Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Interstellar (Christopher Nolan) *SPOILERS FROM POST 458 ONWARDS*

Options
1192022242557

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,689 ✭✭✭bur


    "Love is the One Thing That Transcends Time and Space."

    Whoever wrote that into the script for that particular moment...hang your head.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,722 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Does anyone know whether they'll be releasing a version of this without Matthew McConaughey? Can't stand looking at the man.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Just back from this. Gotta say I'm disappointed, it wasn't very good. There were elements that were good but overall I found it tedious to watch.

    Could someone clarify how he ended up in the Saturn space station at the end? It just seemed ridiculous.

    The time he spent in the black-hole is not connected to the time experienced by Murph and the people on the space station/Earth. Thirty minutes in the black-hole might have been 60 years of 'Earth-time', so every 30 seconds he spent in the black-hole could have been 1 year for those on Earth after he transmitted the details. In those 60 years (or thirty minutes for Cooper), mankind was able to develop technology capable of travelling faster throughout space, and more complex space stations that could provide for thousands of people.

    As for the conventions of him arriving on the station. He was floating in space for a period of time (again, could have been 60 years+ for observers on Earth, but only 30 minutes for him), and he was detected by the space station as some sort of anomaly on radar. Ships went out to investigate and found him floating there. Alternatively, given the assumption that the black-hole would eventually see him pass entirely through, the space station monitored the area it was located for things coming and going through it. Something came through, they went out to investigate.


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,539 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


    K-9 wrote: »
    There was also a scene with the line "the last thing a parent sees is their children", as it should be on the death bed. Probably has some huge significance that's lost on me!

    I think the significance of the line you mentioned was that when people are going to die they see thier children and that helps them to fight harder to live if I recall when Cooper was dying on the ice planet they might have shown him picturing Murph helping last a little longer until he was rescued, it will probably be clearer on a second viewing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,261 ✭✭✭emo72


    jones wrote: »
    Very strange i had a rattling rear speaker aswell (VUE in liffey valley screen 1) Surely it cant of been deliberate?

    the rattling i heard was not meant to be there. it was the same rattling sound when they were chasing a drone through the field, or during take off, or anytime the volume was raised above a certain level.

    as someone else pointed out they set the audio levels very high for this movie and maybe they blew some subwoofers. the manager told me when i complained that there was an issue but unfortunately couldnt cancel the showing.

    the dialogue been drowned out is a separate issue. it makes sense if they are trying to make it sound like it really would be in an emergency situation, but either way it was an uncomfortable experience.

    vue cinema screen 1, down the back on the left hand side as you look at the screen.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    emo72 wrote: »
    the rattling i heard was not meant to be there. it was the same rattling sound when they were chasing a drone through the field, or during take off, or anytime the volume was raised above a certain level.

    as someone else pointed out they set the audio levels very high for this movie and maybe they blew some subwoofers. the manager told me when i complained that there was an issue but unfortunately couldnt cancel the showing.

    the dialogue been drowned out is a separate issue. it makes sense if they are trying to make it sound like it really would be in an emergency situation, but either way it was an uncomfortable experience.

    vue cinema screen 1, down the back on the left hand side as you look at the screen.

    Ah, I see. I was at the 20:00 showing last Friday and I was sitting very close to the middle. I didn't hear anything similar to what you describe. Maybe I was not close enough to that speaker, or maybe the damage to speaker hadn't occurred yet?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,539 ✭✭✭✭Snake Plisken


    Just on the sound mix I thought it was poor but I put that down to the cinema not checking or calibrating thier speakers, I saw it in Vue screen 1 yesterday and some of the speakers whereby able to handle the mix, I suppose they don't bother checking or maintaining thier equipment to much.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,234 ✭✭✭ceegee


    For me, this section took the movie to another level. I was absolutely enthralled, gripped, worried and delighted by that whole scene. I was expecting a deus ex machina but it wasn't that (not quite anyway) and I thought MMC's acting was fantastic here. The graphics were amazing (one fair use of CGI in the movie) and I pretty much had no idea what was going to happen. Was he going to be stuck there forever? Die? "Reset" and go back to the start?

    The visuals stick with you - the bookshelves, the massive waves (awesome!), the robot turning into a spinning wheel. Cool stuff.

    The "23 years later" part was *amazing* - the whole cinema, as I noted before, were entirely bazinga-ed by that part. It was like something from Star Trek TNG, one of their crazy what the hell's going on / is Riker really old / time is frozen episodes. I always thought they were cool, and Interstellar had a few nods to that I reckon.

    The robot turning into a wheel was one of the parts that annoyed me. Or more specifically the fact it was only done at the last second. "Oh look, we've landed on a water planet, should we send out the robot first to make sure its safe? Nah lets just jump straight out into the water. Oh look she's struggling to make it back to the ship, lets wait til we have about 5 seconds left before we send the transformer to rescue her. Reminded me of the power rangers only using the droids for the end of the episode when they could have defeated the baddie 20 minutes beforehand.

