http://www.wired.com/2014/11/absolute-zero/
Interstellar comic (official) about Dr Mann.
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/absolute-zero/
Interstellar comic (official) about Dr Mann.
@TLC:
"Comment on the science" means he said it was bullshit, which he did (notice that some of his complaints are my own).
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/neil-degrasse-tysons-nine-interstellar-mysteries-1657852689
So what if he liked it? For one thing, he's a scientist not a film critic. For another thing, again, films are a combination of many factors which people react to each in different ways. Here's a scientist who hated the film
Really, this argument of yours is just…pointless. It basically boils down to well "This guy liked it so you have to like it too". It's not really an argument as much as throwing around the names of famous people and expecting me to bow down to them. You're trying to imply I'm not QUALIFIED to hate this movie. What? lol
My argument is that people who know more about the science than you have debated whats' bunk and what's not a lot better than you have. In the very beginning of that link you posted the guy who wrote the article admits he was wrong about a lot of the science that he tried to pick apart. So even that was was off the mark. The general consensus on the science of the movie is that it's tight in some places, fiction in other. Not nearly the catastrophic level of inaccuracy that you're blatthering on about.
I'm saying you're not qualified to to hate this movie based purely on the science and you're not qualified to hate the science as much as you do because in that field you're are so completely ignorant.
@TLC:
A guy jumped into a black hole and survived, yes I can.
Just because one person, even a scientist, can just go with the flow and swallow all the dumb shit this movie spewed out, doesn't mean I have to. Especially when this movie was supposed to be above that shit.
You don't know what goes on inside a blackhole. No one does. No one TLC. Since it was a type of black hole that he could pass through in one piece, tee hee, outside the temperature he theoretically could have made it that far but it's not even like you know how hot the thing was.
@TLC:
You're naive if you think Scientists had any control over this movie. At best Nolan consulted them just to give the film some credibility, and then wrote whatever the hell he wanted.
I like how you say scientist had no control over the movie when the actual reality is that the physicist, Kip Thorne, they consulted, provided the mathematics that made the visualization of the black hole possible, and again I'll say it's the most accurate depiction of that type of black hole that has ever been created. So accurate that there have been research papers published on it because it has three dimensionally shown what was before just theory and equations. So the black hole and the physics that hold it together are sound. The black holes pretty important to, does a lot stuff, is a lot of stuff. But dismissed, Nolan said fuck all that noise.
Also I never read an article where Nolan claimed his movie was more than heavily researched science fiction so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it was supposed to be "above that shit" but it's not from him and in this case "that shit" that you're referring to in that sentence is the science that's mathematically possible, not even the science that is actually fiction in the movie.
@TLC:
I didn't know black holes took you to a sub space that looks like the back of book shelves. "But it's Science FICTION" Well there was a little too much fiction in this movie.
No one knows what happens inside a black hole TLC. No one. Given that no one knows the artist is free to depict it in whatever way he likes. If Nolan wrote that inside the blackhole is a ham sandwich that contains a disco club, that would be indisputable.
If you were paying attention to the movie. It is explained that the 5th dimensional space they entered was created specifically for them by the same beings who opened the wormhole. That allowed a being not normally capable of interacting with the dimension of time to perceive it in a way that he could not only understand it but interact with it in some way. Was it the best way for the those beings to do that, no. It was weird and seemed overly complicated for beings who could reach across time and space but that's not what you were complaining about.
@TLC:
Because I'm not wrong about the terrible science. Because a movie consists of many many factors like acting, directing, characters, pacing etc. Because I've watched LITERALLY hundreds of movies and can break apart and analyze a movie like it's nothing. Because I've seen awful pretentious sci-fi films before and know where to spot the bullshit.
Really, knock off this pretentious elistist argument of yours, you don't need to be a rocket scientist to pick apart this stupid movie. And it's an even more worthless argument given I've said over and over that the awful science in this movie is far from the only reason I hate it.
Because you actually are wrong about the terrible science. Because watching a lot of movies does not make you Ebert or even more qualified than a stranger over the internet whose knowledge of film you have no idea of. I've watched twice as many movies as you, therefore I'm more credible. Look what I just did see how it easy to is to be great at something on the internet, all you have to do is type it.
