Jump to content

Talk:Interstellar (film): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 91: Line 91:


:Intergalactic travel is also interstellar travel. The title isn't wrong or false, it's just not the best description. [[User:Iwancoppa|Iwancoppa]] ([[User talk:Iwancoppa|talk]]) 11:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
:Intergalactic travel is also interstellar travel. The title isn't wrong or false, it's just not the best description. [[User:Iwancoppa|Iwancoppa]] ([[User talk:Iwancoppa|talk]]) 11:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

:I notice that at one point Cooper uses "solar system" and "galaxy" in the same sentence, so it's obvious the writers know that they are two different things, and talking about galaxies isn't a blooper. [[Special:Contributions/50.180.19.238|50.180.19.238]] ([[User talk:50.180.19.238|talk]]) 03:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


== Critical reception ==
== Critical reception ==

Revision as of 03:57, 1 December 2014

WikiProject iconFilm: British / American B‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the British cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
WikiProject iconScience Fiction B‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Runtime

The runtime is reported to be 169 minutes mainly because this (a theater chain's website) states that. I am finding this source weak, especially when it calls the film a drama instead of science fiction. I would like to exclude it until we have something more widely reported (e.g., initial reviews that state the length). What do others think? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, the theater chain actually changed the runtime from 169 to 175. Runtimes should not be dynamic, so I've removed it from the article body. We need a different source to reference for the runtime. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Theater runtimes often include trailers. I would wait for reviews and/or the BBFC. - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release date

FirstShowing.net is saying that the film will be released as early as November 4th, but it is basing the information on a listings website like other sources based their runtime-related reports on a listings website. I don't think this is a strong enough source and that we should wait for greater validation before changing the article to report this date. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollywood Reporter mentions November 5th as the earliest. I've updated the Wikipedia article with this information. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is also this from The Hollywood Reporter that says 240 theaters through 77 markets, so it does not sound like it is just North America, like the previous article claimed. I've updated accordingly. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, "77 markets" was not international but rather within North America itself. So it is correct to say that the film will be released in North America on November 5th. This shows the breakdown. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison to 2001: A Space Odyssey

This article's reference to '2001: A Space Odyssey' is of interest, and apparent in the recent trailer for the film - both in setting and cinematography.

However what may not be as apparent to some readers is the use of Saturn (not Jupiter as in the film version) as a destination, and going through a 'wormhole' of sorts. In the 1968 novel (Arthur C. Clark) version of '2001: A Space Odyssey' the spaceship Discovery goes to Saturn and visits the moon Iapetus where they find a large TMA-2 (a black monolith) which is found to be "full of stars" (like a 'wormhole') and the trip into infinity continues, including eventual images of a planet where astronaut David Bowman is taken (much like in the film version).

Several of the images from the film Interstellar have a parallel to 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.126.38.220 (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we will probably get commentary comparing the film to 2001 that we can use in the article body. Hopefully commentators will notice what you did so we can reference them. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References to use

References to use. Please add, and strike out when it is used in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Warner Bros. (International/Other territories)

In the distributor section of the film, I propose changing Warner Bros.' description from 'Other territories' to 'International', as I feel that 'Other territories' implies that the film is being distributed by WB in selected countries. I feel that the 'International' label should be used as it is much more common and offers a broader implication that it is being released in all other countries. I just wanted to check first and get an overall consensus. TheDarkKnight180 (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with using "international" is that it is part of the US-centric language to say that the United States is the domestic theatrical run and everywhere else is the international theatrical run. Since this is the English Wikipedia, we need to write for a global audience, not a US one. (That's why we avoid using "domestic" here too.) I personally don't see "other territories" as select, but we could do "remaining territories" as a possible alternative. Open to hearing what other editors have to say. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me), @TheDarkKnight180 (talk). Difficult. If this was an only American film possibly "international", but it is a USA / UK production. Warner. Bros is not doing the whole world, only most. For Paramount we used "North America", the continent that includes US. This means it is possible to say "Europe" (continent of UK) for Warner.Bros. Per guidelines we only do the distributors for the countrny of origin and a extremely dominant world producer. So feal free to discuss.--Warner REBORN (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Scientific accuracy"

