Talk:Interstellar (film)/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

AFI vs BFI

Ok, can someone explain like I'm five...why does the AFI have the film as solely American, and the BFI has it as both American and british? How do we deal with two conflicting reliable sources? In general, in wikipedia, how do we deal with that? Is one more reliable than the other? If other british sources use the BFI as their source, than they could also be 'reliable' but using possibly mistaken information (not that that has happened in this instance, just a hypothetical). -- Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:6167:F4F3:B1BB:A4C0 (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Off topic chat

Extended content

The 'booby-trap' The way I interpreted this scene: The mission coordinator sent robots to aid the humans on their journeys, not only to add company and tech/ physical support - but to counteract the human-element weakness/ strength - which is a theme in the film. If a robot found that the world was uninhabitable - it was to self-destruct and kill the scientist, once it had sent a report of its findings (to prevent exactly what happened with Mann) That is why I think he disabled/ tore apart the robot - and gave the lame excuse 'was using it to power my mission' - and why upon reboot - the reaction was 'this data makes no sense' - because the data was: 'planet uninhabitable' - the protagonist, antagonist and audience know this already - but the soon to be killed character just finds out, and is killed in an explosion. (The robot at the end jokes about self-destructing, and as seen by the race to the main-ship - no weapons were ever taken, since it wasn't assumed there would be hostile life-forms - I would think they wouldn't have had explosives with them - it wasn't a mining/ prospecting mission, just analysing livability/ sustaining of life.) These were world-class scientists - so could have Mcguyvered something from rocket-fuel and ammonia, and it seems cruel for the mission leader to murder his scientists - but as they said - they had no resources to recon all of them - and the 12 were willing to die to find a habitable planet. An explosion would be more humane than leaving them on an uninhabitable planet to slowly die. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Envelopery (talk • contribs) 04:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150422021742/http://grrm.livejournal.com/410394.html to http://grrm.livejournal.com/410394.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:46, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientific accuracy

Everyone has commented on the film's scientific accuracy and I generally loved it for that. But I after watching it again last night, I wonder about one thing. Has anyone asked why they needed a big multi-stage rocket to leave earth when they could leave the water planet with the little ship even though it had higher gravity? Vincent (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Did the water planet have higher gravity itself? Or was it simply within the gravity well of an unusually large neighboring body? I haven't seen any source comment on this specifically, but I haven't really looked. Considering the other theoretical scientific elements the film aspires to represent, this issue might be considered pretty minor. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it had higher gravity itself. In any case, I agree it's a minor issue. The producers could simply have used the little ship to leave earth! Vincent (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Still waiting for the inclusion of the film's most gross and laughable, reliably sourced scientific inaccuracies mentioned before in the talkpage archive at Talk:Interstellar (film)/Archive 2#Inaccuracy: First planet and radiation before. Basically, the entire film's plot from the moment they exit the wormhole is utterly impossible and ridiculous due to gamma radiation from both Gargantua (as admitted by Kip Thorne himself in his book on the physics of Interstellar, and yes, *ESPECIALLY* for a supermassive rotating black hole with an accretion disk) *AND* the neutron star in the same system. And that's only the start of the film's many, sourced poorly-written scientific plotholes up until he falls into the black hole, all of these plotholes being so god-damn large that next to them time travel, futures influencing pasts, and habitable tessaracts within black holes seem entirely sound and reasonable, see talkpage archive link, and still not a single one of them is mentioned in the article yet. --79.242.219.119 (talk) 00:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

"Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has explored the science behind the ending of Interstellar." says the article. For sure, he is on camera saying what he said. Somehow his opinion adds scientific credibility to a film which is very much weak in many areas which he conveniently ignores, such as the radiation environment in both interplanetary and interstellar space, and around the black hole itself. I fail to understand how his own credibility can be supported when he ignores vitally important and indefensible facts like this. As a promoter of science, NDT is not one to be listening to. --2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Nothing but marketing BS. Yes, some aspects of the movie are scientifically accurate - like earth and mankind actually exist - but overall it is hardly more logical or accurate than Independence Day (1996). 2003:71:CF60:4400:358D:EC00:863D:85D2 (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Interstellar (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141004024942/http://www.interstellarmovie.com/formats/ to http://www.interstellarmovie.com/formats/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023162556/http://www.interstellarmovie.com/vrexperience/ to http://www.interstellarmovie.com/vrexperience/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016191339/http://wwws.ww.warnerbros.com/interstellar/releasedates/ to http://wwws.ww.warnerbros.com/interstellar/releasedates/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016191339/http://wwws.ww.warnerbros.com/interstellar/releasedates/ to http://wwws.ww.warnerbros.com/interstellar/releasedates/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Spell

Corrected few spellings — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidushyant (talk • contribs) 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Interstellar (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141104175241/http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/interstellar-epic-beauty-effects-ideas/ to http://entertainment.suntimes.com/movies/interstellar-epic-beauty-effects-ideas/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Interstellar (film)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ssven2 (talk · contribs) 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. Thank you.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 07:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead, which is usually supposed to touch on all sections, does not have anything from scientific accuracy section.
• "His brother, director Christopher Nolan, had" — You've already mentioned him being a director in the development section.
• Add the year for Miss Julie, Transcendence, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel.
• "was scheduled to last for four months" — Scrap "for".
• "and involved hundreds of extras as well as some 130 crew members, most of them local" — Rephrase this as "and involved hundreds of extras in addition to 130 crew members, most of whom were local"
• "mock spaceships" — Spaceships were used to represent the planets? Strange. Are you sure this is right?
• "situation on Earth portrayed in early scenes" — "situation on Earth portrayed in the early scenes".
• Wikilink "terabytes".
• "asymmetrical, so the finished black hole ignored it.[59] Nolan found the finished effect was understandable, provided he maintained consistent camera perspectives: "What we found was as long as we didn't change the point of view too much, the camera position, we could get something very understandable"" — Looks a bit vague. Do clarify this.
• "The portrayal of what a wormhole would look like is considered scientifically correct" — According to whom?
• "Correct depiction of the Penrose process was also praised" — Who praised it? Critics? Do clarify this.
• nb 1 is unosurced.
• Add the year for Furious 7, The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Avatar, Gravity, The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies, Pacific Rim, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, Frozen, Shrek 2, The Day After Tomorrow, Monsters University, World War Z, Insomnia and Dumb and Dumber To.

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall: Passed, my queries were met and solved by the nominator.

   Pass or Fail:

The sources are good too. The article could do with a little more copyediting but looks good enough for GA criteria, Cognissonance.  — Ssven2 ^{Looking at you, kid} 08:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

More "scientific accuracy" BS

I have a degree in engineering which includes basic physics, plus advanced studies in radiation physics and a long career in varied sciences. Your references are promotional to the movie but the entire "scientific accuracy" section suffers badly. Your references lack credibility and I cite simple examples relative to the movie below: I'll try to be brief and let others add to this, or make some serious corrections. IMO I'm ok with some of the "accuracy" section but most of it is quite questionable:

a) a wormhole is not a pipe. It has boundary conditions which would rip a spacecraft to pieces. There is a boundary in which the spacecraft is in the other universe and where it is not - and places in-between. b) pelting a spacecraft with low-velocity, uniform pellets of interstellar matter is hardly realistic. The craft would be swiss cheese in no time. c) black holes with no radiation (indeed, without even a strong E-M field) is hardly realistic, no matter how you portray it. Just getting from Earth to Saturn without getting killed is unexplained. d) surviving entry and also exit from a black hole is hardly realistic. e) don't get me started about the paradoxes of time travel. f) a lot of people will be left behind when leaving the Earth. I guess nobody cares?

