- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Interstellar - things you LOVED and HATED about this movie
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:06 pm to Thracken13
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:06 pm to Thracken13
quote:
Minus the 2 year hibernation, what was the length of time (form his perspective) that Cooper was away from Earth until he woke up at Cooper Station?
Hard to say, and I have thought about this as well. I wouldnt even know where to start to try and calculate that. First planet he was only on for about 2 1/3(ish) hours, or 23 years earth time. We dont know how long he was on Mann's planet. Maybe a day or two at most? Seemed like only day, but I could be wrong. We dont know how long he was in the tesseract submitting the morse codes to her. If I HAD to guess, it couldnt have been more than 5-10 years.
2
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:23 pm to Tommy Wayne
When he leaves earth his daughter is like 11 and when he wakes up on Cooper stations shes like 90.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:28 pm to DukeSilver
quote:
When he leaves earth his daughter is like 11 and when he wakes up on Cooper stations shes like 90.
Earth years are different.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:30 pm to Tommy Wayne
Misread that you said from his perspective.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:31 pm to Tommy Wayne
That sounds about right. It was 2 years to Saturn. They don't really say how much time was spent getting to Miller or Dr. Mann's planets once they were on the other side of the wormhole.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 12:33 pm to FairhopeTider
quote:
Minus the 2 year hibernation, what was the length of time (form his perspective) that Cooper was away from Earth until he woke up at Cooper Station?
3 months tops I'd imagine, depending on how long it took them to get to Miller's planet. Mann is not far from Miller's planet since it's almost immediately pulled into Guargantua's gravity as soon as it gets out of Mann's orbit, to where I doubt it took much time at all to get from one planet to the next.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 1:05 pm to OMLandshark
Saw it Saturday... Similar to 'Gravity', Nolan fricks so much of the science up I couldn't enjoy the movie. Plotholes and inconsistencies throughout. 
Posted on 4/6/15 at 1:25 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Similar to 'Gravity', Nolan fricks so much of the science up I couldn't enjoy the movie. Plotholes and inconsistencies throughout.
Oh yeah, scientific inaccuracies.
I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more than this guy and how it's been seen as the most scientifically accurate film set in space since 2001: Neil deGrasse Tyson
But yeah, I'm sure you've got as great of a knowledge about space as this guy does and how scientifically inaccurate it is.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 1:32 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Saw it Saturday... Similar to 'Gravity', Nolan fricks so much of the science up I couldn't enjoy the movie. Plotholes and inconsistencies throughout.
Please list out these scientific frickups.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 1:42 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Oh yeah, scientific inaccuracies.
I'm sure you know a hell of a lot more than this guy and how it's been seen as the most scientifically accurate film set in space since 2001: Neil deGrasse Tyson
But yeah, I'm sure you've got as great of a knowledge about space as this guy does and how scientifically inaccurate it is.
Sorry but after following Tyson on twitter the last couple of yeasrs... I'm not sure he's playing with a full deck.
Sorry but I thought there were too many plot inconsistencies and "head scratchers". And yeah shithead... I know a few things about orbital mechanics.
Nolan should not have veered so far away from Kip Thorne's book... the physicist that did all of the calcs behind the science of the movie.
Another take on the movie from a physicist...
ETA...
Here's an article featuring Tyson where he kind of points out many of the movie's flaws, but was OK with some of them for story telling purposes... which I am as well, but just be consistent with it.
LINK
This post was edited on 4/6/15 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:07 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Sorry but I thought there were too many plot inconsistencies and "head scratchers". And yeah shithead... I know a few things about orbital mechanics.
Yeah, more so than the head of astrophysics at the Museum of Natural History. He said they got right on point where you start entering 0-G, but I guess you know more about orbital mechanics than he does.
quote:
Nolan should not have veered so far away from Kip Thorne's book... the physicist that did all of the calcs behind the science of the movie.
Who gives a frick? I'm not going to deny that Nolan bent some of the rules to his liking, but that liking lead to the better story. If raw science fricks up the story that he's trying to tell, then try make it as close to scientifically accurate as that plot point will allow, and then just break it. He didn't however pole-vault over any rules of science and at least everything in that movie has some scientific grounds.
Gravity didn't even fricking try, since if the debris was traveling that fast, it would have easily escaped orbit, and that doesn't include everything else. Putting Interstellar and Gravity in the same conversation in scientific accuracy is laughable at best.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:08 pm to Sgt_Lincoln_Osiris
quote:
They don't really say how much time was spent getting to Miller or Dr. Mann's planets once they were on the other side of the wormhole.
