After seeing Interstellar - good good movie!

[Blackronin]

Opposite to Gravity - bad, bad movie, without any kind of respect for science or good story telling, I've just saw Interstellar and liked a lot the nice paradox.

I leave you with Dylan Thomas:


Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night
by Dylan Thomas

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieve it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

[Archidamus]

My wife & I liked Interstellar when we saw it a couple of weeks ago

[Blackronin]

Indeed! My wife and I also liked it a lot.

[Marechallannes]

Saw it. It was amazing.

Makes me want to talk to a physicist about the time effects.

Only thing I wondered about: Why didn't they know about the conditions on the planets before landing...

[Blackronin]

They knew. They didn't know if there was life.

[OldGuy59]

If you didn't like the liberties taken with science in Gravity, how do you rationalize the liberties taken in Interstellar?

Spoiler Alert (Highlight with a cursor to read):
Anything near a black hole to affect time the way it did on the first planet in Interstellar would have sucked the planet and their ship into it. I'd believe a mass might be able to orbit that much of a gravitational pull, but they wouldn't have been able to catch the thing, it would be moving so fast. Also, anything loose on the surface would have been stripped from it. And I think, if it would actually work in that gravity, the radar altimeter would have noticed the wave fronts with heights at hundreds of meters they showed in the movie. Oh, yeah, there was time dilation on the planet, but not where the ship was. They didn't see it until they got on the ground. Nice plot device.

I still enjoyed the foreshadowing in the line: "That Nature can be mysterious and frightening but never evil, the only evil is the one we bring along."

[Blackronin]

Mike, I don't mind liberties with things we think of but don't really know, where the mistery is alive you can play with it. But the laws of gravity around our little big rock we do know well and forgetting to use them on the account of a movie plot (a bad movie plot) is plainly stupid and bad scripting. Just my oppinion.

[Nightbomber]

Heard about, saw the trailer, can't wait to see the movie. Cosmos, astrophysics and stuff is my second interest I read quite a lot about. Next reading in the queue is Sagan's: Pale Blue Dot.

[Blackronin]

I've read all Sagan's books and they're all amazing in that way that sagan was - optimistic, in awe with the universe and explaining complex things in a very easy way to understand.

[OldGuy59]

Mike, I don't mind liberties with things we think of but don't really know, where the mistery is alive you can play with it. But the laws of gravity around our little big rock we do know well and forgetting to use them on the account of a movie plot (a bad movie plot) is plainly stupid and bad scripting. Just my oppinion.

I actually liked both movies. There were parts in both that were beyond credibility, no matter how much you may want to suspend disbelief.

I think I know what you are saying, and as an example of throwing "reality" out the window for dramatic effect is seen in almost any representation of a missile in "present day" combat movies. My "favorite worst" one was the "Behind Enemy Lines" opening scene, where Owen Wilson is shot down by a missile that did things only the wildest Sci-Fi missile could have done. That pretty much set the tone for the rest of the movie for me. I was a naval firecontrolman (gunner) and an avionics technician in the Canadian Armed Forces, and I know how missiles and guns work. Oh, and the amount of ammunition carried in modern fighters in movies these days is wwwaayyy over the top. But three small bursts of cannon fire doesn't make for a good fight scene, when most audiences are video game players used to unlimited ammo.

So, the laws of gravity are the same close to home, out near Saturn, and in the far-flung galaxy. There is some mystery in the movie, but Interstellar is "guilty as h3ll" of breaking laws for dramatic effect. I enjoyed the visual effects, the cinematography, and some of the acting. If I rated movies on "reality", I'd be pretty disappointed with most of them.

I hope others can enjoy both movies for what they are, Sci-Fi dramas.

[Blackronin]

Mike, I like bad (with less quality, I mean) things. I love some Battletech novels and they aren't Steinbeck's stuff. I like some series B movies that are so bad that they become in some transcendent way quite good, so I don't have a problem with that. Re-animator (1985) is one of those to me.

But when they want to sell me a science movie (not scifi since it could - theoretically happen today) called Gravity and don't even try to model correctly gravity or the lack of it, and the plot is beyond stupid, sorry, I cry for my money badly spent. Interstellar is a different creature. It's sci-fi. It has a good plot. It's interesting and intelligent and makes you wonder... And they take some liberties about reality. I really don't mind. But IMHO it's not the same.

And I like my movies. I love cinema and just because people around the world are ready to be fed bad movies with way too much bullets, too much blood, too much "beautiful" people, that doesn't mean that I have to like it or stand still.