Interstellar trailer

[Marsden]

The idea of European peacekeepers pacifying angry Americans is not very plausible.

I can't take credit for it really, some Russian academic predicted it and they even made a computer game out of it. But it's in the same league as the faked moon landings, some people really took it seriously.

 

[Warped9]

"Obvious straw men?" Hardly, when you consider how many factions in the United States today are pushing for exactly this kind of propagandistic revisionist history, whether it's to promote creationism or to whitewash the less admirable parts of American history. The reason I found the scene chilling is because it's so true to life. There's a lot of genuine Moon-landing denialism in the real world today, alongside a huge amount of anti-intellectual and anti-science attitudes in the American far right, and it's disturbingly plausible that we could potentially see the rise to dominance of a faction that finds it politically convenient to deny the reality of the Moon landings. There have always been people saying "We should focus on solving our problems here on Earth rather than waste our efforts on space," ignoring all the ways that space could solve our problems on Earth.

Indeed, one thing that's very plausible about that scene is that it will be impossible for us to maintain a modern technological civilization for long if we don't maintain a presence in space. We're running out of materials on Earth that are vital to our high-tech infrastructure, both rare-earth metals and helium. Liquid helium is essential for the low-temperature manufacture of a lot of important hardware and the functioning of a lot of scientific equipment, but our supply of helium on Earth is running out quickly and governments are doing nothing to stem the loss. If we don't start mining asteroids and/or the Lunar surface in the next two decades, we may very well end up regressing technologically as shown in the movie clip. And it's quite plausible that the governments whose policies led to that disaster might deny that we ever went into space in the first place, rather than admitting that it was their own screwups that kept us from taking advantage of the resources of space.

This. Thank you.

I also think the reviews are fine. Can't wait until next weekend.

 

[Christopher]

About 7% of Americans believe the Moon landings were faked. For comparison, 4% believe the world is run by Reptilian aliens.

You may be overblowing this a little bit.

That may be the percentage today, but things can change. Public opinion or understanding can be swayed by politicians, the media, local school boards, etc. As I've said, there are plenty of far-right groups today trying to co-opt the educational system and turn it into a propaganda engine denouncing evolution and whitewashing American history. If such a fringe group were successful in dominating the government, they could subvert the educational system to promote their doctrines. This is no fantasy -- similar things have happened in many oppressive countries, the state rewriting textbooks to promote its own fabricated versions of history and science, and it could happen here if we don't maintain vigilance.

 

[Drone]

Obviously, I haven't seen the film, but making McConaughey's character have this "one man against the entire planet" angle strikes me as absurd. Can't he just be the right man for the job? Is there some requirement that he be a hardcore rebel against Obvious Strawmen?

It just seems so heavy-handed.

I've read just a little bit about the film, but what I understand would lead me to say that the character is being portrayed less as a rebel than as a man brought up in a life of science, an existence destroyed by conditions far beyond what he, or any other individual, has the ability to influence.


I would suspect that he's trying to keep a faint echo of that life visible to his children. In this scene, I simply interpret his response as a visceral, though spontaneous one, when faced with having even these modest efforts squashed by the officious, unthinking parroting of some apparatchik.


But then again, this is a big budget feature and I'm admittedly out of touch with the mechanics of film construction as I've shuttered my personal bijou some years since. So maybe a more nuanced take on what the scene is trying to communicate in the context of the characters' backstory isn't very realistic.

 

[Samurai8472]

With J.J Abrams and Nolan I hope we're seeing a slight resurgence in the movie industry back to practical effects

 

[JD]

I do agree that the clip's whole moon landing denial and "useless machines" stuff is a little over the top, but I don't think it's totally impossible. You get someone influencial enough in the right position and they can make people believe anything. That's how people are recruited into cults and other fringe groups.

 

[Christopher]

^Right. I'd think that trying to put creationism into textbooks and denying overwhelming scientific evidence for evolution was over the top if it weren't actually happening in school districts all over the country. If it's possible for something that insane and detached from reality to get forced into schoolbooks, then Moon-landing denialism is small change in comparison.

