5 ms·

Can I confess that after about 20 minutes of Interstellar, I stood up and left the movie theater? I was initially annoyed by the fact the movie makers ignored t

Can I confess that after about 20 minutes of Interstellar, I stood up and left the movie theater? I was initially annoyed by the fact the movie makers ignored the tyranny of the rocket equation: a reasonably normal looking rocket took our heroes to some faraway planets. Guys, you need an absolutely huge rocket to just go to Mars. We'll never make it out of the Solar system with chemical rockets only. But somehow, in a world with rusty trucks you get a rocket to take you to some planet that obviously is not one of the seven planets in our neighborhood. Now, you can suspend your disbelief, and accept that in this movie-universe the humankind was more advanced. But then they reach the ocean planet, and instead of getting whatever information they came for via radio transmission, they need to land to pick up a robot. And they couldn't just retrieve a memory stick from the robot, they needed to take the whole thing with them. That's how much I saw from the movie before I decided enough is enough.

brtkdotse 6y ago
I read this in my head with Comic Book Guy's voice and it made my day. It's funny how once you get hung up on a minor detail it spoils the entire experience. I had a friend who refused to play Jedi Knight II because the light saber physics didn't work like they did in the movies. Each to his own I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- thicknavyrain 6y ago
  I think there was actually a cheat code in Jedi Knight II that _did_ enable movie style lightsaber dynamics.
mcv 6y ago
I loved the rocket they used to take off from Earth. I was also fine with them landing on other planets. Where this broke, is that after they reached those other planets, all of a sudden they didn't need a rocket for take-off anymore. Just pretend you're the Millennium Falcon and take-off without needing much fuel. As if by going through the wormhole, they entered a universe where physics worked differently. I'm totally on board with movie physics, but it's the inconsistency of the physics that's jarring. Especially if they then claim it's the most realistic hard-SF space movie ever. It started out that way and then abandoned it halfway through. Still loved the movie, but the physics wasn't very consistent.
- ironmagma 6y ago
  I love Interstellar, but will admit the final act is pretty surreal. Still, it seems inevitable for that kind of dreamy and emotional beginning that the cold hard science would have to be lifted at some point in order to bring a satisfying ending that feels complete. That said, can never forget that cheesy “love transcends the dimensions of time and space” line...
  - mcv 6y ago
    I'm fine with the ending, actually. The laws of physics are supposed to break down in black holes, after all. Of course that also means you can't enter them intact, but for the sake of the story, it's fine. It was certainly interesting. It's just: why would you make the point that you need a big rocket to take off from Earth, and then immediately abandon that point when you reach another planet? I guess the only explanation is really that the story transitions from a real world setting to a space SF setting. Different setting, different laws of movie physics.
    - Udik 6y ago
      Also, am I wrong or the rocket actually takes off from the inside of the "NASA" office building?
      - mcv 6y ago
        I think you're right about that. Certainly an unusual launch pad. But wasn't it also that they weren't planning on leaving anyone behind anyway? In that case destroying the office building isn't that big of a deal. Although it shouldn't collapse until the rocket is clear of course. Now I need to rewatch that movie.
monster_group 6y ago
If you didn't finish watching Interstellar you missed out. It is one of the best phys-fi movies out there. The physics consultant on that movie was Kip Thorne [0], a giant of gravitational physics and a Noble laureate. Phys-fi movies don't get any better than this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne
- credit_guy 6y ago
  That's the thing, I was aware of all the hype about this movie, including the terrific consulting. After 20 minutes though, I gave up. What exactly did I miss? Some time travel, some worm holes? Well, I don't personally think that has anything to do with science. For my taste, The Martian is the best hard sci-fi book and sci-fi movie out there.
  - growlist 6y ago
    I also thought it was pretty dreadful, even attempting to suspend my disbelief etc.
  - avian 6y ago
    I completely agree with you regarding Interstellar. I think it’s all about expectations. It was advertised to be this hard sci-fi with plausible physics and it wasn’t, as you say. On the other hand, I remember enjoying watching the Core. It’s a stupid kind of sci-fi that allows you to suspend your disbelief and have fun. What else can you do with a movie that literally calls the metal the ship is made of unobtanium?
    - mcv 6y ago
      It does make me wonder how they obtain the metal to make the ship, though. I agree, though. Stupid space-fantasy can be tons of fun. Hard-SF always gets criticised for not being truly hard-SF. Even in the Martian, the adjustments needed to pick him up at the end would mean they're never going to make it back to Earth. Does it matter? It's still a fun movie. But balancing between fun and scientific accuracy can be hard, and a slip can be jarring. So how does everybody feel about The Expanse? There's some explicit super-science McGuffins in there, but most of it seems about as accurate as you could hope for, given the setting. Travel takes months. Not entire sure how their engines work, because the Rocinante does change course a lot without carrying insane amounts of fuel, so they do seem to have some sort of fantasy fuel.
nix23 6y ago
That's why i am such a big Fan of 'The Expanse'. Especially the first season is on point with 'reality'. EDIT: But of course like always, the books are better :)
jiggawatts 6y ago
The first launch is 40 minutes in and is entirely realistic. The second launch is with the Ranger spaceship from the water planet, 1h:15 minutes in. The fact that you sat through over an hour of this movie and it felt like 20 minutes shows that it completely engrossed you to the point that you failed to notice the passage of time. But anyway, this is far too harsh a criticism for one of the most realistic science fiction movies in ages, possibly ever. Here's a short list of things you'll not see in any other science fiction movie, except for rare exceptions like 2001 A Space Odyssey, and certainly not in combination: * No sound in space. The explosion caused by Dr Mann is not only silent, but this silence is used to fantastic dramatic effect. I got goosebumps! One of the best moments in cinema I've ever experienced. * Spinning the spaceship to create artificial gravity. No gravity plating in this movie that can be turned on and off with a switch. * Having to hibernate for the voyage to just Saturn, which is realistic because any such journey at sub-light speeds would take years even with advanced rocket technology. * Correctly spherical wormholes with accurate rendering of the light distortion. * Correctly rendered black holes. * Correct demonstration of time distortion as caused by said black holes. * The spaceships are physical models and the lighting effects of space and planets as seen through the windows are entirely realistic. They're a perfect match for videos taken on the ISS or on the Apollo missions. * An incredible atmosphere that makes you feel, down to the very marrow of your being, the unspeakable isolation that deep space travel implies. Of being light years from Terra. Of being truly, utterly isolated to a level that is beyond all human reason. Dr Mann's plight made me have existential dread like no movie ever has. In the entire movie, the only things I fault were: 1) It's not unreasonable for the Ranger to or the Lander to take off from a planet surface, as long as the gravity is significantly lower than Earth. Mars-like gravity would allow this just fine. What is unreasonable is for the Ranger to travel through a gravity well that could cause the level of time distortion they experienced. This makes for a fun plot element though, so whatever. 2) While they had a realistic wormhole and black hole, they "had" to put a tunnel into the wormhole for Hollywood reasons. People expect a tunnel. There is no tunnel, the second you enter you're already on the other side and the spherical exit starts receding behind you. 3) The floating solid clouds are a bit silly. ... and that's about it for the criticism. Meanwhile, I can heap praise on this movie for hours. In my book it's a nearly perfect movie, and anyone who criticises it is revealing more about their own flaws, about their own inability to suspend disbelief, and their own inability to accept anything that is less than absolute perfection than any flaw in the movie. (It also has amazing music. And time travel. And awesome robots. And...)
mehrdadn 6y ago
> We'll never make it out of the Solar system with chemical rockets only. Confused, don't we already have Voyagers outside the solar system?
- restalis 6y ago
  Voyager probes are under the weight that is otherwise necessary for human life support systems (i.e. fully covering that "we" operative word), Voyager probe travel under the speed that may be considered useful in any way (for human travel or otherwise), and finally (and probably most importantly), the current speed of the Voyager probes is not only the speed buildup provided by their chemical rockets but also of gravitational slingshots around more than one planet.

