Nolan has lost the plot and has become one of those directors who loves the smell of his own farts. Can't hear my shitty audio? That's your fault! You didn't understand my ridiculous plot? That's your fault! Etc.
Hot take, but the one where Matthew McConaughey gets stuck in a bookshelf was ass too. It started out good, but then got way too up it's own ass with interdimensional nonsense.
I'll give them that I didn't see it coming.
The plot was far too convenient. No spaghetti faction no title forces he could just navigate the tesseract like it was walking across the room.
Gargantua is a super massive black hole.
Spaghettification is caused by the gravitational force experienced at your head being different than the gravitational force experienced at your feet. A black hole formed by a dying star is in the neighborhood of 30km in radius. With a small black hole like that the differences in gravity experience between your head and toes is what leads to the spaghettification.
That's not the case with a supermassive black hole like the one at the center of our galaxy which is the kind Gargantua was supposed to be. Those can be as large as the sun (700,000km), and that's on the small end. Some can even be the size of our entire solar system. Because of their enormous size, the gravitation difference you'd experience between your head and toes is negligible.
And as far as navigating inside the black hole goes, that's actually what Roy Kerr says - the guy that solved the Einstein field equation for a rotating black hole. He says that in the case of a rotating black hole, the singularity at the center is not a single point but a ring. And because of that, spacetime is warped in a way that that would make it navigable. You wouldn't be able to leave (move back up past the event horizon), but you would be able to stay inside and have some effect on your location through your own force. At least that what he says. I'll take his word for it since he's spent a few decades studying it.
As for the bookshelf.... yeah, sorry. Science doesn't say shit about bookshelves inside a black hole. But, you know, it's a movie. It's probably a metaphor or some shit. But Christopher Nolan did a surprisingly good job of being accurate with the theoretical science of a black hole. Feel free to continue to hate the movie for saying love is a fundamental force though.
Why is it such a sin to cater to a different audience to you? If you don't enjoy his movies then don't watch them. He's one of a handful of screenwriters who does complex stuff, there's an absolute deluge of lighter stuff for the rest of you.
What would you say to a person who continues to eat fish, even though they hate it and spit it out each time? "Stop eating fish, that's your fault."
To offer a different perspective, I feel like that argument works more for something you knew you didn't like from the beginning, but less so for something you used to like. I don't listen to bands I don't like but when an artist I do like puts out a string of albums I think suck, it's hard not to give each one a shot thinking "maybe this one will be better."
I tend to disagree with your opinion here. There is a level of objectivity within the realm of taste. I will continue to warn people not to eat pea gravel even if it has a great mouthfeel, for instance.
The plot is less complex than it appears at face value, because at face value most people are lacking the dialogue that despite Nolan’s protestations has a lot of valuable information within it. Is it great art because he makes you suffer for it? Is The Prestige worse because it’s enjoyable to rewatch?
I don't consider The Prestige to be one of his better works. I like to be left thinking. The Prestige has closure and explanations built in. It's like the age-old books vs. movies argument: people nearly always say the books are better because books offer the reader agency. It's not merely because they enjoy looking down their noses at us movie goer mortals - they enjoyed the books more because their preferred interpretation of the words were layered above the literal text.
I didn't suffer through Tenet, I was completely immersed - which almost never happens for me. I needed absolutely none of the muffled dialogue to figure out what was going on - and I didn't watch it in a cinema.
And if you hated it and suffered through it, that's fine too. I don't get why you have a problem with other people enjoying it.
Christopher Nolan movies are good, they just drag on.
Nolan has lost the plot and has become one of those directors who loves the smell of his own farts. Can't hear my shitty audio? That's your fault! You didn't understand my ridiculous plot? That's your fault! Etc.
Hot take, but the one where Matthew McConaughey gets stuck in a bookshelf was ass too. It started out good, but then got way too up it's own ass with interdimensional nonsense.
I'll give them that I didn't see it coming.
The plot was far too convenient. No spaghetti faction no title forces he could just navigate the tesseract like it was walking across the room.
Gargantua is a super massive black hole.
Spaghettification is caused by the gravitational force experienced at your head being different than the gravitational force experienced at your feet. A black hole formed by a dying star is in the neighborhood of 30km in radius. With a small black hole like that the differences in gravity experience between your head and toes is what leads to the spaghettification.
That's not the case with a supermassive black hole like the one at the center of our galaxy which is the kind Gargantua was supposed to be. Those can be as large as the sun (700,000km), and that's on the small end. Some can even be the size of our entire solar system. Because of their enormous size, the gravitation difference you'd experience between your head and toes is negligible.
And as far as navigating inside the black hole goes, that's actually what Roy Kerr says - the guy that solved the Einstein field equation for a rotating black hole. He says that in the case of a rotating black hole, the singularity at the center is not a single point but a ring. And because of that, spacetime is warped in a way that that would make it navigable. You wouldn't be able to leave (move back up past the event horizon), but you would be able to stay inside and have some effect on your location through your own force. At least that what he says. I'll take his word for it since he's spent a few decades studying it.
As for the bookshelf.... yeah, sorry. Science doesn't say shit about bookshelves inside a black hole. But, you know, it's a movie. It's probably a metaphor or some shit. But Christopher Nolan did a surprisingly good job of being accurate with the theoretical science of a black hole. Feel free to continue to hate the movie for saying love is a fundamental force though.
Sources: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermassive_black_hole
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRir6-9tsJs&t=10m22s
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=HRir6-9tsJs&t=10m22s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
It is Kwantafyeable
MURPH
And here I thought that Interstellar made the most sense out of many of his movies.
Why is it such a sin to cater to a different audience to you? If you don't enjoy his movies then don't watch them. He's one of a handful of screenwriters who does complex stuff, there's an absolute deluge of lighter stuff for the rest of you.
What would you say to a person who continues to eat fish, even though they hate it and spit it out each time? "Stop eating fish, that's your fault."
To offer a different perspective, I feel like that argument works more for something you knew you didn't like from the beginning, but less so for something you used to like. I don't listen to bands I don't like but when an artist I do like puts out a string of albums I think suck, it's hard not to give each one a shot thinking "maybe this one will be better."
I tend to disagree with your opinion here. There is a level of objectivity within the realm of taste. I will continue to warn people not to eat pea gravel even if it has a great mouthfeel, for instance.
The plot is less complex than it appears at face value, because at face value most people are lacking the dialogue that despite Nolan’s protestations has a lot of valuable information within it. Is it great art because he makes you suffer for it? Is The Prestige worse because it’s enjoyable to rewatch?
I don't consider The Prestige to be one of his better works. I like to be left thinking. The Prestige has closure and explanations built in. It's like the age-old books vs. movies argument: people nearly always say the books are better because books offer the reader agency. It's not merely because they enjoy looking down their noses at us movie goer mortals - they enjoyed the books more because their preferred interpretation of the words were layered above the literal text.
I didn't suffer through Tenet, I was completely immersed - which almost never happens for me. I needed absolutely none of the muffled dialogue to figure out what was going on - and I didn't watch it in a cinema.
And if you hated it and suffered through it, that's fine too. I don't get why you have a problem with other people enjoying it.
Christopher Nolan movies are good, they just drag on.
Oppenheimer was exactly 3 hours and 18 seconds.