Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

erpupone93 t1_ja1yos5 wrote

Reply to comment by Supreme-Plays in Explosions in space movies? by DemonOfTheAstroWaste

I disagree. Interstellar, as an example, is produced by Kip Thorne, a theoretical physicst who has also won the Nobel prize. Him and Nolan worked closely to make sure every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate. That Blackhole sequence took months to produce and the imaging was so accurate, that even science community started using it as a source to illustrate blackholes, since it was many years before we caprured the first ever image of a blackhole. If "entertainment" was the sole purpose, CGI and green rooms could have created visual effects that may have been more engaging but less realistic.

"2001 a Space Oddysey", one of the greatest films of history was shot: 1. Before we landed on the moon, 2. Before CGI and even computers were a thing (computers existed, but that's beside my point). Every detail in that movie is very realistic. There could have been ways to make either of those films more thrilling just for the sake of it. However, priority was given to realism, hence why after more than 50 years since its release, it is still relevant and even more entertaining than all new sci fi that's coming out every year.

There are many factors that can hinder "entertainment", but realism isn't one. And if a movie is realistic but not entertaining, it's not because of the realism of it, but a combination of other factors.

19

kinokomushroom t1_ja22oga wrote

Just a small correction, not every detail in the movie is scientifically accurate, such as the wormhole scene, which was only accurate on the exterior visuals and not on the inside traversal part. I agree about realism being important though. Interstellar is still one of the more scientifically accurate space movies out there and it's also my favourite movie.

16

sailorlazarus t1_ja245re wrote

I mean. To be fair. Interstellar did have plenty of nonsense.

"Love is the only force that goes beyond gravity, space and time, love is a higher power that supercedes mankind's understanding."

The planet in a stable orbit around a black while is extrodenarily unlikely but not impossible. Somehow, catching up to and landing on that planet, not happening with anything close to the tech in the movie. Even the tiniest error in orbital/entry velocity would send you straight into the black hole. And of course, the whole surviving a fall through a black hole. That's just a no under any reasonable circumstance.

An artificial wormhole that is stable enough for data transfer. Which even in theoretical models requires matter with negative mass.

The frozen clouds that somehow still stay in the sky... yeah.

Don't get me wrong. Interstellar is a good movie. But to say that every detail of the movie is scientifically accurate is wildly inaccurate. Plenty of the movie is scientifically accurate (the imaging of a black hole you mention is a shining moment), but it still takes plenty of liberties as well.

15

vtskr t1_ja38wzh wrote

What’s wrong with planet orbiting black hole though?

1

flyingtrucky t1_ja3dgs2 wrote

It has to go really fast, which means you have to go really fast to land on it.

1

_hic-sunt-dracones_ t1_ja228zr wrote

Your well informed protest is correct. But this one movie is an exeption. Every other sci.-fi. movie or show involving space travel uses some kind of made up bit of technology to work around laws of physics that (atm) makes long distant space travel impossible or at least unbarable.

6

bookers555 t1_ja3dihx wrote

In Interstellar they literally went out of their way to remove the doppler effect from the black hole's accretion disk to "avoid confusing the audience", there's a traversable and stable wormhole, and it seems no one who worked in it there knows what a Tesseract is.

Interstellar has very little in terms of scientific accuracy, feels like a movie made by someone who just had a spark of curiosity over space and just read bits and pieces of a bunch of Wikipedia articles.

The only accurate thing in it was the original black hole model, and that they refused to use it.

1