At the current state, I think it should be moved into Production, at least renamed; "Scientific assistance" would be better (in the current state). Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Freshness For Lettuce! Thanks for your help with the article so far. I was not crazy about having the "Scientific accuracy" section this early because I didn't want to put forth only the filmmakers' claim about the film being scientifically accurate. Such a section should usually have independent commentary (with the filmmakers' claim as only part of it), per the guidelines at WP:FILMSCI. If we merged it into "Production" now, we don't even need a separate section, just to put Thorne's quote in the most appropriate place. Want to do that? A real "Scientific accuracy" section can then happen when people actually see the film and write about it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To update my thoughts on this discussion, I think that the new content in this section should be moved to "Visual effects" (as well as the Thorne quote where appropriate). If there is independent commentary about the film's scientific accuracy, we can recreate the section. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The section desperately needs something about what scientists say about the movie who did not participate in its production. Galant Khan (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Until that happens, perhaps a different name of the section could avoid some confusion of the readers. I foresee a significant addition of scientific inaccuracies for this film. The first planet visited orbits a black hole. It also has both liquid water and sunlight (conspicuously like that from of our Sun). So the black hole has a companion star that delivers sunlight. In order for the water to remain on the planet (instead of boiling away - and for the planet to be able to sustain life), the planet has to have a stable orbit around the companion star (not to mention the black hole). But with a black hole near by, that is basically impossible, it is called the three-body problem. Secondly, while the crew visits that planet for just a few hours, the crew remember remaining on the mother ship experiences time dilation (presumably due to the difference in the gravitational field at the mother ship and on the planet), so that no less than 23 years passes for him during their separation. However, in order to experience a time dilation of that magnitude, you have to have an enormous difference in the gravitational field. And that dinky little landing craft will have to overcome the consequently enormous gravity while traveling to and especially returning from the planet, while keeping the g-forces on the crew at survivable levels. Not physical. With my background I consider this self-evident, while other might call it OR. Anyway, that was just that one planet visit out of a 3 hour movie. (Not that that keeps me from recommending the movie, I think it is trying to make the point that we should protect our own, preciously rare planet and not send humanity down a worm-hole. Apologies for the digression). Lklundin (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Lklundin, the section heading is acceptable per the guidelines at WP:FILMSCI. It does not mean it will focus on only what it got right. We can cover all aspects under this section per WP:STRUCTURE. Right now, the section is looking pretty messy, but there have definitely been reliable sources out there that scrutinize the film's science closely and can be used here. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another point on black holes, they're called black holes because their gravitational pull is so strong even light can't escape. In the film the black hole had two rings of light around it, where theoretically from any given perspective you should only be able to see, at best, a single ring of light on the X,Y axis as any light passing through the Z axis (respective to the observer) would be drawn into the black whole and not be perceivable.


note on the fact that the main actor at the beginning said that the closest star is thousands of years away, not thousands of LIGHT years away (as the main article on here says - quote "Cooper, in the movie, says that the "nearest star is more than a thousand light years away". In fact, the closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 lightyears of distance, which is part of the Alpha Centauri system (see List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs)."). Yes Alpha Centauri is only 4.2 years away, at light speed, but at more practical speeds (from the current propulsion knowledge point of view) it is indeed thousands of years away. So the movie in that respect is not inaccurate. This should be corrected.

Another Galaxy?

Isaac Asimov pointed out years ago that one sign of a poorly-researched scifi story is that the writer says "galaxy" when he/she means "solar system", which means something quite different. "Star Trek" used the terms properly; many other movies and TV series mess them up. So when the summary says "another galaxy", is that the summarizer's mistake or the movie's? 50.180.19.238 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Independent says "another galaxy" though I have not seen any prior detail stating this. The trip is definitely beyond the solar system, but it's possible that it could be elsewhere in the Milky Way or another galaxy entirely. The term interstellar space can mean the space between galaxies, but interstellar travel is about traveling between stars, regardless of galaxies. We'll have to keep an eye out for sources that support or contradict the "another galaxy" claim. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's a mistake if you haven't seen the finished film? Maybe the story is about intergalactic travel. If so, then the title would at worst only be misleading; and even then only if one happens to subscribe to a too-narrow convention as to the meaning of the word "interstellar". If the characters travel from one stellar locale to another stellar locale, and they happen to be in two different galaxies, I think that'd still constitute interstellar travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the film they say that the wormhole leads to another galaxy, so the mistake is in the film's title. It should be called Intergalactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIkiderpian (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intergalactic travel is also interstellar travel. The title isn't wrong or false, it's just not the best description. Iwancoppa (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that at one point Cooper uses "solar system" and "galaxy" in the same sentence, so it's obvious the writers know that they are two different things, and talking about galaxies isn't a blooper. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Critical reception

