Spoilers Interstellar

[Clint_L]

Couldn't agree more. Gorgeous film with a lot of great things about it but a totally hokey and illogical plot. My least favourite Nolan film...but that's still pretty good.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I've always hated this movie. It's not that it was actually bad, really, it's just that I find the bragging about how supposedly good the "science" is in it to be... overblown. For example, I don't believe for a second that a person can go into a black hole and survive. It's ridiculous magic. So, on that level, the movie is just as silly as any other fantasy - and I don't have a problem with fantasy! I just have a problem with people acting like it's somehow more "realistic" than other sci-fi. It is NOT.

And I can still hear Matt yelling, "Meeeeeerrrrv!" over and over.

 

[Morrus]

I've always hated this movie. It's not that it was actually bad, really, it's just that I find the bragging about how supposedly good the "science" is in it to be... overblown. For example, I don't believe for a second that a person can go into a black hole and survive. It's ridiculous magic.

That’s not the science they mean. That bit is, indeed, magic. But when they talk about the science they are talking about the depiction of the black hole, the wormhole, the use of time dilation, etc.

And I can still hear Matt yelling, "Meeeeeerrrrv!" over and over.

Murph. As in Murphy!

 

[FitzTheRuke]

That’s not the science they mean. That bit is, indeed, magic. But when they talk about the science they are talking about the depiction of the black hole, the wormhole, the use of time dilation, etc.

Yes, but they tend to speak of it in a general sense - "This movie has the best science ever!"

Sure, except for the climate science, the fact that they flew FROM SPACE onto a water-world but didn't know that a tidal wave was coming in a few minutes, the magic use of the black hole, etc, etc.

Sure, I guess if you take some bits in isolation, those bits are fine. But that's usually true of SciFi. If you ignore all the stupid bits, the other stuff is fine.

YES, I agree that it did some cool stuff. And it was pretty.

Murph. As in Murphy!

Right. What did I type? Oh, yeah, I put a v. You're right.

 

[Morrus]

Yes, but they tend to speak of it in a general sense - "This movie has the best science ever!"

Well I don’t know who ‘they’ are but generally the only context I’ve personally heard that in was as I described above. I’ve never heard anybody describe the magic bit at the end as amazing science. Most people just went “huh?” at that bit. YMMV, of course.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I kind of feel that setting out to do “hard” SF is like handing everyone in the audience a baseball bat and asking them to hit you with it.

 

[MGibster]

Dunno. I just feel like the end got a bit mumbo jumbo-ey. A great film but the resolution didn’t quite stick the landing for me. But maybe I’m missing some details or nuance.

There's a long running debate about what makes a good science fiction story. For some, the science must be accurate otherwise you have a fantasy, but I think that's too rigid. You can make a good science fiction story that has some fantastical elements such as faster-than-light travel or even psionics. Star Trek, as a whole, is good science fiction. Interstellar has some fantastical elements of course, the worm hole allowing for FTL travel and of course the resolution to the story involving what you accurately describe as mumbo jumbo. The important part of the science fiction was the time dilation which was handled very well.

But the mumbo jumbo isn't what makes Interstellar a great movie. It's the rest of the story with the relationships between all the character that really make it resonate with audiences. Coop's relationship with his children, the incredible sacrifice he made by going on the mission, the sacrifice his children made by him going on the mission, how things played out on the mission. Like most great science fiction stories, the important thing is how the characters deal with the situation.

I don't think you're missing any details or nuance. Like you, I think it's a great movie.

 

[jolt]

The problem I have with a lot of "hard" sci-fi is whenever a new actual discovery occurs, any story pertaining to that field written prior to the discovery feels out of date. Even if the sci-fi author is also a scientist, if there prediction about where the science is heading turns out to be wrong, is stops feel "hard" very quickly.

I thought Interstellar was alright. It's difficult to do "hard" time travel stories since there's so much we still don't understand. You're always going to have to do a fair amount of hand waving.

 

[Umbran]

For example, I don't believe for a second that a person can go into a black hole and survive.

Your belief, though, doesn't impact whether that bit is good science.

Gargantua, the black hole in the film, per Kip Thorne is about a hundred-million solar masses - of a size we'd call a "supermassive black hole". The tides at the event horizon are not large, and one could totally step across without harm.

Now, all the stuff about being in a tesseract and interacting with the world outside the black hole? That's magic.

 

[MGibster]

The problem I have with a lot of "hard" sci-fi is whenever a new actual discovery occurs, any story pertaining to that field written prior to the discovery feels out of date. Even if the sci-fi author is also a scientist, if there prediction about where the science is heading turns out to be wrong, is stops feel "hard" very quickly.

It's not really a big problem though. The important thing about Frankenstein isn't that you can't revivify a corpse via some chemically induced process, it's the philosophical implications of doing so along with how we treat our created life and really defines the story.