Talk:Interstellar (film)/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Plot Summary Incorrect

The plot summary states that the dust on the floor is "in a pattern that resembles morse code". This is incorrect. Cooper himself tells Murph that the dust pattern is binary, not morse. Morse was used in the bookshelves to write out 'STAY'. Binary was used to communicate the coordinates of NASA. --Wormpy (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've made the following adjustment to the plot section to remedy that. Thanks, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 November 2014, The ending and the Wormhole.

Can someone please change the ending to say the Wormhole is closed. Because according to Script writer Jonathan Nolan it is closed after cooper came out. http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/11/08/jonathan-nolan-interstellar-spoilers the paragraph he talks about it is right under the video "Jessica Chastain - How spoilers can ruin a movie" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bievahh (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, but the paragraph you reference says that it was an idea from an earlier draft of the script. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, I'm surprised I didn't see that. Personally I like the idea better than what they put into the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bievahh (talk • contribs) 18:35, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Murph originally male in 2008 script

Has anyone found a source saying why/when Nolan decided to re-cast Murph as a girl? I found that relationship to be the highlight of the movie in many ways, and a lot of the themes and plot revolved around it. I expect that it might have been less poignant if Murph remained a boy, and Cooper's favoritism would make less sense unless they spent more time developing the children's characters... --Sennsationalist (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

This article implies it was because Nolan has a daughter: http://www.slashfilm.com/interstellar-script-differences/ I haven't heard him officially talk about it though. 68.105.53.244 (talk) 03:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Christopher Nolan's salary is disputed

The article currently states "The Hollywood Reporter said Nolan will earn a salary of $20 million against 20% of what Interstellar grosses." (source, Feb. 2014). However, The Wall Street Journal write "Mr. Nolan is being paid the greater of more than $10 million or more than 10% of revenue, minus certain deductions, according to a person with knowledge of the deal." (source, Oct. 2014) -- Katana (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Last part of Plot summary

"Cooper realizes that the extra-dimensional presence sensed by Amelia while traversing through the wormhole at the first time was his own hand, as a signal to him that he needs to locate and help her as she is the only surviving member from Endurance crew other than himself and the temporal loop will be completed when he brings her back."

Is there really any indication that the "hand-shake" was supposed to be a reminder, or that there a temporal loop left "uncompleted" that would be "resolved" by bringing her back? This is interpretation and I can't find a similar approach anywhere else. 84.132.102.116 (talk) 13:29, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

No, and it's not an important plot point.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Popcornduff (talk) 14:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Millers Time Difference

On the article, it currently states the time difference of Millers Planet is 1 hour = 7 years, when in the film when I saw it at the cinema, it states it was 45 minutes = 7 years. I would change it but first want to here other peoples opinion. --Warner REBORN (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've just watched the film and it was clearly stated that 1 hour is 7 years. Unless you've viewed some alternative version, however I can't believe the would change it for any reason. BeŻet (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed; they say in the movie that it's 7 years for every hour. --DavidK93 (talk) 05:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Lede

I'm not going to waste a lot of time arguing back and forth about this, but the article's current lede, which I tried to revise, is silly. The edit summary left by the editor who reverted me was: "Revert violation of WP:LEAD; Featured Articles show multiple paragraphs like this."

WP:LEAD says:

The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects. The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

The information in the second and third paragraphs of the current lede do not serve any of the purposes outlined in that last sentence. The second paragraph spends 49 words talking about the production companies involved; it talks about the directorial debut of someone who isn't even involved with this movie; it lists the filming locations, which don't tell you anything of note about the film itself. The third paragraph is even worse, going on (and on and on) about specific release dates in various countries and the difference between the limited and wide releases.

As for the second part of the reverting editor's edit summary, I looked at three randomly chosen examples of Featured Articles about films. The lede of Jaws (film) mentions the film's troubled production process, the key decisions that Spielberg made that set it apart from other thrillers, the film's unusually large promotional push at release, and the film's significant legacy. Ruma Maida's second lede paragraph provides a coherent and concise summary of the film's development, production, and release, while its third paragraph discusses the film's themes and the public response to the film. Casino Royale (2006 film)'s lede is largely about the film's context within the James Bond franchise, with the third paragraph discussing the public's response. None of these link to the directorial debut of a cinematographer who wasn't involved with the film being discussed. None of these mentions more than a single premiere date, let alone describes the number of theaters showing each format in excruciating detail. Here's a rule of thumb: imagine that a panel of film experts is discussing this film in 10 years. The lede should contain only the information that it's reasonable might be brought up in that discussion.

The current lede reads like someone pulled random information out of the article because they wanted the article to look like an FA and FA ledes tend to have three paragraphs. It's incoherent and jumbled. As I said, I'm not going to go back and forth on it, I won't try to fix the lede again, and I probably won't read any replies to this post. I just thought I would make an effort to let the people who undoubtedly care deeply about the article know that the most important part of it is bad and should be fixed. Theoldsparkle (talk) 19:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed on every count. Popcornduff (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Your examples have more detailed lead sections than your writeup. The section is supposed to summarize the most important points, which means to combine the key details from the different sections. For example, the second paragraph is production-focused and identifies the key details like who produced the film and where it was filmed. There is additional detail behind each particular point, which readers would have to read the article body to see. The third paragraph is reception-focused. It should cover how the film was released and how it has done in the box office and with critics. I don't think that the current lead section is updated enough, but your writeup unnecessarily simplifies what is in the article in contravention of best practices. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I took a stab at it before seeing this discussion on talk. A lot of the material in the lead really isn't necessary. Since there was some interesting production history, the basics need to be covered, but I don't know we need every person and company involved with the production listed. And I agree that the third paragraph was pretty bad; we need the first release date and info on how it was received, and probably also the information that it was one of the few recent movies released on film.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:43, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy

Some added the following: "However, there were some aspects of the ending whereby the laws of physics were ignored. For instance, due to the strong gravitational pull of Gargantua, Cooper would have been traveling at the speed of light around the accretion disc of the black hole. According to the theory of relative velocity time dilation, time would have passed slower from Cooper's view and hundreds of years would have passed before Cooper finally enters the singularity, thus not having enough time to save humanity. In addition, matter being pulled in at such speed causes enormous friction, generating incalculable heat as well as light (that can be 100 times brighter than the Milky Way in the case of a quasar). Cooper would have been vapourized by the heat instantly before reaching the center of the black hole."

Cooper never reached the center of the black hole, he entered the tesseract shortly after passing the event horizon. How long it would have taken is irrelevant considering he is able to send information anywhere in time, including Murphy as a child. Regarding the point in time when he returns to the solar system, Kip Thorne writes about it in "The Science of Interstellar" and articles, stating that "In relativity, there is no such thing as the same time. When two places in the universe are separated by a great distance, relativity says you need to give up on your ideas of simultaneity—that something is happening at the same time as over there. If you have a wormhole connecting these two places, there is no way to answer the question, do you come out at that same time? It depends on how you’re slicing the universe. What Kip Thorne helped invent is the idea that if you could manipulate wormholes in a sufficiently dramatic fashion, you could actually travel backward in time." The black hole is ten billion light years away, which is an enormous distance. Silbad (talk) 11:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References to use

• Matthew McConaughey, John Lithgow on Okotoks set of Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar at Calgary Herald
• How Imax can help Interstellar at Screen International
• New 'Interstellar' Book Will Go Behind the Scenes of Sci-Fi Film at Space.com
• Hollywood star Matthew McConaughey in Fort Macleod to film scene from ‘Interstellar’ at Macleod Gazette
• Google Promotes Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' With Interactive Digital Hub at Hollywood Reporter
• ‘Interstellar’ Oculus Rift Experience Coming To Select Theaters at Slashfilm.com
• Everything We Know So Far About Interstellar at Vulture
• Christopher Nolan's ‘Interstellar’ at Center of Unique Google Deal at The Wrap
• 'Interstellar' May be a 'Cli-fi' Classic (Guest Blog) at TheWrap
• This week's cover: Your exclusive all-access pass to Christopher Nolan's 'Interstellar' at Entertainment Weekly
• Inside 'Interstellar,' Christopher Nolan's emotional space odyssey at Entertainment Weekly
• Interstellar: what we know so far at The Telegraph
• 15 New Details About Interstellar at Vulture
• 'Interstellar's' Christopher Nolan, Stars Gather to Reveal Secrets of the Year's Most Mysterious Film at The Hollywood Reporter
• How Building a Black Hole for Interstellar Led to an Amazing Scientific Discovery at Wired
• Flight Club at The New York Times
• Christopher Nolan Pens 'Interstellar' Comic to Fill in Movie's Backstory at The Hollywood Reporter. Sammyjankis88 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

References to use. Please add, and strike out when it is used in the article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

• [1] at "imsdb" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.60.219.47 (talk) 17:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2014

Correction to ending.

Year's later, Cooper awakes aboard Cooper Station an O'Neill cylinder in orbit of Saturn and reunites with the now elderly Murphy, who has led humanity's exodus. On her deathbed, Murphy convinces Cooper to search for Amelia, who has begun work on "Plan B" alone on Edmunds' planet.

Newhere123 (talk) 00:51, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This change is disputed above at #O'Neill cylinder.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:06, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

O'Neill cylinder

Editors keep adding in lines about space stations in the movie being "O'Neill cylinder"s. This jargon doesn't appear in the film or, evidently, in any substantial number of reliable sources about it. The term isn't well known enough that the connection is obvious, or that it benefits the reader more than simply "space station". It needs to be left out of the plot section, though perhaps a line can be included in a section on design or themes if it can be reliably sourced.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The reference to an O'Neill cylinder doesn't make the article more difficult to read. It clearly is an O'Neill cylinder, so adding the word is actually clarifying for those not familiar with it. Hyperlinking where it can be justified is one of the purposes of Wikipedia, so is informing the readers. One could use the same argument about the tesseract as with the O'Neill cylinder, since it is never really explained in the movie. 84.210.10.52 (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

"O'Neill cylinder" is not used in the film, and it's not a well known term that clarifies anything for the reader. If anything, it adds unnecessary confusion as readers try to figure out what an "O'Neill cylinder" is when "space station" gets all the necessary information across. Again, add "O'Neill Cylinder" to the design or themes section if there are sources for the connection, but it's not helpful in the plot summary.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It does explain why you can have a normal gravity with houses hanging from the roof. All it takes is one little click and a glimpse of the illustration is all you need to get the idea. 84.210.10.52 (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't important to the plot that houses are hanging from the roof. We don't mention that, and we don't need to mention what kind of space station the space station is either. Not in the plot summary. Popcornduff (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

"Space station is vague and not accurate terminology (reference below) being used to describe what is indeed an O'Neill cylinder adding it back in with a hyper link to the page will not being confusing. If anything it will allow someone to learn something. Also it is referenced in the novelization as well as here. http://interstellarfilm.wikia.com/wiki/Cooper_Station

A space station, also known as an orbital station or an orbital space station, is a spacecraft capable of supporting a crew, which is designed to remain in space (most commonly in low Earth orbit) for an extended period of time and for other spacecraft to dock. A space station is distinguished from other spacecraft used for human spaceflight by lack of major propulsion or landing systems.

The O'Neill cylinder (also called an O'Neill colony) is a space settlement design proposed by American physicist Gerard K. O'Neill in his 1976 book The High Frontier: Human Colonies in Space.[1] O'Neill proposed the colonization of space for the 21st century, using materials extracted from the Moon and later from asteroids.[2]

An O'Neill cylinder would consist of two counter-rotating cylinders. The cylinders would rotate in opposite directions in order to cancel out any gyroscopic effects that would otherwise make it difficult to keep them aimed toward the Sun. Each would be 5 miles (8.0 km) in diameter and 20 miles (32 km) long, connected at each end by a rod via a bearing system. They would rotate so as to provide artificial gravity via centrifugal force on their inner surfaces.[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhere123 (talk • contribs)

Newhere123, please sign your comments with four tildas (~~~~) so we can keep track of who's saying what. As we said before, "O'Neill cylinder" isn't really helpful here, the term is science fiction jargon that's likely to be confusing to many readers. It doesn't appear in the film or in many reliable sources on the film, and it's not significant to the plot. In other words, it doesn't matter to the plot that the space station is cylindrical, let alone that it's (ostensibly) the particular kind of cylindrical space station called an "O'Neill cylinder" in some works. Again, this could be an interesting fact for a section on design ("according to [reliable source], the film's space stations are based on the O'Neill cylinder, a design proposed by Gerard K. O'Neill in 1976..."), but it doesn't belong here.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Two statements in plot that don't make sense

I have issues with these two statements that don't make sense and made some changes. Someone kept undoing my changes in the name of keeping the summary brief.

   On his deathbed, Brand admits that he already solved the problem and determined the project is impossible 
   without additional data from a black hole's singularity.

If Brand thinks he is missing some data, why did he say the problem is solved and come to the conclusion that the project is impossible? he should leave the conclusion open. The truth is, Brand thinks his solution is complete and not missing any data. It is actually Murphy who realized he is only half correct.

   Using gravitational waves, he transmits TARS's data on the singularity to the adult Murphy through Morse code, 
   allowing her to complete Brand's equation and evacuate Earth.

Nowhere before this does the text mention Brand's equation is incomplete and Murphy is seeking to complete it.

My suggested edit: Brand admits that he already solved the problem and determined the project is impossible. He kept this knowledge secret knowing Earth's population would abandon the project if they had no hope for survival, and instead put his faith in Plan B. Later Murphy realizes his solution is incomplete without additional data from a black hole's singularity. --Kakarukeys (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It's been a week since I saw it, but I thought it was Brand who says his solution is missing the data from a singularity and that the plan is hopeless without it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I remember Brand apologized tearfully to Murphy on his deathbed saying the project is impossible without elaborating further. Then in a later scene, Murphy talked to a co-worker saying that she checked Brand's work and Brand may be just half correct because his theory is incomplete without the data from singularity. Kakarukeys (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone else verify which is correct? If Kakarukeys is right there should be no problem changing the text.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Kakarukeys' version is a better match to my recollection of the plot. --DavidK93 (talk) 19:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Then be bold and change the summary. Frmorrison (talk) 15:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I changed it per the above discussion. Editors with new accounts may be unable to edit due to semi-protection.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Correction to Scientific Accuracy

As the article is semi-protected, I cannot edit this.

"Cooper, in the movie, says that the "nearest star is more than a thousand light years away". In fact, the closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 lightyears of distance, which is part of the Alpha Centauri system (see List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs)."

This is incorrect, Cooper does NOT say that the nearest star is more than "a thousand light years away," he says "more than a thousand years away." As in, with current technology it would take them 1000 years to reach Proxima Centauri, not that light takes that long. Could someone with access remove this bit? It's bugging the heck out of me.

Matrim42 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

The article seems to have a link directed to watch the movie online, possibly pirated. It can be found after the first 3 paragraphs of the article: "The Movie can be watched at <inappropriate link removed>"

Kindly look in to it.

Thanks. 123.200.11.202 (talk) 09:52, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done removed at 09.55 by another - Arjayay (talk) 10:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2014

Remove the blatant advertisement in the first section of the article 2602:30A:2E6E:6D30:6977:7D6C:471A:BC9E (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

 Not done I'm not clear about which test you are objecting too - I don't see anything "blatant" at present, so suspect it may already have been removed, as the article has had 15 edits in the last 24 hours. If you still think there is "blatant advertising" please identify the text you are objecting to. - Arjayay (talk) 10:34, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Another Galaxy?

