Jump to content

Welcome to FutureTimeline.forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

I just saw "Interstellar" and I want to know what you think

Interstellar Time Travel Gravity Relativity

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

Poll: What do you think of "Interstellar" (23 member(s) have cast votes)

How do you rate the movie "Interstellar"?

  1. The science was just perfect. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  2. The science was good. (9 votes [14.75%])

    Percentage of vote: 14.75%

  3. The science was good enough. (7 votes [11.48%])

    Percentage of vote: 11.48%

  4. The science was not so good. (2 votes [3.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.28%

  5. The science was bad. (1 votes [1.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.64%

  6. What science. (2 votes [3.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.28%

  7. The story was great. (6 votes [9.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.84%

  8. The story was very good. (4 votes [6.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.56%

  9. The story was good. (8 votes [13.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.11%

  10. The story was not so good. (1 votes [1.64%])

    Percentage of vote: 1.64%

  11. The story was bad. (3 votes [4.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 4.92%

  12. The acting was great. (6 votes [9.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.84%

  13. The acting was very good. (6 votes [9.84%])

    Percentage of vote: 9.84%

  14. The acting was good. (4 votes [6.56%])

    Percentage of vote: 6.56%

  15. The acting was not so good. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  16. The acting was bad. (2 votes [3.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.28%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

I really liked Interstellar but I kept feeling that something was missing. I know the film wasn't as scientifically accurate as some would have liked but it was certainly entertaining, all the same. I think I'll get to appreciate it more once I watch it for a second time, having read many explanations about it.

 

I didn't mind the acting but Matthew McConaughey's mumbling was a little annoying. There were several powerful scenes and the soundtrack absolutely blew me away. For all its highs and lows, it's still my favourite movie of the year. I don't think there has been a movie this widely discussed debated since Inception, surprise!

 

If 2001 evoked the same sort of feelings that Interstellar made me feel then I truly missed out on something stupendous.



#42
Bradley

Bradley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

 

But who cares? This is exactly how i get 99% of my films, my games, my music and my books. And i suspect i'm not alone here...

 

 

I wish everyone would torrent because it decentralizes concentrations of wealth and power. Hollywood boardrooms and investment groups want to hang on tight to the business model of using technology to mass produce their product. However, they want to restrict technology when it doesn't fit their historical business model. I say away with the old and in with the new. 



#43
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,122 posts

 

 

But who cares? This is exactly how i get 99% of my films, my games, my music and my books. And i suspect i'm not alone here...

 

 

I wish everyone would torrent because it decentralizes concentrations of wealth and power. Hollywood boardrooms and investment groups want to hang on tight to the business model of using technology to mass produce their product. However, they want to restrict technology when it doesn't fit their historical business model. I say away with the old and in with the new. 

 

They did the work. They deserve the money. No one has the right to take it away from them.



#44
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

 

 

 

 

This reaction after having spent $20 at the movie theater is why I now patiently wait for the torrent.

That's probably illegal.

 

But who cares? This is exactly how i get 99% of my films, my games, my music and my books. And i suspect i'm not alone here...

 

I would never break the law in such a serious manner. If everyone did that, the pirates would become rich and the filmmakers would lose money.

 

 

No. Pirates will just get shit for free, we aren't getting any money at all. Plus, the filmmakers have enough customers to keep them in check and many pirateers go buy the film if they like it. It's why I bought the hobbit DVD to support Peter Jackson after torrented it earlier.

 

We aren't really pirates, just people who don't want to waste money on stupid shit such as bad movies or $10 each for each book of 12 book saga, that's fucking outrageous! You know how heartbreaking it was for me to know that there won't be a 3rd season for Spice and Wolf in quite some time, and then to crush my heart to know that the light novels cost $120 for the whole series if I were to buy! Then to know that me conservative Islamic parents will kill me if they even see a cover of that book! It killed me. There aren't even that many torrents that provide the light novel, so I was only able to obtain book 6 and 7 which was good enough for me because that was when the anime series short-stopped. I can't wait to get a job, I'm going to go volunteer harder now.

 

I support this. While I accept that torrenting is against the law, there have simply been too many times torrenting has helped me avoid wasting money on a bad movie or series. In fact these days almost every film I download, I don't finish because I end up not liking it. While I know what I'm doing is wrong, I try to be a sport about it in that I don't make money off downloads nor do I share them with others. Plus, in support of the producers, I pledge to purchase all the works of things I thoroughly enjoy like Game of Thrones.



#45
Bradley

Bradley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

 

Can you explain to me how someone who believes evolution was planned by god and that there was a set goal (humans with big brains) has an identical view of genetics as someone who thinks evolution is random and unpredictable? 

 

 

If a biologist heard you characterize biological evolution as random and unpredictable they might just squat and grunt out a turd. 



#46
Bradley

Bradley

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 862 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA

 

They did the work. They deserve the money. No one has the right to take it away from them.

 

 

 

Then they should choose a different distribution model to protect their investment, like live performance. 



#47
FutureLover1999

FutureLover1999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

I somewhat doubt they would be as outraged as you claim. I've known many in my life and they tend to be quite friendly in general.

The mutations themselves are very much random. Of course the survival and selection parts have certain predictable elements but the underlying randomness ensures there will always be unpredictability.

 

You really do pick out the most meaningless little things to try and make points don't you..



#48
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

The concept of God is boring and getting old. I have come to develop a post-theistic outlook. Knowing whether a god exists or not no longer holds any significance to me. I'm more concerned about the development and survivability of humanity, plus more interesting prospects like habitable worlds and extraterrestrial life. Scientism holds by far the best and most authoritative explanations for all the questions we have, and while some cannot be answered now, they will either be answered eventually or will be rendered irrelevant (e.g. being able to live infinitely or at least for a very long time might render questions about life after death irrelevant). Assuming we do pretty well this century and life gets better and better, plus very modern and scientific across the world, people won't have to struggle or suffer and will gradually have no need for gods in their lives, or at least not organised religion.

 

As in the timeline, post-theism is inevitable.



#49
Jakob

Jakob

    Stable Genius

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,122 posts

 

 

 

 

 

This reaction after having spent $20 at the movie theater is why I now patiently wait for the torrent.

That's probably illegal.

 

But who cares? This is exactly how i get 99% of my films, my games, my music and my books. And i suspect i'm not alone here...

 

I would never break the law in such a serious manner. If everyone did that, the pirates would become rich and the filmmakers would lose money.

 

 

No. Pirates will just get shit for free, we aren't getting any money at all. Plus, the filmmakers have enough customers to keep them in check and many pirateers go buy the film if they like it. It's why I bought the hobbit DVD to support Peter Jackson after torrented it earlier.

 

We aren't really pirates, just people who don't want to waste money on stupid shit such as bad movies or $10 each for each book of 12 book saga, that's fucking outrageous! You know how heartbreaking it was for me to know that there won't be a 3rd season for Spice and Wolf in quite some time, and then to crush my heart to know that the light novels cost $120 for the whole series if I were to buy! Then to know that me conservative Islamic parents will kill me if they even see a cover of that book! It killed me. There aren't even that many torrents that provide the light novel, so I was only able to obtain book 6 and 7 which was good enough for me because that was when the anime series short-stopped. I can't wait to get a job, I'm going to go volunteer harder now.

 

I support this. While I accept that torrenting is against the law, there have simply been too many times torrenting has helped me avoid wasting money on a bad movie or series. In fact these days almost every film I download, I don't finish because I end up not liking it. While I know what I'm doing is wrong, I try to be a sport about it in that I don't make money off downloads nor do I share them with others. Plus, in support of the producers, I pledge to purchase all the works of things I thoroughly enjoy like Game of Thrones.

 

If you don't like the law, you should try to get it changed instead of breaking it.



#50
Cosmic Cat

Cosmic Cat

    Hibernating

  • Validating
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,345 posts
  • Location-

Most people who've "done" the work are corporations who'll chokehold for more money. Take a look at this diagram:

 

Spoiler

 

Capitalism works on a "vote with your wallet" system. Productivity is steered to what the customer wants, and what he gets. That's the core of what capitalism is, the natural production of competition but once you have monopolies and oligopolies controlling an industry, you rarely get what you pay for.

 

Internet Service Providers are a good example of this. Take Comcast who does not give you what you want and is the sole failure of what capitalism is made out to be. Comcast has 0 competitors and choke holds the market with shitty internet and high pay but what if there is another company who provides great internet with free pay? It creates competition and that's what we're seeing with Municipal broadband and why Comcast is crying about unfair competition.

 

Same concept with movies except the movie industry are an oligopoly. There are multiple companies, but far too few to create competition that these companies often times come up with policies for all of them to choke-hold the industry.

 

There are 6 film companies that gain 77% of revenue made by Movies in the US and Canada. It's funny because two of these companies are owned by the 2 large ISP monopolies, Time Warner and Comcast. Anyways, these 6 companies put out normal quality movies, but with tons of advertisements and high prices. It would just be easier to pirate it for free and better quality.

 

Speaking on the high price thing, here's an article about it just last year: http://variety.com/2...ver-1200565675/

Vice explains why HBO doesn't stop piracy because it doesn't want to lose money: http://motherboard.v...rated-show-ever

 

Now, you may be speaking of artists who want money for their work but that means you do not understand how movies are distributed. Some Directors and Actors do make lots of money but a majority of emerging directors and actors are really underpaid which goes to show that most directors and actors do this for the art and recognition but not the money (unless you're Michael Bay"). The vast majority of actors make under a $1000 a year through acting jobs while the middle-income guys get $52,000 a year. The average salary that directors get paid in is $68,440; the top 10% get $166,400. It sounds a lot like a corrupt american social structure hmmmmmmm?

 

Source: http://everydaylife....movie-7732.html

 

This goes the same for large gaming company employees, although I have to say gaming companies are competitive so they do produce what we pay for, which are awesome games! But this goes in nicely with why I believe good pirates can pay for items they like if they can afford to. Bad pirates pirate for the sake of saving money even though they are in no financial situation or trouble.