    In fact, most of their mission would have gone a lot smoother had they properly utilised the awesome robot they had at their disposal.


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,796 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Falthyron wrote: »
    The time he spent in the black-hole is not connected to the time experienced by Murph and the people on the space station/Earth. Thirty minutes in the black-hole might have been 60 years of 'Earth-time', so every 30 seconds he spent in the black-hole could have been 1 year for those on Earth after he transmitted the details. In those 60 years (or thirty minutes for Cooper), mankind was able to develop technology capable of travelling faster throughout space, and more complex space stations that could provide for thousands of people.

    so if they had fast ships why didn't they go search for the astronauts? or why did they not seem interested in asking cooper about them?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭jcsoulinger


    When they go into 'hibernation' the body is maintained in the shape it is. Mann said that he didn't even set an awakening date the last time he put himself to sleep, so you'd have to assume it was for a very long time where the body remained unaffected. He could have been sleeping in reality for the majority of his time there.

    It's not like he spent a couple of decades sitting on his hole stuffing his face waiting for the calvary!

    I know it was more a flippant comment on Damon letting himself go a bit than anything else.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    so if they had fast ships why didn't they go search for the astronauts? or why did they not seem interested in asking cooper about them?

    When you say astronauts, do you mean Anne Hathaway's character? It would seem that even Cooper has no idea if she survived, hence why he goes off in search of her at the end of the film. Also, I remember Murph (as the old woman) saying they didn't believe her and they said she was making it up - a reference to her discovering the solution to the equation. If they don't believe that Cooper contacted her through the Morse code message, what reasons do they have to believe any of the astronauts survived?


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,796 ✭✭✭✭expectationlost


    Falthyron wrote: »
    When you say astronauts, do you mean Anne Hathaway's character? It would seem that even Cooper has no idea if she survived, hence why he goes off in search of her at the end of the film. Also, I remember Murph (as the old woman) saying they didn't believe her and they said she was making it up - a reference to her discovering the solution to the equation. If they don't believe that Cooper contacted her through the Morse code message, what reasons do they have to believe any of the astronauts survived?

    well if they do have faster ships then you go look!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    ror_74 wrote: »
    I guess it comes down to the story. As well as entertain, I thought Interstallar is supposed to stimulate a discussion about our future, something that will have to be addressed at some point.
    I don't think this movie could ever do that since they don't appear to have any idea what the eco-problem in the future is besides calling it "dust".


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,026 ✭✭✭Amalgam


    Screen 1, IMC, Dun Laoghaire has a unique feature, leaking roof with loud, 'ponk' 'ponk' ' ponk' bucket by row 'C'.. :mad: Waiting for the 20.05 show to start..


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't think this movie could ever do that since they don't appear to have any idea what the eco-problem in the future is besides calling it "dust".

    When the movie is about space exploration, or lack there of (as Nolan strongly suggests), does it really matter what reason is given for leaving Earth? It is a critique on our risk-taking and a challenge to our laziness about discovering more of the universe; it is not a movie about what is wrong with Earth. Nolan is clearly stating we shouldn't need a reason to explore space.

    Hell, if Nolan ran with this it wouldn't have effected the core of the movie:

    327970.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭jcsoulinger


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't think this movie could ever do that since they don't appear to have any idea what the eco-problem in the future is besides calling it "dust".

    The reasons for leaving are irrelevant the point is we have to leave to survive.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,447 ✭✭✭evil_seed


    The only plot hole I thought of was....






    .... if they could only grow corn, what kind of beer were they drinking? Corn beer?

    Budweiser. It's made with corn


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    The reasons for leaving are irrelevant the point is we have to leave to survive.
    The entire premise is irrelevant... OK, that works for some people I guess. Then why bother claiming scientific accuracy at all?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Falthyron wrote: »
    Nolan is clearly stating we shouldn't need a reason to explore space.
    Then why does he give one in the movie? A utterly incomprehensible one at that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,779 ✭✭✭A Neurotic


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I don't think this movie could ever do that since they don't appear to have any idea what the eco-problem in the future is besides calling it "dust".

    I thought it was mentioned a few times that the problem was a "blight" - some kind of pathogen that seemed to have evolved to consume and destroy all of Earth's crops.

    My guess then was that the previously productive agricultural land gave way to barren soil, leading to the dust bowl.

    No?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 51,342 ✭✭✭✭That_Guy


    Saw this in the IMAX this evening. I enjoyed it and was captivated throughout. I had a bit of trouble hearing some of the dialogue. Whether that was deliberate or there was an issue with the sound in the IMAX screen, I don't know.

    I'd be nearly curious to see it again in a regular sized 2D screen and see.