Isaac Asimov pointed out years ago that one sign of a poorly-researched scifi story is that the writer says "galaxy" when he/she means "solar system", which means something quite different. "Star Trek" used the terms properly; many other movies and TV series mess them up. So when the summary says "another galaxy", is that the summarizer's mistake or the movie's? 50.180.19.238 (talk) 21:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The Independent says "another galaxy" though I have not seen any prior detail stating this. The trip is definitely beyond the solar system, but it's possible that it could be elsewhere in the Milky Way or another galaxy entirely. The term interstellar space can mean the space between galaxies, but interstellar travel is about traveling between stars, regardless of galaxies. We'll have to keep an eye out for sources that support or contradict the "another galaxy" claim. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

How do you know it's a mistake if you haven't seen the finished film? Maybe the story is about intergalactic travel. If so, then the title would at worst only be misleading; and even then only if one happens to subscribe to a too-narrow convention as to the meaning of the word "interstellar". If the characters travel from one stellar locale to another stellar locale, and they happen to be in two different galaxies, I think that'd still constitute interstellar travel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.32 (talk) 23:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

In the film they say that the wormhole leads to another galaxy, so the mistake is in the film's title. It should be called Intergalactic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WIkiderpian (talk • contribs) 08:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Intergalactic travel is also interstellar travel. The title isn't wrong or false, it's just not the best description. Iwancoppa (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I notice that at one point Cooper uses "solar system" and "galaxy" in the same sentence, so it's obvious the writers know that they are two different things, and talking about galaxies isn't a blooper. 50.180.19.238 (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Article Correction

The space station on which Cooper awoke after being rescued is not on Saturn, but in orbit around the planet. The station depicted in the movie is in fact an O'Neill colony (see ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.61.87.221 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit suggestion 2 Dec 2014

• Remove the comment that Mann was the "lone survivor" - he was the only person sent to that planet (as mentioned earlier in the article).

The inhospitality of the planet could be illustrated better by referring to the fact that he had to be woken from self-imposed cryostasis.

• Remove the comment that Mann was "long believed to be dead". Since he was transmitting messages, all the other characters correctly believed he was *alive* - this is an important plot point which influences a key decision in the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.105.60 (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I removed that, among other things. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Source for the film's mistakes

I found a source that seemingly points out many plotholes, scientific inaccuracies and factual errors in the film. Does it look worth adding? Kailash29792 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Newton and love

The lines that have been added several times starting here don't seem to make much sense. I don't think "reciting Newton's laws of motion" really explains what's going on to the reader. Specifically what they're trying to do is drop the ship's mass to propel it along, which is, yes, in accordance with Newton's laws of motion. The second line about his love creating the "tesseract" doesn't mesh with my understanding of the plot, or explain why it's significant. My memory was that the alien being built the tesseract, and obviously the purpose is so that Cooper can communicate with Murphy.--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Clarifying the ending

I would like to add this clarification to the final line describing the plot: Murphy convinces Cooper to search for Amelia, who is marooned on Edmunds' planet, which is demonstrated to be habitable for humans – and will become their next home. ...or something to that effect. This clarifies the plot point that the descendants of the people whom Murph saved are the same ones who created the wormhole and the tesseract, and that they would ultimately settle on Edmunds' planet. Any opposition to this? -- mcshadypl ^TC 05:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Speculation and therefore original research. Even if the beings who created the tesseract are future humans, why would they be exclusively descendants of Edmnunds' planet? Nothing suggests this. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Top Films of 2014 and Reception

I made the decision to add in the beginning section and paragraph that it was part of the top films of 2014 as it was and has been included in many critics top films of 2014. It would also be wise to replace "generally" positive reviews to polarizing. The film has seen reviews ranging from masterpiece of the century to the biggest disappoint to the year. Simply stating generally positive forgets the highly positive reviews to the negative in which the word polarizing would be more justly applied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonUser10133 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Split Up Critical Reception Page à la 2001: A Space Odyssey

It would be nice to split this up into two sections or three in the same style of 2001: A Space Odyssey. This film has had polarizing responses from audiences and critics alike. If it helps just look up Interstellar reviews and you will see exactly what I mean by polarizing. Putting it in 3 sections would make it organized better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnonUser10133 (talk • contribs) 04:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Order of content in the Critical response section

Like I stated here at WP:Film, this IP does some okay work on the Interstellar (film) article...and sometimes some not-okay work on it. Here, here, here and here, I tweaked the Critical response section to what I consider a better flow -- which is to start out with the generally positive reviews, per WP:Due weight, then go into the mixed and negative reviews after that, and keep reviews that are similar together instead of scattering the same arguments in different parts of the section. Sock soon afterward helped out. Days later, the IP somewhat restored the section to the way he (the IP) had it before. I reverted, (followup note here).

I don't see how the better format is to have the Scott Mendelson Forbes text/source, which is the text/source the IP added in December, come as early as the IP wants it to come. It is bad form, in my opinion, to have a negative review randomly thrown into a paragraph that is mostly positive reviews. To me, that text/source fits best in the paragraph that is making similar arguments...right after the "an absurd endeavor" and "one of the most sublime movies of the decade" review. This is why after the IP reverted again, with an explanation I don't see as valid, I reverted again. Flyer22 (talk) 13:55, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy, is it not a bit of a mess?

We have criticism from David Grinspoon, followed by some kind of counterargument proving either him ignorant or, if not that, its own argument wrong. We have a one-word comment by Lawrence Krauss, "miserable", that carry little to no particular significance to the film Interstellar nor the demands of it's Wikipedia-page. The section reads like a endless, rather pointless and messy, debate. Sure, scientists have positive and negative opinions about the film, and it could be discussed forever, but there is also love in the film (father-and-daughter). Is there also going to be a section full of psychologists commenting and arguing about that very keystone element of the picture? See what I'm saying? The science demands a section, of course, but does it not instead serve the wiki-page better by presenting the theoretical science of the film as part of the production? Or maybe changing the science section from "Scientific accuracy" to, maybe, "Scientific Support" or something like that would do more justice? The film is already labeled as a "science fiction". Do the article necessarily demand more than a more simply put description of the films scientific ambitions and inspirations (production wise), with a general film reception/ critical respond? Is Interstellar a scientific paper or a motion picture? Anyone with me? ...No? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.170.51 (talk) 00:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Dates given in film?

The article says "On Earth, sometime around 2080, crop blight has caused civilization to regress ...", and "Cooper finds himself traveling back through the wormhole, entering into orbit around Saturn in 2156." I just saw the film for a second time, and don't remember any dates at all being mentioned in the film. The 23-year gap at Miller's planet is mentioned (during which Murphy grows up to be the same age as Cooper was when he left), and the 51-year gap at Edmund's planet, plus the two years travel time from Earth to Saturn, equals the 76-year gap from 2080 to 2156.

But as I say, I don't think any absolute years were mentioned in this film (unlike Avatar (2009 film), where if you look closely, the dates were stamped on video logs.) Where did these years come from? Shouldn't they be removed as OR? JustinTime55 (talk) 20:15, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Five-dimensional" beings created the tesseract?

An IP user has twice added TARS's comment that "five-dimensional beings" created the tesseract (Murphy's multi-time dimensional bookshelf), and I removed it each time. The plot summary has already been criticized as too long, and this detail is too obscure and unnecessary for an essential understanding of the plot. I don't think TARS actually knew the creators were "evolved future humans", and what the hell is "five-dimensional" supposed to mean, anyway? (This was never explained in the film.) Three spatial dimensions, plus time, equals four dimensions, and that's plenty to explain the tesseract. JustinTime55 (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so I found out what the hell "five-dimensional" is supposed to mean and linked it in. It's already covered, so speculation about "evolving into five-dimensional beings" is still unnecessary. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMPLOT and length

I am frequently dismayed when I encounter insistence on strict adherence to word count limits in the filmplot guideline. I think such strict insistence is against the spirit of WP:IAR. The essence of that guideline doesn't really mean rules should be ignored, but can be bent if necessary to keep the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines.

FILMPLOT (and its companion WP:How to write a plot summary) does not require that summaries be no longer than a certain arbitrary limit, just that they should not be longer than necessary to clarify the plot. This should allow for complexity of the film's themes (with relativistic space travel, certainly a factor here), and also the film's running time (at 169 minutes, exceptionally long). "The description should be thorough enough for the reader to get a sense of what happens and to fully understand the impact of the work and the context of the commentary about it. Necessary detail must be maintained. ... Anything that is not necessary for a reader's understanding of [plot, character and theme], or is not widely recognized as an integral or iconic part of the work's notability, should not be included." Another goal is to make sure the plot doesn't drown out the other real-world aspects of the film.

I have taken pains to go through the summary and shave off as much as seems possible, and I get 884 from my word counter. I think I've omitted details largely unnecessary to understanding the major plot progression (including Cooper finding the drone, his plane crash nightmare, what has happened to technology and Donald's "every day felt like Christmas" comment, what killed Cooper's wife, everything about Murphy's brother Tom and his family and running of the farm, the business with her school teacher, Moon landing hoax taught as standard dogma, and her relationship with Getty), a bit of duplication (the second hand on Murphy's watch), and geeky scifi details which aren't well explained (TARS speculates the tesseract-creators "evolved into five-dimensional beings", and Cooper's handshake with Amelia during his two-way passage through the wormhole). Also sacrificed a nice foreshadowing detail (Cooper and Amelia's discussion about nature being dangerous and scary, but not evil; we just have to worry about "what we bring with us.")

This past weekend, my family just rented this and another favorite movie for review, The Good Lie. Now, if I were summarizing the latter (much more down-to-Earth and shorter), I wouldn't expect to be stymied by a 700-word limit. (It's funny; that happens to be a poor example, because the page currently has virtually no plot summary (a single sentence!))

In short, I just don't think the 700-word limit is realistic in this case. Does anyone still have heartburn with this? JustinTime55 (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracy: First planet and radiation

As for the so-called "scientific accuracy" of the film: Neil deGrasse Tyson has admitted[2] that the first planet is impossible to exist as depicted in the movie: For it to have a 60.000:1 time dilation as stated in the film, it would be much too close to the black hole as to have a stable orbit *AND* for people to even just simply exist on its surface at the same time. Here's a Slate Magazine review[3] by a professional scientist mentioning the issue (though getting it a bit wrong, by not realizing that both conditions, stable orbit *AND* characters surviving their visit, are impossible to be true at the same time, so that he rectifies only part of his mistake with better math ensuring a stable orbit in a linked update, but still not realizing that even given that, tidal forces wouldn't work out the way we see in the film). (Also, in an amateur review on Amazon, I've read the conjecture that for a planet to have a stable orbit at that close vicinity to the black hole, it would have to move at at least half the speed of light, which would be impossible with the conditions we see on the planet in the film.)

Plus, Tyson admits in the same interview that a tidal wave as large as seen in the film to co-exist with the fact that the characters actually survive their stay on the planet is impossible: Either we have a tiny non-rotating stellar black hole that would have tidal forces as strong as creating such a huge wave, but then the characters wouldn't survive their stay due to the strong forces (and possibly radiation) from the black hole, or we have a giant rotating supermassive black hole like Gargantua that could never produce as huge tidal forces as seen in the film. The Slate review above briefly mentions the large tidal forces as another scientific plothole as well.

Tyson just goes on to brush both issues off as "cinematic license". While I like the film for the experience due to its cinematic merits making for a decent sci-fi action/thriller blockbuster with enormously accurate visual portrayals of black holes and their relativistic effects, as well as some family drama thrown in, I think that bit of information on these two gross scientific inaccuracies, as sourced by Tyson's interview and the Slate review above, should be placed in the article.

