Care to share your criticism of the movie? I really enjoyed it compared to the usual superhero sequel
SPOILERS:
1. Thousand foot high waves don't move across 2ft deep water without breaking. Also, lame camera tricks prevent the astronauts from simply scanning 360d and realizing there's a huge wave bearing down on them. Also, there was no reason whatsoever for Doyle to die on the water planet.
2. Too emo. Too much bawling and crying, too much emotional decision making, the actors weren't convincing as trained scientists or disciplined test pilots. The audience actually burst out laughing when Mann and Cooper got into the fight on the ice planet, and when Cooper just let Mann bash his helmet in a couple times instead of pulling away like normal person would. See 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Right Stuff for how such people should be portrayed. Artistic integrity sacrificed for artful, faux emotional appeal, SOP for Hollywood these days.
3. When Mann crashed the shuttle into the mothership, then Cooper and Brand saved the mothership, one second it was over a planet, and not the first planet they visited that was really close to the black hole but the next one out. The next instant they were in danger of falling into the black hole. Months or years worth of distance traversed in seconds.
4. Cooper saved Brand by dropping both TARS and himself into the black hole, giving Brand on the mothership enough velocity/lack of mass/whatever to escape the black hole. The time dilation effects of him dropping into the black hole should have meant he and Brand diverged greatly in age, yet the end of the movie showed him taking off to go find her, same age.
5. The premise of the movie is that future, advanced, five-dimensional humanity was using its power over gravity, time, and higher dimensions to help humanity of the past survive the dying and 'Marsification' of the earth. But the paradox was never resolved - if humanity of the past couldn't survive on its own, how did it ever become humanity of the future? I suppose they did that on purpose to let the audience have fun debating it afterwards.
There were a few others I can't remember atm, but you get the gist. Some of these, like #3, I suppose have to be done to cram the whole story into a 2hr45m movie (another cool thing about it - nice and long), but others were just annoyingly pointless.
But again, overall it was good, worth watching, and having Kip Thorne co-produce helped a lot. Just don't expect perfection, even with his name in the credits.
4. I thought this one was explained by the baseball scene at the end as the ball falls upwards when it crosses some sort of mid point.
5. You are thinking of time linearly moving forward, cause and effect. I think the library scene and their explanations of the 5th dimension aimed to explain that time is another dimension that can be altered. "Whatever can happen will happen".
with the baseball the ball left the gravitation of the field's surface and entered the gravity on the other side of the column station's interior surface that held the house
from the perspective of the film makers it seemed like a shout out to the colony art nasa published a while back(i), similar to the shout out to event horizon: 'your explanation opened my mind, bending space time like a piece of paper and passing through it like a pencil.. i'll take it to the next level, what is a hole in three dimensions? open the paper and look at the hole as a circle forming a sphere' fun stuff
if we want to examine the practicality of a cylindrical colony i think we could come up with something.. maybe as a safety measure from space debris? maybe as an engineering consideration: it was easier to build an accommodatingly sized colony like this? easier to maintain a controlled climate? maybe as a lighting'photosynthesis consideration? perhaps it's a 'so preoccupied with whether they could' punchline? perhaps the other side of the column is also utilised space: imagine almost doubling the surface area of the planet by colonising both the surface and the interior of the planet with an inverted zenith; and the film only showed us inside the column, again, as a wink at the audience
i like the idea of gravity perhaps being an effect of inertia due to centrifugal forces, caused by the spinning and orbiting and expanding and mass of objects in space, stead it being it's own agnostic 'force'
in which case setting centrifugal force and gravity as separates would be incorrect, and the ""s wholly necessary
that's where my problem is. I think its a kind of poorly written story. hollow characters, implausible social explanations, and a bit too much deus ex machina. I understand that the deus ex machina elements of the story are at least partially explained by the conclusion, but they are also largely unexplained and creates a premise that we are forced to accept on faith. that harms my suspension of disbelief.
impactical for pith due recursion,
any endorsement requires a full dialogue of caveats only able to discuss after you have seen it