There are a number of issues with the "Critical reception" section. First, because Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have certain non-intuitive methodologies in assessing a film, they need to be detailed. We should not assume a reader is going to be intimately familiar with these methodologies like most WikiProject Film editors are. In addition, RT and MC have differing methodologies in the sense that RT is simplistic with no middle ground; it categorizes a review as positive or negative. Metacritic is a fairer distribution, and it should be first. To report solely the aggregate scores is to grossly over-simplify the matter; the distribution of reviews should not be ignored or fudged over. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should also avoid using slang like "Certified Fresh" that Rotten Tomatoes uses. Fresh and rotten translate to positive and negative, so we should use these clearer terms. Likewise, for Metacritic, we should just say aggregate score instead of Metascore. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Josephlalrinhlua786, we can use this space to discuss the section. Why do you think we should put Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, with its collection of numbers, above the commentary that summarizes the reviews? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:13, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot believe there is no criticism about the book shelf communication absurdity.? Galant Khan (talk) 01:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is:
"like always when American blockbusters become philosophical, pretention, cheesiness and unintentional humor (into the black hole, out at the book shelf of the daughter) are not far" Lars Penning, tip.de
"4 Big Reasons Why Interstellar Is A Huge Disaster" "It’s silly. So very, very silly." "the "ghost" in Murph’s room is a half-baked concept that doesn’t pay off until that ridiculous sequence I lovingly call Morse Code Bookshelf. That scene is comically bad, and an embarrassment for poor McConaughey." SEAN O'CONNELL, cinemablend.com, 2014-11-06
"the plotting becomes increasingly ridiculous, attempting to marry between the spaces of a bookcase shelf the pretentions of alternate dimensions with a family melodrama.", Damien Straker, impulsegamer.com, November 4th, 2014 Galant Khan (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sectioning

Josephlalrinhlua786, there is no standard for grouping content by sections, and other articles do not necessarily serve as a good example. Your approach split box office content away from theatrical run content, and doing that severs the context from one another. Why should readers have to look in one place for how the film was rolled out (e.g., number of theaters) but look in another place for how much it made in that rollout? It is more appropriate to group that content together. This means "Theatrical run" is an ideal roof under all this content can be combined. "Reception" is not a term that is tied to box office grosses, either. It is for film critics and for whatever accolades a film may receive. We could group "Critical response" and "Accolades" under "Reception", but not the theatrical run/box office content. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Projecting formats

I tried to find information on if this film is going to be projected (or has been filmed) in 3D, but non found. Ref: thecelebritycafe.com. Can we add this information to our page? Thanks. Jlogane (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could add how Nolan decided not to film in 3D, but we should not have a disclaimer that states that the film is not in 3D. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Release on November 4th

There is a sold-out show at the Tech Museum of Innovation[1] at 8pm tonight. This IMAX theater is located at 201 S Market St, San Jose, CA 95113. You can google the times of the shows. The 11pm show is NOT sold out.WQC (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ http://www.thetech.org/imax/presentations

Hans Zimmer music

I have no interest in developing this article, but I stumbled across this which could help expand the music section. The interested may use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing the link here! Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Plot Summary

I added a Plot section, just to get it started. It's way too long, it's probably off in both detail and sequence in places, and it's short on references. I did it from memory, having seen it last night, but wanted to get something going at least. I don't often add this kind of thing, so if for some reason the community is holding back on a real summary in favor of the existing Synopsis, feel free to remove. (I also could not remember the third Lazarus scientists' name.)

Alex (talk) 20:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Alex. There are guidelines at WP:FILMPLOT about writing plot summaries. I don't think there has been any moderate additions before yours. Someone tried to add a long plot summary days ago, but apparently it was derived from the 2008 screenplay. A very long plot summary was posted yesterday as seen here, but I reverted it because it was way too long per WP:PLOT. Maybe you can combine details from that draft and get the summary to under 700 words. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that other draft has a super detailed plot summary. Thanks for the pointers, will do some more pruning to try and hit 700 (currently 1088, previous was 8933). Alex (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Alex! FYI, it is very likely that the plot summary will be heavily edited this week and for the next few months. Sometimes it is completely rewritten. This is pretty common for recently-released blockbuster films. Don't be distressed if that happens; try to build a consensus among editors here to see what draft is largely the most preferable, barring any minor copy-editing. I personally focus on other parts of the article since they are less in flux. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 22:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI on the plot summary, the planet the wormhole is next to is Saturn and not Jupiter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.1.83.66 (talk) 05:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for mentioning this, but please note that the plot summary also seems to say erroneously that the wormhole is orbiting Saturn. I believe that in the movie it is said that the wormhole is near Saturn, they don't say that it is orbiting Saturn. If you agree with me, then feel free to make a correction in the plot summary. FormalLogician (talk) 23:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2014

After emerging from the black hole, Cooper awakes near Saturn, not Jupiter; pursuant to this revision. Zeantsoi (talk) 22:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)zeantsoi[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Cast" section contains error

William Devane didn't play "Old Tom"; he played a NASA board member. If Tom is still alive at the end, his character is never seen.

See: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0816692/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast

173.230.160.146 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

The story is revealed which shouldn't be as it is fake. please do the needful to make necessary changes

59.182.175.220 (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Cannolis (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Motivations of Dr Mann (Matt Damon)

Under the plot section, Dr Mann's (Matt Damon) motivations are wrongly described.

Extracted from the current wikipedia entry: Mann has forged the data about the viability of his planet so the Endurance would come and find him, allowing him to steal their spacecraft and return to Earth. (The bold area is wrong)

Dr Mann never intended to return to earth using Endurance. In the movie he explains that his primary mission was to save humanity as a species and that Plan "A" was a lie and not actually feasible and that the main mission was Plan "B" all along. His actual motivation for betraying the crew and attempted murder of Cooper was to stop Cooper from using Endurance to return to earth which he knew would inevitably doom humanity. Instead he intended to use the ship to pursue a different habitable planet (seeing as the one he landed on was totally non habitable which he lied about so he could get rescued) so that he could successfully establish a colony for humanity. He never had the intention of returning to earth. In addition, returning to earth would make no plot sense because he could have simply followed Cooper who had already decided to. --119.74.75.38

I agree. I've made the following adjustment to the plot section to remedy that. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 23:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Solaris

There has been no talk of referencing the 1972 movie Solaris. Here is a clip from the review of the movie on the AV club. "In more ways than one, this is Nolan’s Solaris. Both movies open with a long stretch set around a country house on Earth, where the protagonist, a widower, must consider a mission to space from which he won’t return for years, possibly decades. In both cases, he’s leaving behind a young girl and an older man—his niece and father in Solaris, his daughter and father-in-law in Interstellar. Both films shift the action into space abruptly, are set partly to organ music (Bach in Andrei Tarkovsky’s Solaris and one of Hans Zimmer’s better scores in Interstellar), feature extended sequences of the protagonists watching and reacting to video recordings, and are about the emotions of people faced with the unknown. And, when it all comes down to it, both films are about how their respective writer-directors feel about the notion of the unknowable and humanity’s relationship to something larger than itself."

both films are about how their respective writer-directors feel about the notion of the unknowable and humanity’s relationship to something larger than itself. (THIS IS THE KEY LINE) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.114.250 (talk • contribs) 18:12, November 7, 2014‎

I'm just asking for the film to be included in films listed as influencing Nolan.

Criticism, anyone? Connection with James Lovelock

In light of the overwhelming popularity of this movie would It be worthy to voice a criticism or two?

This movie finds its premise from the antropogenic ideas of futurist James Lovelock. Orson Scott Card disclosed that connection in his work Lovelock. "That the odds on survival here on Earth may be diminishing doesn’t seem to be just Hawking’s view. Consider James Lovelock, also quoted in a Daily Mail story, who points to climate change as the culprit in the coming reduction of Earth’s population from 6.5 billion to 500 million. Lovelock, you may remember, first proposed the Gaia Hypothesis, the notion that the Earth is a balanced system whose parts, like a human body, all mesh to create conditions possible for life."ref Here this connection seems to be omitted, has this been mentioned in any review? I have not seen this connection anywhere? Why?

The problem with the movie being antropogenic and the solution being magical thinking. Has someone reviewing movies made this connection? Yes; ref Sort of. ref Sort of ref

The dialog not being understandable through the soundtrack. ref and the dreaded Millennial moment; “the special chosen one” is special for no other reason that all Millennia's are special (and can like stuff on social networking); and/or Millennials go "rah" on the environment. refref

Or just "Lost in Space" might do? ref With the movie being more a rendezvous with Fantasy Island than a Rendezvous with Rama ref Neil Tyson said. "But if you had actual access to the past, then just write a note and stick it on the shelf, saying, 'Hey, I'm right here.'" ref

Feel free to delete this missive, or consider it as a call for minority opinion about entertainment which seems to be universally liked. --Lfrankblam (talk) 21:54, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the above is that you're criticising the film on the basis of its merits as a scientific text, and it seems to be motivated by the idea that the film is popular and so needs a section on criticism. Prisonermonkeys (talk) 09:04, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Murph originally male in 2008 script

Has anyone found a source saying why/when Nolan decided to re-cast Murph as a girl? I found that relationship to be the highlight of the movie in many ways, and a lot of the themes and plot revolved around it. I expect that it might have been less poignant if Murph remained a boy, and Cooper's favoritism would make less sense unless they spent more time developing the children's characters... --Sennsationalist (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article implies it was because Nolan has a daughter: http://www.slashfilm.com/interstellar-script-differences/ I haven't heard him officially talk about it though. 68.105.53.244 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plot Summary Incorrect

The plot summary states that the dust on the floor is "in a pattern that resembles morse code". This is incorrect. Cooper himself tells Murph that the dust pattern is binary, not morse. Morse was used in the bookshelves to write out 'STAY'. Binary was used to communicate the coordinates of NASA. --Wormpy (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I've made the following adjustment to the plot section to remedy that. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 10 November 2014, The ending and the Wormhole.

Can someone please change the ending to say the Wormhole is closed. Because according to Script writer Jonathan Nolan it is closed after cooper came out. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/08/jonathan-nolan-interstellar-spoilers the paragraph he talks about it is right under the video "Jessica Chastain - How spoilers can ruin a movie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bievahh (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, but the paragraph you reference says that it was an idea from an earlier draft of the script. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing that, I'm surprised I didn't see that. Personally I like the idea better than what they put into the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bievahh (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Year of setting

Apparently the film begins in the year of 2062.

Christopher Nolan's salary is disputed

The article currently states "The Hollywood Reporter said Nolan will earn a salary of $20 million against 20% of what Interstellar grosses." (source, Feb. 2014). However, The Wall Street Journal write "Mr. Nolan is being paid the greater of more than $10 million or more than 10% of revenue, minus certain deductions, according to a person with knowledge of the deal." (source, Oct. 2014) -- Katana (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Last part of Plot summary

"Cooper realizes that the extra-dimensional presence sensed by Amelia while traversing through the wormhole at the first time was his own hand, as a signal to him that he needs to locate and help her as she is the only surviving member from Endurance crew other than himself and the temporal loop will be completed when he brings her back."

Is there really any indication that the "hand-shake" was supposed to be a reminder, or that there a temporal loop left "uncompleted" that would be "resolved" by bringing her back? This is interpretation and I can't find a similar approach anywhere else. 84.132.102.116 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, and it's not an important plot point.--Cúchullain t/c 13:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Millers Time Difference

On the article, it currently states the time difference of Millers Planet is 1 hour = 7 years, when in the film when I saw it at the cinema, it states it was 45 minutes = 7 years. I would change it but first want to here other peoples opinion. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've just watched the film and it was clearly stated that 1 hour is 7 years. Unless you've viewed some alternative version, however I can't believe the would change it for any reason. BeŻet (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed; they say in the movie that it's 7 years for every hour. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Forward

I find a lot of elements of the film and story which look like what Robert L. Forward was writing (Rocheworld in particular): the robot, the water world, etc. Is this discussed somewhere because it cannot be put in the article without a source. Hektor (discuter) 17 novembre 2014 à 10:27 (CET)

Mann in plot section

I thought he wanted to return to earth, not the other planet?

