Interstellar - A Magnificent Film

[LedRush]

I think we agree on #1 and #5, and I'll give you #3. On the waves, they don't work that way. In shallow water they collapse on themselves. Gravity might account for it, but then the people would have been much, much lighter than they appeared in the movie.

 

As for the time paradox, it doesn't work. You have to survive to send someone back.

I'll pass on the waves...that's not my area, so I'll admit I don't know much about it.

 

But the time paradox makes total sense to me. As I said, it's a common Sci-fi trope that's been used again and again. Someone from the future going back in time and causing the very future they come from. Steven Moffat uses it a lot in Doctor Who (maybe too much)

So yes, they had to survive to send someone back, but they did survive, because of the very help they were sending back. Because it's a loop, cause doesn't necessarily have to come before effect.

 

It's exactly the same time-travel logic used to allow Kyle Reese to be John Connor's father in Terminator...or on a more basic level, used in Bill and Ted to escape from the prison cell (by getting the keys after they escape and going back in time and leaving them somewhere they can find them)

 

Just because it is used in a few movies doesn't mean it's not impossible or logically quite stupid. Something like this doesn't pull me out of a movie like Bill and Ted, because it's already so stupid that you're just enjoying the jokes. But in a drama, this type of stupidity just pulls me out of the experience.

 

For all the talk about how this movie was so much more accurate than Gravity, that movie only had one such moment (the silly cargo net scene). Interstellar had a bunch.

[Union 5-3992]

I think we agree on #1 and #5, and I'll give you #3. On the waves, they don't work that way. In shallow water they collapse on themselves. Gravity might account for it, but then the people would have been much, much lighter than they appeared in the movie.

 

As for the time paradox, it doesn't work. You have to survive to send someone back.

I'll pass on the waves...that's not my area, so I'll admit I don't know much about it.

 

But the time paradox makes total sense to me. As I said, it's a common Sci-fi trope that's been used again and again. Someone from the future going back in time and causing the very future they come from. Steven Moffat uses it a lot in Doctor Who (maybe too much)

So yes, they had to survive to send someone back, but they did survive, because of the very help they were sending back. Because it's a loop, cause doesn't necessarily have to come before effect.

 

It's exactly the same time-travel logic used to allow Kyle Reese to be John Connor's father in Terminator...or on a more basic level, used in Bill and Ted to escape from the prison cell (by getting the keys after they escape and going back in time and leaving them somewhere they can find them)

 

Just because it is used in a few movies doesn't mean it's not impossible or logically quite stupid. Something like this doesn't pull me out of a movie like Bill and Ted, because it's already so stupid that you're just enjoying the jokes. But in a drama, this type of stupidity just pulls me out of the experience.

 

For all the talk about how this movie was so much more accurate than Gravity, that movie only had one such moment (the silly cargo net scene). Interstellar had a bunch.

 

Well Gravity had lots of little things to poke at. Like how the Hubble telescope, ISS, and Russian satellites all share completely different orbits or how you would never see the debris from the Russian satellite at that speed

[LedRush]

I think we agree on #1 and #5, and I'll give you #3. On the waves, they don't work that way. In shallow water they collapse on themselves. Gravity might account for it, but then the people would have been much, much lighter than they appeared in the movie.

 

As for the time paradox, it doesn't work. You have to survive to send someone back.

I'll pass on the waves...that's not my area, so I'll admit I don't know much about it.

 

But the time paradox makes total sense to me. As I said, it's a common Sci-fi trope that's been used again and again. Someone from the future going back in time and causing the very future they come from. Steven Moffat uses it a lot in Doctor Who (maybe too much)

So yes, they had to survive to send someone back, but they did survive, because of the very help they were sending back. Because it's a loop, cause doesn't necessarily have to come before effect.

 

It's exactly the same time-travel logic used to allow Kyle Reese to be John Connor's father in Terminator...or on a more basic level, used in Bill and Ted to escape from the prison cell (by getting the keys after they escape and going back in time and leaving them somewhere they can find them)

 

Just because it is used in a few movies doesn't mean it's not impossible or logically quite stupid. Something like this doesn't pull me out of a movie like Bill and Ted, because it's already so stupid that you're just enjoying the jokes. But in a drama, this type of stupidity just pulls me out of the experience.

 

For all the talk about how this movie was so much more accurate than Gravity, that movie only had one such moment (the silly cargo net scene). Interstellar had a bunch.

