5 ms·

Unfortunately, the movie preferred pretty picture over scientific accuracy. The image of the black hole lacked the frequency shift as well as intensity varianc

Unfortunately, the movie preferred pretty picture over scientific accuracy. The image of the black hole lacked the frequency shift as well as intensity variance described in the paper.

dschuetz 5y ago
Yes, because it's a movie, not a documentary.
- dTal 5y ago
  They hired a physicist to run simulations to get it "as accurate as possible". I think comments about the achieved fidelity are warranted.
  - unethical_ban 5y ago
    Rather, it's an example of "No good deed goes unpunished". You suggest that had they done no effort at asking scientists about the theories, no criticism would be warranted, but since they did and cherry-picked what would best support the narrative, they deserve scrutiny. And I disagree.
hawk_ 5y ago
To me the bigger issue with the movie was that it pretended that Love is a fundamental force in the universe at the level of gravity, electromagnetism etc...
- thanatos519 5y ago
  Indeed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces are all emergent consequences of Love, but that would have confused modern scientistic audience so I don't blame them for glossing over that.
  - Simon_says 5y ago
    It sure confused me.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  It didn't pretend that at all. At best it suggested it. It is a fantastic, moving film - my top 5 all time.
f6v 5y ago
The number of people who’d appreciate such accuracy would be minuscule.
- Retric 5y ago
  Accuracy is great because it’s both consistent and changes expectations. Everyone expects explosions in movies to be giant fireballs so we get more silly giant fireballs. Movies that go for realistic explosions end up feeling shockingly gritty by comparison.
  - java-man 5y ago
    I would have preferred more scientifically accurate movies. Judding by the comments, many more prople who prefer otherwise. I hope once day, there will be a movie that accurately portrays the reality. I know I am not alone. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
- jfengel 5y ago
  Sometimes, an audience can feel accuracy even when they don't know it. A film that has a deep, complex internal consistency can engage audiences and them feel like they want to know more. They don't have to understand the details, but they like to feel that you do. Reality is a rich source of such consistent details. In historical films, for example, few audience members will really appreciate that you got all of the costumes correct down to the specific year, but the film can feel better than one that mixes Georgian with Victorian with French Court styles. Getting the physics right won't automatically make a story better. It can constrain the story too much. But if you choose to go down that route, and can still tell a good story, the audience will benefit even when they don't know what they're looking at. It's why actors like to go into "back story" for a character even when the audience doesn't know what that back story is, and why they work on physicality (walking like the character, holding a fork like the character, etc.) even when nobody will notice. One beautiful example of that: look at the way people moved chess pieces in Queen's Gambit. Even if you don't play, you knew that the actors knew it (and indeed, it came as no surprise to me that they were trained by Gary Kasparov). It's a little thing, but it was just one of a million things that helped that project go right.
mmmBacon 5y ago
In Kip Thorne’s book about Interstellar he talks about what they had to do to make something that would work for a movie. They had to choose a specific mass and rotation speed that doesn’t really exist in nature or the image would not be something that would be intelligible to the viewer and work for the story. This includes the tidal effect in the film. In the end they were making a science fiction film and not writing a scientific paper.
- shepardrtc 5y ago
  > they had to do to make something that would work for a movie Here's an article that includes a picture of what they thought it would really look like: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-t... I think that would have worked perfectly fine. Maybe throw in some more stuff circling it further out.
- short_sells_poo 5y ago
  I agree with you. The fact that the visuals of the black hole didn't include the frequency shift and intensity variance was perhaps the smallest artistic license that was taken and didn't really prevent my suspension of disbelief. If they wanted to create something physically accurate, then all we'd have seen is a blinding white globe as the accretion disk of a black hole emits tremendous amounts of energy and couldn't be resolved to the iconic shape in the movie by the naked eye. The hapless astronauts would've likely received a fatal dose of ionizing radiation in minutes (if not seconds), and Matthew Mcconaughey would've been shredded by tidal forces long before he entered the event horizon of a stellar mass black hole. The movie took some liberty with physics, but managed to capture the imagination of so many people. I much prefer it this way. Those who want to dig deeper can either watch an actual documentary or read some books on the topic.
wumpus 5y ago
In my group and collaboration, we frequently discuss how difficult it is to do outreach because you'll get constantly criticized by fellow scientists about every single simplification.

