The Interstellar ****SPOILER**** thread

[bigboss]

The film never claimed that man evolved into God. You're basing this on the assumption that only God can control time and gravity. Only 120 years ago, people thought man couldn't fly, and this power was divine. How can we assume we have reached the pinnacle of inventions?

Historically, man has always assumed things he never understood as because of God (eclipse etc.) until science proved otherwise.

 

[bigboss]

In the same vein, do you then also think that the best we can do 150 years from now, is launch iPhone 150??

 

[Vladimir]

.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The film never claimed that man evolved into God. You're basing this on the assumption that only God can control time and gravity. Only 120 years ago, people thought man couldn't fly, and this power was divine. How can we assume we have reached the pinnacle of inventions?

Historically, man has always assumed things he never understood as because of God (eclipse etc.) until science proved otherwise.

They elude to 'they' being 5dimensional beings who transcend time and space.....

Consider if 'they' can transcend time space then 'they' could be the reason for the big bang
And all the religious stuff we have today...

That said 'We' fly in planes we have not evolved any further over the past 3000 years at all.

We do not have telepathic powers nor x-Ray vision or invisibility - genetically this is most likely it.

The iPhone 150 that'll be an interesting phone - alot of the ideas shown in StarTrek are starting to run thin... lol

 

[Vladimir]

I think Cooper just got stuck in the plumbing at Milliways.

 

[bigboss]

They elude to 'they' being 5dimensional beings who transcend time and space.....

As I said:

Historically, man has always assumed things he never understood as because of God (eclipse etc.) until science proved otherwise.

In the film "they" were thought to be alien race calling us, until Cooper realises "they" are just us in the future.

 

[bigboss]

That said 'We' fly in planes we have not evolved any further over the past 3000 years at all.

We do not have telepathic powers nor x-Ray vision or invisibility - genetically this is most likely it.

You're saying this because you don't consider everyday things as achievement at all. Cars, the ability to live comfortably in even harsh environments, electricity, telephone, wireless, creating fire to cook, wheel etc. What we can't evolve into, we're compensating with inventions.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/12/visible-light-super-vision/

 

[fr0g]

The film never claimed that man evolved into God. You're basing this on the assumption that only God can control time and gravity. Only 120 years ago, people thought man couldn't fly, and this power was divine. How can we assume we have reached the pinnacle of inventions?

Historically, man has always assumed things he never understood as because of God (eclipse etc.) until science proved otherwise.

They elude to 'they' being 5dimensional beings who transcend time and space.....

Consider if 'they' can transcend time space then 'they' could be the reason for the big bang And all the religious stuff we have today...

That said 'We' fly in planes we have not evolved any further over the past 3000 years at all.

We do not have telepathic powers nor x-Ray vision or invisibility - genetically this is most likely it.

The iPhone 150 that'll be an interesting phone - alot of the ideas shown in StarTrek are starting to run thin... lol

Evolution of man takes quite a bit longer than 3000 years.

And anyway, yes we have, to an extent. What was the average height of a human 3000 years ago?

Evolution on a bigger scale takes a LONG time in mammals. It can be seen far more quickly in bacteria (antibiotic resistant superbugs for instance).

I thnk the problem with this film for you is that you don't like theoretical physics. You haven't got an open mind to "possibilities".

Multiple universes, non-linear time, higher dimensional beings, etc. These are all theoretical of course, and this film plays with such ideas. If you dismiss them as ludicrous from the off then it's no wonder you get in a tizzy watching the film.

Have you seen Arthur C Clarke's 3 laws?
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. 2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible. 3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

The film never claimed that man evolved into God. You're basing this on the assumption that only God can control time and gravity. Only 120 years ago, people thought man couldn't fly, and this power was divine. How can we assume we have reached the pinnacle of inventions?

Historically, man has always assumed things he never understood as because of God (eclipse etc.) until science proved otherwise.

They elude to 'they' being 5dimensional beings who transcend time and space.....