Strictly speaking, the way this article can be improved is by quoting a socalled reliable source. Editors own thoughts on the matter are on the other hand not considered notable. Lklundin (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
but there are no sources in the whole section. It can all be one editors opinion. The film doesn't even explain what his goal really was, was it to go to the other planet or return to earth? Where are the sources " 99.240.153.50 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Films themselves usually serve as the primary source for the plot section, per WP:FILMPLOT. Perhaps someone else can back this up, but I'm pretty sure Mann was going to the other planet, not to Earth. But it's not terribly relevant to the plot; all that matters is the plot twist that he lied about his planet and then tries to steal the ship.--Cúchullain t/c 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mann wanted to go on to the next planet (Edmunds). Think about it: Why would Mann want to kill Cooper and steal the ship to go back to Earth, when Cooper specifically said he wasn't going on to the next planet but was instead going back to Earth to be with his family? Put another way, it was Cooper's announcement that he was going to Earth instead of the next planet that triggered Mann's response to try and kill him in order to put the Endurance back on track to taking them all to Edmunds planet. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That pretty much syncs with my recollection. Also keep in mind that not everything makes rational sense in a movie; there are often plot holes or ambiguities (and this film has no shortage of them). Still, we probably wouldn't lose anything by removing Mann's intentions.--Cúchullain t/c 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O'Neill cylinder

Editors keep adding in lines about space stations in the movie being "O'Neill cylinder"s. This jargon doesn't appear in the film or, evidently, in any substantial number of reliable sources about it. The term isn't well known enough that the connection is obvious, or that it benefits the reader more than simply "space station". It needs to be left out of the plot section, though perhaps a line can be included in a section on design or themes if it can be reliably sourced.--Cúchullain t/c 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to an O'Neill cylinder doesn't make the article more difficult to read. It clearly is an O'Neill cylinder, so adding the word is actually clarifying for those not familiar with it. Hyperlinking where it can be justified is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so is informing the readers. One could use the same argument about the tesseract as with the O'Neill cylinder, since it is never really explained in the movie. 84.210.10.52 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"O'Neill cylinder" is not used in the film, and it's not a well known term that clarifies anything for the reader. If anything, it adds unnecessary confusion as readers try to figure out what an "O'Neill cylinder" is when "space station" gets all the necessary information across. Again, add "O'Neill Cylinder" to the design or themes section if there are sources for the connection, but it's not helpful in the plot summary.--Cúchullain t/c 19:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It does explain why you can have a normal gravity with houses hanging from the roof. All it takes is one little click and a glimpse of the illustration is all you need to get the idea. 84.210.10.52 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't important to the plot that houses are hanging from the roof. We don't mention that, and we don't need to mention what kind of space station the space station is either. Not in the plot summary. Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Space station is vague and not accurate terminology (reference below) being used to describe what is indeed an O'Neill cylinder adding it back in with a hyper link to the page will not being confusing. If anything it will allow someone to learn something. Also it is referenced in the novelization as well as here. http://interstellarfilm.wikia.com/wiki/Cooper_Station

A space station, also known as an orbital station or an orbital space station, is a spacecraft capable of supporting a crew, which is designed to remain in space (most commonly in low Earth orbit) for an extended period of time and for other spacecraft to dock. A space station is distinguished from other spacecraft used for human spaceflight by lack of major propulsion or landing systems.

The O'Neill cylinder (also called an O'Neill colony) is a space settlement design proposed by American physicist Gerard K. O'Neill in his 1976 book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.[1] O'Neill proposed the colonization of space for the 21st century, using materials extracted from the Moon and later from asteroids.[2]

An O'Neill cylinder would consist of two counter-rotating cylinders. The cylinders would rotate in opposite directions in order to cancel out any gyroscopic effects that would otherwise make it difficult to keep them aimed toward the Sun. Each would be 5 miles (8.0 km) in diameter and 20 miles (32 km) long, connected at each end by a rod via a bearing system. They would rotate so as to provide artificial gravity via centrifugal force on their inner surfaces.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhere123 (talk • contribs)

Newhere123, please sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~) so we can keep track of who's saying what. As we said before, "O'Neill cylinder" isn't really helpful here, the term is science fiction jargon that's likely to be confusing to many readers. It doesn't appear in the film or in many reliable sources on the film, and it's not significant to the plot. In other words, it doesn't matter to the plot that the space station is cylindrical, let alone that it's (ostensibly) the particular kind of cylindrical space station called an "O'Neill cylinder" in some works. Again, this could be an interesting fact for a section on design ("according to [reliable source], the film's space stations are based on the O'Neill cylinder, a design proposed by Gerard K. O'Neill in 1976..."), but it doesn't belong here.--Cúchullain t/c 02:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing back and forth about this, but the article's current lede, which I tried to revise, is silly. The edit summary left by the editor who reverted me was: "Revert violation of WP:LEAD; Featured Articles show multiple paragraphs like this."

WP:LEAD says:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The information in the second and third paragraphs of the current lede do not serve any of the purposes outlined in that last sentence. The second paragraph spends 49 words talking about the production companies involved; it talks about the directorial debut of someone who isn't even involved with this movie; it lists the filming locations, which don't tell you anything of note about the film itself. The third paragraph is even worse, going on (and on and on) about specific release dates in various countries and the difference between the limited and wide releases.

As for the second part of the reverting editor's edit summary, I looked at three randomly chosen examples of Featured Articles about films. The lede of Jaws (film) mentions the film's troubled production process, the key decisions that Spielberg made that set it apart from other thrillers, the film's unusually large promotional push at release, and the film's significant legacy. Ruma Maida's second lede paragraph provides a coherent and concise summary of the film's development, production, and release, while its third paragraph discusses the film's themes and the public response to the film. Casino Royale (2006 film)'s lede is largely about the film's context within the James Bond franchise, with the third paragraph discussing the public's response. None of these link to the directorial debut of a cinematographer who wasn't involved with the film being discussed. None of these mentions more than a single premiere date, let alone describes the number of theaters showing each format in excruciating detail. Here's a rule of thumb: imagine that a panel of film experts is discussing this film in 10 years. The lede should contain only the information that it's reasonable might be brought up in that discussion.

The current lede reads like someone pulled random information out of the article because they wanted the article to look like an FA and FA ledes tend to have three paragraphs. It's incoherent and jumbled. As I said, I'm not going to go back and forth on it, I won't try to fix the lede again, and I probably won't read any replies to this post. I just thought I would make an effort to let the people who undoubtedly care deeply about the article know that the most important part of it is bad and should be fixed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed on every count. Popcornduff (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your examples have more detailed lead sections than your writeup. The section is supposed to summarize the most important points, which means to combine the key details from the different sections. For example, the second paragraph is production-focused and identifies the key details like who produced the film and where it was filmed. There is additional detail behind each particular point, which readers would have to read the article body to see. The third paragraph is reception-focused. It should cover how the film was released and how it has done in the box office and with critics. I don't think that the current lead section is updated enough, but your writeup unnecessarily simplifies what is in the article in contravention of best practices. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I took a stab at it before seeing this discussion on talk. A lot of the material in the lead really isn't necessary. Since there was some interesting production history, the basics need to be covered, but I don't know we need every person and company involved with the production listed. And I agree that the third paragraph was pretty bad; we need the first release date and info on how it was received, and probably also the information that it was one of the few recent movies released on film.--Cúchullain t/c 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Edward O. Wilson

The Nolan brothers were credited for writing “Interstellar”, but the film resonates to E.O. Wilson, as follows:

"Living in Shimmering Disequilibrium", Apr 22, 2000

"The Meaning of Human Existence", Oct 6, 2014

(Also see E.O. Wilson's interview with Charlie Rose, October 26, 2014.)

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60466117

Wilson did not mention "Interstellar" in his Charlie Rose interview, but the film has many resonant threads. Did "They" (the Nolan brothers) use Wilson for one reason or another, or was the resonance of “Interstellar” to Wilson merely an acausal coincidence? Could it be a general relativity gravitational effect?

Dubina

PS: I have renewed my password and tried to log in, but I am always informed that my password is incorrect.

Scientific accuracy

Some added the following: "However, there were some aspects of the ending whereby the laws of physics were ignored. For instance, due to the strong gravitational pull of Gargantua, Cooper would have been traveling at the speed of light around the accretion disc of the black hole. According to the theory of relative velocity time dilation, time would have passed slower from Cooper's view and hundreds of years would have passed before Cooper finally enters the singularity, thus not having enough time to save humanity. In addition, matter being pulled in at such speed causes enormous friction, generating incalculable heat as well as light (that can be 100 times brighter than the Milky Way in the case of a quasar). Cooper would have been vapourized by the heat instantly before reaching the center of the black hole."