    I keep thinking about the beginning of the film when Murph comes in and says, "are you dreaming about the crash"?

    Was it ever explained as to what happened there?

    A lot of the stuff after that just seemed to happen really fast for me.

    "Hey Coop. You're a deadly pilot. Wanna go to space?"

    BAM. He's in space.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    A Neurotic wrote: »
    I thought it was mentioned a few times that the problem was a "blight" - some kind of pathogen that seemed to have evolved to consume and destroy all of Earth's crops.

    My guess then was that the previously productive agricultural land gave way to barren soil, leading to the dust bowl.

    No?
    Yes, that's the proposal in the movie it seems from what I've read. It makes no sense whatsoever though at any known biological level. There's already ways to make artificial food which are easier than manipulating wormholes at the other end of the solar system in any case.
    It just sounds like a play to the eco-warrior gallery but they just couldn't come up with anything clever to flesh it out.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    Then why does he give one in the movie? A utterly incomprehensible one at that?

    To you it is incomprehensible. I am perfectly satisfied that some sort of ecological disaster occurred, much the same that I am satisfied the possibility of a worm-hole might exist, and travelling through it is possible. Nobody questions the possibility of Transformers, so I don't see why we shouldn't also suspend belief over some sort of ecological disaster.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,509 ✭✭✭brevity


    Just on sound and picture etc...I saw this in the omniplex maxx in Cork and had no problems.

    They advertised their sound technology Barco Auro before the movie, never seen them do this before, perhaps this movie took full advantage of it. Bit more on it here:

    "We have adopted the Barco Auro sound system for OmniplexMAXX. This is an advanced sound system at a channel format of 11.1. The 11 in 11.1 means there is 11 high/low frequency speakers placed around the auditorium. 6 front stage channels (full range), 4 surrounds channels and 1 ‘voice of god’ ceiling channel. The 1 in 11.1 is the low frequency channel or the sub. We use 2-3 subs depending on screen size. Each of the channels will power a multiple of speakers that you see within the auditorium."

    Never been in a proper IMAX screen. It's on the bucket list!


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Falthyron wrote: »
    To you it is incomprehensible. I am perfectly satisfied that some sort of ecological disaster occurred, much the same that I am satisfied the possibility of a worm-hole might exist, and travelling through it is possible. Nobody questions the possibility of Transformers, so I don't see why we shouldn't also suspend belief over some sort of ecological disaster.
    So you expect the same realism and thoughtful storyline in a Nolan movie as there is in Transformers?
    If you insist!
    I'm still wondering why they bothered paying for a scientific consultant though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    So you expect the same realism and thoughtful storyline in a Nolan movie as there is in Transformers?
    If you insist!
    I'm still wondering why they bothered paying for a scientific consultant though.

    No, I am not. That is not what I inferred. I am simply saying that if someone has a problem with the 'problem' on Earth, and suggest it is 'incomprehensible' why not attack the more complicated/less feasible aspects of the movie, such as black-holes, interstellar travel, relativity, etc.

    As I said earlier, Nolan has no interest in talking about the problem on Earth. His issue is not with Earth. He is challenging our reasons for not exploring space and questioning the universe. If aliens attacked Earth, would you then not take issue with his reasons, or if there was a big nuclear war? Nolan doesn't deal with the problems on Earth because that is irrelevant. What is relevant is; why are we not trying to explore the universe?


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 10,087 ✭✭✭✭Dan_Solo


    Falthyron wrote: »
    If aliens attacked Earth, would you then not take issue with his reasons, or if there was a big nuclear war?
    I'm happy you asked. And even more glad didn't assume which way I'd answer...
    Yes, I would accept those reasons. They would make sense. "blight" is no more believable than any of the physics in the movie. In fact it is less so. At least the physics can say an actual expert made a stab at them.


  • Registered Users Posts: 87 ✭✭Colonial


    http://www.npr.org/2014/11/03/361069820/new-clock-may-end-time-as-we-know-it

    New Clock May End Time As We Know It
    "My own personal opinion is that time is a human construct," says Tom O'Brian. O'Brian has thought a lot about this over the years. He is America's official timekeeper at the National Institute of Standards and Technology in Boulder, Colorado.

    To him, days, hours, minutes and seconds are a way for humanity to "put some order in this very fascinating and complex universe around us."

    We bring that order using clocks, and O'Brian oversees America's master clock. It's one of the most accurate clocks on the planet: an atomic clock that uses oscillations in the element cesium to count out 0.0000000000000001 second at a time. If the clock had been started 300 million years ago, before the age of dinosaurs began, it would still be keeping time — down to the second. But the crazy thing is, despite knowing the time better than almost anyone on Earth, O'Brian can't explain time.

    "We can measure time much better than the weight of something or an electrical current," he says, "but what time really is, is a question that I can't answer for you."

