Spoiler I understand what you mean but when he goes into the black hole Murph in "realtime" is around 90 years old already. Remember they had already gone into Miller's planet (+23 years to murph-putting her around her dads age) and then sling shotted around the black hole (+51 to murph putting her around 90). At this time Brand and Coop have been together the whole time and aging at the same rate. Once he's in the blackhole/bookcase he is able to change the past without actually being a part of it...which is why they show him knocking books down, doing the binary, rigging the watch. He was helping the past versions of Murph, not helping her in real time. The purpose of the "future humans" putting him in that situation was for him to give the information to "past" Murph to complete her equation. That's why when she figures it out the blackhole/bookcase is destroyed and he's sent back to Saturn. Remember on his way out of the blackhole he "shakes" Brand's hand also as the crew on their original mission are passing through the wormhole for the very first time (which in real time is about 76 years in the past). What he does in the black hole until he is found floating by Saturn is not a long time if we go by the movies timeline. Brand's trip/colonizing of Edmunds planet is probably comparable in time.
Spoiler I don't think that is accurate, Cooper went straight into the black hole, only Brand slung shot around it.
It doesn't make you a simpleton. You just enjoyed the movie and that's good. I like movies that others didn't like and vice versa. All about personal preference.
Nope, I watched it last night so I'm pretty certain. Spoiler In the dialogue after they perform the spin air locking Brand mentioned that they would have 51 years of time dilation with their last ditch effort past Gargantua's event horizon. They "slingshotted" together, and TARS and Cooper only detached at the very last moment at the edge of the black hole - due to Newton's 3rd law. Think of their added weight as a pendulum, and when you cut them free at the full apex of their swing - the rest of the mass (Endurance) keeps going at exponentially faster speeds. The detachments were the final push to get Brand out of the gravitational pull of Gargantua and on to Edmund's planet (which was relatively close as discussed earlier in the film).
My bluray came yesterday, so I decided to go ahead and watch it. I don't really watch many movies because I think most movies suck. lol. For some reason, I'm on a sci-fi kick lately, though, so I watched Prometheus, Star Trek, Star Trek : Into Darkness, and Interstellar over the holidays. This movie really intrigued me because of the generally good reviews, but also the fact Kip Thorne was involved, and I had read they tried to hold as true to science as they could without making the entire movie a bore. I expected a "9" movie after the reviews and I'd probably give it an 8 or so, so it was a pretty good movie. The sound quality was a bit bonkers - I don't know if that was just the bluray or what, though. My subwoofer was about to tear the house apart in some places, but the conversations didn't seem loud enough when I turned the volume down to stop from scaring the neighbors. lol. That was about the only downside. The storyline was interesting as hell even after things went predictably goofy with "theoretical physics Disneyland". lol. I honestly wish the movie was another 2 hours longer to expand on the storyline because it seemed like everything seemed rushed towards the end. I'd seriously sit through 5 hours of this movie (with breaks) if it were that long. Definitely among my favorite movies. Out of curiosity, how would you guys rate it vs. something like Prometheus?
I didn't like Prometheus because the idiot behavior by human plot devices in the second half of the movie ruined my suspension of belief and soured against the deliberately serious tone and philo themes they were trying to make in the first half. I generally reject movies that attempt to be too serious upon itself but dumb down its characters (and the audience's) for the sake of plot progression. Interstellar to me was a different movie. Yeah, evil Matt Damon wasn't necessary other than to display how ****ty human nature can be, but I still can't pin a finger on what to think of the movie. I enjoyed it, but I'm not sure what I'd describe it in terms of "art" Nolan is trying to promote it into. Continuity-wise, the predestination paradox the human alien twist presents makes it a movie I can't take seriously because it became one big fat Deux Ex to me. Sure, a multi-dimensional being could need a 4 dimensional messenger/avatar/prophet to set things in motion, but that doesn't explain the Saturn wormhole appearing at that point in time. It would have to be there all along throughout humanity's history for it to make some sense, but that would remove how the people in NASA would think that event horizon is deliberate help from the outside. I like the directions it tries to explore on a mainstream level, but I don't think it's iconic on that front compared to other sci-fi like the Matrix or Blade Runner. The feel of the movie is like a love child between Gravity and an M. Night Shamaylan movie. I give it an 8 for the visuals. The replies here about Hathaway being Hathaway are funny. That love comment seems like it'd be something she'd say in real life.
