I'm surprised at the responses here, I thought it was blatantly ambiguous, and the fact they'd discussed what you see after death quite heavily during the film (with Damon's character actually clearly asking him what he was seeing at some point) makes it very plausible in my mind. Also the fact that the film is meant to be scientifically accurate doesn't really negate that they could've been going for this.
Cos he doesn't love his son, obviously.
I had an "Oh ffs not this!" moment just when that hospital scene started.
When he woke up in the hospital in Cooper station, did anyone else get a sudden jolt that the entire movie was all a dream, starting from the crash Cooper has at the star of the movie?
The son came across as a proper nut!Then they should've made that less ambiguous by having him fast forward all his sons messages from Earth.
There were no good movies on Endurance, and he enjoys Casey Affleck's acting, so he thought he'd stick through the messages.Then they should've made that less ambiguous by having him fast forward all his sons messages from Earth.
Didn't they call the next one Cooper?
Why was in unnecessary? You wanted them to pick have written it differently and pick the Edwards planet and that way stopped there and nothing more really happening in the movie?
I watched it with subtitles. He just mumbled that he was sorry over and over and that he was a fraud. Then finished with the first line of his poem and died.
As to the supposed paradox, you can get around it if you deny free will (i.e. it always happens that way and can't happen any other way, though this somewhat detracts from a film's sense of peril and importance), or allow the possibility of parallel universes branching off. I didn't much like it myself but that was more due to the writing of it. I was happy with the science in general though, it's never going to be perfect on something like this and we've actually just had a blockbuster where general relativity was a major plot device, not sure anyone else is capable of that these days.
No, I enjoyed it, but it definitely didn't need to be there. They clearly put it in to add action to the middle acts.
I don't get what free will (or the lack of it) can change here. The point of sending something in the past (to save yourself, or in this case to save humankind because if they get destroyed, so do the humans on the future) is absolute nonsense. It is paradoxal and shouldn't be ever used. The moment when you do that in the movie, it is the time to also introduce faster than light traveling and lightsabers. It is the moment when the movies changes from sci-fi to space magic.
An another better theoritical solution is that going back in the past is impossible. Well, you can go back if you travel faster than light, but then again it is impossible to travel faster than light.
Theories are what they are, the possibilities. Until someone proves it wrong (by experiment or math ) it's always possible.
Well, this movie is Theory of Relativity for major audiences so they went with that route. Also no one can tell which one is the theory of everything yet. General Relativity and quantum theory are both right and wrong.
Not according to M-theory, although it doesn't neccesarily needs to be a 'space' dimension.
To be fair I don't really follow most of that stuff, just know basic first year of uni level physics and just saw his stuff get retweeted. Don't really know much about him apart from him being a famous physicist.
A characteristic of the "five dimensional beings" mentioned in the film (from what I remember, at least) is that they experience time as a physical dimension that can be explored, it's not something that runs forward or backwards to their perceptions. If a universe is such that the arrow of time doesn't necessitate that things happen one after the other, but rather simultaneously, then it would follow that some being in this aforementioned extra dimension could do something in the "past" resulting in their existence, as that event always happened that way and always will. feck knows if I violated several unbreakable physical laws there but I read a lot of Robert Heinlein.
From memory, it was something like a parent shouldn't have to see their child die, go to Anne Hathoway (forget her movie name), she's stranded alone on some random planet but they've been getting the signals from her that it's a good planet. Or something along those lines.
that wasn't his equation though, his equation was about getting that giant fecker of a space station into the sky using gravity and take the remaining humans off earth with them. If we're supposed to just assume the equation magically solved the blight then that's stupid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_singularity
did you actually watch the film? Caine finished his equation years ago, the equation proved that his theory wasn't possible. Hence why Option A was never a feasible one and he 'tricked' them. 
