|
opps
Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 18:45 on Apr 11, 2015 |
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 18:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Oh man it just occurred to me: corn is not nutritionally complete. That's a bit of a hole although not one really worth talking about.ruby idiot railed posted:Even if you assume that they have invented Star Trek scanning technology or tricorders somebody would probably forget to compensate for relativistic effects of gravity on time until they've come across it at least once. (lol compensating for that while staring at a planet from outside the effect) Nah I mean a $200 telescope which they appear not to have. What a time-dilated planet would look like through a telescope is an interesting question but I don't think it would be the sort of thing you wouldn't notice even in a cursory examination by non-scientists. What does a nitrox atmosphere look like in x-ray backscatter? That's probably what you'd see pointing a telescope at the water planet. ruby idiot railed posted:somebody would probably forget to compensate This is an interesting point because it keeps coming up in these scifi "totally foreseeable problems" plot discussions. I remember there was a (bad) Star Trek: Voyager episode where they ran out of fuel and everyone was surprised. But there was no explanation for why that happened other than the laughable implication that nobody ever bothers to check. Would you agree that that's a stupid plot? What level of due diligence do we demand from our space heroes? I think we can accept that the protagonists of Gravity were not ready for the Russians irresponsibly firing an anti-satellite weapon. That eventuality was not one that anyone would foresee or be expected to take precautions against. Running out of fuel on a routine cruise, on the other hand, is ridiculous because we would expect any reasonable crew to manage fuel levels as part of their normal responsibilities. A good intermediate example is in Alien, when the crew of the Nostromo try to violate protocol procedure and Ripley denies them entry. The Nostromo crew are professionals but panicked, while Ripley is professional and cool. Ripley exhibits the diligence we would hope to be able to expect from a professional crew, but we understand why her crewmates don't because we saw why they're freaking out and understand their panic. The alien organism killing the crew was, at that point, a foreseeable problem, (Ripley says "we could all die" in the scene) but the audience understand why some characters chose to ignore it. Where does the debacle on the water planet fall on that Gravity>Alien>Voyager scale? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Apr 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:These 5th dimensional beings, whether you believe Cooper's theory that they are future humans are not, need the love between Cooper and Murph because its the only medium by which the data can be sent that is absolutely reliable. I've heard people say things like "Cooper isn't necessary because They could just send the data through the NASA sensors already in place, cut out the middle man." But that would not be reliable enough because there is so much that could prevent the message from being heard or properly interpreted. Also, assuming They are future humans, then another reason they couldn't do the probe is because that's not how it happened. They know from their history that this is how things go down. So they bring Cooper in to the black hole because it's already happened this way. If they try to change it, they could jeopardize their very existence. It's a loop. It happened because they did it, they did it because it happened.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 19:02
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is an interesting point because it keeps coming up in these scifi "totally foreseeable problems" plot discussions. I remember there was a (bad) Star Trek: Voyager episode where they ran out of fuel and everyone was surprised. But there was no explanation for why that happened other than the laughable implication that nobody ever bothers to check. Would you agree that that's a stupid plot? When someone makes a stupid mistake at your work, do you ever tell yourself, "This can't be happening because I wouldn't do it." ? Mistakes, being an event, don't require explanation. They just happen, and now that it happened, everyone has to deal with it. The dealing with it part is usually dramatic and more interesting than if everything happened in a "predictable way", whatever that means. Storytellers like to tell interesting stories, and so mistakes are a great way to create drama. When you say it's a stupid plot, it seems like you're saying, "I wouldn't have written the script that way. I would have come up with another plot device to create drama." At that point, you've failed to suspend your disbelief and are not immersed in the story. The storyteller has a responsibility to help suspend your disbelief, but the entertained party should meet them halfway.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 19:57
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The tiny little Ranger shuttle has enough delta v to break orbit from a planet with 1.3G surface gravity. I posted about this before, surface gravity and escape velocity aren't necessarily correlated. Saturn has about the same surface g as Earth, but a much higher escape velocity. Mercury has a slightly higher surface gravity than Mars, but Mercury's escape velocity is lower. If we allow the wave planet to be a fragment of stellar remnant or some such (very dense, but less massive than Earth), it could have an escape velocity on the order of ~50% Earths', or lower. Objects in this density/mass range are plausible, if not observed yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