My argument is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you don't. So stop.
Debate the acting, the directing, the pacing, the characters, all of that lovely subjective stuff but please don't pretend as if you could even understand the scientific inaccuracies that were displayed during that film while you were watching it. You're not a physicist, you're not a biologist, you're not an astronomer so stop acting like the science insulted your brain. It didn't. It couldn't because you don't know any better.
Going further than that I'll say that your insistence that you do understand the science, which you have proven in this reply that you obviously do not, as well as your inability to even read up on good counter arguments to the science, your shitty link as example of that, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that all of your opinions are just as inaccurate and ill thought out. Which is nothing new. I think you're a moron. I thought if I compared your thoughts on the science to a guy who actually knows the science you would go, maybe I don't understand the science as well as I thought but nope. Classic TLC just dove right through all doubt, did some quick shitty googling and spewed out this amazing reply.
I don't know why I would expect anything else though.
My argument is that people who know more about the science than you have debated whats' bunk and what's not a lot better than you have. In the very beginning of that link you posted the guy who wrote the article admits he was wrong about a lot of the science that he tried to pick apart. So even that was was off the mark. The general consensus on the science of the movie is that it's tight in some places, fiction in other. Not nearly the catastrophic level of inaccuracy that you're blatthering on about.
I'm saying you're not qualified to to hate this movie based purely on the science and you're not qualified to hate the science as much as you do because in that field you're are so completely ignorant.
You don't know what goes on inside a blackhole. No one does. No one TLC. Since it was a type of black hole that he could pass through in one piece, tee hee, outside the temperature he theoretically could have made it that far but it's not even like you know how hot the thing was.
I like how you say scientist had no control over the movie when the actual reality is that the physicist, Kip Thorne, they consulted, provided the mathematics that made the visualization of the black hole possible, and again I'll say it's the most accurate depiction of that type of black hole that has ever been created. So accurate that there have been research papers published on it because it has three dimensionally shown what was before just theory and equations. So the black hole and the physics that hold it together are sound. The black holes pretty important to, does a lot stuff, is a lot of stuff. But dismissed, Nolan said fuck all that noise.
Also I never read an article where Nolan claimed his movie was more than heavily researched science fiction so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it was supposed to be "above that shit" but it's not from him and in this case "that shit" that you're referring to in that sentence is the science that's mathematically possible, not even the science that is actually fiction in the movie.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m688ajBrT01rwcc6bo1_400.gif
No one knows what happens inside a black hole TLC. No one. Given that no one knows the artist is free to depict it in whatever way he likes. If Nolan wrote that inside the blackhole is a ham sandwich that contains a disco club, that would be indisputable.
If you were paying attention to the movie. It is explained that the 5th dimensional space they entered was created specifically for them by the same beings who opened the wormhole. That allowed a being not normally capable of interacting with the dimension of time to perceive it in a way that he could not only understand it but interact with it in some way. Was it the best way for the those beings to do that, no. It was weird and seemed overly complicated for beings who could reach across time and space but that's not what you were complaining about.Because you actually are wrong about the terrible science. Because watching a lot of movies does not make you Ebert or even more qualified than a stranger over the internet whose knowledge of film you have no idea of. I've watched twice as many movies as you, therefore I'm more credible. Look what I just did see how it easy to is to be great at something on the internet, all you have to do is type it.
My argument is you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. And you don't. So stop.
Debate the acting, the directing, the pacing, the characters, all of that lovely subjective stuff but please don't pretend as if you could even understand the scientific inaccuracies that were displayed during that film while you were watching it. You're not a physicist, you're not a biologist, you're not an astronomer so stop acting like the science insulted your brain. It didn't. It couldn't because you don't know any better.
