I really didn't see it as related to Christianity or creationism in any way and I'm surprised anyone would make that connection.
Interstellar | SPOILERS! | Keep out unless you've seen it
- Thread starter okLaptop1
- Start date
Yeah as soon as I had written my post I realised I had poorly expressed my view! Especially seeing as how evolution was quite clearly espoused. Not Christianity specifically (and definitely not creationism now I think about it!), but the whole 'love' thing got my goat a bit. For me love is like morals/ethics, in that they are devices created by humans for humans, not part of the fabric of the universe - which is what I think the movie tries to convey
I'm not sure about that last part. You have to remember that the entire thing inside the black hole, where his love for his daughter was the key according to Cooper himself, was actually constructed by a hyper advanced civilization of mankind. It was a device created by humans for humans.
One question... Who are "they"?
Humans from the future.
Ummmm, wasn't it Coop himself?
If you mean the handshake and the communication via the book shelves, yes. I meant the ones who put the worm hole in place among other things.
In Brand's speech when they are debating over which planet to go to she makes it clear that she believes that love is bigger than such a device. I take your point that in the rubric of the film that an advanced civilization of humans use love as a tool; and specifically at the end.
But if you read the film as a symbolic allegory (it's quite fantastical when charting our future evolution) it implies that love is not created by humans, but something eternal and tangible.
I probably haven't explained myself well here and now I'm going out haha
Isn't that too big an assumption?
Ah I see what you mean - where did the information originate if it's just being looped from the future to the past? In terms of the data on the black hole that solves the equation thingy - TARS gets that, so it has an original discovery. I'm pretty sure Coop asks for the NASA coordinates from TARS as well, who'd have already known them, so again there's no creation of information via time-travel itself, the info's just being relayed via it. So then you've just got the causality loop, which as far as I know is doable as long as, as with Novikov, you accept that whatever you do in the past, you've always done and always will do.Care to explain? Because what I gathered from the wiki entry about the Novikov-principle is that, if the theory is correct, a "grandfather paradox" is completely impossible to occur (which is depicted CORRECTLY in the movie when Cooper, inside the tesseract, fails to make himself stay at home in the past) because this particular part of history has happened that way and thus cannot be changed.
Applied to the grandfather example, it would mean that it even if you could travel to the past it would just be completely impossible for you to kill your on grandfather before you are born; or that it would impossible to go to the past to kill Hitler, because that would mean the motivation behind the time travel would never have existed in the first place.
So far, so good, so Novikov. In this movie, however, there's also an ontological bootstrap paradox, i.e. where an information/entity/whatever has no more discernable origin.
I also read Kip Thorne's wiki entry (the guy who did the actual physics for Interstellar) and from what I gather there, he mostly says that timetravel might actually be possible. It says nothing about this particular kind of paradox but maybe I'm just too dumb.
So the past can't be changed anymore because Cooper HAS to get into the black hole and relay the necessary information so he could end up there in the first place, fair enough. However, without the wormhole, the tesseract etc. humanity would've gone extinct so they could've never developed into "5d beings", so those beings could've never sent a wormhole back in the first place to save humanity or build the tesseract or anything. The technology/advanced state of being/wormhole that saved humanity has no real origin anymore. It's more of a metaphysical than a physical paradox, the way I see it. And it pisses me off. It seems so lazy.
I also read Kip Thorne's wiki entry (the guy who did the actual physics for Interstellar) and from what I gather there, he mostly says that timetravel might actually be possible. So I guess the physics are right (or at least possible), but the horrible bootstrap is Nolan's very own fault.
I'm not a physicist, but this is how I see it and I'm horrified by the fact that a promising movie ended so stupidly. The love-stuff, holy cow...
12 Monkeys is still the only movie that did timetraveling really well in my eyes.
Sorry if this sounds like gibberish, but english is my second language and this shit is confusing enough to write about even in my first.
