Interstellar Movie Poll: Rate the Sci-Fi Epic

[jedishrfu]

There's been a lot of polarizing discussion on Interstellar with many people critical of the story, the science and the technology so I felt it would be good to launch a poll in the community.

Up front, I have to say I liked the movie and plan to get a copy when it comes out. I know its not the greatest sci-fi story ever but its compelling enough. Also I like robots and TARS is quite unique.

I also like the book that Kip Thorne has written. It goes into the decisions that had to be made to make an entertaining movie and how science had to be bent to make the story flow.

So let's rate the movie and see where the PF community stands on the issue:

 

[Danger]

I haven't seen it, and won't until it comes on basic cable, so I can't vote.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Liked it all. Wouldn't be surprised at all if it had a greater across the board impact than 2001. Scientifically, you can't really knock a film that results in genuine discovery, and I look forward to seeing other applications of the technology Double Negative developed.

 

[tionis]

Hey, I went to see the movie.. In IMAX no less. My seat rumbled and everything. I also got the cheap, black and white poster souvenir they were handing out at the end of the show and complained to my roommate that it didn't featured the black hole. And (grab a rope and hang me:D), also ordered the book!

You could say I'm a total hypocrite for linking it after criticizing it on the other (now closed) thread - but then again - I'm not a famous scientist with a legacy to protect, and a strong moral compass to serve as a guide to those people out there who are confused by all the moon-landing-hoax conspiracies.

 

[dragoneyes001]

after all the hype about accuracy I watched it felt the whole thing kind of dragged on like the director was trying to hammer the scenes into the audiences heads.

that being said I didn't think it was a waste of film just not a great movie or simply not to my tastes. there were a number of issues I spotted and have previously commented on where i felt mistakes were made.

my vote would be [^] Liked some of it. Just not all of it.

 

[William Donald]

Honestly my favorite film of the year. I've seen in four times already, and each viewing gets better and better.

The soundtrack is by far what makes the movie so spectacular, especially during the wave scene and docking scene.

 

[HomogenousCow]

Please.
Movies with great effects are a dime a dozen these days. Some of these movies have decent stories.
Interstellar was not one of them.

 

[hankaaron]

To paraphrase TARS "Starting countdown to Evo closing down this thread".

 

[Matterwave]

I quite liked the movie as a whole. I had my doubts on some of the physics parts (e.g. the time dilation, stable orbits around a black hole, etc), but the companion book actually talks about most of my problems with the "science science"! I have no problem with the "science fiction" of the movie (e.g. the tessaract, wormholes, etc.). They are quite fantastical of course, but a good sci-fi movie would be lacking without some fantastical science! I enjoyed the story telling and the characters and the acting very much. The "love is the only thing that crosses dimensions" part was laid on a bit thick though, and it didn't seem natural to the movie since the "love" that they were talking about did not develop on screen, but was between Brand and a long-dead explorer.

 

[Danger]

a good sci-fi movie would be lacking without some fantastical science!

Blasphemy! Some extraordinary things like Star Trek material (FTL, transporters, etc.) are marginally acceptable because there is a theoretical possibility that such can be achieved by bypassing physical laws rather than breaking them. I'm basing this solely upon the fact that I have finally resigned myself to people referring to Science Fiction as sci-fi, even though they aren't the same thing. ("Star Wars" is fantasy. "The Blob" is sci-fi. "Contact" and "Fahrenheit 451" are science fiction.)

 

[dragoneyes001]

the Blob now your dating yourself so am I for knowing the reference

 

[Danger]

now your dating yourself

Yes, and I'm a cheap date...

 

[Matterwave]

Blasphemy! Some extraordinary things like Star Trek material (FTL, transporters, etc.) are marginally acceptable because there is a theoretical possibility that such can be achieved by bypassing physical laws rather than breaking them. I'm basing this solely upon the fact that I have finally resigned myself to people referring to Science Fiction as sci-fi, even though they aren't the same thing. ("Star Wars" is fantasy. "The Blob" is sci-fi. "Contact" and "Fahrenheit 451" are science fiction.)

