|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On November 11 2014 23:59 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2014 21:40 zatic wrote:Maybe someone can explain this plot hole I can't solve in Interstellar: + Show Spoiler +
At the very end Murph tells Cooper to go look for Brand. We see shots of her being all alone on the third planet setting up a colony. This makes no sense to me.
- Why wouldn't the people from Earth go look for her after they got the gravity equations right and were able to build the Cooper stations? If all it takes is one of the new gliders they have parked right there in the station?
I thought it was maybe because the wormhole had closed - but then how will Cooper get to Brand now?
This really was the only time in the movie where I was going WTF this can't be right in the theatre.
There's nothing to understand. It's a plot hole. + Show Spoiler +
Although, at the end she walks towards a base that seems too large for just 1 person. I know that it might be habitats for the embryos or whatever else but there's also a possibility that it's actually a functioning forward base with some people sent to help Brand out.
On another note, I thought that the first 80-90% of the movie was simply fantastic and the ending was complete crap. I really do hate it when they're trying to tackle relativity, black holes, worm holes and time in SF. They never really get it right. + Show Spoiler +
I'm also pretty torn on the happy ending for this movie. I'm not sure if it would be better with a sad ending or one that's uncertain, but anything other than what we got would be better IMO.
remains the best recent SF movie for me. Interstellar was good, but not good enough and too much of it seemed like "I've seen that before". 8/10
Pretty much this. Although they did have Kip Thorne helping them with the science and i thought they did quite well.
+ Show Spoiler +The ending from when Cooper comes back for whatever reason is really bad and makes little to no sense and when he goes out looking for Brand in the end... wtf? I'm guessing they wanted to emphasize the love aspect of the movie which to me seemed a tad cheesy.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong.
|
On November 11 2014 23:59 Manit0u wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Although, at the end she walks towards a base that seems too large for just 1 person. I know that it might be habitats for the embryos or whatever else but there's also a possibility that it's actually a functioning forward base with some people sent to help Brand out.
+ Show Spoiler +That's what I thought, that the implication was that her planet was viable so Earth sent some more settlers there to help her start up base camp. Then, all the stations were launched with the rest of the population to meet her. When the guy describes Cooper Station as being "in orbit around Jupiter," I took that to mean that they are in the process of moving towards the wormhole to get to Brand's planet.
|
On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong.
general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it.
|
On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it.
+ Show Spoiler +That said, wouldn't the gravity needed for that kind of time dilation be way more than what it was? Something like 1.3x Earth so they could still walk? Even Jupiter has more gravity than that. I guess the planet was affected by the black hole's gravity, but wouldn't they still feel that effect? I don't know, I'm not a physicist. They had a real physicist working with them, so maybe it works out.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it.
Imply? Anyway I have no idea what the equations would give you, but I am pretty sure for 130% of Earth's gravity you won't get 61320% slower time. But again I have no problem with things like this in a movie. But when characters start doing things no one would ever do it spoils it for me.
|
On November 12 2014 05:41 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it. Imply? Anyway I have no idea what the equations would give you, but I am pretty sure for 130% of Earth's gravity you won't get 61320% slower time. But again I have no problem with things like this in a movie. But when characters start doing things no one would ever do it spoils it for me.
A planet like described in the movie wouldn't exist, the black hole would destroy it. I think they just wanted to go to extremes with the relativity which i liked even if it wasn't possible in 'real' life.
|
oops quoted instead of edit
|
On November 12 2014 05:41 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it. Imply? Anyway I have no idea what the equations would give you, but I am pretty sure for 130% of Earth's gravity you won't get 61320% slower time. But again I have no problem with things like this in a movie. But when characters start doing things no one would ever do it spoils it for me.
I am not a physicist so I can not give deeper insight here but yea I think a lot of people miss the fiction part in Science Fiction
|
Netherlands19141 Posts
On November 12 2014 05:41 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it. Imply? Anyway I have no idea what the equations would give you, but I am pretty sure for 130% of Earth's gravity you won't get 61320% slower time. But again I have no problem with things like this in a movie. But when characters start doing things no one would ever do it spoils it for me.
No that's literally how it works. Astronauts who've been to space for like a year are technically a few days "less old" or somthing compared to someone who spent the same time on earth. The same thing goes for the more you approach the speed of light (aka go faster) the slower time goes for you compared to people who move slower.
