homepage Forums SimHQ Community Outer Space & Science Fiction Interstellar

That WAS the end in the book. The difference IIRC was that in the book there's more than one of them there. Several go, they all meet people they know who are just aliens in a different guise, and they have lengthy conversations with them about things like irrational numbers showing proof of having been constructed (if you can wrap your mind around the idea that pi was created by an intelligence) and other stuff.

The movie took the whole faith/reason thing and ran with it far more than the book did.



The Jedi Master

punt!

going interstellar in 39 days...

thanks for the link, pm

You're welcome Patrocles.

Cant wait for this....

Actually, been waiting for a year and a half ao i CAN wait, but im so happy its close to premiere!
Sure looks to be well worth the time, and nolan usuly doesnt disappoint.

Fingers crossed here but it might very well be movie of the year for me!

There are 2 remaining "must see" films for me for 2014. "Interstellar" and the final Hobbit film. I think it's titled "Battle of the Five Armies"?

Don't forget about Fury.
That new twist on the Dracula story looks interesting, but not sure about being theater-worthy.

Fury? I'll wait for the bluray on Netflix.

ah, forgot about that one! need to check release date.

A real Tiger tank was used in the film, right? Sounds too good to not see that monster tank on the big screen

So, Interstellar seems to be really rolling out the
promotion - cover of Time, no less. But it was the
Wired article that impressed me most (no, they
didn't make the cover, that's Pixar). In it, Kip Thorne
says he provided the CGI rendering team with the
necessary math to image a black hole, and they had to
rewrite their whole ray-tracing routines to do ray
tracing for gravity-bent light. When they were done,
they had an image for the black hole that no one expected,
but Thorne looked at it and studied it for a while,
and concluded that it was correct, and had advanced the
understanding of these things. So the CGI guys ended
up contributing to the physics. Thorne says "there are
probably a couple of papers to come out of this", and
perhaps the CGI team will get author credits. So, you
go to work for a Hollywood visual effects outfit and
find yourself published in PRL. Who knew.

Yep just read the story on the Black hole visuals..I think a load of new tech and math will come out after this movie..

Fascinating stuff. Can't wait to see the movie on IMAX this coming Sunday.

According to my former agent, MM actually read one of my screenplays about 10 years ago. I'm not kidding. He read it and then said "no." I hated him for years after that. I had hoped my script would get him out of the RomCom trap in which he had lingered for several years (and make a little money for me). I stopped hating him when I saw his performance in Dallas Buyers Club, which I waited to see on a plane flight to Australia.

As for actors I would pay to see, over the years the best in terms of pure acting ability: Robert DeNiro in "Godfather II", "Raging Bull", "Heat" were exceptional performances. His performance in "Ronin" was good but not exceptional. The same for "The Untouchables." I don't care for his recent family comedy roles.

Denzel Washington is another superb acting talent. Even as he ages, he's good. Best Supporting for "Glory," Best Actor for "Training Day." His newest film is not a great movie, but his performance is excellent. I'm referring, of course, to "The Equalizer." And who can forget Rod Steiger's Oscar winning performance in "In The Heat of the Night" back in '67.

Perhaps the single greatest acting performance of all time, and one of the greatest scripts of all time, was Paul Newman in "Cool Hand Luke." Newman was an amazing actor, regardless of the quality of the script. I was stunned by his performance as a white man raised by Indians in the mediocre movie "Hombre."

Today there seems to be more emphasis on special effects and loud noises (every film ever made by Michael Bay and his ilk) than scripts which require actual acting ability. I suppose the reason is there are very few actual actors today. Please don't mention Johnny Depp or Keanu Reeves--I might vomit.

Don't get me wrong. I do enjoy the occasional mindless popcorn movie with someone like Schwarzenegger or Stallone or even Tom Cruise (I loved "The Last Samaurai" and "Collateral"), but let's not confuse exciting action and sales receipts with acting ability. There are very few great actors today. Very few.

Just back from seeing Interstellar, the 70 mm version this evening. My mind was blown away. Best SciFi movie in years, imo.

Saw it at the imax in the London science museum today, one of only four in the UK showing it in true imax. It was incredible. Going to see it again on Wednesday in the standard Sony 4k cinema to compare

I read a review that said the physics were cr@p, particularly the physics of a Black Hole and its Event Horizon.

Is the accretion disk modelled properly? If it is, then the Black Hole is not approachable at all without the astronaut or whatever being incinerated crushed and torn apart simultaneously, then frozen forever in a timeless state at the Event Horizon.

The inaccurate physics was probably noticed by 2 percent of people who have seen the film so far. The other 98 percent didn't notice or didn't care.

Funny how people are dead set on how right they are about theoretical physics. Part of scifi is accepting that later generations have things figured out that we don't.

Kip Thorne was intimately involved in the creation of
the movie. If you have a dispute about the physics,
I suggest you take it up with him. I can lend you my copy
of Misner Thorne & Wheeler to brush up on your GR
for the debate.

In typical Nolan style, Interstellar confuses bigness for greatness. It's three hours of monumental pomposity, corny emotionalism and anti-science mysticism dressed up as real science.

There is nothing wrong with escapist fairy tales, of course, but Interstellar is being hyped for its fidelity to science fact rather than science fiction. Much publicity around the movie has centered on the involvement of Kip Thorne, former Feynman Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech, a friend of Stephen Hawking and a world expert on Einstein�s general theory of relativity. Thorne�s producer credit lends the project extra intellectual credibility, but only if you take the fantastical plot with a Saturn-sized pinch of salt.

There is a derisive phrase used in theoretical physics: "not even wrong." It describes speculation that is so far off target it fails to qualify even as bad science. Large sections of Interstellar are not even wrong. Anyone can debunk the junk science in Nolan's movie in just 20 minutes on Google. Thankfully, there is no need because London-based astrophysics expert Dr. Roberto Trotta has already done the work in a Guardian article which unravels the good, the bad and the plain stupid pseudo-science in the film.

http://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog...cience-work-out