"This image produced for Interstellar has given scientists new insights into black holes and raised interesting new questions."
That simply isn't true. I wish people would stop propagating this myth.
"He added: "The physics has been very carefully reviewed by experts and found to be accurate."
... apart from the freakin' floating ICE MOUNTAINS and ridiculously tiny single-stage-to-orbit landing craft.
"Christopher Nolan told BBC News that scientific accuracy helped him tell a better story."
No it didn't. He used accuracy selectively to tell a pretty bad story. The examination of time as relative in the story is accurate, but there are countless episodes of various sci-fi TV shows that are just as good, if not better. Apart from its depiction of the wormhole, I'm just not seeing this as the pinnacle of accurate sci-fi it's claimed to be. 2001 still holds that crown.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-33173197
Agreed. And 2001 was as accurate as it could be.
ReplyDeleteInterstellar was crap. "Gravity and love" - jeeeeeez, give me a break!
ReplyDeleteEh. Interstellar was OK, but it was just OK. It certainly wasn't the godsend a lot of people were claiming. Nolan has managed to convince a fair number of fans that pretension is the same as importance.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, the science was crap, and I remain boggled by how "the movie used a model that was also used to do real science" has been twisted to become "the movie has led to significant scientific discoveries". As if that science wouldnt have been done if the movie hadn't happened.
Worse, while I'm sure Thorne laughed all of the way to the bank, the fact that the movie is getting credit for the science done instead of Thorne's lab and colleagues really sticks in my craw.
I'll just remind everyone of this :
ReplyDeletehttps://plus.google.com/+RhysTaylorRhysy/posts/D6jaGRCn4Cb
My colleagues in the relativity group remain dumbfounded as to how Kip Thorne could have been surprised at the render of the accretion disc, given that this result has been known for many years.
No one should be dumbfounded. Thorne's group really only reported the results of their closed source model, and, of course his model is based on the same physics as everybody else's. It should look the same on large scales. I'm sure there were just some small details that were "interesting", and when the Hollywood marketing machine has invested in your work, "interesting" very quickly becomes something completely overblown.
ReplyDeleteBecause that's what Hollywood does. It overhypes things beyond the point of recognition.