Haven't seen it yet but really curious about the movie. Should see it soon!
|
what i'm more confused on interstellar was
+ Show Spoiler +gargantua was a big ass black hole. From the depth perception either it was pretty huge ass or they were pretty near.
doesnt blackholes have pretty strong pull of gravity? was my depth perception fucked up? because when i found out that there's a black hole in the other end of the wormhole i was like 'you dun fucked up now!!'
i dunno, was pretty confused. almost all of the sciency stuff was accurate and like how they added layman explanations to it but the stuff after the black hole had my interest start to decline
|
On November 12 2014 09:16 icystorage wrote:what i'm more confused on interstellar was + Show Spoiler +gargantua was a big ass black hole. From the depth perception either it was pretty huge ass or they were pretty near.
doesnt blackholes have pretty strong pull of gravity? was my depth perception fucked up? because when i found out that there's a black hole in the other end of the wormhole i was like 'you dun fucked up now!!'
i dunno, was pretty confused. almost all of the sciency stuff was accurate and like how they added layman explanations to it but the stuff after the black hole had my interest start to decline
There's a black hole in the center of every galaxy. And plenty others floating around too. And you don't automatically get sucked into the black hole, event horizon is the point of no return.
Another thing worthy of reading: link
But still, all parts of the movie involving Gargantua are pretty much wrong (with exception of visuals of course).
|
Guardians of the Galaxy
Not sure what the hype was about. The scenery is reminiscent of The Fifth Element which isn't a bad thing. It's just a weird thing. For instance you'll never see the Collector or anyone as weird as him as a main character in the Avengers.
The characters were more annoying than interesting.
The acting was bad.
The costumes were subpar. It seemed a lot of people were just painted and given fake ears from a local halloween store. I'm exaggerating here but still.
+ Show Spoiler +
I didn't like the whole story arc behind the infinity stone though. If these things existed from before the big bang and they possessed the power to kill everything on a planet then why didn't Thanos go get it himself?
Why does he look like a raccoon. I get he's experimented on but did they take a raccoon from Earth, and then put something else's brain into it? Marvel's superheroes have always been weird so maybe I just don't have the right taste for them.
Why do the main characters do stupid things? The humor seemed forced.
|
On November 12 2014 10:34 obesechicken13 wrote:Guardians of the GalaxyNot sure what the hype was about. The scenery is reminiscent of The Fifth Element which isn't a bad thing. It's just a weird thing. For instance you'll never see the Collector or anyone as weird as him as a main character in the Avengers. The characters were more annoying than interesting. The acting was bad. The costumes were subpar. It seemed a lot of people were just painted and given fake ears from a local halloween store. + Show Spoiler +
I didn't like the whole story arc behind the infinity stone though. If these things existed from before the big bang and they possessed the power to kill everything on a planet then why didn't Thanos go get it himself?
I thought the characters were stupid too.
Why does he look like a raccoon. I get he's experimented on but did they take a raccoon from Earth, and then put something else's brain into it? Marvel's superheroes have always been weird so maybe I just don't have the right taste for them.
Why do the main characters do stupid things? The humor seemed forced.
I didn't enjoy it that much either. I was pretty surprised when everyone called it one of the best movies of the year, and the best comic book hero movie. I guess everyone's allowed to have their own opinions, I just thought the movie was really overrated honestly.
|
On November 12 2014 05:24 Coppermantis wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it. + Show Spoiler +That said, wouldn't the gravity needed for that kind of time dilation be way more than what it was? Something like 1.3x Earth so they could still walk? Even Jupiter has more gravity than that. I guess the planet was affected by the black hole's gravity, but wouldn't they still feel that effect? I don't know, I'm not a physicist. They had a real physicist working with them, so maybe it works out.
The time dilation isn't from the large planet's gravity, it's from the black hole. The planet is extremely close to the black hole which means all time on the planet runs very slowly. That's why Coop had to suggest parking the space craft far away and just dropping the ranger down, so they don't spend hours in orbit and losing even more time than they needed to.
That being said, having a 1 hour = 7 year time dilation requires the planet to be too close to a supermassive black hole for it not to be ripped apart, so the science there is exaggerated for the movie's sake.
|
On November 12 2014 13:54 LostWraithSC wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 05:24 Coppermantis wrote:On November 12 2014 05:13 Skilledblob wrote:On November 12 2014 00:31 zatic wrote:
I don't find implausible tech or physics too distracting in a Scifi movie. Like the 1h = 7years makes no sense either, but I can just live with that if a scientist in the movie tells me that. Or that they can suddenly land and take off from a planet (the water planet) which wasn't possible before.