Going further than that I'll say that your insistence that you do understand the science, which you have proven in this reply that you obviously do not, as well as your inability to even read up on good counter arguments to the science, your shitty link as example of that, I don't think it would be a stretch to say that all of your opinions are just as inaccurate and ill thought out. Which is nothing new. I think you're a moron. I thought if I compared your thoughts on the science to a guy who actually knows the science you would go, maybe I don't understand the science as well as I thought but nope. Classic TLC just dove right through all doubt, did some quick shitty googling and spewed out this amazing reply.
I don't know why I would expect anything else though.
Well, aren't you being tetchy?
Forgive me if I don't go through every single post which is basically repeating the same thing over and over, I'll sum it up in one reply.
Dude, we can argue all day about the scientific validity of a guy who jumps into a black hole to send the secrets of the universe to his daughter via Morse Code. Like spend all day posting links of disagreeing scientists because Science is such a varied field of different minds that have different theories. Bad Science or Good Science (which I still insist is bunk), this was a terrible movie. Awful Nolan-esque dialogue, meh characters, terrible pacing, contrived story and a horribly cheesy moral about love with very far-fetched and contrived symbolism. This movie was dumb.
I really would go into more detail but I think I've cluttered this thread too much with my posts, if you want to carry on this argument, send me a pm and I'll happily oblige.
Classic "I'm an educated film watcher. My taste above yours" kind of pretentious asswipe.
Hope you stay "aspiring"
You learn to ignore it, most people have.
It's like you guys deliberately forget large chunk of his posts. You just keep replying to the same point with same arguments. Then when it doesn't work, you go at him personally.
Science parts was stretched to it's limits and beyond here, there's no disputing that. Maybe we don't know what's inside the black hole, but it will sure as hell kill you before you get the chance to find out.
@TLC:
People who insist I hate everything are people who never read any of my posts. I made a frickin' top ten thread for crying out loud.
Ok, you hate almost everything.
That being said, I liked this movie but its nowhere near as great as people are making it out to be.
The main appeal for the movie was space travel and new planets, but they only showed three extremely generic planets (water/wave planet, ice planet, sand/rock planet) which looked good but I found disappointing in how generic and one tone they were.
The time relativity thing is pretty cool but its nothing new and has already been very much explored already in various sci-fi movies and series and what they did with it in this movie was not THAT great.
The messages and interventions from the future thing is also cool, but also nothing new and has been explored to death. And once again, what they did with it in this movie was not THAT great.
Besides that, the movie had some reflexion on philosophies of love and faith and such, and that's it.
Overall, its cool and all, but I find it overrated. I also had problems with some other details in it, but I won't talk about details.
What I ended up enjoying the most about the movie were, unexpectedly, the robots.
It's like you guys deliberately forget large chunk of his posts. You just keep replying to the same point with same arguments. Then when it doesn't work, you go at him personally.
It's not like he doesn't do the same. Three of us already said countless times that aliens did everything, and black hole worked that way because aliens created it to work that way for that exact moment.
Nothing to do with love.
But no "science is bad, everything is bad, love saved everything, your scientists are stupid, emotions are bad, you are all plebs, go watch 100500 more movies so you learn to hate them all, like me!!!!111"
It's just counter-productive to argue with him.
With me it's more about plot issues. Science kinda ties into that, but it's not a prevailing factor.
For example, the events on the first planet I can't swallow. Not because it shouldn't be possible for waves to move like that but because there were almost no safety precautions from trained astronauts on whom fate of entire race rests. Ok, they couldn't see the waves before, because of the time dilation. But here's an idea. Send the robot with Hathaway right away (lol). It doesn't do anything just by standing next to the shuttle. And maybe the black box isn't that important when you realize the planet is uninhabitable.
With me it's more about plot issues. Science kinda ties into that, but it's not a prevailing factor.
For example, the events on the first planet I can't swallow. Not because it shouldn't be possible for waves to move like that but because there were almost no safety precautions from trained astronauts on whom fate of entire race rests. Ok, they couldn't see the waves before, because of the time dilation. But here's an idea. Send the robot with Hathaway right away (lol). It doesn't do anything just by standing next to the shuttle. And maybe the black box isn't that important when you realize the planet is uninhabitable.
About that planet… Well, they didn't realize those were waves untill Hathaway went pretty far in direction of black box.