But there's a much more serious scientific plothole which Tyson just dances around in that interview, and that's radiation. All black holes we know have strong gamma radiation coming from them, which would make it impossible for any matter to even just exist at the (cosmically) short distances where most of the movie takes place. When questioned about the radiation issue, Tyson dances around it by pretending that the Gargantua black hole in the film would have no gasses or anything else ever falling into it, so there would be no radiation fueled by anything falling into it. Problem is, Kip Thorne's book that he keeps quoting from as to explain the science behind the film explicitly states that in fact there *IS* a lot of gasses (and maybe even other stuff) falling into the Gargantua black hole all the time, creating a relatively cool accretion disk with temperatures and brightness resembling that of our sun, so that Gargantua in that solar system pretty much takes the place of our sun.

BUT, and that's a pretty *BIG* but here, as soon as we have enough matter falling into Gargantua as to create such an accretion disk, we have tons of gamma radiation shooting from the black hole, which is entirely incompatible with everything we see in the movie as soon as they've exited the wormhole. Plus, there's a neutron star said to be in the same system, which would just as well emit lots of deadly radiation blasting all matter into sub-atomic particles and thus void the entire plot on that side of the wormhole.

That radiation problem is part of a lot of amateur reviews and in forums on the internet (a lot of people saying they've lost all respect for Tyson because of how he's been promoting the film and its alleged "scientific accuracy"), which unfortunately can't be used as sources for Wikipedia, whereas most legitimate reviews by film critics or scientists don't even mention the radiation issue.

So, it'd be great if anybody could find a reliable source pointing out this "tiny" radiation problem to do both with Gargantua and the neutron star which makes the entire plot on that side of the wormhole impossible. In any case, there are a number of reviews in scientific journals which, without going into details, generally call the overall physics of the film "laughable" (such as the Scientific American[4]) up until Cooper falls into the black hole where really anything is possible and the tessaract ensuring Cooper's survival and anything to do with it are not too implausible compared to everything that came before that. --2003:56:6D1B:C677:C5F0:2525:8BBE:318B (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Also, time difference between the surface of Miller's planet and in its orbit could never be as huge, unless Miller's planet would have the density of at least a neutron star itself, again crushing Cooper's crew. If time dilation would be exclusively due to Gargantua, time would nearly be identical on the planet's surface as well as in orbit, while time would run much faster only on earth and on the other planets they're visiting later, but not on their ship in orbit around Miller's planet. --2003:56:6D1B:C649:90D0:C6CA:807D:1D13 (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is the Dylan Thomas poem not mentioned in the article?

Throughout the film, Professor John Brand repeatedly quotes Dylan Thomas's poem 'Do not go gentle into that good night'. Four different times, in fact. Would anyone object to mentioning this poem in the article's plot section? Its use is allegorical and important in the film. Thank you. Msannakoval (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and added a mention about this poem in the plot. Two other motion pictures -- Dangerous Minds and Back to School -- are listed at Do not go gentle into that good night#Use in popular culture as quoting this poem. Both of those films' Wikipedia articles mention the poem explicitly. There seems to be precedence to do so in this article as well. Thank you. Msannakoval (talk) 02:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Since this article has a Themes section, and people have complained that the plot summary is already too long, I moved the reference down to Themes, with your citation. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JustinTime55. :) You're right: the themes section is a much better place for this information. And I appreciate how you reworded the sentence, expanded it, and cited the reference that I'd provided here. It's much stronger now. I've learned a lot from your improvements. Msannakoval (talk) 02:10, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Slate culture blog doesn't do anything but notice the quotations are there and that it's been in other films. It's not significant enough, on its own, to warrant a mention in a Themes section. What is the theme, specifically? You'd need a reference explicitly saying what it is; anything else will be WP:SYNTH. I've done some trimming of that section, which was largely OR; while I'd like to see the quotes discussed, without a reference to their significance, they don't belong there. It would be more appropriate, till such references are found, that the individual instances of the quotes are mentioned in the plot summary; if that makes it too long, leave them out. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 07:29, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

"Hugh Mann"

While since I saw the film last, but I really hope the symbolism wasn't that on-the-nose. Is he ever referred to by first name in the film? And should we mention the obvious Futurama reference? Blythwood (talk) 12:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Blackhole

There is information on how the blackhole's appearence was altered and made more inaccurate because it was feared that it would be too confusing for the audience. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-true-black-hole-too-confusing Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 03:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking says Interstellar was right. Falling into a black hole is not the end link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:FE0:C120:1D91:790E:32EE:47AA:4148 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Obst, Thorne, Nolan, Nolan

The lead dumbs down his importance in the story development, as well as Obst's, by seeming to only care about and mention things relative to the script.

Lead:
"Brothers Christopher and Jonathan Nolan wrote the screenplay, which has its origins in a script Jonathan developed in 2007" ... "Kip Thorne, whose work inspired the film, was an executive producer and acted as scientific consultant."

There is apparently no mention of him developing the original with Obst before Nolan was invited to write a screenplay from it, nor of Spielberg's involvement - in fact there is nothing here that I can find in the article itself that says why Spielberg is not mentioned again, why he did not make the film, whether he was and exec producer on the board of one of the prod co.s, taken to Mars by aliens, etc. - just nothing.

• "the origins" are in Obst and Thorne's premise, NOT Nolan's screenplay
• Spielberg has been stolen by aliens (or it was just name dropping)

So, basically, the lead lies and the article loses Spielberg .. not a good start to reading an article.