brtkdotse 6y ago

I read this in my head with Comic Book Guy's voice and it made my day. It's funny how once you get hung up on a minor detail it spoils the entire experience. I had a friend who refused to play Jedi Knight II because the light saber physics didn't work like they did in the movies. Each to his own I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

thicknavyrain 6y ago
I think there was actually a cheat code in Jedi Knight II that _did_ enable movie style lightsaber dynamics.

mcv 6y ago

I loved the rocket they used to take off from Earth. I was also fine with them landing on other planets. Where this broke, is that after they reached those other planets, all of a sudden they didn't need a rocket for take-off anymore. Just pretend you're the Millennium Falcon and take-off without needing much fuel. As if by going through the wormhole, they entered a universe where physics worked differently. I'm totally on board with movie physics, but it's the inconsistency of the physics that's jarring. Especially if they then claim it's the most realistic hard-SF space movie ever. It started out that way and then abandoned it halfway through. Still loved the movie, but the physics wasn't very consistent.

ironmagma 6y ago
I love Interstellar, but will admit the final act is pretty surreal. Still, it seems inevitable for that kind of dreamy and emotional beginning that the cold hard science would have to be lifted at some point in order to bring a satisfying ending that feels complete. That said, can never forget that cheesy “love transcends the dimensions of time and space” line...
- mcv 6y ago
  I'm fine with the ending, actually. The laws of physics are supposed to break down in black holes, after all. Of course that also means you can't enter them intact, but for the sake of the story, it's fine. It was certainly interesting. It's just: why would you make the point that you need a big rocket to take off from Earth, and then immediately abandon that point when you reach another planet? I guess the only explanation is really that the story transitions from a real world setting to a space SF setting. Different setting, different laws of movie physics.
  - Udik 6y ago
    Also, am I wrong or the rocket actually takes off from the inside of the "NASA" office building?
    - mcv 6y ago
      I think you're right about that. Certainly an unusual launch pad. But wasn't it also that they weren't planning on leaving anyone behind anyway? In that case destroying the office building isn't that big of a deal. Although it shouldn't collapse until the rocket is clear of course. Now I need to rewatch that movie.

