Questions about Interstellar
There's some things about Interstellar that have me completely baffled, i was hoping some fans of the movie could help me out with.
1) How were they panning on moving the Earth and its inhabitants to another planet? If it was explained was it plausible? 2) How come they didnt try to colonise Mars? 3) Why was the base that Cooper discovered, hidden? If it was NASA, why was it hidden? 4) Professor Brand on his death bed tells the daughter that Cooper and his team had zero chance of succeeding, so why send them out on the mission?? Why make Cooper go on the mission and have him miss his daughter grow up. 5) Tying back to the first question, how would that even work, in terms of logistics, of transporting a planet and all its inabitants (lets say for arguments sake 10 billion), to an entirely different solar system? How would all the people be fed? Isnt this science fiction at its most absurd? 6) Wasnt it poorly thoughtout to send astronauts through a wormhole? What if was only one way travel and they couldnt enter back into the worm hole to get back? 7)Was anyone else frustrated and annoyed with how the movie ended? I suew was. i felt it was so tacky for them to say love was the most powerful force in the universe and it goes to a scene where people are living in space. It made me roll my eyes. Why does Hollywood have to end every movie, even sci fi movies in such a tacky way. I would greatly appreciate if anyone could have a go at answering these questions. |
Re: Questions about Interstellar
1) Several giant space stations were constructed, they just couldn't get them off the Earth. This was explained in movie.
2) Mars in not habitable. Guess they left terra forming out of this movie. 3) Not really sure. Maybe because resources were scarce they didn't want people asking "why do we have a NASA"? 4) Plan B. The plan was really to arrive at another planet and "grow" humans, saving the human race but not the people on Earth. Professor Brand had solved his equation and knew they could never get the Space stations off Earth without data relating to Gravity. 5) Read the above. 6) No, it was rather the only choice imo. 7) Didn't think it was tacky but the whole ending sequence was very ambitious. Great movie I think, watch it again to understand it more. |
Originally Posted by moviefan555 (Post 1389589)
1) How were they panning on moving the Earth and its inhabitants to another planet? If it was explained was it plausible?
2) How come they didnt try to colonise Mars?
3) Why was the base that Cooper discovered, hidden? If it was NASA, why was it hidden?
4) Professor Brand on his death bed tells the daughter that Cooper and his team had zero chance of succeeding, so why send them out on the mission?? Why make Cooper go on the mission and have him miss his daughter grow up.
5) Tying back to the first question, how would that even work, in terms of logistics, of transporting a planet and all its inabitants (lets say for arguments sake 10 billion), to an entirely different solar system? How would all the people be fed? Isnt this science fiction at its most absurd?
6) Wasnt it poorly thoughtout to send astronauts through a wormhole? What if was only one way travel and they couldnt enter back into the worm hole to get back?
[quote]7)Was anyone else frustrated and annoyed with how the movie ended? I suew was. i felt it was so tacky for them to say love was the most powerful force in the universe and it goes to a scene where people are living in space. It made me roll my eyes. Why does Hollywood have to end every movie, even sci fi movies in such a tacky way./QUOTE] This question needs to be clearer. |
All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:52 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums