Interstellar had plenty of unphysical/unrealistic/fantastical content. Five-dimensional descendants of humans tearing open an Einstein-Rosen bridge in the outer solar system to screw with causality? Their ship requiring multiple-stage launch from earth, but taking off without similar assistance from subsequent planets? "Love is the one thing we're capable of perceiving that transcends dimensions of time and space. Maybe we should trust that, even if we can't understand it"??
I think the point we'd agree on is that sci-fi definitely doesn't need to adhere slavishly to known physics to be good.
What you're talking about is the difference between hard sci-fi and pop sci-fi. The pop stuff is intended to have fun Hollywood physics and not taken too literally. But hard sci-fi is intended to be more theoretically plausible.
The issue with Interstellar was it set itself up as a hard sci-fi with some Hollywood sugar with the way it depicted a future Earth, black hole physics (for the most part) and time dilation. But then it took a dramatic left turn into ridiculousness at the end. This really broke immersion of the film for me. Whereas films like Guardians of the Galaxy (and it's ilk) make it clear from the outset that it's a fun distraction from reality. So it's easier to suspend disbelief while watching.
I completely agree with you regarding Interstellar. I think it’s all about expectations. It was advertised to be this hard sci-fi with plausible physics and it wasn’t, as you say.
On the other hand, I remember enjoying watching the Core. It’s a stupid kind of sci-fi that allows you to suspend your disbelief and have fun. What else can you do with a movie that literally calls the metal the ship is made of unobtanium?
Actual physicist here. Don't get me started on Interstellar. There is so much needlessly dumb crap in this movie that I don't even know where to start, and the fact that people think it's realistic is just a kick in the pants.
Just for one example...
The crew being sent to save the Earth blasts off in a big ol' chemical rocket with stages. Yeah, fine. I guess rocket tech hasn't advanced all that much in this future. Then they land a ship on a planet in a gravity well so intense that it causes big relative time differences (Note: the gravity alone should have killed them). Then they blast off with the same ship and no big clunky chemical rocket stages. Why didn't this ship just blast off of Earth as is? The energy to get off Earth is nothing compared to getting out of a gravity well that deep! I guess Nolan thought an oldschool staged rocket looked cool.
The SFX people did some actual science to figure out the black hole visuals but, other than that, this is a far worse movie than Gravity as far as science is concerned. The new age emotions resolution was just a big ol' F U to the crowd. Lazy, sloppy writing.
There are plenty of unrealistic movies on this list, and that's fine. Some are just damned fun movies (e.g. Back to the Future). Interstellar sticks out from the pack for it's pretensions and underlying ridiculousness.
"Science fiction" admits a wide variety of classifications. Interstellar is clearly science fiction so I don't like the grand parent's wording (I also don't like yours: what does 'science' have to do with being in the future?).
But trying to generously interpret the GP's and your comment, Interstellar was heavily promoted, and portrays itself as an accurate representation of a potential future, with correct physics and details rigorously fact checked, etc., a sub-category called "hard science ficiton." In reality there are numerous flaws in its physics, too many to count really. These aren't nits either--the most ridiculous physics-defying nonsense is in fact fundamental to the plot.
That's only the beginning of the problems. Interstellar was a terrible movie all-around, with plot holes you could fly a starship through. But it is why I think someone might say "It's not [the type of] science fiction [it claims to be]".
I couldn't agree more. I don't understand why Kip Thorne is so desperate to declare that the movie doesn't violate known physics, when it clearly does, just not in the areas he's most concerned with. Planetary dynamics, propulsion systems... but as long as there aren't Na'vi or dragons on the planets, I suppose they consider it realistic enough. On second thought, Na'vi or dragons might be more realistic than some of what's shown.
FTL travel is "possible" too, if quantum gravity provides some loophole for violating GR on scales where GR is currently assumed. It seems like there's a reasonable basis for excluding it from the plot without declaring it impossible: if Earth technology was that advanced, they wouldn't need to travel to Gargantua's system.
I think Nolan's insistence on the extreme time dilation for the first planet in the plot is a mistake, because if they thought about what time dilation would mean for the readings sent back, they never would have investigated that risky planet first.
What's great about Interstellar, though, is that it gets viewers talking and thinking about physics. On that point, it's far better than Gravity.
> Maybe 2001 just did a better job than Interstellar of drawing lines for the audience between "known science" and "alien technology so advanced it looks like magic."