Especially in a society that hasn't actually been into space for generations. It'd be easier to believe that your ancestors were never that clever in the first place than to admit how far your own generation has fallen from those heights of achievement.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well if all the elements of a sci-fi story were plausible, it wouldn't be much fun would it?

 

[Hartzilla2007]

Especially in a society that hasn't actually been into space for generations.

But would that actually be the case for people other than the United States (and that probably only if the SpaceX thing or any other getting back into space thing falls through).

I mean we have China playing a moon mission at some point.

 

[Christopher]

Well if all the elements of a sci-fi story were plausible, it wouldn't be much fun would it?

Speak for yourself. For many of us, the best science fiction is about stuff that doesn't exist but is presented so convincingly that we believe it could. Indeed, plausible science fiction sometimes inspires real scientific advances. As I think I mentioned above, the VFX simulations of the black hole in Interstellar revealed a new scientific insight that Kip Thorne is getting two real research papers out of. That, to me, is a lot more fun and interesting than some random bit of nonsensical fantasy that can't inspire anything more than disbelief.

 

[Jedi_Master]

Well if all the elements of a sci-fi story were plausible, it wouldn't be much fun would it?

Speak for yourself. For many of us, the best science fiction is about stuff that doesn't exist but is presented so convincingly that we believe it could. Indeed, plausible science fiction sometimes inspires real scientific advances. As I think I mentioned above, the VFX simulations of the black hole in Interstellar revealed a new scientific insight that Kip Thorne is getting two real research papers out of. That, to me, is a lot more fun and interesting than some random bit of nonsensical fantasy that can't inspire anything more than disbelief.

I know Christopher, and your perspective shapes the way you write your books. But I would hope that you feel that there is room for wildly implausible concepts, actions, and designs in the world of fiction.
For example, how boring would it be if lasers didn't go "pew pew" when they were shot in the vacuum of space?
Or if Professor X couldn't use Cerebro to reach out and touch the minds of every mutant on the planet and his efforts weren't displayed in a conveniently visual form?

 

[Christopher]

I know Christopher, and your perspective shapes the way you write your books. But I would hope that you feel that there is room for wildly implausible concepts, actions, and designs in the world of fiction.

There's room for every approach to fiction. What I dislike is the way some people assume that all speculative fiction is required to be fanciful, the way they dismiss the very existence of the particular style of SF that I prefer to read and write. More fanciful fiction is certainly as welcome as anything else, but it's not the only category there is.

For example, how boring would it be if lasers didn't go "pew pew" when they were shot in the vacuum of space?

I think it's boring when they do go "pew pew," because it's so predictable and routine. I personally find it much more engaging to see productions that keep things silent in outer space scenes, like Firefly and Gravity. That's largely because it's fresh and different, but I think it's also because it gives it more of a documentary flavor. If you watch real news footage of combat or rioting or whatever, you don't necessarily get high-quality audio or even any audio at all. Even if you're a spectator to a live event happening a couple of blocks away, like a major argument or the police chasing a suspect on foot, you might not be able to hear what they're saying to each other. So even aside from the vacuum-of-space issues, I find that a lack of sound effects can make a scene feel more real and potent. I think that Gravity had the most compelling sound design I've heard in a science fiction film in ages. Don't underestimate the power of silence. Especially in modern cinema where it's just so rare.

For that matter, I think I'd find it a lot more interesting if someone would correctly portray lasers as being invisible in space. There's no reason in this day and age to cling to the conceit of making every energy weapon's beam brightly visible. We're all accustomed to remotes and cell phones. We have no trouble recognizing that one thing can have an effect on another thing without a visible interaction between them. And you can't see bullets when they're fired anyway. So I think audiences could still follow a space battle without visible energy beams. And it might be more interesting simply because it isn't a cliche.

Or if Professor X couldn't use Cerebro to reach out and touch the minds of every mutant on the planet and his efforts weren't displayed in a conveniently visual form?

That's a fantasy to begin with, so it's not a good example.

 

[Jedi_Master]

I know Christopher, and your perspective shapes the way you write your books. But I would hope that you feel that there is room for wildly implausible concepts, actions, and designs in the world of fiction.