And she was impulsive on the border of hystery during whole space segment, so it's not really ooc for her to run for it without thinking.
Besides, they are hardly trained astronauts, more like whoever able to pilot things left.
As I already said, I was completely ready to hate this movie, but it surprised me, so I have to give credit where it's due.
Yes, science is wonky, there are flaws with exposition, and drama is forced sometimes. But overall it's a decent movie, nowhere near as bad as some try to paint it (while thinking Avengers is Citizen Kane of our generation).
With me it's more about plot issues. Science kinda ties into that, but it's not a prevailing factor.
For example, the events on the first planet I can't swallow. Not because it shouldn't be possible for waves to move like that but because there were almost no safety precautions from trained astronauts on whom fate of entire race rests. Ok, they couldn't see the waves before, because of the time dilation. But here's an idea. Send the robot with Hathaway right away (lol). It doesn't do anything just by standing next to the shuttle. And maybe the black box isn't that important when you realize the planet is uninhabitable.
Not to mention the dude that died… He could have gotten inside any time he wanted, even after he saw Hathaway was being rescued by the robot. Still he just stood there and the robot with Hathaway got inside the ship and he didn't.
My memory is kinda shoddy… But the problem with Earth was that they couldn't grow enough food, right? And was gonna die from starvation within like a generation? What did they eat on the space habitats then? :v
Science parts was stretched to it's limits and beyond here, there's no disputing that. Maybe we don't know what's inside the black hole, but it will sure as hell kill you before you get the chance to find out.
Do you know that? Do you know what kind of black hole it was? Do you know how a rotating black hole differs from a non-rotating black hole. Do you know how hot the accretion disk was? Do you know if we have materials that are capable of maintaining their structural integrity at that heat? If so for how long? Does it matter how long at that point due to extreme warping of time done by gravity? At what distance would the warping of time and the time it takes for the material to lose it's integrity result in the material being incapable of surviving the journey?
You don't know any of that. So how can make that bolded statement with such confidence. If anyone here could honestly dispute the scientific inaccuracies of the movie as they were watching THEN and only THEN could you make any complaints about the science and I don't believe that anyone here has those qualifications. There are obvious things that people should be able to complain about like the time it takes to suffocate especially while thrashing around. That should intuitively come off as inaccurate.
The majority of the inaccuracies most people would need to do further reading after the film to point out. Unless you have that knowledge beforehand then there is no reason for it to impact your enjoyment of the film because you don't actually know whether it's right or wrong and if it is wrong you have no way of knowing how wrong it is. Coop surviving the black hole is not the most egregious scientific inaccuracy of the film. Not by a long shot.
This is basically the same reply I made to TLC so I'll stop making it but that goes for anyone else who wants to complain about the science like they know what the fuck they're talking about.
There are things wrong with the movie. There is science wrong with the movie. It's fiction. It's drama. It's spectacle. It's not a documentary. But stop pretending like the inaccuracies you didn't actually understand and know nothing about impacted your viewing pleasure as you were watching the film. You would have to be some obscene level of pompous to assume that you understand the gravity equations of a super massive rotating black hole and KNOW for a FACT that Coop wouldn't have survived it and thus had your suspension of disbelief thrown off.
My memory is kinda shoddy… But the problem with Earth was that they couldn't grow enough food, right? And was gonna die from starvation within like a generation? What did they eat on the space habitats then? :v
The problem was that the plant species they were growing were getting killed off by a blight (which was airborne) so all they had left by the end was corn. When they moved to the space habitats they were no longer in earths atmosphere and could grow whatever they wanted.
The problem was that the plant species they were growing were getting killed off by a blight (which was airborne) so all they had left by the end was corn. When they moved to the space habitats they were no longer in earths atmosphere and could grow whatever they wanted.
Yeah, that's how I remembered it too. But then they didn't actually need to go to space, they could just have sealed the stations on the ground.
Yeah, that's how I remembered it too. But then they didn't actually need to go to space, they could just have sealed the stations on the ground.