Star Trek is sci-fi tho...so what's wrong with my statement? :(

 

[Pete Cortez]

I have no problem with the "science fiction" of the movie (e.g. the tessaract, wormholes, etc.). They are quite fantastical of course, but a good sci-fi movie would be lacking without some fantastical science! I enjoyed the story telling and the characters and the acting very much.

I generally reserve the terms "fantasy" or "fantastical" for superstitious, supernatural or paranormal invocations. Tesseracts and wormholes may not be physically real, but their depiction in Interstellar is highly consistent with the pertinent literature. I think we're all most familiar with the wormholes side of things, but I had to pick up the companion piece and read Chapters 23 and 24 several times to understand why the climatic scene wasn't mere symbolism and abstract art to tie things up. And it's not just after the fact justification; it's actually spelled out on sixteen blackboards in Professor Brand's office. Is it physical? Who knows? But it's fascinating the MacGuffin of the movie is actually a problem theoretical physicists kicked around fourteen years ago. We never actually learn what the solution is (unless some hint was revealed in the Morse Code to people who know it), but it's not some made up problem. At that point, I had to admit that Interstellar had achieved a degree of verisimilitude unprecedented in her genre.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Is this movie like Gravity, where it's best to see in theater?

 

[Danger]

Star Trek is sci-fi tho...so what's wrong with my statement? :(

In most ways it is. The warp drive, phasers, and sub-space (although real scientists call it superspace) communications are all things that are currently considered possible. Star Trek was my mention, though, not yours, and I meant only those things that I mentioned, not the impossibility of interspecies reproduction and whatnot. The "transporter" was a last-minute act of desperation that Gene Roddenberry came up with because the show's budget wouldn't allow the special effects necessary to show the ship landing on a planet. Everyone knows that it isn't actually possible. (And McCoy's surgical instruments were all salt shakers that the prop man picked up at a store.) Having personally twice spent 3 weeks in a diagnostic bed, I can certainly attest to the efficacy of that particular bit of "fiction". In fact, mine one-upped the inspiration version because it also pneumatically altered its shape periodically to prevent bed-sores.
Where I disagree with your statement in regard to this thread is that, going by the statements that I've seen on PF about it, this movie pretends to be science fiction as opposed to sci-fi. Your specific statement is correct in the context of the movie being sci-fi. As long as you didn't actually mean that science fiction requires "fantastical" elements, then I have no argument.

 

[Matterwave]

In most ways it is. The warp drive, phasers, and sub-space (although real scientists call it superspace) communications are all things that are currently considered possible. Star Trek was my mention, though, not yours, and I meant only those things that I mentioned, not the impossibility of interspecies reproduction and whatnot. The "transporter" was a last-minute act of desperation that Gene Roddenberry came up with because the show's budget wouldn't allow the special effects necessary to show the ship landing on a planet. Everyone knows that it isn't actually possible. (And McCoy's surgical instruments were all salt shakers that the prop man picked up at a store.) Having personally twice spent 3 weeks in a diagnostic bed, I can certainly attest to the efficacy of that particular bit of "fiction". In fact, mine one-upped the inspiration version because it also pneumatically altered its shape periodically to prevent bed-sores.
Where I disagree with your statement in regard to this thread is that, going by the statements that I've seen on PF about it, this movie pretends to be science fiction as opposed to sci-fi. Your specific statement is correct in the context of the movie being sci-fi. As long as you didn't actually mean that science fiction requires "fantastical" elements, then I have no argument.

Well, the great Kip Thorne was there to try to ground this movie in some hard science, and a lot of the visual effects are spot on! How a black hole with an accretion disk might look...this movie has the best illustration of that of anywhere. It's depiction of a wormhole as a 3-D sphere rather than a 2-D window is also quite science minded. There are fantastical elements of the movie which requires a lot of speculation, but based on this book by Kip, nothing in the movie is absolutely impossible given our current knowledge. :)

I had many doubts after seeing the movie myself of the science in it. But they were all actually explained...Kip really thought this one through lol. Of course, he worked out special circumstances to make things happen in the movie, and many of the things that happen are extremely unlikely perhaps...but nothing was technically impossible, as far as I could see.