Going from orbital velocity to escape velocity (even with the whole Endeavour attached) feels less unbelievable than the Ranger's two complete orbit-to-surface-to-orbit trips beforehand. Though I haven't actually done the math. Like I said above, though, I'm willing to buy it since they put effort into explaining how the Ranger pulls it off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This is an interesting point because it keeps coming up in these scifi "totally foreseeable problems" plot discussions. I remember there was a (bad) Star Trek: Voyager episode where they ran out of fuel and everyone was surprised. But there was no explanation for why that happened other than the laughable implication that nobody ever bothers to check. Would you agree that that's a stupid plot? Yo as a hard sci-fi fan I get this on one level. On the other hand, "% forseeable problems avoided by characters who aren't in hysterics at the moment of action" as a proxy for plot-goodness seems really dumb. From a broader perspective, Interstellar isn't about the intricacies of general relativity or orbital mechanics any more than Hamlet is about court intrigue, or Greek myths are about how demigods really act. Would these same criticisms on the grounds of "tactical realism" be appropriate for Greek myths? It's funny you bring up Gravity as a high water mark, since the astronauts in that movie do all sorts of stupid poo poo by real world standards. George Clooney jetting around like a jackass to pass the time comes immediately to mind. A dude with that kind of personality could never, ever become an astronaut. Plot invalid!  And don't get me started on the "physics" of his death scene!That Voyager episode might have had a dumb plot. But was the story good? Because that's all that matters. The plot only serves the story, never ever the other way around. Unless you wanna be, I dunno, Larry Niven? 'Grats on your airtight plot, shame about that inhuman story I immediately forgot. Clockwork realism isn't that interesting, even when depicting amazing poo poo like black holes. You're caught up in facts (plot) when what's important is truth (story). Interstellar and Gravity have pretty flimsy plots when you get in to details, but they're both good stories.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
Hard Sci-fi doesn't exist because I can nit pick it into absurdity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:The tiny little Ranger shuttle has enough delta v to break orbit from a planet with 1.3G surface gravity. I just figured it was some kind of nuclear scramjet. Who cares about a bit of fallout when you're trying to save the human race? Lots of Holywood science in the movie, but the lander didn't really bug me. Prolonged Priapism posted:It's funny you bring up Gravity as a high water mark, since the astronauts in that movie do all sorts of stupid poo poo by real world standards. George Clooney jetting around like a jackass to pass the time comes immediately to mind. A dude with that kind of personality could never, ever become an astronaut. Plot invalid! Clooney's testing out a prototype maneuvering unit, which probably involves a bit of jetting around, and it's his last mission so he wants to have some fun. Contrary to popular opinion, there's nothing wrong with the physics of his death scene. It's not obvious, but their orientation relative to the earth changes throughout that scene, and the stars can be seen rotating in the background. The astronauts are swinging at the end of an elastic tether, not "hanging." Clooney is flung away by centrifugal motion, not pulled by gravity. There is an illusion of falling at the release because Bullock is yanked backwards by the elastic tether and the camera goes with her, but Clooney is later shown to be sloooowly drifting away.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 00:48
|
|
|
I watched it on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDaIyfitn8) and while at first you appeared to be right, it still doesn't make physical sense. The best indication of them rotating is, as you say, the stars in the background. But as we switch between looking down the tether at Clooney and down the tether at Bullock (in essentially opposite directions) the stars are moving roughly the same way in the background - downward. If the background moves down when we look at Clooney it should move up when we look at Bullock. But it doesn't. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Wow so what I'm getting is that no level of character stupidity, no matter how dumb, should ever threaten suspension of disbelief.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
Prolonged Priapism posted:I watched it on Youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDaIyfitn8) and while at first you appeared to be right, it still doesn't make physical sense. The best indication of them rotating is, as you say, the stars in the background. But as we switch between looking down the tether at Clooney and down the tether at Bullock (in essentially opposite directions) the stars are moving roughly the same way in the background - downward. If the background moves down when we look at Clooney it should move up when we look at Bullock. But it doesn't. Clearly they're just spinning fast enough that you're seeing aliasing so the background is inaccurate. If you want to sperg out on something go all the way. 
hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 04:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow so what I'm getting is that no level of character stupidity, no matter how dumb, should ever threaten suspension of disbelief. Mostly because the level of character stupidity you're bitching about is very minimal. I mean in real life we had a space shuttle get damaged on takeoff, and rather than have someone look at it they decided "nah it's probably fine" and then had it blow up and kill everyone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
To be fair they didn't know it was damaged. On previous mission they knew about similar damage and then did take a look at it. However it was one of the few DoD missions and the encrypted video was very, very low quality so ground just said "looks fine!"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:14
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjrQSJPC5i4 This is a really good video that explains just how insane Cooper's maneuver is when he joins the scout to the Endurance on his way off the ice planet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:23
|
|
|
Interstellar is constructed so that, minute by minute, everything appears quite plausible. But you cannot zoom out and understand it as a coherent whole. It's like a collage of different scenes that may as well be directly sourced from different movies. Each of them is 'hard sci fi' and, yet, each of them is incompatible. There is no 'expanded universe' that can fill in the gaps and smooth over the inconsistencies. This is actually the near-opposite of Gravity, where the computer-animated long takes are used to do exactly that. Sandra Bullock takes off her space-suit and is already wearing a stylish tank top and shorts. The fact that this is done in a single 'immersive' shot completely paints over the fact that she should be wearing a diaper. So, Gravity creates a fully realistic and 100% immersive 3D image of a woman who doesn't poop. Ever. With every single one of Interstellar's cuts, the film is taking a huge poo poo. The gaps in the narrative are the void that the poo poo disappears into - and it's the same void that McConaughey enters, and uses as a portal to the other world.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:51
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjrQSJPC5i4 It's not a complete explanation--in a full model the ceiling fan is also falling. VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Apr 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjrQSJPC5i4 I am sure this has been posted several times before but it is still amazing and drat enjoyable https://youtu.be/-TkSkptsyuY
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Tyson Tomko posted:I am sure this has been posted several times before but it is still amazing and drat enjoyable I liked this one better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfHzzy6T9to
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
This is a very good movie with an accurate understanding of time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
CMON TARS
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
Someone made this and it made me laugh: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PYHdQUyOunA Matthew Mcconaughey's reaction to Star Wars teaser #2
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Kin posted:You can't have intelligent, space exploring characters literally stating a bunch of problems with an action and then going ahead with it, ignoring the logical conclusions of everything they stated (defined by the film itself) all for the sake of driving a certain plot direction without it being anything but poor writing or a plot hole. I just watched the movie for a second time last night, and like most "plot holes" that people in CD complain about, this is really just a matter of you not paying attention. When they first cross the wormhole and are planning a strategy for how to visit each planet, Brand mentions that Miller hasn't said much, but what she had said was good. Once they realize that she had only died hours ago from her frame of reference, they realize that what had happened was that she sent an initial message or two, and that this information had been cached and rebroadcast repeatedly by the comms relay for the past 10+ years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
The Born Approx. posted:I just watched the movie for a second time last night, and like most "plot holes" that people in CD complain about, this is really just a matter of you not paying attention. Yea its the kind of thing that, had it occurred to them, wouldn't have changed their course of action. Even knowing in advance that Miller had only been on the planet a short time, the message was still an all-clear. If she had been on the planet for ten years giving a consistent all clear, or if she had been killed 5 minutes after landing, the message would still be the same: all clear. No way to know poo poo had gone bad until it was too late.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
To be clear, I mean that it was being rebroadcast by the comms relay that was sitting just outside the wormhole, not from the planet - explaining why they didn't pick up on the time dilation thing. They also didn't realize how close the planet was to Gargantua until they got there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