The scientist were already living underground. In order for everyone to do that you'd have to make massive completely air tight structures to house everyone. Besides the dust that I assume was from the lack of plant life to hold the top soil in place the blight was also changing the atmospheric composition of the planet. So you'd have to have massive air tight structures that recycled the same oxygen that they started with.
I'm assuming the space habitats were a temporary solution until they found the new planet and could take everyone there because the space stations would basically have the same air recycling problem and would only be able to support a limited amount of life, but they would have food. Or they could use the space stations specifically for the growth of food for everyone on the surface while they wait for a new planet. I don't remember how they were using the habitats.
To keep my answer short.
I'm certainly no expert on black holes, but as far as I've read, there would basically be a race between gamma rays and gravity on which gets to kill the astronauts first. And their shuttle certainly didn't have an ablative hull armor, regenerative shielding or any of the other crap Federation starships are equipped with.
But even if I didn't read anything about black holes, I have enough common sense to imagine how a phenomenon that is strong enough to not even let light escape would affect any humans that came close to it. It can't even be debated.
Of course, those 5th dimension beings could have rigged it to not kill Matthew McConaughey, or something. They could have gone with it differently, you know. Maybe with another wormhole that lead inside the black hole (if it was the only place where 5Ds could construct the communication device).
That's not to say the black hole didn't look awesome, or those waves weren't the fucking scariest thing I've seen in a while. It just seems the movie took a lot of shortcuts. It's as if they wrote themselves in a corner and then had to make compromises. As I understood, early drafts were considerably different. There were dead Chinese astrounauts, their robots that were left behind and some kind of lifeform that absorbed radiation.
I accidentaly read just the part about Chinese months before, and kept waiting for them to appear for more than half a movie, lol. It would have made sense if Americans weren't the only ones that tried to do something. So I was a little disappointed when it turned out they were alone in it.
This black hole was primarily emitting low level X-rays so the astronauts could survive. Because the black hole is super massive and rotating there is no reason assume that an object with the right material could not pass into it in one piece. Since the movie is fiction and takes place in a fictional future you have no way of knowing what materials we would have been available and I'm willing to bet that you have no idea if the materials we have now could survive those conditions. I'm also willing to bet that since you don't know much about black holes in general and know even less about the black hole in the film you have no understanding of what type of stress or obstacles an astronaut would encounter around or near a black hole of that type.
As you've said you had to do further reading but you make the claim that your common sense alone was enough to dispute the accuracy of what you were seeing but your common knowledge on the subject is so low that your common sense would be based on what? That light can't get out so obviously nothing could go through it intact? That's the worst assumption ever and it's based on zero factual knowledge or understanding of black holes other than light can't escape it. It's like watching Titanic and going "the ship wouldn't have sunk because I know most ships back then had containment hulls through the entire lower level." The knowledge you possess is not enough knowledge to make the assumption that you're making.
Common sense and quantum mechanics notoriously do not go together. As in the things that normally make sense based on common sense do not work with quantum mechanics. But somehow you're saying YOUR common sense was enough for your to not only understand what was happening but indisputable say "that is not possible."
You look like one of those guys that are unable to hold a discussion without getting personal about it. It's like I've offended you personally when I criticized the movie, lol.
I like how you tried to give explanations probably filmmakers themselves didn't think of.
If your argument is based on your own common sense how can I question it without getting personal?
Also physicist who consulted on the film wrote an entire book on the science of the movie so I doubt I'm thinking of anything he or any one of his peers hasn't thought of.
And i'm only getting like this when you're criticizing the science. Because like i've said repeatedly I don't think anyone here including myself is smart enough to realize the actual inaccuracies in the science as they were watching the film which makes any complaints about the science that was displayed ruining your enjoyment of the film total bull shit.
Complain about what you know.
It's like I didn't even write the science wasn't the main reason why I didn't like the movie. I can live with weird black hole anomalies. I managed to enjoy through most of the Star Trek episodes without letting crazy space shit ruin my fun.
What I have a problem with is dumb characters. But we all know how Hollywood works. Movies have to be dumbed down a little, in order to give best returns on invested.