Not in terms of the Data inside the black hole. I'm kinda okay with that. The wormhole that brings Tars into the position to receive that data is the problem. If it wasn't there, humans couldn't have evolved and thus it would've never been created to safe humanity from extinction. The knowledge of how to put a wormhole there and humanity's ascension to another dimension have no origin anymore. That's the bootstrap paradox. You can't pull yourself out of the swamp by your own bootstraps. It's like an engineer building a timemachine after finding a manuscrip that explains how to do it, only to discover that he himself sent this manuscript to the past after building the machine. So how did the machine get created in the first place? This type of paradox is not covered by Novikov, because he only states that the past can't be changed in a way to create a paradox (examples Grandfather and Hitler or Cooper's "stay"-message).
As I said, it's not a problem of physics, but ontology.
The "Love transcends all dimensions" crap is the icing on the cake. As a friend of mine put it, Cooper could've just as easily said: "John Paul was right. Love IS in the air."
Last edited:
Wasn't it pretty much stated somewhere at the end when he was inside the black hole? Humanity created the tesseract inside the black hole, that's why it was closed immediately after Cooper had coded the data into the watch (which was its entire purpose). I don't think it's too much of a stretch to believe they put the worm hole there as well in that case.
I think that's the wrong way to be looking at it, as it's the future humans that created the wormhole with no input from the ones on Earth. It wasn't something the present humans did after being sent the information back by the future humans - they worked it out for themselves in the future. Using your swamp example, it would be more like your future self going back to pull you out of the swamp.
Do movies really need to be nitpicked this much?
So how did they work it out? Without the wormhole, humanity would have died on Earth.
This "your future self pulls you out of the swamp" is exactly the paradox. If you managed to get out of the swamp to travel in time to save yourself, how did you originally get out? Without your future self, you would've died and your future self along with you.
Another example: It's like a chicken from the future sending an egg back in time to hatch from it in order to send back the egg. It doesn't work.
This "your future self pulls you out of the swamp" is exactly the paradox. If you managed to get out of the swamp to travel in time to save yourself, how did you originally get out? Without your future self, you would've died and your future self along with you.
Another example: It's like a chicken from the future sending an egg back in time to hatch from it in order to send back the egg. It doesn't work.
You get out because your future self is always there to pull you out. It only doesn't work if you assume there's an "original" timeline where he doesn't come back. This is where you can't really separate the physics with the ontology, given there's a lot of crazy shit going on that doesn't fit with our standard view of how things work. As I posted quoting the analysis from the general relativity guy on the previous page (emphasis my own):
I guess I'm not into physics enough, but the way I still see it, the problems discussed by Novikov and others who deal with CTCs are different ones from the bootstrap paradox. So far, nothing I've read anywhere provides a solution to it.
Anyway, it's not like that's the only thing that annoyed me to no end in Interstellar.
Anyway, it's not like that's the only thing that annoyed me to no end in Interstellar.
Is it plausible that you survive the swamp the first time round but at a cost (say to your health) that would make it plausible for you travel back in time to help yourself if you could? Similarly perhaps humanity survived without the wormhole first time round but at a cost that was deemed avoidable.
That's exactly the kind of paradox that Novikov prevents and that is depicted as impossible in the movie. You can't change something that has happened in the past in a certain way. If you saved yourself from the swamp, the motivation behind your timetravel would cease to exist, thus you'd never go back. Novikov states that it would be impossible to save yourself from the swamp if you survived anyway, even if you could go back in time.
Last edited:
For people that treat Science Fiction like a documentary, absolutely.
Is the movie that complex and confusing? The ending was pretty straight forward, no? Guy gets saved by a deus ex machina after leaving a black hole, and I repeat, a black hole, unscathed and saving the world in the process. This is not 2001 where the film really brings you on bad acid trip towards the end.
Overrall, I thought it was a pretty good effort, probably one of the best I've seen this year. It has a wonderful blend of drama and sci-fi elements to it. I found it even quite moving at some parts when we see the drama unfolding between McConaughey and his family back on earth. I didn't realise McConaughey had such acting chops. The part that got to me the most was how they portrayed the astronauts dealing with the relativity of time and loneliness that comes with. Spending an hour of your mission on another planet and coming back to find out that your daughter has aged 23 years is just utterly terrifying.
