Nolan's new Sci-fi: Interstellar

[ray245]

Looks visually stunning, and I really love the wormhole design.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Neat!

[JLTucker]

Looks visually stunning, and I really love the wormhole design.

That's becasue Wally Pfister didn't shoot it.

[Formless]

I saw this on i09 first, and I may be going against the crowd in saying this. It looks like a lot of flash and little substance-- it reminds me of Armageddon on a larger scale.

What I immediately thought when I watched it was: world hunger? Really? Of all the natural disasters you could invoke, this is the one that requires humanity to colonize space? And not just space, other solar systems apparently. It seems completely implausible that we would run so low on food that it would become an immediate concern for people to fly an interstellar voyage just to get away from the famine, whereas I can think of plenty of other slow moving disasters they could have went with instead.

Why not global warming? What, was it too political or something? It would make more sense at least even if some skeptics don't like it. Its a sci-fi movie, it doesn't have to be real as long as its plausible. Hell, I would take it to an extreme because why not? Go for the Water World scenario where the coastline is shrinking ever faster. That would justify our protagonist being a stereotypical Midwesterner rather than shoehorning it in because it worked for Michael Bay in the 90's. He comes from one of the few places that wouldn't be completely fucked up because its far enough away from the flooding. Boom, automatically makes more sense and has synergy with other elements of the film.

How about a plague? Something slow moving like AIDS, so its only a matter of time before no one is safe anymore. I know plague films nowadays tend to invoke zombies, and that's not what they are going for, so just don't invoke zombies . And I know that the rest of the Plague Film genre focuses on researchers trying to cure the plague, but all it takes is one line of dialogue or exposition that people have been trying for years and it hasn't happened yet; so our protagonist is approached by Alfred and we can quickly get beyond the crisis element into the core idea of space colonization being our last salvation if all else fails.

Or here's a radical idea-- why tie the premise to any one disaster at all? 2001: A Space Odyssey worked just fine without any kind of disaster in the background; most of the story in these tales ideally takes place on the ship itself, so most of the tension comes from what happens on the ship. Why do so many Hard SF long-mission spaceflight films tie in to a disaster premise now? Like Sunshine. Not to imply Sunshine or Armageddon are bad films or at all similar to one another, just to say that it seems like its becom(e)ing a cliche'. Yes, a safety net against disasters is one justification for space colonization that a Hollywood audience can easily grasp, but what the trailer states begets the question of how they were able to make an FTL spacecraft while the food supply is running out. Colonization is really something you should do before the shit hits the fan. You can have the astronauts flying towards their destination, watching the reports come in of some kind of unexpected impact that happened after they launched just to hit home why they are doing this to begin with. It could start en media res and then the disaster leads to a flashback of the astronauts being recruited, etc. But trying to create a sense of urgency before they even know about the expensive rocketship just doesn't seem necessary and is arguably kinda stupid.

Incidentally, Murphy's Law doesn't mean what they claim it means. It is actually negative in every formulation I've ever heard. Also, Murphy is an Irish surname, not a personal name.

And of course, this is another nitpick, but they flat out state that the solar system doesn't have everything we need. Uh, bullshit it doesn't? The story wouldn't change at all if they were going to Mars, but I guess that wouldn't be as flashy and we wouldn't get to see their Alcubierre drive or wormhole generator special effect. And the movie's name would have to be changed. But whatever, that's probably how most people envision space colonization now. For better or worse.

[Guardsman Bass]

I still might see it, but I agree that it's kind of annoying that they felt the need to tie the wormhole exploration to a disaster on Earth. The movie could be cool enough (and you'd almost certainly get the funding for a manned mission) if you just had the wormhole pop up somewhere between here and Mars with probes sent through it picking up a habitable planet on the other side. You could even still throw in "OMG Danger" with some type of automated alien systems active on the planet on the other side, or had some deeper plot about why the wormhole showed up now, and so close to Earth.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Actually it looks like the wormhole is around Saturn.