I know they consulted experts on this movie, but I don't know how much of their input ended up in the movie, and how much of it got cut out because it would have made a boring plot, or it would result in premature character deaths, or extinction of the human race. I really do believe some corners had to be cut in order to make the movie interesting for 3 hours.
Im not arguing against your dislike of the movie based on the subjective stuff. I am not responding to your complaints about the subjective stuff. Your post that I quoted initially was you saying things were indisputable but you don't know what or how. You then follow it up with that bolded part which is flat out incorrect.
Again and again and again I will apparently have to state that I'm not taking issue with your or anyone elses complaints about the subjective stuff in the movie. Your entitled to that and i've already stated my thoughts on it.
What I will challenge is the criticism of the science and how that impacted your ability to enjoy the movie because so far no one here has demonstrated that they understand most of the scientific inaccuracies and that's with follow up reading. During initial viewing your knowledge would be significantly less.
Im not arguing against your dislike of the movie based on the subjective stuff. I am not responding to your complaints about the subjective stuff. Your post that I quoted initially was you saying things were indisputable but you don't know what or how. You then follow it up with that bolded part which is flat out incorrect.
Again and again and again I will apparently have to state that I'm not taking issue with your or anyone elses complaints about the subjective stuff in the movie. Your entitled to that and i've already stated my thoughts on it.
What I will challenge is the criticism of the science and how that impacted your ability to enjoy the movie because so far no one here has demonstrated that they understand most of the scientific inaccuracies and that's with follow up reading. During initial viewing your knowledge would be significantly less.
Well, I'm agreeing with you as I've enjoyed the movie to bits but still understood some of the inaccuracies, but that didn't bother me too much since it's a sci-fi movie and it seems it's getting a ridiculous amount of criticism that wouldn't be applied to any other movie by similar directors. Somehow Nolan attracts a lot of hate and critics that don't know too much about what they are actually criticising, who wouldn't criticise movies from other directors on the same level.
And I don't like Nolan, I was very reluctant to see this one and went in expecting something bad. So I was incredibly happy seeing that the movie was great (for me) and most of the science (up until he entered the black hole, at which point real world science becomes 100% theoretical without any, ANY supporting fact anyways) was accurate and well done.
I had a problem with the beginning, how he found the NASA base thanks to some gravitational oddity (which was later explained by the fiction part which, again, current science cannot predict either, so it's fine), and I had a problem with the 1 hour on huge-wave-planet equals 23 years orbiting said planet. Which is false. Relativity permits time dilation due to gravity and movement, but the gravity on that planet was said to be only 120/130G of earth's gravity, so time dilation would have been barely noticable. The planet wasn't spinning incredibly fast either, so there is no theoretical (or practical) way for time dilation to have been this large.
I just don't understand why so many critiques hack away at this movie with incredible expectations that would never be applied to similar movies. I just don't get it, it's pointless and stupid; if you're gonna be pedantic then do it with all reviews/movies, and don't apply double standards.
Also don't start criticising physics that you don't understand. And if you do, then do it with all movies.
Despite many inaccuracies that are to be expected from a sci-fi movie, it is still one of the most accurate theoretical science movies ever produced and the vast majority of complaints that people have can be reduced to the theories applied and followed in the movie, which are perfectly consistent and thus critique is not applicable.
Point out plot holes, fine; point out inconsistent theories, fine; but most of the complaints are not doing so and are pretty moot.
I had a problem with the 1 hour on huge-wave-planet equals 23 years orbiting said planet. Which is false. Relativity permits time dilation due to gravity and movement, but the gravity on that planet was said to be only 120/130G of earth's gravity, so time dilation would have been barely noticable. The planet wasn't spinning incredibly fast either, so there is no theoretical (or practical) way for time dilation to have been this large.
The time dilation was due to the planet orbiting so close to the black hole. It was the holes gravity that was distoring time for things on the planet. I don't remember the position of the main ship while it was off planet but in order for anything to make sense it would have to be at a fixed point away from the planet while closely following the planets orbit around the hole. Otherwise if it was in orbit around the planet it would end up being subjected to the same time dilation. It could have been in the same place away from the planet but then the shuttle would have a longer journey back to it which would waste fuel.