• there are more I can think of, and good observers are invited to add to this.
• So what credibility is there in these references citing "scientific accuracy"? "Theoretical Possibility" is not "accuracy". Perhaps "portrayal" but highly q--2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 05:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)uestionable. A theoretical image of a black hole is not an image of a black hole (for example). 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 06:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
• Start getting real with a better article: Interstellar travel. BTW: colorized or image processed or "artist renditions" cannot be considered truly scientific, no matter what the source. I see too much of this promotional stuff.

• Someone is removing my commentary with no reason. The war is on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C48:7006:200:D84D:5A80:173:901D (talk) 03:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Separate discussion on cast

In the light of the discussion above, I propose two changes to the cast list:

1. Reinstate the academic title of Amelia Brand, given that all male academic titles are listed. (edit 1)
2. Inform who Donald is, for the sake of clarity and understanding the relations of the cast (edit 1)
3. Reorder the character sequence for Murph. GoneIn60 argues "(Reverted 1 edit by Vigilius (talk): No, you were informed quite clearly on the talk page that this is for credited names. 100% opposed to "Dr. Murph Cooper". If the character shall be introduced without its title, (which makes sense), then it appears to also put the actor that plays the role of Murph as a child first. However, Jessica Chastain ONLY plays "Dr." Murph Cooper, not young Murph. (edit 2)

Can we find consensus here? --Vigilius (talk) 13:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• For the cast listing, use Common Name of character as sourced by the closing credits, the script and the AFI entry: Cooper, Murph, Brand, Prof. Brand, Donald, Tom, Doyle, TARS [1]. Annotations as to their full name or title or how they are related to the main characters can be given in followup description only if helpful. Do not reorder to put Jessica Chastain in a sublist, she is starring billed for the film. As for Murph (10 yrs.) or Young Murph, use what is listed in the closing credits, and if not available, use AFI. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"given that all male academic titles are listed" is not a good enough reason to break from the guideline. If the film or its treatment of characters is truly sexist, that's unfortunate, but Wikipedia does not interpret information to conform to a particular viewpoint, valid or not. --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• It appears you've made changes again while a discussion is underway, which is becoming disruptive. Interestingly, you seem to be acknowledging that credited names in the cast section are fine. Unless anyone else objects, we can finally put this one to rest. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Please note that others did not accept my proposal to go back to the old stage, breaking the consensus building first... --Vigilius (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Murph Vs Murphy

The character is called "Murph" in the film. The character is called "Murph" in the closing credits. To change her name is simply incorrect. I would like to see your reasoning as to why "Murph" is a sexist name, and what subsequently gives you the right to rename a character for the WIki article.

Also, please bear in mind WP:BRD - you have been reverted over these edits, so please discuss them rather than re-adding them. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article is a mess of combined first/last & both usage now. I'm not sure what policy is, so will ask a wider audience. Chaheel Riens (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

(It has been agreed to prefer "Murph" over "Murphy", per closing credits, see history of talk page for details) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigilius (talk • contribs) 08:21, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Calling adult female scientists by first name and all male counterparts by last name is sexist

There is an issue of first and last names here. I think it is acceptable to call child characters, male or female, by their first name. I consider it OK to call all characters by their first name if the movie does that. However, to call an adult female scientist by her first name as if she still were a child, while her Professor (whose first name we do know) and her father (whose first name we do know) are called by their last name is sexist. Also, I believe it is good Wikipedia practice to make the cast list understandable with respect to the plot. Please do explain why you are reverting those parts of my edits. --Vigilius (talk) 20:23, 20 August 2018 (UTC) updated (abbreviated) --Vigilius (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You may not have changed the "Murph", but you have added "Cooper", when this is not her billed character name. The film credits list her as simply "Murph", ergo that's what we do as well. Also, while we are discussing the character names - please stop making changes. It should be obvious that there is contention in the names, so while it is discussed the last stable version should be in situ - changes (if any) can be made after discussion has ended.

I raise the issue over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, and the response is here which supports the use of "Professor Brand" and "Amelia".