[Grumman]

Also, Murphy is an Irish surname, not a personal name.

After a few more decades of parents coming up with new, "unique" names, we should be thankful she's named Murphy and not Myrfhyee.

[Enigma]

<snip>Incidentally, Murphy's Law doesn't mean what they claim it means. It is actually negative in every formulation I've ever heard. Also, Murphy is an Irish surname, not a personal name.
<snip>

Tell that to Murphy Brown.

[Zaune]

Why not global warming? What, was it too political or something? It would make more sense at least even if some skeptics don't like it.

Actually, I got the impression that the world hunger thing was a direct consequence of climate change. Which is kind of topical given the Midwest is having some fairly significant aquifer-depletion problems right now.

[Formless]

That was never stated in the trailer, though. We got maybe a shot or two of some dust storms, which don't strictly have to do with global warming; poor land management and soil conservation efforts did just that in the 30's. And anyway, the main theme doesn't need to invoke a crisis, and the more immediate that crisis the less logical the interstellar flight business becomes. If you don't have food, how are you going to feed the astronauts on their way to Alpha Centauri?

[The_Saint]

Was it just me or did anyone else think this was a book to film of Stephen Baxter's Flood / Ark books...

Particularly Ark which deals with a world ending problem (global flood, which as Formless suggested would be a much better idea) and has the construction of a spaceship to get to the outer planets [for refueling] then Alcubierre Drive to another star system....

As far as I can see this is completely unrelated but just on the traielr alone it screams similarity.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That was never stated in the trailer, though. We got maybe a shot or two of some dust storms, which don't strictly have to do with global warming; poor land management and soil conservation efforts did just that in the 30's. And anyway, the main theme doesn't need to invoke a crisis, and the more immediate that crisis the less logical the interstellar flight business becomes. If you don't have food, how are you going to feed the astronauts on their way to Alpha Centauri?

What the fuck do you want? It's a trailer. Short snippets taken out of context, dialogue cut off without its surrounding context and edited all to hell, to the point that sentences are cut in half.

We are looking, right now, at a food production problem independent of climate change due to lack of water and top soil degradation, combined with population growth. That is BEFORE climate change becomes a major issue.

One solution, especially if we have a traversable wormhole available to take us to a habitable world, is to either transfer population off world, or transfer food production off world.

[Grumman]

One solution, especially if we have a traversable wormhole available to take us to a habitable world, is to either transfer population off world, or transfer food production off world.

Either of those is only a solution if you have science opera-level easy space travel. Anything that requires you get out to Saturn the hard way isn't going to be efficient enough to qualify.

[Formless]

Is it really so unreasonable to criticize a trailer on what is contained in the trailer itself? The movie could make everything perfect and rational, but the person editing the trailer chose their focus and decided to make this look like Nolan's take on a Michael Bay disaster movie from the 90's-- one that even did the spaceflight element. And I already see people fawning over it like it's going to be the next 2001, based only on the visual elements and not the dialogue... when visuals have been easy shit for years and are not known for redeeming bad or mediocre movies.

I've always heard that world hunger is not a problem of shortage, but of economic inequality and distribution (like so many things). Its a problem, yes-- but even in the future, I somehow doubt an American protagonist is going to experience much more than a small price increase, let alone another dust bowl (we have at least learned proper soil conservation in the last 80 years). At least, not unless everything is already FUBAR. Plus, again, its not really necessary for the narrative, as I've already demonstrated.

I like the basic premise and the theme of moving some of the eggs out of the basket. I'm just saying, if you don't trust the trailer to accurately tell you what the movie is going to be like, maybe people should be more cautious with their enthusiasm for an unreleased film? Its not like that hasn't bitten moviegoers in the ass before.

[Tsyroc]

I was mostly confused as to what he was going out into space to do that would help Earth that he also thought he was going to be able to come back to his daughter. It looked like at least a couple of astronauts were being put into some kind of sleep pods so that makes me think he could be gone a long time. Maybe not his daughter's lifetime but it enough to miss out on a lot.

