It cannot be said that it has become a mainstream of this "Interstellar" at this stage. As long as the audience has any objection, some fans of the movie will jump out and say, "You first explain why there are waves on Miller's planet." It seems that saying it is not good is equal to not understanding the movie Same.
"Interstellar" is worth making every sci-fi fan crazy because of its theoretically rigorous scientific coat, but it is definitely not enough to become a "magic work". Moreover, this rigor is only relative, just as some people now mention that the development of aviation technology and agricultural technology in "Interstellar" is completely disproportionate. Even if there is really a blight, it can be avoided through isolation and other methods, so why do humans Can only hold corn and wait to die? If this is just a dramatic extreme scenario, how is it different from all science fiction?
Of course, all of this can be attributed to the fact that we simply can't understand the brain hole of God Nolan, and we can't explore the endless charm of science.
In "Interstellar," Cooper actually had a son and a daughter, and for a long time in the universe, only his son shared his upbringing with him. His son, without a doubt, is most of these people who are alive, going through the life and death of a lover, getting married and having children, and trying to guard the family in the inherent place. But his son was useless for most of "Interstellar", and he didn't even ask a question when Cooper woke up in the space station again at the end. Of course, Hollywood commercial films must show some commonalities of human beings, such as courage, love, hope and so on. Cooper and his daughter are the best spokespersons for this faction. They have love and great love, and they are the saviors chosen by "them"; while his son is just an ordinary person under the aura, and finally he faded out...
So is the "consummation" presented in the context of this ending really a kind of "consummation"? Are the emotional clues laid out by Nolan, because the singularity must be locked on the parents in the end, and other things must be omitted? In terms of the structure of the film, "Interstellar" is far more serious than other sci-fi films of the same kind. Is it possible to ignore the rest, including the layout of the plot and narrative, and the lack of control of the film's rhythm?
Of course, in many of the comments I have seen on "Interstellar", everyone's point is that Nolan Science is not "rigorous" enough to complain. I think this is unnecessary. He has already done it. Relatively rigorous, secondly, the plot of the movie does need some "artistic processing". The biggest problem is that this kind of rigor is not a panacea, it is used to cover up some loopholes in "Interstellar".
And if fans really love a director, shouldn't they look at his work more realistically?
View more about Interstellar reviews
