Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

Has anyone else seen the movie Interstellar yet? What did you think?

The Science Channel presented an hour-long documentary, The Science of Interstellar, hosted by Matthew McConaughey who starred in the film. Physicist Kip Thorne, who Executive Produced it is the featured expert. Thorne also has a new book out of the same name.

The documentary cleared up a couple of questions I had after viewing the film.

All in all, I thought it was great and would like to see it again, especially in IMAX.

[ Ι had no clue that this one was produced for IMAX theatres!.. ha ha I barely got a good seat away from the front row seats..]


It would be nice , to share this docymentraty with the rest of us. I have a few reservations, regarding this 'revolutionary theory' that was 1st viewed in this film..

I'm afraid I could not do justice in a summary of the documentary. I just tried going to the Science Channel's website to see if by chance you could stream the documentary from there. It is extremely peculiar that I could find no trace of the documentary on their website, as if they'd never programmed it, and yet I still have it saved on my DVR.

Your only option may be to buy Thorne's book. He did discuss wormholes and why, if they exist, might be spherical instead of the funnel-shapes we've seen in other movies or documentaries.

I saw this movie twice over two weekends. And if you do not watch this movie on an IMAX screen, you are missing out. I haven't seen the documentary yet but I must admit that I have still not completely understood everything that was presented in the movie.

Although I did understand Wormholes but I still do not understand how travelling to the other side of the Blackhole can throw you into a multidimensional universe. Guess I have a long list of physics books to read before I can call myself a science lover :(

Steve wrote: could not do justice in a summary of the documentary. Thorne's book. He did discuss wormholes and why, if they exist, might be spherical instead of the funnel-shapes we've seen in other movies or documentaries. ..."

Actually.. I have learned of this author, from a friend,. his theories were also used for 'Contact' by Sagan and as far as I recall, he used this 'tunnel shaped' workmwholes. Yeah I know - a brief look into the book is not that easy to come by. I've seen the book a few years back in the shelves of a bookstore.. it was massive & full of equations. But I would like to know a bit more, on how far this film went on with his theories. I hear so much 'bull' from people, that really have no background to physics.
And actually it appears to me, like there is some sort of hype . that serves on a new 'selling spree' for a friendlier bersion of his book to the wide public!

Hope your docu helps me decypher this poistion. Jiust hand over the title if U please
Thanks in advance!

Here's GoodReads link to Thorne's new book about the movie. One can only hope that it is written for the average science reader and not for practicing astrophysicists. Anyway, here it is:

The Science of Interstellar

oouh thanks..and the title of the documentary you were refering ?

It's the same as the book...The Science of Interstellar

David Brin said he thought it was the best movie he'd seen this century, though he had some questions about the science.

I'm looking forward to seeing it, though I'm going to have to wait until after Thanksgiving.

I actually did not like this movie that much. The visual effects were cool, there was a lot of potential, etc.

But... ehhh.

It was too long, needed editing in parts, and found some parts 'thin', perhaps from too much editing. (E.g. with Matt Damon's character's story, did they edit out parts that would have made that whole scenario make more sense/feel more real?) It's hard to find a few specific examples to pin my feeling to, but I'd give this 3 stars (out of 4) at most.

That said, there is such a paucity of even 3-star sci-fi movies, its worth seeing :)

Krishna wrote: "except for a few parts which were very unscientific."

such us?

Well now, for me it was a lot of things, many 'connections' that tied this movie with things I 'loved' the design of their [planet-ships] the music, that despite it's pop underbelly, reminded me of my favourite bands {this 'hellish'/heavenly sound of the ecclesiatiacal organ.
and many other occurences...
The 'wake up call'on the frozen planet, even their visit on the 'blue' occean planet, reminded me of Solaria, but only briefly..


The paradox, hhmmm I am not accustomed with the Kip Thorne theoretical framework, but what ^bugged me, was the 'over and done' with ideas of superstring theory.. I mean as faras I know it's been abandoned.. Still there was quite a complex way of rules [ and hints of 'miracles'] simply to account for the fact, that there was a deeper connection with them , despite the [confines] of time & space.

Did ya like the idea offered with that large library, where he pulls out stacks of books, simply to make 'signals' to his daughter ?

[ They spoke of LOVE as a force, or hinted at that direction?.. ie.. as an ongoing drive for srvival?]

Daniel wrote: "(E.g. with Matt Damon's character's story, did they edit out parts that would have made that whole scenario make more sense/feel more real?)',..."

In my recollection, this part served, as an abrupt surprise, simply to remind of ya...the fragility of leaving...This 'wake up call' .. metaphorically from the dead {Did U know Matt Damon was in that 'coffin' cryo-box?
Was on it's own quite out of the ordinary..!

The majore downside, was dialogue parts, of both the 'Main pilot' as well as his 'daughter- supreme scientist' .Still it ingnited more than enough sparksto keep the going, doncha agree?