There's room for every approach to fiction. What I dislike is the way some people assume that all speculative fiction is required to be fanciful, the way they dismiss the very existence of the particular style of SF that I prefer to read and write. More fanciful fiction is certainly as welcome as anything else, but it's not the only category there is.

So if Interstellar falls in the "speculative fiction" category, or contains minor elements that are extremely speculative, will that lower your opinion of the film?

 

[DarthTom]

I think it's boring when they do go "pew pew," because it's so predictable and routine. I personally find it much more engaging to see productions that keep things silent in outer space scenes, like Firefly and Gravity. That's largely because it's fresh and different, but I think it's also because it gives it more of a documentary flavor.

I'm curious, did you find most of Star Trek boring as well? Because the magical engineering solution of the week to be all but fogotten as a solution to a problem only 3 episodes later - that star ships would often engage each other using the,"pew-pew," type of fiction and moreover would engage each other in the same XYZ configuration on screen - and added the immense amount of technobabble that was on the show has all of the elements that you seem to dislike - yet you're here on a Trek forum?


On topic: The critics seem to like this movie, albeit it doesn't get a 90% or above. But generally speaking positive remarks.

 

[publiusr]

For that matter, I think I'd find it a lot more interesting if someone would correctly portray lasers as being invisible in space.

That's why we need a series or movie to depict the Battleship Orion concept, freshened up a bit for a world where the Cold War never ended:

http://fantastic-plastic.com/ProjectOrionBattleshipPage.htm

 

[Christopher]

So if Interstellar falls in the "speculative fiction" category, or contains minor elements that are extremely speculative, will that lower your opinion of the film?

That's a meaningless question because it misuses the term "speculative fiction." That label was coined to encompass all science fiction and fantasy, all fiction based on conjecture of any kind, whether a plausible extrapolation from real science or an idea derived from mythology and folklore, or anything in between.

You're also completely misunderstanding the point I'm making. My whole argument is that it's wrong to treat it as some kind of zero-sum choice between different approaches, that there's room for every flavor of fiction and it's silly to try to manufacture some kind of competition between them. I'm just such a strong advocate for hard science fiction because it's so vanishingly rare in non-prose SF, and because there's so little public understanding or appreciation for it. I want all flavors of SF to be well-represented, and that's the one that tends to be left out in the mass media, even though it's a major, influential part of SF literature. That's why I'm very glad we're getting more films like Gravity and Interstellar, that there seems to be an effort underway in Hollywood to bring more science into cinema. But of course there's always room for poetic license even in the hardest hard SF, as long as it serves the story. So please stop trying to manufacture some kind of arbitrary conflict between approaches. That's hardly a constructive or useful way to think about fiction.

I'm curious, did you find most of Star Trek boring as well? Because the magical engineering solution of the week to be all but fogotten as a solution to a problem only 3 episodes later - that star ships would often engage each other using the,"pew-pew," type of fiction and moreover would engage each other in the same XYZ configuration on screen - and added the immense amount of technobabble that was on the show has all of the elements that you seem to dislike - yet you're here on a Trek forum?

Same answer. I don't object to the existence of more fanciful science fiction -- I object to the assumption that it represents the only kind of science fiction. That's simply ignorance on the part of the people making that assumption, because there are countless writers who specialize in hard SF. It's like assuming that the only flavors of ice cream are vanilla, chocolate, and chocolate chip and there's no such thing as strawberry ice cream. If I try to convince people that strawberry ice cream is a real thing and it's worth appreciating along with the other flavors, that does not mean that I object to the existence of the other flavors. I just want people to know what they're missing.

In any case, the reason I like Star Trek is because, when it originally came along, it was just about the most plausible SF show on television. Most of its competition was pure fantasy, but ST, though it did bend the rules a fair amount, was the only one that even bothered to try consulting with real scientists and engineers and incorporating some credible futurism into the mix. And the later productions that Roddenberry oversaw personally, including TMP and the early seasons of TNG, continued that push for credibility, even though Roddenberry's successors have generally let it slide. There's some genuinely good science here and there in early TNG. No, Trek has never been as solidly hard-SF as the kind of fiction I like to write and read, but it's better than most mass-media SF. Some credibility is better than none.

