I think they could have done a better job with that & made it really meaningful, the whole "love is a driver & force in the universe", but it was just kind of another line in the movie.

 

[Kaido]

Where's my "don't watch any movie that isn't based 100% in reality and facts crowd at!?" I am making my list of the .001% (and this includes documentaries) that fit this and going on a movie watching spree! <woof woof>

It's important to understand both sides - first, to put on your kid's hat & just enjoy the movie, but also to realize that things needed to make sense in the story universe, according to the rules of the story given. Not that things need to be based on actual fact, but if they jump the shark in the show & it throws you out of it, that ruins the mood. Despite the many flaws in the story itself, I think the film held together pretty well - boiling down to you want to save those you love, but you also love humanity and want to save them as well. So not totally selfless, but not totally selfish either - striving to make both happen.

They did a good enough job that I don't feel the need to criticize the movie for what it lacked & for what it wasn't. It was a really fun space movie that was long but didn't feel too long. I enjoyed it :thumbsup:

 

[Imp]

Saw this recently. What an amazing movie, loved Inception, liked this better. The "detach" and launch scenes are incredible.

 

[Kaido]

Saw this recently. What an amazing movie, loved Inception, liked this better. The "detach" and launch scenes are incredible.

I was really impressed with how realistic the visuals were for those scenes. And like I said above, I appreciate that they didn't go overboard with nutty graphics. The wave world wasn't overly done & they didn't go nuts on the spaceship stuff. It was a nice change of pace from a lot of other sci-fi movies (although I geek out over nerdy space stuff, so I don't hate that stuff either!).

 

[Imp]

Completely avoided this thread when it was active since I didn't see the movie yet... Just went through about 5 pages.

I'm impressed by all the professional, theoretical physicists we have on this forum... who apparently know more than the movie's science advisor, Kip Thorne, who is a "Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) until 2009 and is one of the world's leading experts on the astrophysical implications of Einstein's general theory of relativity" on a field that's "theoretical."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne

Edit: And I'm shocked to discover that a movie of the science fiction genre would not be 100% accurate.

 

[John Connor]

Never seen the movie yet. Now I have to.

 

[destrekor]

Completely avoided this thread when it was active since I didn't see the movie yet... Just went through about 5 pages.

I'm impressed by all the professional, theoretical physicists we have on this forum... who apparently know more than the movie's science advisor, Kip Thorne, who is a "Professor of Theoretical Physics at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) until 2009 and is one of the world's leading experts on the astrophysical implications of Einstein's general theory of relativity" on a field that's "theoretical."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne

Edit: And I'm shocked to discover that a movie of the science fiction genre would not be 100% accurate.

lol

Yeah they took some liberties to create the plot points they wanted to hit without dragging it down unnecessarily, but they also did a damn good job with the science.

While it's definitely sci-fi, I think a lot of what they did with the "sci-fi" elements are actually fairly well rooted in at least some theoretical physics. Not necessarily everything Thorne might subscribe too, but I wouldn't doubt he provided some input as to what different theories exist and which ones could be brought together to help create the story Nolan wanted.

The black hole and tesseract and interacting with time elements are definitely sci-fi, but at the same time, not entirely without some basis in theory. Not commonly accepted theories, but there are a lot of possibilities with m-theory, if it ends up being the reality of the structure of the universe. Everything could technically be a hologram, all of our visual space represented on a flat two-dimensional surface of a bubble in the higher dimensions. Weird shit.

The major conflicting elements of the film is the resulting paradox - advanced man created the tesseract and the original wormhole, in order to save their ancient civilization from death. Thus, they needed the civilization to live on in order to allow them to exist, so how did they create the wormhole in the first place?

But, we only think we understand time and often the underlying theories demand that paradoxical events must not be possible. I don't know if I accept that wholly: parallel universes or at least parallel timelines within the universe are theoretically possible, and allow for paradoxes if crossing between the "realities" of the distinct timelines. One theory is that all possible events do play out in the fabric of time, etched in a way in the higher dimensions, as different "decision points" change the patterns of light that creates a snowball effect.

Again, it's all theoretical. So why not enjoy it a bit by putting it into a movie?

 

[Kaido]

Never seen the movie yet. Now I have to.

It's one of those movies meant for you to just enjoy the ride. Plenty of glaring plot holes & other issues, but they do a good job of glossing over that by engaging you in the story to see what they are going to do next. Just go into it to enjoy it for what it is - a fun space movie done in kind of an epic way.

 

[linthat22]

I really enjoyed this movie.

The scene when dude goes into the black hole.....my God did I enjoy that portrayal of what that would be like. And then his ship during that scene..... My butt would be puckered tight if that were me!

 

[Jeff7]

...
The major conflicting elements of the film is the resulting paradox - advanced man created the tesseract and the original wormhole, in order to save their ancient civilization from death. Thus, they needed the civilization to live on in order to allow them to exist, so how did they create the wormhole in the first place?

But, we only think we understand time and often the underlying theories demand that paradoxical events must not be possible. I don't know if I accept that wholly: parallel universes or at least parallel timelines within the universe are theoretically possible, and allow for paradoxes if crossing between the "realities" of the distinct timelines. One theory is that all possible events do play out in the fabric of time, etched in a way in the higher dimensions, as different "decision points" change the patterns of light that creates a snowball effect.

Again, it's all theoretical. So why not enjoy it a bit by putting it into a movie?

Time paradoxes are always fun. Maybe something happened that let the humans juuust squeak by, and develop into the super-advanced civilization. Then some of them decided to twiddle with the timeline to make it suck less, which was the movie's timeline.
Our movies and TV shows just tend to follow the timelines where everything didn't turn out all catastrophic.

But then twiddling with the past is itself an issue: Why not keep doing that repeatedly? Keep delivering knowledge, technology, and general assistance from the future, and advance the hell out of one timeline. (Or multiple timelines if you want some redundancy.)


Semi OT, but that's something I like about Rick&Morty: Their liberal approach to devastating timelines, and hopping into new ones.
"Damn, things are really going to hell in this reality. Hang on, I'll see if I can find another one where I didn't screw up so badly."

 

[Sonikku]

I loved it when it stuck to Science and felt like it cheapened itself by going nutter butters in the third act.