 

Well Gravity had lots of little things to poke at. Like how the Hubble telescope, ISS, and Russian satellites all share completely different orbits or how you would never see the debris from the Russian satellite at that speed

 

I think the whole effect was impossible...but I feel like those fact-based inaccuracies are easier to overlook than concept-based impossibilities...at least for me as I didn't go into Gravity knowing about the orbit levels of different satellites but I do know how things are supposed to move in space.

[Your_Lion]

I think we agree on #1 and #5, and I'll give you #3. On the waves, they don't work that way. In shallow water they collapse on themselves. Gravity might account for it, but then the people would have been much, much lighter than they appeared in the movie.

 

As for the time paradox, it doesn't work. You have to survive to send someone back.

I'll pass on the waves...that's not my area, so I'll admit I don't know much about it.

 

But the time paradox makes total sense to me. As I said, it's a common Sci-fi trope that's been used again and again. Someone from the future going back in time and causing the very future they come from. Steven Moffat uses it a lot in Doctor Who (maybe too much)

So yes, they had to survive to send someone back, but they did survive, because of the very help they were sending back. Because it's a loop, cause doesn't necessarily have to come before effect.

 

It's exactly the same time-travel logic used to allow Kyle Reese to be John Connor's father in Terminator...or on a more basic level, used in Bill and Ted to escape from the prison cell (by getting the keys after they escape and going back in time and leaving them somewhere they can find them)

 

Just because it is used in a few movies doesn't mean it's not impossible or logically quite stupid. Something like this doesn't pull me out of a movie like Bill and Ted, because it's already so stupid that you're just enjoying the jokes. But in a drama, this type of stupidity just pulls me out of the experience.

 

For all the talk about how this movie was so much more accurate than Gravity, that movie only had one such moment (the silly cargo net scene). Interstellar had a bunch.

Fair enough. If it pulls you out of the experience, then I can't see me changing your mind on this one.

But I disagree that it's logically stupid. The predestination paradox, or bootstrap paradox is a legitimate temporal theory.

(plus, I personally love them, so they don't take me out of the experience :) )

Edited April 24, 2015 by Your_Lion

[Tombstone Mountain]

As I'm watching this film again, I'm struck by how the robots provide great comic relief. Really nice touch

[JohnRogers]

Whoa! Interstellar fried my positronic net.

I'm truly incapable of understanding this film. Yet one of the best true sci-fi films in ages.

[Fridge]

When I first saw it I couldn't make up my mind whether it was utter brilliance or utter shite.

 

Nowadays, I've made up my mind it's the former.

[JohnnyBlaze]

When I first saw it I couldn't make up my mind whether it was utter brilliance or utter shite.

 

Nowadays, I've made up my mind it's the former.

I thought the last 15 minutes or so was utter shite. I was really into up to that point.

[workingcinderellaman]

Still too long.

 

I tried to watch it with my daughter who was out of the country when it came out. She fell asleep and I got bored. We finished it, but it took us four days.

[JohnnyBlaze]

Still too long.

 

I tried to watch it with my daughter who was out of the country when it came out. She fell asleep and I got bored. We finished it, but it took us four days.

Holy shit you're persistent. 4 days is 2 days too many.

[Segue Myles]

For me it's a fascinating curiosity.

 

I think it's both bloated and intimate, loud yet subtle.

 

I can't make my mind up but I really do enjoy it...with some strange reservations I'm not sure I can look past.

 

It's one of those films I can't really imagine liking...it has to be a hate/love thing.

 

On the fence in the best possible way.

[Fridge]

When I first saw it I couldn't make up my mind whether it was utter brilliance or utter shite.

 

Nowadays, I've made up my mind it's the former.

I thought the last 15 minutes or so was utter shite. I was really into up to that point.

 

With you there, it all went a bit Pete Tong at the end.

[JohnnyBlaze]

When I first saw it I couldn't make up my mind whether it was utter brilliance or utter shite.

 

Nowadays, I've made up my mind it's the former.

I thought the last 15 minutes or so was utter shite. I was really into up to that point.

 

With you there, it all went a bit Pete Tong at the end.

It went wrong but not 'cuz of me. ;)

I think all of those actors are between "ok" and "great" so they weren't the problem. So I can only blame the story itself.

[Jack Aubrey]

Great movie. I especially enjoyed the robots, they were a great concept.