Indeed, it was Star Trek that introduced me to space and science in the first place, that started my fascination with science. The best science fiction can inspire curiosity about real science, even inspire people to become scientists and devise new inventions or theories based on their favorite stories -- and Star Trek has done that many times over the years. It's always had enough of a scientific core to stimulate the intellect and imagination, even if its more recent productions have fallen short in that regard.

 

[Agent Richard07]

The movie opens tomorrow in select theatres and the grading thread is up. I've seen the trailers but otherwise, I've tried to avoid as much as I could.

 

[Set Harth]

I briefly glanced at a local newspaper article about one of the actors. Unfortunately, just talking about this actor's role in the film at all constituted a spoiler that I wish I hadn't seen. I stopped reading at that point but it was too late.

 

[Jedi_Master]

So if Interstellar falls in the "speculative fiction" category, or contains minor elements that are extremely speculative, will that lower your opinion of the film?

That's a meaningless question because it misuses the term "speculative fiction." That label was coined to encompass all science fiction and fantasy, all fiction based on conjecture of any kind, whether a plausible extrapolation from real science or an idea derived from mythology and folklore, or anything in between.

You're also completely misunderstanding the point I'm making. My whole argument is that it's wrong to treat it as some kind of zero-sum choice between different approaches, that there's room for every flavor of fiction and it's silly to try to manufacture some kind of competition between them. I'm just such a strong advocate for hard science fiction because it's so vanishingly rare in non-prose SF, and because there's so little public understanding or appreciation for it. I want all flavors of SF to be well-represented, and that's the one that tends to be left out in the mass media, even though it's a major, influential part of SF literature. That's why I'm very glad we're getting more films like Gravity and Interstellar, that there seems to be an effort underway in Hollywood to bring more science into cinema. But of course there's always room for poetic license even in the hardest hard SF, as long as it serves the story. So please stop trying to manufacture some kind of arbitrary conflict between approaches. That's hardly a constructive or useful way to think about fiction.

I'm curious, did you find most of Star Trek boring as well? Because the magical engineering solution of the week to be all but fogotten as a solution to a problem only 3 episodes later - that star ships would often engage each other using the,"pew-pew," type of fiction and moreover would engage each other in the same XYZ configuration on screen - and added the immense amount of technobabble that was on the show has all of the elements that you seem to dislike - yet you're here on a Trek forum?

Same answer. I don't object to the existence of more fanciful science fiction -- I object to the assumption that it represents the only kind of science fiction. That's simply ignorance on the part of the people making that assumption, because there are countless writers who specialize in hard SF. It's like assuming that the only flavors of ice cream are vanilla, chocolate, and chocolate chip and there's no such thing as strawberry ice cream. If I try to convince people that strawberry ice cream is a real thing and it's worth appreciating along with the other flavors, that does not mean that I object to the existence of the other flavors. I just want people to know what they're missing.

In any case, the reason I like Star Trek is because, when it originally came along, it was just about the most plausible SF show on television. Most of its competition was pure fantasy, but ST, though it did bend the rules a fair amount, was the only one that even bothered to try consulting with real scientists and engineers and incorporating some credible futurism into the mix. And the later productions that Roddenberry oversaw personally, including TMP and the early seasons of TNG, continued that push for credibility, even though Roddenberry's successors have generally let it slide. There's some genuinely good science here and there in early TNG. No, Trek has never been as solidly hard-SF as the kind of fiction I like to write and read, but it's better than most mass-media SF. Some credibility is better than none.

Indeed, it was Star Trek that introduced me to space and science in the first place, that started my fascination with science. The best science fiction can inspire curiosity about real science, even inspire people to become scientists and devise new inventions or theories based on their favorite stories -- and Star Trek has done that many times over the years. It's always had enough of a scientific core to stimulate the intellect and imagination, even if its more recent productions have fallen short in that regard.

So the short answer is "No, it won't". Which is good because I agree, and I agree with your rather verbose sentiment.

 

[sidious618]

Matt Zoller Seitz, a great critic, gave the film a really positive review over at rogerebert.com. Looking forward to seeing this, probably with my dad.