The Born Approx. posted:To be clear, I mean that it was being rebroadcast by the comms relay that was sitting just outside the wormhole, not from the planet - explaining why they didn't pick up on the time dilation thing. They also didn't realize how close the planet was to Gargantua until they got there. What I'm saying though is that doesn't even really matter as far as the decision to go down there. All-clear is all-clear, even if you know in advance about the time dilation. It had to be investigated, regardless of whether Miller had been down there for minutes or years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
The Born Approx. posted:To be clear, I mean that it was being rebroadcast by the comms relay that was sitting just outside the wormhole, not from the planet - explaining why they didn't pick up on the time dilation thing. They also didn't realize how close the planet was to Gargantua until they got there. I wonder which kind of comms gear could read a transmission which would be obscenely red-shifted and time-dilated. On the other hand, the crew going blind to Miller's planet and experiencing a lot of TD is a good narrative resource which adds drama to the movie, so I'm fine with it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 20:23
|
|
|
Amberskin posted:I wonder which kind of comms gear could read a transmission which would be obscenely red-shifted and time-dilated. The kind that is highly over-engineered because it is being sent into unknown circumstances near a supermassive black hole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
Norse Code posted:Someone made this and it made me laugh: LMAO The soundtrack will be released on Vinyl if any of you are so inclined. http://smile.amazon.com/Interstellar-Original-Motion-Picture-Soundtrack/dp/B00UM7SFZS
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Landing on that wave planet in your solitary pod must have been terrifying as gently caress. "Oh, great! Liquid water! Perhaps even drinkable liquid water! This would be the perfect place for hum-" *dies to 1,000ft tidal wave*
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
goons posted:Plot holes http://www.soundonsight.org/understanding-plot-holes-misdiagnosis-and-bad-lexicon/ I'm sure this has been posted before, but seriously gently caress all of you.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
cupachabra posted:http://www.soundonsight.org/understanding-plot-holes-misdiagnosis-and-bad-lexicon/ The fun part with a scifi/fantasy film is its nigh impossible to have true plot holes when you have magic aliens.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
this thread is bad so have something that owns and has nothing to do with interstellar https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKAtUeWCfrE
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
I saw this for the first time yesterday on a bumpy seven hour flight from Ireland the day before I returned to work after an exhausting vacation. Definitely the most immersive way to watch this movie. I adore it and how sincere it is. Love being a quantifiable force in the universe is so loving corny, but Nolan delivers everything with a straight face. And I love it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 01:32
|
|
|
Norse Code posted:Someone made this and it made me laugh: This was great thank you!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Just watched for the first time... Why, why, why 5th dimensional book case from the Mogadon cluster??? why you gotta spoil my film for me? Why? I can ignore all the bad physics and cheesy acting, but 5d book case haddock edition... I do not deserve this kinda hokum. Also, did anyone else expect Matt to ride the wave out in the ship while smoking a J?
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Jamsta posted:Just watched for the first time... Why, why, why 5th dimensional book case from the Mogadon cluster??? why you gotta spoil my film for me? Why? The physics are fine, in that they use the general framework of relativity to tell a story. The 5th dimensional book case is the product of supertechnology, like the Beyond the Infinite sequence from 2001. It's fine too.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
Recent first time watcher also checking in. Can we talk a little bit about how TARS was the best character?  Also, am I wrong or would the mothership need counter-rotating artificial gravity rings in order to counteract what would have been a significant wobble?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 00:11 |
|
|
Applewhite posted:Recent first time watcher also checking in. Can we talk a little bit about how TARS was the best character? My 90 year old grandfather brought up to me that he had tried to watch Interstellar but pretty much hated it. He's been a sci-fi fan all his life but age has effected his ability to enjoy modern stuff, especially something like a Nolan movie where the exposition comes so rapid fire. Anyway he didn't really have anything good to say about it. But I asked him specifically about TARS because who could possibly hate TARS, and sure enough as soon as I mention it his face lit up and we talked about TARS for like ten minutes. Even 90 year olds who are totally disconnected from current movie-culture love TARS.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2015 17:10
|
|