One thing which I didn't understood was how they communicated with the other beings using "Gravity"? Either I need to brush up on my physics or they have vastly different definition to gravity.
Overrall, I thought it was a pretty good effort, probably one of the best I've seen this year. It has a wonderful blend of drama and sci-fi elements to it. I found it even quite moving at some parts when we see the drama unfolding between McConaughey and his family back on earth. I didn't realise McConaughey had such acting chops. The part that got to me the most was how they portrayed the astronauts dealing with the relativity of time and loneliness that comes with. Spending an hour of your mission on another planet and coming back to find out that your daughter has aged 23 years is just utterly terrifying.
One thing which I didn't understood was how they communicated with the other beings using "Gravity"? Either I need to brush up on my physics or they have vastly different definition to gravity.
Thought it was fantastic entertainment honestly. The Earth bits at the beginning were great and while might have seemed overly long, helped the character development a great deal. Plot has its ups and downs. The Matt Damon part felt stretched and a bit pointless, and the ending started veering into sheer nonsense really.
The first planet they land on, and the whole debate about the time cost, was brilliant. As some others have said, when Cooper watches the messages from Earth after had me welling up a bit. Don't know how anyone could criticize the characters in this film as cold. As was also previously mentioned, it's frustrating how they take a very grounded approach to the spacecraft and its dangers until the final 45 minutes where it turns into some kind of super vessel.
All in all a great movie. This and Grand Budapest Hotel are two of the only movies I can recall recently with real imagination and vision. Some are calling it too "blockbustery"...I say if this is a blockbuster then more of the same please. Beats the hell out of Comic Book SuperHero Reboot #27.
The first planet they land on, and the whole debate about the time cost, was brilliant. As some others have said, when Cooper watches the messages from Earth after had me welling up a bit. Don't know how anyone could criticize the characters in this film as cold. As was also previously mentioned, it's frustrating how they take a very grounded approach to the spacecraft and its dangers until the final 45 minutes where it turns into some kind of super vessel.
All in all a great movie. This and Grand Budapest Hotel are two of the only movies I can recall recently with real imagination and vision. Some are calling it too "blockbustery"...I say if this is a blockbuster then more of the same please. Beats the hell out of Comic Book SuperHero Reboot #27.
Yes, my limited understanding of Novikov's principle leads me to the conclusion that probability of the time loop showed in the movie is zero. In simple terms, it solves the Granfather paradox by making it physically impossible for yourself to kill him in case you time travel to the past. Not that even if you did kill him, nothing will change or he always died that way.
Forget about the science stuff though (seriously, it's fiction and should be treated as such) and this film commits terrible errors in terms of dialogue, characters, acting, story and sound that would rightly be ripped apart in any other film... probably more so in fact.
Nah not really.
You mean like Ridley Scott's Prometheus that was ripped to shreds to even higher degree ? I can understand that kind of reaction at some point, even though it didn't had word 'Alien' in the title so expectations were aimed at other points of the movie.
I'm just glad 'Back To The Future' was made in the 80's... Today it would be the most scientifically unaccurate Sci-fi comedy of our times.
Prometheus is a great comparison, completely disregarding the science, that film had some glaring problems... as does this one.
Prometheus was crap, this was orders of magnitude better.
Just got back from the cinema and I did enjoy it. It kept me interested for nigh on 3 hours and certainly made me think. I do have similar gripes to some of you guys (the paradox of the wormhole/tesseract being created by a future human civilization, the cheesiness of the love speech, difficulty in believing that Murph somehow 'worked out' that it was her dad sending the messages and also realised that he would have something dramatically important to convey beyond his regret at leaving her) but it was fun, and that's more important.
Thought it was excellent. Don't know why the caf hated it? The film was a fictional film, a fantasy. No point nit picking scientific faults. They can make up their own rules. That's the point. I thought the film was a masterpiece. I came out thinking wow.