don't have the bluray, but saw in imax and the sound was bonkers i liked prometheus, but this was a deeper movie. i can't wait for prometheus 2 , i love the ancient alien theory that the engineers want to kill us
The problem with Prometheus was Ridley Scott....as good as he is at making a set, hes not the best at common sense nor character twists/development.
Here's the thing with Interstellar. Nolan attached himself to the project after it had been floating around for a while in a different form, with a very different script, as far as I understand. Nolan took the skeleton of the original script, decided to try to create the shell around his story of 'hard science' fiction, but at its core his idea was essentially a fairy tale about the 'power of love'. And because certain things were necessary to move the story along, occasional bits of the movie abandoned the adherence to 'hard science' completely. A lot of these beats just went right by people, but a lot of people took exception with it. Here's just one example: at the beginning of the mission, the 'Ranger' craft and other sundry accessories were launched into orbit on a huge multi-stage rocket, pretty much in the same way we have to do that sort of thing right now. This is because it takes an enormous amount of mass and fuel to break that much smaller mass out of orbit.. as they say ad-nauseum in the movie, 'gravity is the problem'. True enough. But then, when they take the 'Ranger' down to Miller's Planet, they just flew down from far orbit in the 'Ranger' craft.. onto a planet which, as they themselves claimed, was 1.3 times Earth's gravity. Ok, but when it was time to return to the Endurance, umm, wait, there was no EVEN BIGGER multi-stage rocket to blast them into orbit. No, the Ranger just flew on out into space. Not really something it had the power to do, or they would have done it from Earth too. Me personally? I didn't care. I care about story first, and all the little anal details are just fluff, and I go with whatever the film-makers are trying to do.. unless it totally takes me out of my suspension-of-disbelief (such as the bizarre behavier of the die antwoord people in Chappie, for example)... and I am not enough of an anal science nerd to let those kinds of discrepancies bother me much. The flaws are there, but the whole hard science thing was superfluous to the actual story anyway. Nolan pretty much could have told the exact same story in about a hundred different ways, and so I just give the flaws a big shrug. I enjoyed the movie for the most part.. my biggest beef in all honesty was with the weird assumptions that a planet whose surface is 75% WATER was somehow going to run out of OXYGEN.. SMH. And the whole 'blight' thing.. silly.. if they could grow food safely in a controlled environment in space, then they could have grown food safely in controlled environments on Earth. I juts didn't buy any of it. Just seemed like a bunch of typical hippe-talk 'we-humans-are-killing-the-Earth nonsense. Other than that, I liked it.. I give it an 8/10 after having re-watched it at home recently.
i didnt understand your main paragraph. we don't know who the higher dimension beings are. maybe aliens, maybe us. either way the wormhole by saturn was put there so we could survive by jumping to that system instead of slowly getting there. i loved the movie. it werent as instant classic as the space odysseus or matrix but it was above gravity and a shayamalan movie for me. very pretty to look at it and listen to with the soundtrack. it talked about stuff like overpopulation, food, climate change, and the dumbasses in republican party who are anti science (moon landing rant) and anti NASA.
btw..., listen to this!!! how did this not win Hans Zimmer an Oscar?!?! <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/m3zvVGJrTP8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> If I listen to this while tying my shoes before I hit the court, IT'S OVER!!! Seriously whomever makes the next Rockets vid, needs to throw some of this Hans Zimmer in there!!!
nah too many people use good songs and over play them by sticking them into 'epic' videos like that one from lord of the rings with the church choir that got over used. leave this song alone and use some rap song for rockets videos.