 

So these are my points:

 

1. Monopolies and Oligopolies need piracy to maintain competition.

2. Directors and Writers, the people who actually make the movie do not get paid in accordance to the revenue meaning that piracy does not effect directors and writers greatly.



#51
Eyalin

Eyalin

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 127 posts

@Jakob, I've got other priorities in life like one day fixing the numerous governmental problems in my country. Piracy is trivial compared to the real problems we face in this world. It can be argued that piracy played a huge role to the worldwide popularity of Game of Thrones, which led to many fans who would eventually support the producers by buying the DVDs, Blu-rays, and eventually even supporting the author by buying the books. And this is not just limited to TV shows. Perhaps there needs to be a model where people can get a taste of what they're in for, like how software companies do it by releasing trial or freemium versions of their software. As I've implied, it's not black and white. You have to look at things differently, Jakob.



#52
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

I somewhat doubt they would be as outraged as you claim. I've known many in my life and they tend to be quite friendly in general.

The mutations themselves are very much random. Of course the survival and selection parts have certain predictable elements but the underlying randomness ensures there will always be unpredictability.

 

You really do pick out the most meaningless little things to try and make points don't you..

 

Actually the fact that you suggesting evolution is random and unpredictable is very wrong. Mutation play a large part in the evolution of only the simplest organism like viruses. On the whole evolution is driven by existing gene pool options combined with environmental pressures. With enough information about the gene pool predictions of evolution based on a given environmental change should be easy. 

 

This is the heart of the reasoning that intelligent life is rare as it would be very unlikely to repeat the steps that lead humanity. This view has the basic flaw that assumes that the path we took is the only path or that civilization is not the logical evolutionary path of ever greater complexity that life tends to follow.

 

Your assumption of atheism as the only 'sane' option verges on fanaticism and dogma. To assume the head of the genome project is a bad scientist because he believes in god is bad science. The fact that his inspiration might be to explore 'God's Design' or something similar simply puts him firmly in the footsteps of Reverend Charles Darwin.

 

Hey Bradley - I think this makes 2. :)


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.


#53
FutureLover1999

FutureLover1999

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 62 posts

I was arguing lazily as it wasn't necessary to do any research or put any thought into my reasoning to argue against a guy like Bradley. Considering his only method of debating is to try and find a specific quote that he thinks he can show as factually wrong and completely ignore the entire context of the discussion other than that. That and the looking for clever words that other people have used on the internet before (strawmanning) and then mixing that with some generic intelligence insult. I'll admit I had no forward planning on how I was going to defend my comments or if they were indeed defensible but that's part of the fun of conversations in general.

 

If I was paying attention I definitely would have avoided the word random, particularly on the scale of large complex organisms. I would retain the word unpredictable though. You say you can predict it well if you know everything about the environmental changes and gene pool, but these things have enough inherent unpredictability in themselves to inevitably pass that on to the evolution. I would maintain that no-one alive today has provided a particularly effective model to predict natural evolution effectively (obviously we're excluding selective breeding by humans etc). Yes of course you can argue that it's very difficult to test on humanly feasable timescales for anything with a generation more than a few minutes long. But to some extent you can test the model on previous lifeforms if you have sufficient obtainable information. If you know of any models anywhere near detailed enough to do this for more than a few different species let me know and i'd be glad to learn more.

 

I'm sure you can be very good at specific science areas whilst being religious but I would still view religion as at least partial logical insanity. You have to tany devotion toake into account that everyone has certain logical Insanities (any phobia/social abnormalities). But I think religion is a far more dangerous one as any devotion that strong to something that is created by man is inherently dangerous. Plus thinking everything was designed by God is ignoring the main concept of science in my opinion which is 'why' and focusing on the 'how' instead.



#54
JCO

JCO

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,032 posts
  • LocationWA, USA

 

I'm sure you can be very good at specific science areas whilst being religious but I would still view religion as at least partial logical insanity. You have to tany devotion toake into account that everyone has certain logical Insanities (any phobia/social abnormalities). But I think religion is a far more dangerous one as any devotion that strong to something that is created by man is inherently dangerous. Plus thinking everything was designed by God is ignoring the main concept of science in my opinion which is 'why' and focusing on the 'how' instead.

 

The main reason I give people's religious beliefs a pass as long as they do not expect me to believe them is that to a large extent science is its own religion. Statements like a made earlier about knowing the mind of God. Hawkins may have made the statement to suggest the scale of the discovery but others in the field picked it up like the words of a prophet. They suggested that knowing the unified field theory would be the END OF SCIENCE as it would answer all questions. As for dogma, have you heard of the brontosaurus. It was creature that in a big way was the creation of Othniel Charles Marsh. The original fossils found were missing a number of significant parts. Much of what Marsh filled in was wrong. The creature lived on in almost all science texts on the subject because nobody wanted to seem to be questioning one of the father's of paleontology. Science current and past is littered with such examples. 

 

As with religion, the institution of science has found a way to get things backwards. Religion focuses of following dogma rather than spiritual connection and community. Science has become about discoveries when it should focus on a method of asking questions.


Confirmed Agnostic - I know that I don't know for sure and I am almost certain no one else does either.






Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Interstellar, Time Travel, Gravity, Relativity

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users