Rufus Magillicutty

If we are talking about a new Batman film with the Batfleck in his older Dark Knight/Miller version then it has to be the old Joker played buy Mark Hamill. That would be freaking insane! Image Hamill all done up in Joker makeup with his definitive Joker voice cackling out from behind it. That would make fan boys heads explode. If they do make an older version Joker in the new Batman movies it HAS TO BE HAMILL. Other than an old Joker I would love to see Clayface or maybe The Ventriliquist/Scarface. We've seen versions of almost everyone else whether they be good or bad so some new characters would be great. I like Killer Croc too but I can't see him supporting a whole movie. Plus it might be too much like the Lizard in ASM.

As funny as that is I would still lean more toward jb007's opinion. I would NEVER EVER use a Michael Bay movie to back up my point though. Unless I was talking about total crapfests. Nolan is a far superior director to Michael Bay. Superior to most I dare say. That doesn't preclude that fact that Nolan's work has major flaws in most of his story premises. The fact that at least while I'm watching I don't seem to mind those huge leaps in logic says to me Nolan is good if not great director. A lessor director could not take such an bass akwards story premise and make it so enjoyable and visually stunning. It's only after I've seen the movie and start to analyze it that I start get so bothered by the plot holes. When I look at Nolan's films it seems he only wants to give overall concepts and not really explore the details or really look under the hood. He just throws out big ideas and then clearly says in interviews that he leaves it to the audience to interpret. That's all well and good but I think it's a cop out. That's fine for an ending like "Inception". Leave the ending open to the audience. But you can't do that with the basic concepts of the plot.

This is a good point I didn't think of. If Murph had to go into cryo-sleep for 2 years to get to Cooper, what was Cooper doing for those 2 years. It didn't seem like he was portrayed as chillin at the farm that whole time. It would stand to reason that he was found near the wormhole around Saturn and then sent to the "Cooper" station that was some distance away. At least a 2 year journey. What kind of distance they can travel in 2 years is the question mark. Can they only travel fro saturn to earth in 2 years or from saturn to another galaxy?

I don't know what Sanmptimonisus means.... And since I don't know what it means, I'm gonna take it as an insult!

I just can't help it. I don't want to keep arguing this stuff but my compulsion is too strong. The problem I have with him being spit out at that very precise moment, just in time to be found by a shuttle is that it means the 5D beings are full of crap. Or the robot is lying about them for some unknown reason. The robot says the 5D beings can not find specific points in time. That's why they need Cooper right? Because LOOOOOVE will guide him to Murphy. They can not do it themselves. But then they go and spit Cooper out of the Tesseract/black hole and through the worm hole at the precise minute and only minute he could have been saved. How did they know when to do that if they can not pin point specific moments in time? They could have spit Cooper out at the very moment the first ship approaches the worm hole? They could have saved him and he would have told everyone about cool black hole stuff and saved everyone decades earlier. Why bother with Murphy at all? Heck they could have sent the Robot out packed full of Data. This isn't even a time travel paradox issue. It's just a giant frakkin plot hole. They should not have been able to send him to that exact point. It completely erases the point of bringing Cooper there. They should have spit him out in a cryo-capsule of some sort and had him adrift for decades. At least then it wouldn't undermine the 5D beings credibility.

I did that Star Trek Experience in Las Vegas way back when. It was pretty fun for being a hotel one trick pony ride. But It was basically a shuttle on a gimbal. What made it actually worth mentioning was the the way they handled the video. The screens were on the front, sides and roof. You could actually see the ships flying over head and then shuttle would react to the thruster wake. I was really impressed by the way they did it. But my point is a traveling exhibit that somehow included a ST "exhibit" would be pretty cool. With all the history and possibilities for interactive exhibits they could do it'll be a real shame if all they get is a retrospective documentary and a half assed exhibit. If they can put together a cool Marvel exhibit in such a short amount of time they should be able to do something for Trek. Should being the key word here.

No they don't. But we do.