Cooper never reached the center of the black hole, he entered the tesseract shortly after passing the event horizon. How long it would have taken is irrelevant considering he is able to send information anywhere in time, including Murphy as a child. Regarding the point in time when he returns to the solar system, Kip Thorne writes about it in "The Science of Interstellar" and articles, stating that "In relativity, there is no such thing as the same time. When two places in the universe are separated by a great distance, relativity says you need to give up on your ideas of simultaneity—that something is happening at the same time as over there. If you have a wormhole connecting these two places, there is no way to answer the question, do you come out at that same time? It depends on how you’re slicing the universe. What Kip Thorne helped invent is the idea that if you could manipulate wormholes in a sufficiently dramatic fashion, you could actually travel backward in time." The black hole is ten billion light years away, which is an enormous distance. Silbad (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Correction to ending.

Year's later, Cooper awakes aboard Cooper Station an O'Neill cylinder in orbit of Saturn and reunites with the now elderly Murphy, who has led humanity's exodus. On her deathbed, Murphy convinces Cooper to search for Amelia, who has begun work on "Plan B" alone on Edmunds' planet.

Newhere123 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This change is disputed above at #O'Neill cylinder.--Cúchullain t/c 02:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two statements in plot that don't make sense

I have issues with these two statements that don't make sense and made some changes. Someone kept undoing my changes in the name of keeping the summary brief. 

   On his deathbed, Brand admits that he already solved the problem and determined the project is impossible 
   without additional data from a black hole's singularity.

If Brand thinks he is missing some data, why did he say the problem is solved and come to the conclusion that the project is impossible? he should leave the conclusion open. The truth is, Brand thinks his solution is complete and not missing any data. It is actually Murphy who realized he is only half correct. 

   Using gravitational waves, he transmits TARS's data on the singularity to the adult Murphy through Morse code, 
   allowing her to complete Brand's equation and evacuate Earth.

Nowhere before this does the text mention Brand's equation is incomplete and Murphy is seeking to complete it.

My suggested edit: Brand admits that he already solved the problem and determined the project is impossible. He kept this knowledge secret knowing Earth's population would abandon the project if they had no hope for survival, and instead put his faith in Plan B. Later Murphy realizes his solution is incomplete without additional data from a black hole's singularity. --Kakarukeys (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a week since I saw it, but I thought it was Brand who says his solution is missing the data from a singularity and that the plan is hopeless without it.--Cúchullain t/c 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Brand apologized tearfully to Murphy on his deathbed saying the project is impossible without elaborating further. Then in a later scene, Murphy talked to a co-worker saying that she checked Brand's work and Brand may be just half correct because his theory is incomplete without the data from singularity. Kakarukeys (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can anyone else verify which is correct? If Kakarukeys is right there should be no problem changing the text.--Cúchullain t/c 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Kakarukeys' version is a better match to my recollection of the plot. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then be bold and change the summary. Frmorrison (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it per the above discussion. Editors with new accounts may be unable to edit due to semi-protection.--Cúchullain t/c 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying the ending

I would like to add this clarification to the final line describing the plot: Murphy convinces Cooper to search for Amelia, who is marooned on Edmunds' planet, which is demonstrated to be habitable for humans – and will become their next home. ...or something to that effect. This clarifies the plot point that the descendants of the people whom Murph saved are the same ones who created the wormhole and the tesseract, and that they would ultimately settle on Edmunds' planet. Any opposition to this? -- mcshadypl TC 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Movie nationality

The movie is written, produced and directed by British people, and the main production company is British. Shouldn't the movie be more British than American?

Correction to Scientific Accuracy

As the article is semi-protected, I cannot edit this.

"Cooper, in the movie, says that the "nearest star is more than a thousand light years away". In fact, the closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 lightyears of distance, which is part of the Alpha Centauri system (see List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs)."

This is incorrect, Cooper does NOT say that the nearest star is more than "a thousand light years away," he says "more than a thousand years away." As in, with current technology it would take them 1000 years to reach Proxima Centauri, not that light takes that long. Could someone with access remove this bit? It's bugging the heck out of me.

Matrim42 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Remove the blatant advertisement in the first section of the article 2602:30A:2E6E:6D30:6977:7D6C:471A:BC9E (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done I'm not clear about which test you are objecting too - I don't see anything "blatant" at present, so suspect it may already have been removed, as the article has had 15 edits in the last 24 hours. If you still think there is "blatant advertising" please identify the text you are objecting to. - Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

The article seems to have a link directed to watch the movie online, possibly pirated. It can be found after the first 3 paragraphs of the article: "The Movie can be watched at <inappropriate link removed>"

Kindly look in to it.

Thanks. 123.200.11.202 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Done removed at 09.55 by another - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Interstellar_(film)&oldid=636120918"