The film and novelization both mention that it took the Endurance "months" to travel from Miller's planet to Mann's planet.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:10 pm to Cs
quote:
The film and novelization both mention that it took the Endurance "months" to travel from Miller's planet to Mann's planet.
Then I'm guessing Mann's planet is on the opposite side of Gargantua as Miller's is, because the movie seems to imply right after leaving Mann's planet, that they're immediately being sucked into Guargantua, to where I doubt no more than a few hours passed between the docking scene and when Cooper goes into the black hole.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:12 pm to Ace Midnight
Man, I'm catching up with this thread and I see this:
That's a mistake IMO. MNS has made some really good movies. In recent years, it's become "cool" to hate on just about all of his movies, but some of them are really good.
Sixth Sense is great, especially if it hasn't been ruined for you already (and even if it has, it's still very good).
Signs is arguably his best film. People like to shite all over it, but most of the people doing that completely missed the point of the entire movie, which is pretty hilarious.
Unbreakable is good, but you've seen that.
I thought The Village was really cool, but people love to hate on it or say that they figured out the end really early on (which isn't impossible, but most people saying that are lying IMO).
Devil is pretty good...I liked it. I don't think a lot of people saw it, and it was largely ignored. But it's a simple, cool little movie that takes place almost exclusively in an elevator. Cool concept though.
quote:
I know this won't surprise you, Fox, but I've only watched 1 of this cat's films - Unbreakable
And, the acting was good, but overall? Meh. Was not compelled to go back and watch Sixth Sense - or anything else he ever did.
That's a mistake IMO. MNS has made some really good movies. In recent years, it's become "cool" to hate on just about all of his movies, but some of them are really good.
Sixth Sense is great, especially if it hasn't been ruined for you already (and even if it has, it's still very good).
Signs is arguably his best film. People like to shite all over it, but most of the people doing that completely missed the point of the entire movie, which is pretty hilarious.
Unbreakable is good, but you've seen that.
I thought The Village was really cool, but people love to hate on it or say that they figured out the end really early on (which isn't impossible, but most people saying that are lying IMO).
Devil is pretty good...I liked it. I don't think a lot of people saw it, and it was largely ignored. But it's a simple, cool little movie that takes place almost exclusively in an elevator. Cool concept though.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:22 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Devil is pretty good...I liked it. I don't think a lot of people saw it, and it was largely ignored. But it's a simple, cool little movie that takes place almost exclusively in an elevator. Cool concept though.
saw this quite some time ago. It was interesting.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:26 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Then I'm guessing Mann's planet is on the opposite side of Gargantua as Miller's is, because the movie seems to imply right after leaving Mann's planet, that they're immediately being sucked into Guargantua, to where I doubt no more than a few hours passed between the docking scene and when Cooper goes into the black hole.
Here's the orbit of Mann's planet around Gargantuan.
Region A is is where the planet was in its orbit when the Endurance charted a course towards it from Miller's planet, and Region B is where the planet was situated as they left.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:32 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Gravity didn't even fricking try, since if the debris was traveling that fast, it would have easily escaped orbit, and that doesn't include everything else. Putting Interstellar and Gravity in the same conversation in scientific accuracy is laughable at best.
Yeah well... The ranger spacecraft grossly and continuously violated one of the main themes of the movie (gravity). It must have come from the future where that equation was solved and had some sort of starwarsesque anti gravity propulsion. Apparently it doesn't work on Earth though as they launched on a multi-stage rocket. Why didn't they need that on the other planets?
Whatever... I don't have time for this shite.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:41 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Apparently it doesn't work on Earth though as they launched on a multi-stage rocket. Why didn't they need that on the other planets?
Multi-stage rockets are used to conserve the volume of fuel storage space needed on the craft. It is not unthinkable that they would have used a mutistage rocket to launch the craft into space initially if only to conserve the amount of fuel storage space needed on board.
Plus, when they landed on planets, it was not the entire assembly landing on planets, just a small away vehicle. It is not unthinkable that they would have departed utilizing multi-stage rockets to conserve volume on the craft AND brought along enough fuel to explore multiple worlds with the away vehicle.
Posted on 4/6/15 at 2:56 pm to BoostAddict
quote:
Yeah well... The ranger spacecraft grossly and continuously violated one of the main themes of the movie (gravity). It must have come from the future where that equation was solved and had some sort of starwarsesque anti gravity propulsion. Apparently it doesn't work on Earth though as they launched on a multi-stage rocket. Why didn't they need that on the other planets?
Because they didn't want to waste that spacecraft's very limited fuel, so they do a complete launch so that vehicle could get out into space on a full tank.
This post was edited on 4/6/15 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 4/6/15 at 3:01 pm to OMLandshark
have you ever noticed that most of nolans movie have the same ending? 
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News