Please discuss either here, or at the film project - but stop making changes in the meantime. Thanks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

To repeat: I consider it sexist to reference adult female scientists by their first names in a context where all their coworkers, professors, and father are referenced by their last name only. Considering the need for disambiguation, I consider calling them "Murph Cooper" and "(Dr.) Amelia Brand" a proper solution. Calling "Murph" only "Murph" while still a child is acceptable to me. I am not convinced that the fact that the film closing credits being sexist justifies a perpetuation of this in Wikipedia. However, unless other editors support my request for a change, the sexist version ( "Murph" and "Amelia") will remain in Wikipedia. --Vigilius (talk) 07:08, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

So, the movie creators are sexist because Murph is called... well, Murph, in the credits? Not sure about the other characters, but I believe editors went by WP:RS as this has been going on and on. Are there any reliable sources calling the movie sexist? Edit: Also, did we ever learn Murph's last name until the end of the movie? Genuine question; I think it may have happened in school, but I can't watch it again right now. nvm, I remember colleagues called her Dr. Cooper at the research center byteflush _Talk 00:25, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

I'd use the common names as per the script: Cooper (sometimes Coop but mostly Cooper), Murph, Brand (for Amelia), Professor Brand. Script posted at Raindance.org [2] In the case that the script copy is no good for source, try the closed captions and narration from audio description AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

A script is sexist if it calls all male scientists by their last name and all female scientists by their first name. Would you not consider it sexist if at work all male colleagues are addressed by their last name, all female colleagues by their first name? --Vigilius (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(Own comment on the above, after seeing comments below: the above is confusing, because I myself got confused about what is in the plot and what in the script. I consider the present Wikipedia plot sexist because it does this for BOTH Amelia and Murph. I consider the script only mildly sexist; it only keeps the first name for Murph. But Wikipedia editors recently decided not to follow the script in the case of Brand, because of potential confusion between Professor Brand and Amelia Brand. --Vigilius (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2018 (UTC))

The film uses "Brand" for Amelia's lines, so that contradicts your claim. There may be a good case to use Brand instead of Amelia in the plot section, but that's about it. Murph is still listed as Murph; that it is short for a fuller name and/or title like Dr. Murphy Cooper can be relegated to the character list. Plot descriptions don't have to follow MOS:LASTNAME, which is more for individual articles on the characters themselves, but go with common name as per WP:FILMCAST. When there are multiple people with the same family name, then given name is recommended anyway. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:33, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

You could make the same case about Hamilton (musical) which lists Hamilton, Jefferson, Washington, but Eliza, Phillip, but at least it describes how the screenplay and narration considers to be common name instead of our own POV editorializing on what the politically correct character name should be. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This Interstellar sexist thing has reached WP:DNFTT as far as I'm concerned. If the sexist editor doesn't have some reliable sources that would be beneficial to the article, or some suggestion based on RS, then let's just revert and ignore. Their previous comment about the movie script was just plain trolling, in its most basic form. byteflush _Talk 05:10, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

I find the point above about reverting confusing. My points are NOT present in the article at the moment. Instead, we are leading a discussion here. My preference would be to call the adult female scientists Amelia Brand and Murph Cooper, which was for a very long time the state of the article (changed June 5th). The plot presently calls them Amelia and Murph. I have no hand in the decision to use Amelia instead of Brand (decision here, to avoid confusion with Prof. Brand), and I am not particularly happy with it. I am happy to change Amelia to Brand if we cannot have Amelia Brand for added clarity. I continue to prefer the use of "Murph Cooper" at the one time when the girl has become an adult scientist. Both proposals have previously been reverted necessitating this discussion. --Vigilius (talk) 15:32, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

(e/c)Can you find any reliable sources that back up your claims of sexism? I mean, just disregarding the minor fact that the article refers to the characters as they are referred to in the film, and as they are billed in the film, apart from that little niggle - can you find any sources that back up your claim that to use the name a character is referred to is sexist because that character happens to be female? What is your opinion on the Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade articles where Professor Henry Jones Jnr, known as "Indiana" is referred to as "Indy" throughout? Or The Devil Wears Prada where Andrea Sachs is called "Andy"? Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