You know guys we can debate time travel loop holes and paradoxes until we're are blue in the face and never get anywhere. Or maybe we'll get right back where we were before all this started and and be the very cause of our own discussion! WOAH. But to come back around to my point as it pertains to Interstellar: Movies like Terminator, Back to the Future, Looper, etc. can get away with more time paradox slight of hand because they were not set up as a creating story points and visuals based on real science. I don't think they are trying to be an accurate depiction of relativity, quantum mechanics, or temporal mechanics. They are just fun action/horrror/sci-fi/comedies that use time travel as a gimmick of sorts. Interstellar has allot of press and hype around how it used real science for the black hole and the depiction of time dilation and wormholes. The Exec Producer is a astrophysicist who wrote a book called "the SCIENCE of Interstellar". So if you are going to make a movie with that kind set up I think it should be held to a higher standard on time paradoxes then say "Back to the Future". I don't think you should make a science fiction movie touting it's accuracy and then use the same old time paradox cliche that a B rate movie can uses because.. well.. PHUK IT we can't think of anything better so make it a Paradox.

Hey Guys Tele - already cleared this up for us. Love must be a part of the foundation of reality. After all he was around at the beginning of time. He should know.

True that love is a powerful emotional drive that will lead people great and terrible things well past logic and reason. But I wonder is it really something measurable and and quantifiable in a scientific way? I ask that literally. I know nothing about any research in this field so it's a real question. However from what I understand of human emotion and how it is generated in our brains it is no more than a chemical and hormonal reaction to external stimuli based on eons of evolution shaping social dynamics. It's real to us because it has to be for our survival. Our evolution made it that way. It is our perception of biological processes that drive us to mate just like biological processes in our bodies drive us to eat for survival. Out side our own perception is love a real thing? Is it measurable? Is it observable? I don't know. I wouldn't think so. So to have love as some foundational force in the universe, a fifth dimension that crosses boundaries and time is "sweet" for those tender hearted folks that like a little romance thrown into their science fiction/science fact movies. But for me my head exploded that a scientist used love as and argument and I wanted to scream BULL$HIT!!!! But I still liked the movie. (HAHAHAHAHAHA)

No I feel the same way that even I am overthinking it. Like I said I hate to dissect it so much but my dissection is more about looking at the different arguments more so than it's meant to break apart the movie. When I was watching it I didn't get so caught up in all the time stuff. My only real complaint is that if a super advanced people whether it be us in the future or aliens or whatever couldn't find a better solution to talk to us than to send us to a black hole. And for what? Is the black hole system really mean to be place for us to colonize or just a way to get Cooper in the Teserract so they can send data through him to us? If it's the latter it seems like a really convoluted way to get data sent to us. If they are "omnipresent" they could just send the data to ALL times until we get it and figure it out.

No way? I didn't even catch that. The worm hole closed after Cooper got spit out? Man that makes the idea of Cooper passing on the knowledge that he's the one that send the data even more far fetched. How he's going to get to Brand or how will Brand know to tell there little colony babies to make sure that when they all grow and become 5D people they have to make a wormhole and save the human race.