I don't think hardly anyone has said they hated it. Even people raising some issues agree it was entertaining. People need to stop getting so defensive when they see someone's opinion differ from their own.
Would this thread be better if every post was "wow, best film eva" or if there was some semblance of structured debate about it's merits as a piece of art and entertainment?
Would this thread be better if every post was "wow, best film eva" or if there was some semblance of structured debate about it's merits as a piece of art and entertainment?
Yeah as Cassius said I don't think 'the caf hated it' (though I do think some really disliked it), then again I don't think Andy's post was that defensive. When you come into this thread and read wall of texts nitpicking certain details, it can give the impression that the general feeling is quite negative. The overall feeling was pretty positive I think.
OT: have anyone read this book ? http://www.amazon.com/Science-Interstellar-Kip-Thorne/dp/0393351378/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1415960534&sr=1-1&keywords=science of interstellar
Is it good? The author, Kip Thorne is also executive director/ co-writer of the movie.
Is it good? The author, Kip Thorne is also executive director/ co-writer of the movie.
As people have said - I don't think the Caf hated it at all - but the idea that is a "masterpiece" is what I really can't fathom. I mean, for me... a masterpiece doesn't have such clunky dialogue/pacing, poorly fleshed out characters (poor Casey Affleck), and ridiculous story moments (love speech, EUREKA! Throwing papers, not giving a shit about a family you've never met etc.).
Where this film really succeeds for me is in it's scope, imagination and it's realization of some interesting/abstract ideas.
Great fecking movie.
For those nitpicking it, get off your high horse already. It's called ENTERTAINMENT. Not a factual documentary for the Universe's sake.
For those nitpicking it, get off your high horse already. It's called ENTERTAINMENT. Not a factual documentary for the Universe's sake.
I saw it last weekend and struggled a bit to be honest but mainly because the director did not engage me with any of the characters. I found myself not caring whether he or any of them made it home or whether they saved the world. The world he depicted didn't seem worth saving in my opinion. The science bit completely confused me too. 6/10
I think that's fair. I also think it's fair to compare it to 2001 because that was clearly an inspiration for Nolan and in comparison to that it falls way short. Probably didn't help that I rewatched it the night before I went to see this either.
What? Even after him winning an Oscar this year for best actor for Dallas Buyers Club and after his simply outstanding performance in True Detective? Or his amazing performance in Wolf of Wall Street where he stole the show and just missed out on best supporting actor for a 10 minute role?
I've always liked Matthew since I first saw him in Dazed and Confused, but he really stood out in A Time To Kill. Since then he has shown to be quite diverse playing comedy roles quite well in Edtv and the quite funny chick-flick Failure to Launch. I also loved him when he owned dragons in the very underrated Reign of Fire where he bulked up and looked like a WWE star. I admit he's done some average stuff in between but in the past few years he's really taken on some quality roles and has fast become one of Hollywood's leading male actors. I wouldn't be surprised if he wasn't at the very least nominated for best actor again for this role in Interstellar.
I definitely enjoyed it. As I said, I enjoy most of Nolan's films at the time (except for TDKR which was genuinely shit), it's only after when you thinkback on it that you see how silly lots of it was. I loved the first two hours but the last 45 got a bit too much and dragged. It's a 7/10 for me.
Can anyone explain how Cooper communicated to his daughter via the watch?
As far as I understood, he made TARS send information to the seconds hand of the watch.How?
Then after he was sure his daughter took the watch the tesserect was closed. Does that mean the communication bridge between TARS and the watch was constant and unhindered in the coming years? Is that possible? why didn't the closure of the Tesserect affect that communication bridge in anyway?
As far as I understood, he made TARS send information to the seconds hand of the watch.How?
Then after he was sure his daughter took the watch the tesserect was closed. Does that mean the communication bridge between TARS and the watch was constant and unhindered in the coming years? Is that possible? why didn't the closure of the Tesserect affect that communication bridge in anyway?