Consider if 'they' can transcend time space then 'they' could be the reason for the big bang And all the religious stuff we have today...

That said 'We' fly in planes we have not evolved any further over the past 3000 years at all.

We do not have telepathic powers nor x-Ray vision or invisibility - genetically this is most likely it.

The iPhone 150 that'll be an interesting phone - alot of the ideas shown in StarTrek are starting to run thin... lol

Evolution of man takes quite a bit longer than 3000 years.

And anyway, yes we have, to an extent. What was the average height of a human 3000 years ago?

Evolution on a bigger scale takes a LONG time in mammals. It can be seen far more quickly in bacteria (antibiotic resistant superbugs for instance).

I thnk the problem with this film for you is that you don't like theoretical physics. You haven't got an open mind to "possibilities".

Multiple universes, non-linear time, higher dimensional beings, etc. These are all theoretical of course, and this film plays with such ideas. If you dismiss them as ludicrous from the off then it's no wonder you get in a tizzy watching the film.

?

Have you seen Arthur C Clarke's 3 laws?

 
1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certenly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
 
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
 
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Why so many assumptions about me?

I argue that there are differences in cables and such like, tiny as they may be and accept differences are audible to some regardless of 'scientific facts'.

I also believe in something greater than myself.....

My mind is fully open.

What I'm not is arrogant enough to believe man kind is the centre of the universe the alpha and omega of all things. Or their science is 'fact'

Which imo is the premise of this film but without any recognition for a greater inexplicable power.

An example, the worm hole theory - the one were they fold a sheet of paper -if you consider the distance between 2 points as a line, a piece of bendy plastic you can run your finger along - bring the ends together you actually create a circle a circumference that is the same length when you run your finger from A to B.

We'll that's how it pans out by my calculations....

There are no short cuts.

Anyway it's just my views on this film, too many 'ifs' and no conviction.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

That said 'We' fly in planes we have not evolved any further over the past 3000 years at all.

We do not have telepathic powers nor x-Ray vision or invisibility - genetically this is most likely it.

You're saying this because you don't consider everyday things as achievement at all. Cars, the ability to live comfortably in even harsh environments, electricity, telephone, wireless, creating fire to cook, wheel etc. What we can't evolve into, we're compensating with inventions.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/02/12/visible-light-super-vision/

Not at all.

From the moment a man realised a tool/weapon could enhance his limited physical abilities - we have excelled.

The pinnacle to date - the use of electricity and the combustion engine not with standing -the creation of cyber space a multi dimensional universe ranks up their with God like ability but without electricity it's all gone.

But at the end of the day very little has changed for us physically we are more or less the same creature we were at the start. Just more sophisticated.

 

[bigboss]

I don't understand you. So you're not happy with the film because it doesn't recognise God?? Where does man's arrogance come in the picture? It's just about a future when more discoveries and inventions have taken place.

 

[fr0g]

I don't understand you. So you're not happy with the film because it doesn't recognise God?? Where does man's arrogance come in the picture? It's just about a future when more discoveries and inventions have taken place.

As a staunch atheist I find films that do recognise any god or gods to be rather off-putting. God or gods should be nowhere near a "science fiction" film. So soon as such is included, it gets shuffled along into the fantasy genre.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I don't understand you. So you're not happy with the film because it doesn't recognise God?? Where does man's arrogance come in the picture? It's just about a future when more discoveries and inventions have taken place.

No, I'm not happy with the film because it's silly.....

The idea love conquers all is nonsense, aswell as the other reasons I have stated.....

 

[fr0g]

The idea love conquers all is nonsense, aswell as the other reasons I have stated.....

Not a romantic then?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I don't understand you. So you're not happy with the film because it doesn't recognise God?? Where does man's arrogance come in the picture? It's just about a future when more discoveries and inventions have taken place.

?

