The bias is real. Nolan is loved even when he makes bad movies.
Interstellar is far more humiliating to mankind than JS is and yet Nolan is not hounded like the dog that he is.
I didn't enjoy Interstellar much at all but it was leagues ahead of this trash.
http://flickr.com/photos/55196522@N05/sets/72157625135851207/detail/
Interstellar logic: Multistage rocket needed to break escape velocity and reach Earth orbit. But single re-entry vehicle rocket motors are sufficient to break escape velocity around a water planet that is 130% of Earth's gravitational pull.
Also: Love transcends dimensions.
IMO:
Interstellar -> takes itself way too seriously.
Jupiter Ascending -> fun science fantasy movie.
Escape velocity is only relevant if a craft wants to escape without applying any additional thrust. When a craft is going to dock with another craft, it doesn't have to achieve escape velocity.
That is why the lunar lander was able to have such tiny rockets during its ascent stage - it only needed to reach the command module.
[deleted]
The Interstellar craft would have had to have enough thrust to achieve orbit, which would have been more than rockets launching satellites from earth.
The moon only has 5/6 the gravity of earth.
[deleted]
No, the point is that you don't understand what "escape velocity" means. It's only the velocity needed if no further thrust is applied. An object can escape the earth at 1mph if it is able to apply thrust for a long enough period.
In any event, this is not relevant to ships that are going to dock with another ship.
Maybe you could elaborate on what you think escape velocity means?
Multistage rocket needed to break escape velocity and reach Earth orbit. But single re-entry vehicle rocket motors are sufficient to break escape velocity around a water planet that is 130% of Earth's gravitational pull.
Don't need to break escape velocity to reach Earth orbit, if you're in orbit you haven't escaped!
shareOh boy, don't you know your science.
Multistage rocket's purpose is to conserve fuel, not to break escape velocity. Those spacecrafts are made to explore planets, of course they're capable of taking off and reaching orbit by themselves.
In interstellar, it's enough to make one assumption to explain this.
The fuel and engines of the ranger craft that lands and takes off into orbit again are extremely expensive and difficult to manufacture, making the initial launch from earth more cost-beneficial using a multi-stage rocket. This is why they don't have enough fuel to reach all the different worlds.
As fare as love transcending dimensions, there are two explanations to this that I am perfectly fine with. One is that humans are able to detect and sense gravitational anomalies in a way that isn't consciously obvious, and the brain connects this "sense" with the people that it is linked to. This might be a stretch, but consistent with the movie universe.
The other explanation is that the characters in the movie are wrong. It's a way for THEM to make sense of things, and it gives them hope, but it is never clearly shown in the movie that this hypothesis is actually correct.
Why working on the assumption that fallible people are always right just because they are the protagonists?
None of the writing in JA was a cringeworthy as Matt Damon's lines when he smashes Coop's helmet.
share[deleted]
This is a far worse and excessive movie than Interstellar. I didn't like Interstellar, but in comparison, JA is waste of everyone's time and the studio's money. Nolan needed a critical humbling to learn from his mistakes. The Wachowskis, however, learned nothing over their career and delivered bizarre outings and commercial disasters that their fans felt the need to defend to the death for some reason. The problem was, people felt the need to keep rewarding them with massive budgets to embarrass themselves again. Hell, even M. Night Shymalan didn't burn studio cash like these two jokers did.
------------
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Long live the Xbox One
The difference is:
Love of Nolan vs the hated of the Wachowski's
Soft scifi vs hard space opera scifi
Interstellar appeals to a younger audience, JA appeals to an older audience
This was an surprise to industry experts, 82% of JA weekend audience is over 25 years old
How does Interstellar appeal to a younger audience when it's an adult-skewed film with deep science as well as sci-fi, compared to a movie that features half dog people flying around the universe shooting laser guns?
As far as space opera goes, there's movies that have done it better without being completely hokey and confusing the audience while they were at it.
------------
No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Long live the Xbox One
How does Interstellar appeal to a younger audience when it's an adult-skewed film with deep science as well as sci-fi,
As far as space opera goes, there's movies that have done it better without being completely hokey and confusing the audience while they were at it.
Interstellar appeals to a younger audience
This was an surprise to industry experts, 82% of JA weekend audience is over 25 years old
Just to clarify, you are using the terms hard and soft incorrectly. Hard sci-fi is based on known scientific principles, soft sci-fi is conjecture and "what could be." Interstellar tries to be hard sci-fi because it is based on Einstein's theory of relativity. Jupiter Ascending is soft sci-fi because it uses technology that doesn't exist and we can't explain based on our current understanding of science.
Traditionally, hard sci-fi books and stories were written by actual scientists like Asimov and Clarke.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction
Eer ... i wouldn't call Nolan a dog. Not at all.
But for the rest, I agree with you.
Critics and moviegoers had decided beforehand that Interstellar would be a meaterpiece, and that Jupiter had to fail. Not fair.
I was mightily disppointed with Interstellar.
The two movies have in common beautiful visuals and somewhat cringe-worthy dialogues. The difference is that JA is a feel good space opera that doesn't take itself seriously, whereas Interstallar was this self-serious pseudo-philosophical tripe expecting us to swallow that love will save the universe and that it's ok to set fire to your brother's corn field, because... because.. just because! Besides, the brother looks grouchy, so he had it comming!
And don't get me started on two brilliant astronauts (Damon and McCaughnohey) meeting : they fight Rolling on the ground, and one leaves the other for dead without checking, like in a James Bond parody.
Ok, I'm not here to put another movie down. It's just that the latest Nolan movie had ludicrous moments and yet, it was not as harshly judged as JA, which also had flaws.
Yes, doouble standard, indeed.
Critics and moviegoers had decided beforehand that Interstellar would be a meaterpiece, and that Jupiter had to fail. Not fair.
I was mightily disppointed with Interstellar.
The two movies have in common beautiful visuals and somewhat cringe-worthy dialogues. The difference is that JA is a feel good space opera that doesn't take itself seriously, whereas Interstallar was this self-serious pseudo-philosophical tripe expecting us to swallow that love will save the universe and that it's ok to set fire to your brother's corn field, because... because.. just because! Besides, the brother looks grouchy, so he had it comming!
And don't get me started on two brilliant astronauts (Damon and McCaughnohey) meeting : they fight Rolling on the ground, and one leaves the other for dead without checking, like in a James Bond parody.
Ok, I'm not here to put another movie down. It's just that the latest Nolan movie had ludicrous moments and yet, it was not as harshly judged as JA, which also had flaws.
Yes, doouble standard, indeed.
[deleted]
Yes it is ... but trolls can't stop to repeat same thing over and over again. You don't like movie, OK, but don't rate it 1/10.
I don't like a movie, I don't rate it .. very simple.
Troll/hater you've been ignored!
I like Interstellar, but I hate Nolan. You watch a movie for fun, not for director...
Troll/hater you've been ignored!
i'm not crazy about nolan, but whatever one thinks of them (i think they're overrated), his batman movies have generated a lot of goodwill amongst critics. most of the wachowskis' goodwill was used up on matrix 2 & 3.
shareThe 2008 script draft of Interstellar is a fantastic science-fiction story.
The actual movie slightly improves the first act but the rest is a lot worse.
Originally it went from Spielberg schmaltz in the first act to a James Cameron adventure in the second to a Kubrickian third act that's best described as a mix of AI and 2001. Nolan stripped away most excitement and originality.
The visual spectacle described in that draft is almost completely missing from the finished product. Compare the first page alone to the movie's opening: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Interstellar.html