 

[Matterwave]

I generally reserve the terms "fantasy" or "fantastical" for superstitious, supernatural or paranormal invocations. Tesseracts and wormholes may not be physically real, but their depiction in Interstellar is highly consistent with the pertinent literature. I think we're all most familiar with the wormholes side of things, but I had to pick up the companion piece and read Chapters 23 and 24 several times to understand why the climatic scene wasn't mere symbolism and abstract art to tie things up. And it's not just after the fact justification; it's actually spelled out on sixteen blackboards in Professor Brand's office. Is it physical? Who knows? But it's fascinating the MacGuffin of the movie is actually a problem theoretical physicists kicked around fourteen years ago. We never actually learn what the solution is (unless some hint was revealed in the Morse Code to people who know it), but it's not some made up problem. At that point, I had to admit that Interstellar had achieved a degree of verisimilitude unprecedented in her genre.

Yeah, I didn't mean it as paranormal, just that it is beyond any current science, or even science knowledge. For example, a laser gun might be a "sci-fi weapon" but it seems entirely plausible (other than how slow it seems to fire in e.g. star wars) to me, so I wouldn't call it fantastical. A teleporter is somewhat more out-there, but I could still see that there is perhaps some physics (e.g. beaming the information content of an object through pulsed lasers as discussed by Michio Kaku) that we could perhaps someday make something like it work (although, what we do with the original object is a problem lol since we are just beaming the information down). But something like a tesseract is based on theories of science (multi-brane theories or some such?) which are not only unproved, but not even complete theories as of yet. The theory's internal consistency hasn't even been fully proven. So I called that "fantastical".

 

[Danger]

nothing in the movie is absolutely impossible given our current knowledge.

Then it's Science Fiction, not sci-fi.

The theory's internal consistency hasn't even been fully proven. So I called that "fantastical".

Okay, that's a matter of semantics then. I would call it "speculative". I agree with Pete's concept of "fantastical".
Sorry if I appeared unnecessarily confrontational, but as a Science Fiction fan and author, I take the subject very seriously.
Again, I never saw the movie, so I have no idea as to the content other than bits and pieces that I've read here on PF.

 

[Pete Cortez]

But something like a tesseract is based on theories of science (multi-brane theories or some such?) which are not only unproved, but not even complete theories as of yet. The theory's internal consistency hasn't even been fully proven. So I called that "fantastical".

Fair enough, though such a definition of "fantastical" captures just about all speculative fiction beyond lectures on what is already known or engineering applications that follow. You could label "fantastical" any story detailing experiment or observation of predictions made in (currently) purely theoretical physics.

 

[Pete Cortez]

Well, the great Kip Thorne was there to try to ground this movie in some hard science, and a lot of the visual effects are spot on! How a black hole with an accretion disk might look...this movie has the best illustration of that of anywhere. It's depiction of a wormhole as a 3-D sphere rather than a 2-D window is also quite science minded. There are fantastical elements of the movie which requires a lot of speculation, but based on this book by Kip, nothing in the movie is absolutely impossible given our current knowledge. :)

I wish there were more stories on Thorne's involvement with this movie. He didn't get the executive producer credit simply for show. We're talking about a level of involvement and influence that probably exceeded Sagan's where it concerned Contact and at least matched Clarke's with 2001. Nolan had Thorne devise the key MacGuffin of the plot--the Professor's Equation. That's what cinched it for me. The companion piece isn't simply an after thought; it's part of the Writer's Bible and is a record of what actually occurred in production process. This may be the most "fantastical" part of the story, but only if "fantastical" means using math more esoteric (in terms of degrees of freedom, at least) than frequently used in wormhole literature.

One other thing; working scientists and engineers need to take a good look at the partnership between Double Negative and Kip Thorne. There's always been a degree of synergy between showmen and R&D, but the channel for researchers to tap into movie, TV and video game budgets is often tightly focused on entertainment industry sausage making. DN just demonstrated that its in-house talent and voracious appetite for computing resources can be applied to problems way the hell outside the Hollywood comfort zone. I wonder if other visual effects shops will follow suit.