I'm not really sure what exactly happened there. But that's the explanation for the time dilation being so large on the wave planet.
And I completely agree with the Nolan thing seeming to bring out the harsher side of critics.
The time dilation was due to the planet orbiting so close to the black hole. It was the holes gravity that was distoring time for things on the planet. I don't remember the position of the main ship while it was off planet but in order for anything to make sense it would have to be at a fixed point away from the planet while closely following the planets orbit around the hole. Otherwise if it was in orbit around the planet it would end up being subjected to the same time dilation. It could have been in the same place away from the planet but then the shuttle would have a longer journey back to it which would waste fuel.
I'm not really sure what exactly happened there. But that's the explanation for the time dilation being so large on the wave planet.
And I completely agree with the Nolan thing seeming to bring out the harsher side of critics.
Was it mentioned if that system had its own sun or if it was all orbiting the black hole? If the latter, where did it gain enough light/heat/energy from to be sustainable for human life? And if the time dilation was a result from it orbiting the black hole… Eh.
But yeah, those are questions I'd like to discuss, rather than what we did previously
I'm assuming the space habitats were a temporary solution until they found the new planet and could take everyone there because the space stations would basically have the same air recycling problem and would only be able to support a limited amount of life, but they would have food.
Okey, so we are on the same page here I think. Now, here's my "Plan A": Use the exact same technology they used for their "Plan A" only do not adapt it for space. Instead of having to spend energy on artificial gravity you have Earths gravity. You could use the ground for walls and so on, there are lots of advantages of having it on Earth.
Like their "Plan B" my "Earth Arks" would be only for a few people. Was it a hundred? These people would live in the Earth Arks until the ridiculously virulent blight had burned itself out or natural selection had produced a blight resistant crop/food source when they would have a planet ready to be reconquered by life.
What I will challenge is the criticism of the science and how that impacted your ability to enjoy the movie because so far no one here has demonstrated that they understand most of the scientific inaccuracies and that's with follow up reading. During initial viewing your knowledge would be significantly less.
Black holes are a fascinating thing and all I knew about them I knew before watching the movie.
The only thing I consulted afterwards was the plausibility of a water planet with waves moving like that. That doesn't mean I didn't enjoy the scene. Minus character stupidity, that is.
Okey, so we are on the same page here I think. Now, here's my "Plan A": Use the exact same technology they used for their "Plan A" only do not adapt it for space. Instead of having to spend energy on artificial gravity you have Earths gravity. You could use the ground for walls and so on, there are lots of advantages of having it on Earth.
Like their "Plan B" my "Earth Arks" would be only for a few people. Was it a hundred? These people would live in the Earth Arks until the ridiculously virulent blight had burned itself out or natural selection had produced a blight resistant crop/food source when they would have a planet ready to be reconquered by life.
They had already managed to achieve crio-sleep. That gave them various options. They could just put most of the population asleep while a minority remained awake to manage stuff and awaken people if needed in several bases around the world. The minority would use much less resources than the entire population. They could even take turns of 5 years, 10 years and so on so that the caretakers would rotate. They would only have to slowly nurture the best they could the conditions for the planet to start to reset itself in terms of plant and animal life and, even if it took hundreds of years, with crio-sleep that would become manageable.
Also, keep around several containers of those 5000 fertilized ovules just in case.
Okey, so we are on the same page here I think. Now, here's my "Plan A": Use the exact same technology they used for their "Plan A" only do not adapt it for space. Instead of having to spend energy on artificial gravity you have Earths gravity. You could use the ground for walls and so on, there are lots of advantages of having it on Earth.
Like their "Plan B" my "Earth Arks" would be only for a few people. Was it a hundred? These people would live in the Earth Arks until the ridiculously virulent blight had burned itself out or natural selection had produced a blight resistant crop/food source when they would have a planet ready to be reconquered by life.