That's my point exactly. They do have a lot to choose from. They being the 5D "people". My analogy isn't perfect but what I saying is if you're a technologically advance race with the ability to send or at least open the door to any place in universe to save another dying race, why send them to 3 crappy planets orbiting a black hole? A BLACK HOLE !?! Out of all the BILLIONS AND BILLIONS (said in Carl Sagan drawl) of stars in our galaxy alone are there really no better candidates for a habitable planet? These beings are so advanced that they can create a stable wormhole to another galaxy that's over a mile in diameter, for over fifty years. Surely they have the ability to find one planet for us to live on that's not orbiting a freakin massive black hole? Now my point is predicated solely on the notion that the 5D "people" simply found a dying race and are trying to save them. If I look at it as the 5D "people" (which are supposed to be us in the far future) are just following a string of events they have to create just so we can solve a math problem that allows us to save our selves is such a stretch and flawed premise that I can't accept it. I'll tell you why it's a stretch. A. You have to first accept that this is a chicken and egg story which I reject on principle alone. Even if a paradox is created by Cooper sending himself, there has to be a first time through reality where there is no cooper "in the bookshelf". There has to be a version where we figure out how to save our selves which eliminates the need to go back in time to save us again. B. If you accept the chicken and the egg premise you have to ask yourselves who are the 5D "people" trying to save? Which reality? Which version of the multiverse are they trying to create a new branch for? Because if you are going to hold that IS is using or trying to use real science, then you have to allow for the multiverse. So yes there can be a paradox where there in one version of "time" where we save our selves to become the 5D people and in another where it's cooper BUT no matter which it is opening a wormhole and creating events that change the past would only create one new branch of reality in the multiverse. It would not necessarily help you to become you in the future, only a version of you in the past that might not have otherwise done it. That's not even counting the endless possible histories you'd have to change. How many versions are there where we didn't figure it out. Do you change just one or all? (wow my head hurts after that one). C. Ok lets just throw that argument of chicken and the egg out the window. Let's say we just go with it. Then we have a story telling problem because in no way did Nolan set up that anybody but Murphy knows what Cooper did. The people in that future all believe that Murphy is their savior. As far as the movie shows to everyone in the future she the only one that solved the equation that allowed for then to build antigravity engines that could lift giant generation ships of the ground. Cooper isn't celebrated when he's found or touted as any major part of the actual saving of human kind. His welcome is more like "oh hey. It's cool you're back. Check out your farm museum." I've seen some say that HE knows and when future generations find him or least the new colony we presume he makes it to that he let's everyone know. But if you factor in all the time dilation stuff when he's found (again) there will have been hundreds of years worth of entrenched history and dogma surrounding MURPHY the savior of mankind. It's just too much of a stretch. D. Now I start to get nit picky. If the 5D people are us in the future how far in the future is it that they can construct wormholes and can perceive time and all this great stuff but can not figure out how to send a message back with some morse code data? A little binary data burst? Shit they could make the wormhole blink in and out to form a code on and endless loop. The robot says they can't find what part of time right? That they need love (gag) right? Then how did they know where and when to put the wormhole? How did they know exactly when to spit Cooper back out of the worm hole at the end so he'd be picked up? If the 5D people are so far advance from us they can not figure out how to communicate with us then why would they bother? Would we go back in time tens of millions of years ago to save a primitive monkey from falling out of a tree? How would we even know we need to do that when it's so far in the past? E. Now here's a change of direction. What if the 5D "people" are not us in the future. (please correct me if I missed this) I only recall Cooper saying the 5D people are us. What if he's wrong. If they are an alien race then maybe it makes more sense. It would help many of those chicken & egg problems. But I come back to why the black hole? Why not send us data on how to save our planet? Stop the Blyte? What would have been cool is if they had indicated Earth was drying up and the black hole planets were meant as resources and not to colonize. Take water and ice from them and bring them to Earth. If we made a mistake thinking they were for us to colonize that would have been a cool twist. I'd like that better then having to switch off my frontal cortex just to believe the premise. Alright that's all I'm gonna do because I'm getting tired of myself going on and on about it. What makes me mad is that I actually liked the film. I hate to pick it apart or dissect it to this degree because at the end of the day I thought it was very entertaining. You know it's easier for me to accept the chicken & egg stuff easier when it's something like "Back to the Future" or "Looper" because they are not framing it as science. Interstellar takes the position of this is closer to real science about black holes, relativity and time dilation so I hold to to a higher standard then a comedy or action film that just happens to have time travel. Im out of breath now so I'm done.

Let me bring this to more terrestrial level. Let's say you find a primitive culture in decline on a small island. The island can be anywhere on Earth, doesn't matter. But you want to save that culture from extinction. Now you, being a modern culture can transplant that primitive culture to any number of polynesian, Tahitian, Indonesian or Caribbean islands that would more than sustain them. They would be stable, nourishing and temperate not to mention easy to adapt to and grow food. Why would you then send them to a frozen, storm laden island (or islands) near and active volcano? Even if on of those islands was not quite as harsh as the others its still next to an active volcano. And that doesn't even take into account that you could possibly have the knowledge and technology to save them right there on their own island. Heck there's even another "Red" island right next to them that they could go to. It might be more work adapting to the "air" or lack there of but at least it's not right next to a freakin BLACK HOLE!!!.... excuse me, I mean a volcano. This is not a perfect analogy but I think the basic point is there. Strangely enough I actually did enjoy Interstellar. Nolan has a way of coming up with completely nonsensical premises and still making them enjoyable and easy to gloss over while you're watching the first time through. Except for some ham fisted dialogue and a WTF moment where a scientist actually uses LOVE as an argument I thought it was a very enjoyable movie. In a strange way I almost feel like each Nolan film gets better and better in terms of visuals, editing, suspense and overall story telling. However they are reversely getting worse and worse in the basic concepts and underlying premises of each movie. That's the gist of of it.