I will read the whole thing later, and probably start chopping away at it after I have watched the Batman-Nolan trilogy. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Hans Zimmer music

I have no interest in developing this article, but I stumbled across this which could help expand the music section. The interested may use it. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:54, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link here! Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Year of setting

Apparently the film begins in the year of 2062. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.211.14.16 (talk) 11:11, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Robert Forward

I find a lot of elements of the film and story which look like what Robert L. Forward was writing (Rocheworld in particular): the robot, the water world, etc. Is this discussed somewhere because it cannot be put in the article without a source. Hektor (discuter) 10:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference to Edward O. Wilson

The Nolan brothers were credited for writing “Interstellar”, but the film resonates to E.O. Wilson, as follows:

"Living in Shimmering Disequilibrium", Apr 22, 2000

"The Meaning of Human Existence", Oct 6, 2014

(Also see E.O. Wilson's interview with Charlie Rose, October 26, 2014.)

http://www.charlierose.com/watch/60466117

Wilson did not mention "Interstellar" in his Charlie Rose interview, but the film has many resonant threads. Did "They" (the Nolan brothers) use Wilson for one reason or another, or was the resonance of “Interstellar” to Wilson merely an acausal coincidence? Could it be a general relativity gravitational effect?

Dubina

PS: I have renewed my password and tried to log in, but I am always informed that my password is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.67.20.226 (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Movie nationality

The movie is written, produced and directed by British people, and the main production company is British. Shouldn't the movie be more British than American? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.114.104.110 (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

"Scientific accuracy"

At the current state, I think it should be moved into Production, at least renamed; "Scientific assistance" would be better (in the current state). Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 23:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Freshness For Lettuce! Thanks for your help with the article so far. I was not crazy about having the "Scientific accuracy" section this early because I didn't want to put forth only the filmmakers' claim about the film being scientifically accurate. Such a section should usually have independent commentary (with the filmmakers' claim as only part of it), per the guidelines at WP:FILMSCI. If we merged it into "Production" now, we don't even need a separate section, just to put Thorne's quote in the most appropriate place. Want to do that? A real "Scientific accuracy" section can then happen when people actually see the film and write about it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 03:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

To update my thoughts on this discussion, I think that the new content in this section should be moved to "Visual effects" (as well as the Thorne quote where appropriate). If there is independent commentary about the film's scientific accuracy, we can recreate the section. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:32, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The section desperately needs something about what scientists say about the movie who did not participate in its production. Galant Khan (talk) 01:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Until that happens, perhaps a different name of the section could avoid some confusion of the readers. I foresee a significant addition of scientific inaccuracies for this film. The first planet visited orbits a black hole. It also has both liquid water and sunlight (conspicuously like that from of our Sun). So the black hole has a companion star that delivers sunlight. In order for the water to remain on the planet (instead of boiling away - and for the planet to be able to sustain life), the planet has to have a stable orbit around the companion star (not to mention the black hole). But with a black hole near by, that is basically impossible, it is called the three-body problem. Secondly, while the crew visits that planet for just a few hours, the crew remember remaining on the mother ship experiences time dilation (presumably due to the difference in the gravitational field at the mother ship and on the planet), so that no less than 23 years passes for him during their separation. However, in order to experience a time dilation of that magnitude, you have to have an enormous difference in the gravitational field. And that dinky little landing craft will have to overcome the consequently enormous gravity while traveling to and especially returning from the planet, while keeping the g-forces on the crew at survivable levels. Not physical. With my background I consider this self-evident, while other might call it OR. Anyway, that was just that one planet visit out of a 3 hour movie. (Not that that keeps me from recommending the movie, I think it is trying to make the point that we should protect our own, preciously rare planet and not send humanity down a worm-hole. Apologies for the digression). Lklundin (talk) 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Lklundin, the section heading is acceptable per the guidelines at WP:FILMSCI. It does not mean it will focus on only what it got right. We can cover all aspects under this section per WP:STRUCTURE. Right now, the section is looking pretty messy, but there have definitely been reliable sources out there that scrutinize the film's science closely and can be used here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Another point on black holes, they're called black holes because their gravitational pull is so strong even light can't escape. In the film the black hole had two rings of light around it, where theoretically from any given perspective you should only be able to see, at best, a single ring of light on the X,Y axis as any light passing through the Z axis (respective to the observer) would be drawn into the black whole and not be perceivable.

The "rings of light" are actually the black hole's accretion disc, which is made up of matter orbiting around the black hole. The matter emits light because of the gravity and friction which compress and heat the material. Since the disc is outside the event horizon, light can escape to observers. The second ring of light is actually the same accretion disc. Specifically, it is the part of the disc on the other side of the black hole. We can see it due to gravitational lensing; while passing through the black hole light will fall into the singularity due to gravity and never escape, light just outside the event horizon is just curved and thus would reach the same observer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.161.131.41 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

note on the fact that the main actor at the beginning said that the closest star is thousands of years away, not thousands of LIGHT years away (as the main article on here says - quote "Cooper, in the movie, says that the "nearest star is more than a thousand light years away". In fact, the closest star is Proxima Centauri at 4.2 lightyears of distance, which is part of the Alpha Centauri system (see List of nearest stars and brown dwarfs)."). Yes Alpha Centauri is only 4.2 years away, at light speed, but at more practical speeds (from the current propulsion knowledge point of view) it is indeed thousands of years away. So the movie in that respect is not inaccurate. This should be corrected.