However if the actions of people make no sense at all it just hits me in the face as wrong. general relativity implies that the higher the gravity of an object the slower time runs around it. + Show Spoiler +That said, wouldn't the gravity needed for that kind of time dilation be way more than what it was? Something like 1.3x Earth so they could still walk? Even Jupiter has more gravity than that. I guess the planet was affected by the black hole's gravity, but wouldn't they still feel that effect? I don't know, I'm not a physicist. They had a real physicist working with them, so maybe it works out. The time dilation isn't from the large planet's gravity, it's from the black hole. The planet is extremely close to the black hole which means all time on the planet runs very slowly. That's why Coop had to suggest parking the space craft far away and just dropping the ranger down, so they don't spend hours in orbit and losing even more time than they needed to. That being said, having a 1 hour = 7 year time dilation requires the planet to be too close to a supermassive black hole for it not to be ripped apart, so the science there is exaggerated for the movie's sake.
+ Show Spoiler +This is right. The time dilation on that planet isn't due to the planet's mass at all (the 1.3x Earth or whatever), it's the proximity to the black hole; it's deep in the black hole's gravitational potential, that is the cause of the dilation. They try to portray this in the film with the little schematic/plan to drop down from the far side and come back up quickly, rather than orbiting and wasting a bunch of time (literally? lol..), but I don't think it was super clear since a few others I talked to asked the same question.
Though that being said, as LostWraith also mentioned, I'm not sure how long a planet could survive such that it was close enough to have that factor of time dilation but without being tidally shredded apart and other strangeness. Friends and I might think about it and crunch the numbers in the office tomorrow. A lot of the science regarding the relativity and stuff is well done enough (Kip Thorne contribution) that it seems silly to exaggerate that of all things.
|
Zurich15366 Posts
That's what I meant. You can have the time slip AND experience the gravity, but you can't have the time slip and not any of the effects of the gravity. Yet in the movie they are having the insane time slip but experience only 130% gravity. To get to the extreme time slip they are in they would have to experience gravity that would crush them, and probably the whole planet with them.
|
On November 12 2014 15:23 zatic wrote:
That's what I meant. You can have the time slip AND experience the gravity, but you can't have the time slip and not any of the effects of the gravity. Yet in the movie they are having the insane time slip but experience only 130% gravity. To get to the extreme time slip they are in they would have to experience gravity that would crush them, and probably the whole planet with them.
Supermassive black holes have less of a tidal force than stellar mass black holes so the planet could potentially exist in orbit of a supermassive but the time dilution wouldn't be as big. Also, the black hole portrayed in the movie was called supermassive but it looked like a stellar mass black hole (supermassive black holes are the size of entire solar system). I guess they confused it on purpose to add more drama to the movie.
|
United States5714 Posts
Big Hero 6: 8/10 Got dragged out to the movie by a buncha friends and I wasn't all too excited about it so I didn't know what to expect. It was fucking hilarious and super well done. The plot was basically 100% what you expected it to be and there were no surprises at all as to what was gonna happen but it was a fun ride. Typical Disney movie and I think Disney is really getting good at making movies that can appeal to both adult and child audiences at the same time. + Show Spoiler +God when that stupid robot got low on batteries and starting slurring it's words and couldn't walk straight every single adult started losing it. It was totally drunk but kids wouldn't understand what Disney was implying there, that was awesome.
|
On November 12 2014 16:53 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2014 15:23 zatic wrote:
That's what I meant. You can have the time slip AND experience the gravity, but you can't have the time slip and not any of the effects of the gravity. Yet in the movie they are having the insane time slip but experience only 130% gravity. To get to the extreme time slip they are in they would have to experience gravity that would crush them, and probably the whole planet with them. Supermassive black holes have less of a tidal force than stellar mass black holes so the planet could potentially exist in orbit of a supermassive but the time dilution wouldn't be as big. Also, the black hole portrayed in the movie was called supermassive but it looked like a stellar mass black hole (supermassive black holes are the size of entire solar system). I guess they confused it on purpose to add more drama to the movie.
Check out bad astronomer blog, he did a review of the science of the film, he recently updated his article to correct that the time dilation on the planet is actually feasible.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