monster_group 6y ago

If you didn't finish watching Interstellar you missed out. It is one of the best phys-fi movies out there. The physics consultant on that movie was Kip Thorne [0], a giant of gravitational physics and a Noble laureate. Phys-fi movies don't get any better than this. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kip_Thorne

credit_guy 6y ago
That's the thing, I was aware of all the hype about this movie, including the terrific consulting. After 20 minutes though, I gave up. What exactly did I miss? Some time travel, some worm holes? Well, I don't personally think that has anything to do with science. For my taste, The Martian is the best hard sci-fi book and sci-fi movie out there.
- growlist 6y ago
  I also thought it was pretty dreadful, even attempting to suspend my disbelief etc.
- avian 6y ago
  I completely agree with you regarding Interstellar. I think it’s all about expectations. It was advertised to be this hard sci-fi with plausible physics and it wasn’t, as you say. On the other hand, I remember enjoying watching the Core. It’s a stupid kind of sci-fi that allows you to suspend your disbelief and have fun. What else can you do with a movie that literally calls the metal the ship is made of unobtanium?
  - mcv 6y ago
    It does make me wonder how they obtain the metal to make the ship, though. I agree, though. Stupid space-fantasy can be tons of fun. Hard-SF always gets criticised for not being truly hard-SF. Even in the Martian, the adjustments needed to pick him up at the end would mean they're never going to make it back to Earth. Does it matter? It's still a fun movie. But balancing between fun and scientific accuracy can be hard, and a slip can be jarring. So how does everybody feel about The Expanse? There's some explicit super-science McGuffins in there, but most of it seems about as accurate as you could hope for, given the setting. Travel takes months. Not entire sure how their engines work, because the Rocinante does change course a lot without carrying insane amounts of fuel, so they do seem to have some sort of fantasy fuel.

nix23 6y ago

That's why i am such a big Fan of 'The Expanse'. Especially the first season is on point with 'reality'. EDIT: But of course like always, the books are better :)

jiggawatts 6y ago

The first launch is 40 minutes in and is entirely realistic. The second launch is with the Ranger spaceship from the water planet, 1h:15 minutes in. The fact that you sat through over an hour of this movie and it felt like 20 minutes shows that it completely engrossed you to the point that you failed to notice the passage of time. But anyway, this is far too harsh a criticism for one of the most realistic science fiction movies in ages, possibly ever. Here's a short list of things you'll not see in any other science fiction movie, except for rare exceptions like 2001 A Space Odyssey, and certainly not in combination: * No sound in space. The explosion caused by Dr Mann is not only silent, but this silence is used to fantastic dramatic effect. I got goosebumps! One of the best moments in cinema I've ever experienced. * Spinning the spaceship to create artificial gravity. No gravity plating in this movie that can be turned on and off with a switch. * Having to hibernate for the voyage to just Saturn, which is realistic because any such journey at sub-light speeds would take years even with advanced rocket technology. * Correctly spherical wormholes with accurate rendering of the light distortion. * Correctly rendered black holes. * Correct demonstration of time distortion as caused by said black holes. * The spaceships are physical models and the lighting effects of space and planets as seen through the windows are entirely realistic. They're a perfect match for videos taken on the ISS or on the Apollo missions. * An incredible atmosphere that makes you feel, down to the very marrow of your being, the unspeakable isolation that deep space travel implies. Of being light years from Terra. Of being truly, utterly isolated to a level that is beyond all human reason. Dr Mann's plight made me have existential dread like no movie ever has. In the entire movie, the only things I fault were: 1) It's not unreasonable for the Ranger to or the Lander to take off from a planet surface, as long as the gravity is significantly lower than Earth. Mars-like gravity would allow this just fine. What is unreasonable is for the Ranger to travel through a gravity well that could cause the level of time distortion they experienced. This makes for a fun plot element though, so whatever. 2) While they had a realistic wormhole and black hole, they "had" to put a tunnel into the wormhole for Hollywood reasons. People expect a tunnel. There is no tunnel, the second you enter you're already on the other side and the spherical exit starts receding behind you. 3) The floating solid clouds are a bit silly. ... and that's about it for the criticism. Meanwhile, I can heap praise on this movie for hours. In my book it's a nearly perfect movie, and anyone who criticises it is revealing more about their own flaws, about their own inability to suspend disbelief, and their own inability to accept anything that is less than absolute perfection than any flaw in the movie. (It also has amazing music. And time travel. And awesome robots. And...)

mehrdadn 6y ago

> We'll never make it out of the Solar system with chemical rockets only. Confused, don't we already have Voyagers outside the solar system?

restalis 6y ago
Voyager probes are under the weight that is otherwise necessary for human life support systems (i.e. fully covering that "we" operative word), Voyager probe travel under the speed that may be considered useful in any way (for human travel or otherwise), and finally (and probably most importantly), the current speed of the Voyager probes is not only the speed buildup provided by their chemical rockets but also of gravitational slingshots around more than one planet.