That is true, but it is not enough. A lot of Interstellar criticism comes from the fact that events described as scientifically feasible were in fact not. I will not describe what particular problems can be found in Interstellar because other posts in this thread already touched virtually every possible issue.
You are projecting your beliefs. The popular science crowd thought it was incredibly realistic [1-3]. As you say, the movie is ingratiating to the people who have heard something about time dilation. But even the movie itself gets it horribly wrong. I remember there is a scene of a crew in the orbit of the planet growing old while those on the surface don't because "it is near a black hole" which is true, but the distance between the surface of the planet and the orbit to cause such massive time dilation would imply the humans should liquefy in their suits. Overall, I found Interstellar to go out of the way to use science to explain events in the movie and then asked the viewers to ignore applying the same principles to other parts. I have no problem with science fiction, but if you try to explain the fiction, you have to keep the universe consistent.
I am not analyzing the realism of the physics, I'm not qualified for that. Physicists say it's realistic enough and I believe them.
But realism in the science aspects of a movie shouldn't be an excuse for a lack of a coherent story or bad character development.
I respect your take and what that movie means to you, but don't think that I didn't want to immerse myself in it or anything like that. I was highly anticipating this movie for years. It just didn't do it for me.
I feel like Greg Egan manages to do both very well (e.g. in Diaspora or The Arrow of time series)
On the movie side, interstellar spends a lot of time on making things scientifically accurate, but also examines humanity much more than most sf movies.
I think it’s whether or not it attempts to stay within physics. It can still be very out there, like fusion torch rockets or mind uploading, but there is nothing happening that is physically impossible according to what we know about the universe. A physicist would not have to suspend disbelief (much).
This is also called hard vs soft sci-fi where very soft is fantasy.
Fantasy incorporates elements that go beyond any known physics. Sometimes they are explained in world with invented physics like Star Trek, and sometimes they are alien and not explained like the stuff the protomolecule can do in The Expanse.
If it’s alien it’s playing with “what if we met someone WAY more advanced than us?”
It’s not a binary thing. Some stories are super far out in fantasy like Star Wars while others try to be very scientifically accurate like For All Mankind, Gattaca, or most of the human tech in The Expanse.
Stories based on physics and maths are not science fiction? Are you feeling OK?
> If you tell a story that is within the limits of what we know to be possible with the knowledge that we have right now, you will end up with a very boring story.
Um. Most stories in general stay within reasonable limits of what we know to be possible - are most stories very boring? You basically seem to be arguing that all stories that aren't fantasy are boring, which is clearly untrue.
> Interstellar, which makes for a nice story
Interstellar is tediously boring rubbish :P
> For example, try to write a story where the entire premise is that someone manages to construct an Alcubierre drive. You'd get ...Star Trek: First Contact.
What... no? The phase-space of all possible Alcubierre-drive fiction is not "Vulcans come to visit", any more so than the phase-space of all possible stargate fiction is "Ra gets quite angry".
Often, artistic license take over actual physics, even when the writer knows about the field, he will prefer do it in a way that fits the plot.
I mean, even Interstellar, with a Nobel Prize on board sometimes forgoes scientific accuracy for nicer pictures.
There is also a game about accuracy, viewer expectations, and attention. For example, most people will thing that the best way to land from orbit is to point the ship towards the ground is fire the thrusters, obvious right. If the ship points 90 degrees away, people will ask themselves why. If orbital mechanics is central to your movie, that's good, but you may have some explaining to do. If you are in the middle of an epic space battle, it is not the time for a physics lesson, so go for the obvious (and wrong) and let the viewer focus on the action.
It is and I hate that movie for it. In theory I should love it, but the disconnect between trying to be realistic and totally ignoring reality, killed it for me. I usually love sci-fi movies, realistic or not. But I mean, if you're going to put so much work into making a main element of the movie seem physically correct and realistic, why wouldn't you put at least a little effort into making the rest of the movie somewhat believable. The movie goes between metaphysical, realistic and action-movie physics every other scene.
It's so weird, looking at a perfectly normal movie and the only thing you can think about is "What? It doesn't work that way!" like if everything started falling up with no explanation and the characters found that perfectly normal.
But I'll disagree on Gravity and Interstellar getting spaceflight right. Unless you are going for very basic.
I think the point we'd agree on is that sci-fi definitely doesn't need to adhere slavishly to known physics to be good.
reply