    Maybe its because we don't understand time, that we keep trying to measure it more accurately. But that desire to pin down the elusive ticking of the clock may soon be the undoing of time as we know it: The next generation of clocks will not tell time in a way that most people understand.

    The New Clock

    At the nearby University of Colorado Boulder is a clock even more precise than the one O'Brian watches over. The basement lab that holds it is pure chaos: Wires hang from the ceilings and sprawl across lab tables. Binder clips keep the lines bunched together.

    In fact, this knot of wires and lasers actually is the clock. It's spread out on a giant table, parts of it wrapped in what appears to be tinfoil. Tinfoil?

    "That's research grade tinfoil," says Travis Nicholson, a graduate student here at the JILA, a joint institute between NIST and CU-Boulder. Nicholson and his fellow graduate students run the clock day to day. Most of their time is spent fixing misbehaving lasers and dealing with the rats' nest of wires. ("I think half of them go nowhere," says graduate student Sara Campbell.)

    At the heart of this new clock is the element strontium. Inside a small chamber, the strontium atoms are suspended in a lattice of crisscrossing laser beams. Researchers then give them a little ping, like ringing a bell. The strontium vibrates at an incredibly fast frequency. It's a natural atomic metronome ticking out teeny, teeny fractions of a second.

    This new clock can keep perfect time for 5 billion years.

    "It's about the whole, entire age of the earth," says Jun Ye, the scientist here at JILA who built this clock. "Our aim is that we'll have a clock that, during the entire age of the universe, would not have lost a second."

    But this new clock has run into a big problem: This thing we call time doesn't tick at the same rate everywhere in the universe. Or even on our planet.

    Time Undone

    Right now, on the top of Mount Everest, time is passing just a little bit faster than it is in Death Valley. That's because speed at which time passes depends on the strength of gravity. Einstein himself discovered this dependence as part of his theory of relativity, and it is a very real effect.

    The relative nature of time isn't just something seen in the extreme. If you take a clock off the floor, and hang it on the wall, Ye says, "the time will speed up by about one part in 1016."

    The world's most precise atomic clock is a mess to look at. But it can tick for billions of years without losing a second.i
    The world's most precise atomic clock is a mess to look at. But it can tick for billions of years without losing a second.

    Ye group and Baxley/JILA/Flickr
    That is a sliver of a second. But this isn't some effect of gravity on the clock's machinery. Time itself is flowing more quickly on the wall than on the floor. These differences didn't really matter until now. But this new clock is so sensitive, little changes in height throw it way off. Lift it just a couple of centimeters, Ye says, "and you will start to see that difference."

    This new clock can sense the pace of time speeding up as it moves inch by inch away from the earth's core.

    That's a problem, because to actually use time, you need different clocks to agree on the time. Think about it: If I say, 'let's meet at 3:30,' we use our watches. But imagine a world in which your watch starts to tick faster, because you're working on the floor above me. Your 3:30 happens earlier than mine, and we miss our appointment.

    This clock works like that. Tiny shifts in the earth's crust can throw it off, even when it's sitting still. Even if two of them are synchronized, their different rates of ticking mean they will soon be out of synch. They will never agree.

    The world's current time is coordinated between atomic clocks all over the planet. But that can't happen with the new one.

    "At this level, maintaining absolute time scale on earth is in fact turning into nightmare," Ye says. This clock they've built doesn't just look chaotic. It is turning our sense of time into chaos.

    Ye suspects the only way we will be able to keep time in the future is to send these new clocks into space. Far from the earth's surface, the clocks would be better able to stay in synch, and perhaps our unified sense of time could be preserved.

    But the NIST's chief timekeeper, Tom O'Brian, isn't worried about all this. As confusing as these clocks are, they're going to be really useful.

    "Scientists can make these clocks into exquisite devices for sensing a whole bunch of different things," O'Brian says. Their extraordinary sensitivity to gravity might allow them to map the interior of the earth, or help scientists find water and other resources underground.

    A network of clocks in space might be used to detect gravitational waves from black holes and exploding stars.

    They could change our view of the universe.

    They just may not be able to tell us the time.

    The world's most precise atomic clock

    superclock_enl-3614e319260eb68ac9f8268f5b1fcb7569f5e658-s40.jpg


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,835 ✭✭✭Falthyron


    Dan_Solo wrote: »
    I'm happy you asked. And even more glad didn't assume which way I'd answer...
    Yes, I would accept those reasons. They would make sense. "blight" is no more believable than any of the physics in the movie. In fact it is less so. At least the physics can say an actual expert made a stab at them.

    But we haven't met any aliens, and we haven't had a nuclear war. However, we have had famines from blight. You are saying two things we have never experienced are more feasible than one thing we actually have experienced on multiple occasions?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 2,389 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher




Advertisement