How Hollywood film-makers wove proper physics into Interstellar Youtube Video Having a theoretical physicist attached to a Hollywood sci-fi film proved to be a pretty slick move for Interstellar director Christopher Nolan, who worked with Kip Thorne from the start of the project. "What the algorithms gave us was extremely spectacular," Nolan explained in this short, neat vid about the …
Its a way of presenting an idea, or a thought to another person.
I am all for the use of proper physics in film's, but alas I do believe that it is not for science that they chose to do it in this manner, it was lack of (good/better) options. Most likely they didn't know how to portray it.
>maybe they'll fix the ships computer with a iPhone from outside the ships hull
From the director who doesn't use email, writes his drafts on his fathers typewriter, and even used 35mm film for the 'Skype'-like video-chatting in the film?
Whatever you say.
£30 for two people to go to the pictures is becoming fairly standard unfortunately, which is why I very rarely go. That's not including £8 each for popcorn and a bottle of water by the way!
...and they wonder why people just wait for the movie to reach DVD or streaming services instead...
"£30 for two people to go to the pictures is becoming fairly standard unfortunately, "
My local cinema is a little independent single screen job but they have a digital projector, leather seats and only charge £7.
meaning I have more change than my local sticky multiplex to spend on a good draught beer (the cinema also has a fully licensed bar and even serves ales!!)
It may not be the iMax experience but I wish there were more cosy cinemas like this ran by people who love film! and its great for kids, get a sofa (yes they have leather sofas) and sit your young one beside you, they can cuddle up in scary bits!
Theres no way in hell I'm sitting still in a small seat with 200 other people for 3 hours!
never mind paying £15 quid for it!
Theres a reason you can buy a projector that'll give you 100" screen at home for £250 (or £600 for a decent one) - so you can watch movies like you were at the cinema without the:
1) travelling
2) parking
3) queueing
4) Paying £15
5) Paying a further £10 for food n drink
6) Sitting with a load of teenage knobheads
7) not being able to pause it and go for a piss
8) Not Being allowed to drink beer
9) not beoing allowed to smoke
10) not being able to stretch your legs out on comfy furniture
11) Being Deafened
12) sitting through 30 minutes of ads for shit you have no interest in
13) having to start at a specific time
did I miss anything ?
Thanks for the downvotes for saying it might be expensive to see this movie in an IMAX cinema. Even though it will be.
My "local" IMAX charges between £12 and £14 for the 20 minute films. There's no sign of Interstellar appearing there any time soon, which may be because they don't want to lose the 9x£14=£126 they could be earning in the same time (OK, more realistically 6x£14=£84, allowing for audience swaps), or because have no chance of charging that much for screening Interstellar.
So, downvoters, I'm not knocking the IMAX experience, just pointing out the mathematical / economic facts involved in screening a 3hr movie in an IMAX cinema.
You're the one who doesn't seem to be getting it. When a major motion picture is released "in IMAX", it means they're being played in traditional theatres branded by IMAX. It does not mean that it will be shown in purpose-built IMAX theatres on actual IMAX 1570 film.
So yeah, OF COURSE there's no sign of Interstellar being shown at your local science center. Nobody ever said it would be!
By the way, does the UK actually HAVE a legit 1570 theatre?
Actually, you're both mistaken.
Interstellar will be showing at IMAX cinemas, meaning cinemas with projectors capable of projecting the 1570 format (of which the UK has >30, usually a single screen in a multiplex). The reason it is being shown there is because it was partially shot (>60mins) in IMAX format, with IMAX cameras, on IMAX stock, by the director who seems to like doing IMAX-format films (Batman films). Films (or parts of films) not shot with IMAX cameras can be remastered to be shown on IMAX projectors, but the effect is somewhat reduced.
The other thing to 'get' is that showing a three-hour film to a packed theatre will generate cash that showing a twenty-minute film to one man and his dog will not. A blockbuster like Interstellar will get bums on seats, even at 2-3 times the price of viewing it on a regular screen.
It's being shown in IMAX-branded theatres, which are the same as regular theatres but with the seats a little closer to the screen.
