Spoiler I don't think these two views are in conflict or a separate duality. My own thought is that future 5th dimensional humans know about how powerful an emotion love is and believe it is quantifiable which is why they chose Cooper to be the instrument of current humanity and their own future humanity salvation. I also agree that there are different interpretations and I think that is fully intended by Nolan. This is like the Inception where he doesn't answer the question whether the end of the movie or even the whole movie itself is really a dream.
Spoiler Let me offer a differing viewpoint here. I actually came to realize that Cooper and Brand were analogous to Plan A and Plan B respectively. Cooper, in being able to reach the one he loved most back on Earth, was able to save Earth and allow it to exist on in order to populate intergalactic colonies--this was Plan A. Brand, however, only would have been able to connect with Edmunds, and she presumably would have been able to guide him to survival, which would then have allowed him to send those final positive signals in order to lure the team to the correct planet rather than Mann's planet, which would not have effectively saved life on Earth, but would have offered the perfect setting for a rebirth of the species--Plan B! So ultimately, I don't think that Cooper was the only choice. I think that Cooper and Brand are presented to the viewers as the only ones with a truly deep connection on that mission, and that if either of them were to go into that blackhole, it would've played out differently but it still would have fulfilled one of the two goals that humanity was trying to achieve, Cooper being analogous to Plan A, and Brand being analogous to Plan B.
Here's another perspective: Spoiler There is no paradox either with Cooper going back and leaving himself the clue to find the Nasa station in the first place or someone going back in time to place the wormhole near Saturn. We only see it as a paradox because we are limited to 3-dimensions and time/space are linear dimensions. In other words, in reality, all events happen simultaneously in a way - so a fifth dimensional creature can access any point in past or future because the very notion of a past or a future is an illusion. If all events happen simultaneously then the paradox is taken care of. There is no cause and effect. Cooper was in the black hole at the same time he was in the dust storm closing the window at the same time he was in the hospital and so on.
I watched it for a second time. I'm increasing my score to a 9/10. It was much more enjoyable since the hype, 2-year anticipation, crowds, and negative reviews were out of the bag. The focus was on the movie itself rather than the hoopla and expectations suffocating it. I didn't think the 'love-conversation' sounded as corny anymore; in fact it made perfect sense given the ending of the movie. I sympathized with Dr. Mann and Professor Brand (those names aren't arbitrary either). Very lovely experience. This sci-fan is happy. We need more like these, and less movies like Neighbors and fairy-tale live action. Also, there is no comparison with IMAX 70mm Film versus IMAX Digital projection (even on a IMAX-size screen). Holy smoke! The picture quality was jaw dropping (brightness, black levels, colours, sharpness). I had no idea the type of projector mattered so much. I truly thought the 2k Digital IMAX projectors on an IMAX-size screen were close enough. Nope. Not even close. Furthermore, the sound calibration and the type of speakers at the Film IMAX venue were considerably better than Edwards Marq*E IMAX. More vertical seating makes it better too vs a typical laid-back stadium seating venue. Houstonians, please drive a few hours to San Antonio or Austin to see this on 70mm IMAX. Santikos Silverado in Tomball and Edwards Marq*E have full-size screens, but they replaced their film projectors with digital ones. Sadly, the digital ones can't give the picture quality these big screens need; they're designed for smaller screens.
I like where you are headed there, but... Spoiler ... while the valley analogy of time is beautiful and even helpful, it is also misleading a bit. Physics runs up against the fact that time is not just any old fourth dimension, over and over. And physics has not figured out the arrow of time. So the ending really does create a time paradox, versus our limited understanding of time relentlessly marching in one direction. I don't think it's bad for the movie, and I really like the paradox actually... the whole 5D thing worked well for me, and you could tell Thorne had a hand in that. Here's one more step about the time paradox though: the main issue with such paradoxes boils down to causality: how did Cooper #2 cause Cooper #1 at an earlier time, to take some action. But if they wanted to have an even NERDIER movie, they could have confronted the idea of causality, which physics does not necessarily support, especially in quantum mechanics. Following quantum mechanics to its logical extremes, you really do have to question the very idea of causality, and not just that. You also have to question locality -- the idea that to influence an object or process you have to be near it or send information to it from your location to that location. Read about Bell's Inequality for this last bit. Mind bending and even disturbing stuff.
That's very interesting and one I hadn't thought of. It really does add another element to appreciating the story.
Spoiler I agree really mind bending stuff regarding how causality works at the quantum level considering that a black hole is where the macro universe meets the quantum universe. The idea of that objects can influence each other no matter the distance is one of the big issues about quantum entanglement so I'm wondering if somehow the matter in Murphy's bedroom is quantum entangled with the black hole in another galaxy. Another thought here is that this goes back to the idea that love is actually a dimension. Cooper and Murphy are actually entangled by the bond of love so that actions by one in the relative future and galaxies away still influence the other. General question to the board. How long should we keep on spoilering comments?
I've already seen it but man the discussions I'm reading on this board are pumping me up for it again and I'm seriously considering driving up to Austin to see it in IMAX 70mm next weekend.
Kind of like when all the master philosophers put their works on hold to discuss The Matrix on the internet, now everyone's a theoretical physicist. Rottentomatoes has this rated just right, low seventies. Good not great, & yeah some real cringeworthy moments, but if you like sci fi you should watch it. I actually liked all the actors in this one, no problem with matt damon. & almost as much as the huge effects, I liked some of the weird little visual details like the how the nasa offices looked down to chalk color choices, sitting on the porch at night etc.
Good point and it is a bit funny to hear people who don't know Newton's Laws trying to discuss higher order quantum theory and cosmology. For me I'm not much beyond that and professionally my work barely scratches Newton, we generally try not to have buildings moving. I do have an amateur interests in science including physics and am a sci-fi nerd. Also good fiction are ones that get people thinking about things that they might not think about every day and take on bigger issues than just what is contained in the story. This has been especially true about science fiction. As you note the Matrix did get people thinking about Buddhist philosophy while Star Wars got people to think about Carl Jung. In the 1960's Star Trek tackled issues of racism, sexism and sectarianism that most mainstream media shied away from. I agree there are a lot of cringe worthy moments and while I liked it it's not 2001, Star Wars, Alien or Blade Runner (that's for you Deck) as among the greatest Sci-Fi. I would put it with the level of Contact and the Tree of Life as a movie that raises some very big and important questions. Something that wouldn't be a desert island movie but one that is still interesting.
Speaking as a physicist, I think it's great. A true sign of success for the movie, in my view. And maybe it's time that we don't need to teach everyone's Newton's Laws before talking about entanglement, at least a thumbnail version.
That is what I was telling my roommate he is taking a 9 and 11 year old kids to it. But he said they are smart for their age and like science. But it's very long and somewhat technical from what I have read about the movie.
First half delved into a lot of fun science fact. Second half took a sharp turn and drove deep into extreme levels of science fiction. Loved the former, disliked the latter. The banter of the cast with their robot assistants absolutely slayed me though so I'm gonna rate this 8.5/10. It sure beats the crap out of the other scifi flick, Gravity, in my opinion.
Honestly...this is a great way to describe it. I saw it a 2nd time and it was pretty bad. If Shyamalan made this...people would be laughing at it
My 10 year old loved it. I have to qualify that she is 10 going on 15. She figured out santa clause on her own by the time she was 4.