Has anyone seen discussion regarding the feasibility of evacuating millions of people from Earth, regardless of the gravity well? Cooper consistently claims not only that returning to Earth will allow him to save his family (which would probably be true, given his central role in the program) but to save millions of other families. However, creating sustainable habitats for interplanetary travel on both sides of the wormhole represents a feat of engineering even more incredible than the notion that humanity built the Endurance while simultaneously convincing the bulk of the population that even the moon landing had been unattainable. To envision sufficient numbers of such habitats as to actually allow the entire population of the planet to emigrate defies any rational sense. Regardless of the outcome of the mission, it is a foregone conclusion that most people will die -- and that this would happen whether Cooper stayed on Earth or not, since he had no particular ability to change the course of events. I'm wondering why this population vs engineering puzzle did not come up in discussions of scientific feasibility. Jsamans (talk) 01:03, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I would like to ask if I can make changes to the paragraph starting with "In creating the wormhole and a supermassive rotating black hole...". I'm a computer science PhD student working on physically-based rendering algorithms since 2012, reading the parts regarding rendering and visual effects in this paragraph was really unpleasant for me to say the least. First of all (and I mean absolutely no disrespect for artists but different professions require different sets of skills, a dental technician is not a dentist), no "visual effects artist" can come up with a physically-based rendering software, let alone a production quality software being used on a big budget Hollywood movie, the only explanation could be an artist who is also a remarkable engineer/computer scientist/mathematician, I am yet to see such a polymath but it's not certainly impossible, just improbable. Next thing is the sentence regarding "creating two papers"; we write papers, get them published in journals and conferences, but what does "creating" a paper mean? and what does "computer graphics community" refer to? It's such a weird thing to say! "Contributions to computer graphics field" is much more accurate, I cannot recall hearing anything about the "computer graphics community", ever. The worst thing is these are not mentioned in the source AT ALL. The Wired article does NOT mention "artists" creating rendering software, and it does not mention anything about "creating two papers", whatever that means! The source mentions "It's the product of a year of work by 30 people and thousands of computers", where does the "team of 30 artists" come from? The source also mentions "Thorne says he can get at least two published articles out of it", Thorne is saying he CAN publish two articles, he also doesn't specifically talk about where he hope to publish them when (and if) he writes them. So to make this short: no "artists" are mentioned in the source, and no "papers" are "created", let alone the claim regarding "one for the astrophysics community and one for the computer graphics community". Can we fix these please? At least fix the source, as much as I cannot get myself to ever agree with some of the claims made in the paragraph, at least having a source that actually mentions the false information (false in my opinion) can give the paragraph a reason to exist, otherwise it is just fiction. Congratulations to the author. 23.243.153.4 (talk) 07:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

No objection was raised so I'm going to edit that paragraph and remove the content that are not present in the source. 131.179.210.243 (talk) 23:16, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Twin paradox

I think this article should talk about the Twin paradox which is very important in the plot of the film. Aliuk (talk) 15:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Mann in plot section

I thought he wanted to return to earth, not the other planet?

Strictly speaking, the way this article can be improved is by quoting a socalled reliable source. Editors own thoughts on the matter are on the other hand not considered notable. Lklundin (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

but there are no sources in the whole section. It can all be one editors opinion. The film doesn't even explain what his goal really was, was it to go to the other planet or return to earth? Where are the sources " 99.240.153.50 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Films themselves usually serve as the primary source for the plot section, per WP:FILMPLOT. Perhaps someone else can back this up, but I'm pretty sure Mann was going to the other planet, not to Earth. But it's not terribly relevant to the plot; all that matters is the plot twist that he lied about his planet and then tries to steal the ship.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mann wanted to go on to the next planet (Edmunds). Think about it: Why would Mann want to kill Cooper and steal the ship to go back to Earth, when Cooper specifically said he wasn't going on to the next planet but was instead going back to Earth to be with his family? Put another way, it was Cooper's announcement that he was going to Earth instead of the next planet that triggered Mann's response to try and kill him in order to put the Endurance back on track to taking them all to Edmunds planet. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That pretty much syncs with my recollection. Also keep in mind that not everything makes rational sense in a movie; there are often plot holes or ambiguities (and this film has no shortage of them). Still, we probably wouldn't lose anything by removing Mann's intentions.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it wasn't Cooper who put in place a lockout of the autodocking system. It was TARS. Sirmax07 (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Interstellar (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131204073444/http://www.newsoficeland.com/home/entertainment-leisure/motion-picture/item/2292-interstellar-shots-finished-in-iceland to http://www.newsoficeland.com/home/entertainment-leisure/motion-picture/item/2292-interstellar-shots-finished-in-iceland
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130917084144/http://www.icelandreview.com:80/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=402793 to http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=402793
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150317210910/https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/ to https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141007232315/https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/ to https://www.imax.com/corporate/press-releases/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

"In 2067"

What is there that shows the movie "takes place" in 2067? Freshness For Lettuce (talk) 15:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I've poked around, and all I can find is a bunch of fan synthesis based on doing math with data from sources that may or may not be authoritative. I'm fine with removing the specific year if no reliable source can be found. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:08, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

That specific year is not given by the film, so it has no place in the plot summary anyway. Ozdarka (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Use of "Amelia" as first name of Jr Dr Brand vs last name

In the main plot section of this article, all male characters are referred to by their last name and only the young Dr Brand is referred to as Amelia. In the movie, she is always referred to as Dr Brand or just "Brand". I watched this film last night and didn't know her name was Amelia until reading this article. Does someone want to address this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.157.226.181 (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was just sexism, but it's to differentiate her from her father, who is also named Dr. Brand. Ozdarka (talk) 23:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)