Anyway, not enthusiastic about the setup but the space ship, and the worm hole looked pretty cool. It's going to need a lot more interesting trailer to get me to watch it though.

[SAMAS]

Is it really so unreasonable to criticize a trailer on what is contained in the trailer itself?

It is when you're trying to extrapolate and judge the entire story (or a facet of it) on information you know is incomplete.

[Formless]

I love how people are already coming to the defense of a film that hasn't even come out yet. Appeal to ignorance much?

Everything I have criticized was stated in the trailer itself. That is not extrapolation. That is what is in the trailer, and until the movie is released it is safe to assume that all of those things are in the movie as well. Misleading trailers are bad practice by the movie industry, and what you are implying is that you are okay with them. And don't try to hide behind statements of incompleteness, because there is a such thing as lies through omission. Example: Rhino is in The Amazing Spider Man 2! ...for about 10 minutes. The last 10. You wouldn't know from the trailer, which wrung as much excitement out of his appearance as it could. I happen to think that stuff like that is bad practice and filmgoers should stop falling for it. The squeeing masses are exactly the type that advertisers prey on, and the ones who need to hear this. I am actually being generous by assuming that this trailer is truth in advertising.

Until the movie comes out, all the information anyone has about the movie is trailers and other promotional material. Trailers can be criticized, because they have a job to do: tell an audience of potential ticket buyers just enough about the story to judge whether or not it is a movie worth watching. I am not criticizing the movie itself, because it hasn't been released yet. I am criticizing the premises that the trailer showed, which I can safely assume will be in the final product, and making a prediction that if this accurately reflects what the movie will be like (for at least the first act-- and if it is longer than that, then it really is just Armageddon mark 2), then that part of the movie at least is going to be lame. How is that a hard concept to grasp?

Since this trailer came out, I've actually seen more people (and not just here) notice the Armageddon parallels and cliche's, and likewise notice that this has the potential to be boring/mediocre. So, there are in fact people who do get it.

[madd0ct0r]

The squeeing masses are exactly the type that advertisers prey on, and the ones who need to hear this.

ahhh, condescension washes down well with my morning coffee.

The trailer says 3 things about the disaster: they don't need engineers, they've run out of TV's, they've run out of food.
(while India is building solar powered world circling drones)

[ray245]

The squeeing masses are exactly the type that advertisers prey on, and the ones who need to hear this.

ahhh, condescension washes down well with my morning coffee.

The trailer says 3 things about the disaster: they don't need engineers, they've run out of TV's, they've run out of food.
(while India is building solar powered world circling drones)

I've read the leaked script, and it is not what you imagine it to be.

In regards to the wormhole, I really don't like the idea that we lucked out in finding a wormhole so close to our solar system. The idea that humanity requires that kind of luck in order to leave our dying planet is a little troubling. In real life, it's unlikely that we will ever be so lucky.

It does makes me wonder if mankind could ever find a way to leave our solar system on our own without relying on things like wormhole. It will be a little sad that there is no way we could leave our planet by the time our sun went supernova.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Since our Sun will never go supernova, we have until the universe ends to solve that problem

I know what you mean (and meant) though.

[Formless]

madd0ct0r, you and I must have watched a completely different trailer (not impossible, but I watched the one linked to in this thread, so...). The impression I got was that the drone was chasing the protagonists. For some reason. Which just left me cold, as I have no idea what the point of that was besides having a (probably superfluous) action scene in the first act.

[madd0ct0r]

i got that impression to, i just thought the tech level on display was an interesting counterpoint to the speech 30 seconds before it.

[FaxModem1]

Anyone else find the fashions, technology, and cars all a little out of place for at least 50 years in the future?

[Havok]

Not if society is on the brink of collapse. I'm pretty sure fashion will fall by the wayside and technology will be funneled towards saving the planet, not consumers and there is no reason to keep coming out with new models of cars when the world is starving to death.