As a staunch atheist I find films that do recognise any god or gods to be rather off-putting. God or gods should be nowhere near a "science fiction" film. So soon as such is included, it gets shuffled along into the fantasy genre.

This film is fantasy though - humans evolving into 5dimensional beings?

And yes love/romance kills sc-fi for me unless is required for the plot ala Terminator

 

[fr0g]

I don't understand you. So you're not happy with the film because it doesn't recognise God?? Where does man's arrogance come in the picture? It's just about a future when more discoveries and inventions have taken place.

As a staunch atheist I find films that do recognise any god or gods to be rather off-putting. God or gods should be nowhere near a "science fiction" film. So soon as such is included, it gets shuffled along into the fantasy genre.

This film is fantasy though - humans evolving into 5dimensional beings?

And yes love/romance kills sc-fi for me unless is required for the plot ala Terminator

Nope. Evolution is science fact and higher dimensional beings are science fiction/theoretical/possible. Humans evolving into such is perfectly ok in a science fiction scenario.

And I think the love was a pretty integral part of this rather magnificent film, so kinda "required for the plot".

 

[Native_bon]

We are even not in a place to find the ladder not to talk of even climbing it. In relation to time how much can our minds accept? I do not think we got all the senses necessary to fully understand our world & universe. Well not yet. The more you know, the more you realise there is much more you know you dnt know.. Am I making sense?*mosking*

 

[Vladimir]

Matthew Mcconaughey reacts to the Star Wars teaser

 

[fr0g]

We are even not in a place to find the ladder not to talk of even climbing it. In relation to time how much can our minds accept? I do not think we got all the senses necessary to fully understand our world & universe. Well not yet. The more you know, the more you realise there is much more you know you dnt know.. Am I making sense?*mosking*

Definitely.

I have a book trying to explain Quantum physics and my mind is well and truly jellified. This is stuff that we are scratching the surface on.

This film is way less "fantastic" than stuff we are already working on imo.

 

[SteveR750]

I watched it yesterday, and filed it under "Interesting". It got marked down for unsubtle rendering of cliched macho male / pathetic female stereotypical behavious under stress, and Hathaway was no Ripley, unless I missed something. That said, I becamse somewhat misty eyed by the time the of the closing scenes when the twist was revealed, it's more of a film about love with quantum tunneling as a sideshow, albeit a mostly believable sideshow.

 

[simonlewis]

I've just watched this tonight half the dialogue was so quiet i couldn't hear it properly and what the hell happened towards the end, please someone explain ? i understand guy saves earth but how ? i wish i had never bought it now, gone girl was so much better imo.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

I've just watched this tonight half the dialogue was so quiet i couldn't hear it properly and what the hell happened towards the end, please someone explain ? i understand guy saves earth but how ? i wish i had never bought it now, gone girl was so much better imo.

Gone girl?

Caught it the other day on Sky.

Honestly, it's just as bad...... Watched it all the way through too, we need better from Hollywood.

 

[BIGBERNARDBRESSLAW]

Watched Interstellar for the first time last night, but I kept nodding off, so it was almost impossible to follow the plot.

One thing I will say. When you have a film that needs to be carefully followed to understand it, it would be a good idea if the central character spoke in relatively clear English. Matthew McConaughey's accent in the film makes his dialogue very difficult to understand, even with the volume up, and the dialogue boost set to max.

It was good to see Michael Caine displaying another of his huge range of accents though. In the history of acting, has there ever been another actor with such a limited talent for acting?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

Watched Interstellar for the first time last night, but I kept nodding off, so it was almost impossible to follow the plot.

One thing I will say. When you have a film that needs to be carefully followed to understand it, it would be a good idea if the central character spoke in relatively clear English. Matthew McConaughey's accent in the film makes his dialogue very difficult to understand, even with the volume up, and the dialogue boost set to max.

It was good to see Michael Caine displaying another of his huge range of accents though. In the history of acting, has there ever been another actor with such a limited talent for acting?

I take it you've not watched a Sean Connery movie then?