Unfortunately, the movie preferred pretty picture over scientific accuracy. The image of the black hole lacked the frequency shift as well as intensity variance described in the paper.

dschuetz 5y ago

Yes, because it's a movie, not a documentary.

dTal 5y ago
They hired a physicist to run simulations to get it "as accurate as possible". I think comments about the achieved fidelity are warranted.
- unethical_ban 5y ago
  Rather, it's an example of "No good deed goes unpunished". You suggest that had they done no effort at asking scientists about the theories, no criticism would be warranted, but since they did and cherry-picked what would best support the narrative, they deserve scrutiny. And I disagree.

hawk_ 5y ago

To me the bigger issue with the movie was that it pretended that Love is a fundamental force in the universe at the level of gravity, electromagnetism etc...

thanatos519 5y ago
Indeed, gravity, electromagnetism, and the strong and weak forces are all emergent consequences of Love, but that would have confused modern scientistic audience so I don't blame them for glossing over that.
- Simon_says 5y ago
  It sure confused me.
unethical_ban 5y ago
It didn't pretend that at all. At best it suggested it. It is a fantastic, moving film - my top 5 all time.

f6v 5y ago

The number of people who’d appreciate such accuracy would be minuscule.

Retric 5y ago
Accuracy is great because it’s both consistent and changes expectations. Everyone expects explosions in movies to be giant fireballs so we get more silly giant fireballs. Movies that go for realistic explosions end up feeling shockingly gritty by comparison.
- java-man 5y ago
  I would have preferred more scientifically accurate movies. Judding by the comments, many more prople who prefer otherwise. I hope once day, there will be a movie that accurately portrays the reality. I know I am not alone. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
jfengel 5y ago
Sometimes, an audience can feel accuracy even when they don't know it. A film that has a deep, complex internal consistency can engage audiences and them feel like they want to know more. They don't have to understand the details, but they like to feel that you do. Reality is a rich source of such consistent details. In historical films, for example, few audience members will really appreciate that you got all of the costumes correct down to the specific year, but the film can feel better than one that mixes Georgian with Victorian with French Court styles. Getting the physics right won't automatically make a story better. It can constrain the story too much. But if you choose to go down that route, and can still tell a good story, the audience will benefit even when they don't know what they're looking at. It's why actors like to go into "back story" for a character even when the audience doesn't know what that back story is, and why they work on physicality (walking like the character, holding a fork like the character, etc.) even when nobody will notice. One beautiful example of that: look at the way people moved chess pieces in Queen's Gambit. Even if you don't play, you knew that the actors knew it (and indeed, it came as no surprise to me that they were trained by Gary Kasparov). It's a little thing, but it was just one of a million things that helped that project go right.

mmmBacon 5y ago

In Kip Thorne’s book about Interstellar he talks about what they had to do to make something that would work for a movie. They had to choose a specific mass and rotation speed that doesn’t really exist in nature or the image would not be something that would be intelligible to the viewer and work for the story. This includes the tidal effect in the film. In the end they were making a science fiction film and not writing a scientific paper.

shepardrtc 5y ago
> they had to do to make something that would work for a movie Here's an article that includes a picture of what they thought it would really look like: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing/ https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-t... I think that would have worked perfectly fine. Maybe throw in some more stuff circling it further out.
short_sells_poo 5y ago
I agree with you. The fact that the visuals of the black hole didn't include the frequency shift and intensity variance was perhaps the smallest artistic license that was taken and didn't really prevent my suspension of disbelief. If they wanted to create something physically accurate, then all we'd have seen is a blinding white globe as the accretion disk of a black hole emits tremendous amounts of energy and couldn't be resolved to the iconic shape in the movie by the naked eye. The hapless astronauts would've likely received a fatal dose of ionizing radiation in minutes (if not seconds), and Matthew Mcconaughey would've been shredded by tidal forces long before he entered the event horizon of a stellar mass black hole. The movie took some liberty with physics, but managed to capture the imagination of so many people. I much prefer it this way. Those who want to dig deeper can either watch an actual documentary or read some books on the topic.

wumpus 5y ago

In my group and collaboration, we frequently discuss how difficult it is to do outreach because you'll get constantly criticized by fellow scientists about every single simplification.