I don't think the blight was going anywhere anytime soon. Think of it as the first tree's that developed on earth. Their presence significantly altered the atmospheric conditions of the planet changing the flora and fauna of the entire planet for millions of years. The way Michael Cain's character was talking earth was basically kicking them out. The only crop they had left was corn and the blight was going to wipe it out long before they developed some type of resistant strain. Their Plan A was an incredibly optimistic idea that they weren't expecting to work anyway. Realistically they expected most people on earth would die of either sickness or lack of food and that Plan B would ensure the survival of the species. The advantages I can think of of having the stations in space once they harnessed the power of gravity is
1. completely away from all blight.
2. Constant source of clean solar energy from the sun which the dust storms would impede.
3. Building a massive structure like that underground would be much harder than simply building the same structure on the surface and then lifting it into space piece by piece or even building it off world like in Star Trek. These structures are clearly several miles in diameter. Also it doesn't have the advantages of 1 and 2. Power source. waste disposal. structural integrity. geographic location. depending on how many people we're talking about living in these places I think space is more advantageous.
Also since both the space and underground stations were temporary solutions and they were waiting for a new planet the advantage of already having the ships in space versus moving the ships that were hopefully deep underground and hopefully built to be space. though the requirements for a building underground are much different from the requirements for a space station.
Was it mentioned if that system had its own sun or if it was all orbiting the black hole? If the latter, where did it gain enough light/heat/energy from to be sustainable for human life? And if the time dilation was a result from it orbiting the black hole… Eh.
But yeah, those are questions I'd like to discuss, rather than what we did previously
I remember something about a neutron star but I don't remember it's location with regard to the planets or the black hole. I don't think the movie did a good job of explaining the layout of the solar system. The accretion disk of Gargantua was around the same heat as our sun and was giving off a ton of light so it's possible that it could provide the necessary energy to sustain life. Or the light from the star could have provided the energy. I would assume if there was a neutron star and a black hole that would make it some type of extremely complicated binary start system. Since they don't seem to be competing for planets that are orbiting close to or around Gargantua they must be in some type of stable equilibrium. I'd have to do a lot more reading on binary star systems though to understand it.
I don't think the blight was going anywhere anytime soon. Think of it as the first tree's that developed on earth. Their presence significantly altered the atmospheric conditions of the planet changing the flora and fauna of the entire planet for millions of years. The way Michael Cain's character was talking earth was basically kicking them out. The only crop they had left was corn and the blight was going to wipe it out long before they developed some type of resistant strain.
And when the blight has killed everything, which it seem to be doing rather ridiculously fast, it will die itself. I guess the most incredible thing for me was that the blight somehow managed to kill everything. :v I'd say, scientifically speaking, that there would have to be some form of demons involved for that to happen.
As for 1,2 and 3:
1. Blight don't go through rock and concrete… :v
2. Except that they were out by Jupiter if I remember correctly. Not a lot of sun out there(4% of Earth). Also, who cares if it's clean when the planet is dead anyways? Just burn all the oil and coal and atoms you can get your hands on.
3. Hell no. :P Digging mines is, like, a pretty well known biz.
I really liked it but it didn't blow my mind. And it felt like it was the main purpose of the movie.
I'm a big fan of TARS. He deserves his own movie.
I was a little late in watching this movie and to be honest I liked it alot, so I visited this thread and oh my… some thoughts and spoilers following:
At first I wanted the black hole to be created by aliens (friendly ones, because the galaxy is big enough for everyone). Sadly it wasn't so. 5th dimensional humans it is.
And then I read that people here are upset about Anne Hathaway talking about love and stuff and that it is important. Well, the fact that these future humans created this paradox together with Cooper, for mankind to be alive in the first place and develop to this high state in the future IS infact the negation for the love mumbo jumbo of Amalia.
Cooper and his daughter were the key for surviving, and the future humans thanked them this way. Love wasn't involved imo, it was a welcome side effect of the paradox.
I also read that the other Nolan brother planned to kill Cooper in the black hole in the first script, dooming all existing humans except Amalia and the future colony of embryos (wich will ultimately develop into 5th dimensional state anyway). So both endings makes sense, but I prefer the happy one.