At the regular cinemas in town it's "only" £9. So the question is, would seeing it in an IMAX be worth the extra fiver each?
At BFI which is one of the few legit IMAX cinemas (where the European premier was held last week) in the UK it'll be about 20 quid I'd think (rough usual price) - *and* worth every damn penny.
@intrigid, yes ^ - and also there's one in Manchester I believe but the BFI one is a nicer cinema :)
You can just imagine this becoming widespread, and scientists, even normal ones, having a second, evening job in show business, advising film-makers, TV production companies, theatre impresarios, writers...it would be cool to be a scientist and loads of kids would want to get into it...instead of studying things like Media and Marketing studies*...that would be good for the kids, for the films / TV shows, and for the world as a whole!
*subject to availability of the requisite level of intelligence to cope with all those pesky equations, graphs, variables, concepts, some of which may be significantly different from what's taught on the Media & Marketing course at your local Mickey Mouse University.
But this time the scientist has Executive Producer credits, hopefully this means he had more pull* than a mere "advisor".
*Pull, geddit? Gravity...pull...oh never mind, I'll get me coat, it's the one with all the holes...no, the *black* holes...yes, that's the one. Careful, it's a bit heavy.
"You can just imagine this becoming widespread, and scientists, even normal ones, having a second, evening job in show business, advising film-makers, TV production companies, theatre impresarios, writers...it would be cool to be a scientist and loads of kids would want to get into it...instead of studying things like Media and Marketing studies*...that would be good for the kids, for the films / TV shows, and for the world as a whole!"
You couldn't be more wrong. "Scientists in showbiz" portends nothing good for science. Unless your idea of "cool" is watching Michio Kaku spout his bullshit on tv. And if you think that competition for fame and the wealth that is often attached to it somehow breeds anything useful other than venal people.
Oh Gravity, has A film that was almost designed to pull a massive geek crowd ever disappointed so much?
Did they even have an advisor from NASA?
The film could have had a very similar plot, similar effects but been more realistic...
I am glad I did not watch it at the cinema, I would have annoyed everyone by screaming at the screen!
One of the most glaring errors is you do NOT wear normal underwear under a space suit, where is the cooling garment? where is the Maximum Absorption Device (space nappy)?? I guess having her in underwear showed more skin than the cooling garment, and having her float naked would be a no no for American audiences....
Am I at the Register? I seem to be surrounded by cynical old bastards.
Because El Reg forums becomes more and more of an old pirate bar, with Orlowski ranting time and again from the upper stairway like a village priest to general rolling of eyes, and everyone hoping that they will still manage to actually see the world burn before the last bourbon is absorbed, while young ones stumble through the front door, full of wide-eyed naiveté and start to post things that apparently are full of earnest hope.
Personally aside from general physics, just no noisy explosions and more realistic lighting in space would be welcome.
I will also be watching it at home when it comes out on Blueray. I love the big screen but find the experience spoiled by the lights half on, noisy eaters, talkers and kids on phones. At home I get comfy seats (I'm 6'7"...), free (almost) popcorn and proper beer along with a big(ish) screen and decent sound.
Hi there, I'm posting this from several days in the future because I just walked over a particularly heavy manhole cover.
This film takes general relativity and the physics of black holes and says "how can we make these work with the plot?". Then it says "Oh, is that what the physics means?". Then it says "well, bugger the physics, let's just go with the plot."
Just saw it at the Kingston odeon.. about a tenner.. :)
If you are desperate to see it, bring earplugs!! the 'background' music is thunderous and pointlessly laid on... :(
REMOVE the music, it is 'fairly' average scifi movie... I would wait for it on cable/sky, so I can record & see it with sound muted, so I can see what happened when I was too deafened to follow some parts... :(
Dont worry, good ending, but some may not understand most of the 'tech'..
The 'setup' was a bit much, how can a whole planet have fantastic technology, robots, etc, and decide to misinform people about space, due to lack of food/ crops?? -- that seemed to be in abundance through the film??? we have the tech TODAY, to '3d print' a burger...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
