Spoilers Interstellar

[Morrus]

To me, there is no distinction between the "mumbo jumbo plot resolution" and the "human connections" part, because the latter is meant to be the answer to the former (see the whole "love" speech from Anne Hatheway). Spielberg would absolutely be the guy to nail that landing, if anyone could.

We all take away something different.

 

[Morrus]

Apropos of nothing, having watched the movie yesterday, today I am wearing the Coop. I’ll wear the Murph tomorrow!

(Yes I know I haven’t set the date right!)

 

[Umbran]

If you say so. I don't find it plausible at all.

Well, what are we aiming for - plausible for a fiction, or good science? They are in no way the same. Good science does not follow the rule of cool, and so is most often pretty boring, compared to what might be plausible in a fiction.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well, what are we aiming for - plausible for a fiction, or good science?

Ideally, I would think something that threads the needle for just enough of both to make for an entertaining film. Maybe it's that this one did so much "good science" that it made the "magic" parts even less believable by comparison?

They are in no way the same. Good science does not follow the rule of cool, and so is most often pretty boring, compared to what might be plausible in a fiction.

Sure, but bad fantasy also doesn't follow the rule of cool. Or maybe it follows the rule, but falls flat in the execution.

 

[Mercurius]

There's this common but, in my view, fallacious notion that "big ideas" science fiction must be the sort of hard science fiction that speculative physicists write: basically a story framing of some ideas they're playing around with, and thus is meant to be scientifically plausible. In fact, the main purpose of such hard sf is to posit certain scientific possibilities. So some readers and viewers approach every such sf movie with that in mind, which I think isn't the way a film like Interstellar was intended. It is about big ideas, human and cosmic. I don't think the intention was to make the science perfect, but just good enough to carry the larger payload of the story.

Or to put it another way, big ideas science fiction and "pure" hard sf are not synonymous. They often crossover, but they can be two different beasts. Interstellar was made in the spirit of 2001. If you have problems with the science of Interstellar, then 2001 is a total mess. But neither film is primarily about the science - that's just the setting and context for the deeper ideas of the stories.

 

[Deset Gled]

I put Interstellar in the same category as Silent Running or Soylent Green.

Overall, movies I enjoyed watching. In the realm of "good". Good stories. Good music. Decent effects. But definitely did not live up to the hype.

Additionally, they all outwardly present themselves as being pretty hard sci fi, but I found them to be much more fantasy than the creators intended. Which, IMNSHO, combines badly with their kinda heavy handed levels of "preachy". I don't mind preachy sci fi, or preachy movies in general (I love Day the Earth Stood Still and District 9). I even generally agree with the position these movies take. But I have an abhorrence to fake science used as propaganda (things like those "ancient aliens" shows are a big trigger for me). These movies manage to get a little close to a pseudo-science-with-a-message vibe that tickles my brain in a way that's just very slightly uncomfy.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

A great film but the resolution didn’t quite stick the landing for me.

-- every Christopher Nolan film ever

 

[Morrus]

-- every Christopher Nolan film ever

I have never made it through Inception or Tenet. Too long and confusing for me! I’ll take your word on their endings—I’ll likely never see for myself!

But I’ve seen Memento, The Prestige, the three Batman movies, Dunkirk, and Oppenheimer. So of the ones I’ve seen he stuck the landing every time (and I include the third Batman in that; I know it’s not well-lived but I think it’s excellent).

 

[dragoner]

Thing is that magic is supernatural, such as from Eru or the Valar in LotR, and science is natural, due to principles or laws of nature; now it is often fictional, that is the fiction part, except not fantasy, as that usually has magic as its hallmark. Interstellar is 100% science fiction, it presuposes no magic, and for the Wormhole and how they work, and how the Black Hole appears, it is plausible as far as we know.

 

[Morrus]

Thing is that magic is supernatural, such as from Eru or the Valar in LotR, and science is natural, due to principles or laws of nature;

That’s not how we’re using the word. We’re using it as colloquial shorthand for fanciful science fiction concepts. Because it’s quicker to type. We are all aware that the movie posits no supernatural elements.