@Chaheel Riens: Do you seriously need a reference that it is sexist if at work all male colleagues are addressed by their last name, all female colleagues by their first name? What about this: https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/885858/Marl-ne-Schiappa-gender-equality-female-politicians-politics-government-minister (a Google first hit...)? (Aside: the plot does not refer to the character as in the script, it has replaced script: "Brand" with Wikipedia: "Amelia"). --Vigilius (talk) 23:38, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because you are highlighting what you see as claimed sexism in a single film, yet is inherent in all films where there are characters with multiple names. I note that you have not claimed the use of "Indy" to be sexist in the Indiana Jones films - especially The Last Crusade where two characters share the same name "Dr Jones" (indeed one scene in the film deliberately plays on this, having them both answer when addressed as "Dr Jones",) nor the use of "Andy" in the Prada film. It just happens that the usage in this film meets your perceived views of sexism - ones that you have failed to back up with reliable sources. We need a source that claims that the film is sexist in its use of names. You don't seem to understand that point. To be honest, even if you found one, I would still be against the change, because the change would go against established consensus of how names are presented - by billing and credits. However, I would be willing to discuss the addition of a statement to the effect that the usage of diminutive names has been considered sexist by the following reliable sources, yada yada yada. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Whether the film is sexist is irrelevant. Per MOS:SURNAME, Wikipedia convention is to use the full name of a subject upon first use, and use surname in subsequent uses. GMG^talk 12:31, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Does MOS:SURNAME cover fictional (e.g. movie/novel) characters or not? --Vigilius (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It says "After the initial mention of any name", which I would assume applies to fictional characters. --Joshualouie711^talk 14:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Yup. Unless the fictional character is primarily identified by a pseudonym or mononym. So, for example, I don't imaging you would refer to Bender (Futurama) as Rodríguez in subsequent mentions, because the character is primarily identified by the mononym "Bender". GMG^talk 14:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, fictional characters in plot summaries are more often referred to the way they're referred to in the movie than per this particular MOS:BIO guideline. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

That may be the case, but I don't believe that's backed up anywhere in policy. GMG^talk 15:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Vigilius: We should also take MOS:SAMESURNAME into account. When there are two Brands, using the given name on each subsequent occurrence is preferred. So Professor Brand could be changed to John as a compromise on the Brands. There isn't an obvious compromise for the Murph situation, however. Since Coop's character is primarily identified as Cooper, we can't simply change to his given name as we do for Murph. I think the use of Murph throughout is fine in that situation taking the MOS guidelines into account.

@Fru1tbat: That may be true, but without a consensus that translates to a MOS guideline, editors can't be expected to follow suit. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:43, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

The common name part is listed in WP:FILMCAST: "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Given that the section is referring to the cast of the film, it seems to be talking about the actors/actresses, given that a cast is the actors taking part in a play, film, or other production. GMG^talk 15:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's valid precedent, and I was going to cite the same thing. The way I read the spirit of the guideline is: fictional name style is generally determined by the fictional work. Some editorial judgment is required, but in most cases it's not controversial. This debate may be an exceptional case. --Fru1tbat (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No idea if this is an exceptional case or not. I've never even seen this movie. But WP generally doesn't treat fictional characters differently than real ones, or for that matter, fictionalized real characters AFAIK. I don't see why movies should be an exception to the standard used for book, comic book, or video game characters. GMG^talk 16:09, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

AngusWOOF: The problem with WP:FILMCAST is that it doesn't tell us how to accommodate situations like this one, where multiple characters share the same surname. The guideline you cited works fine for cast sections, where names are typically only listed once and not repeated. It doesn't work all the time for plot summaries. For that, we need to look at MOS:SAMESURNAME for clarification, which supercedes MOS:FILM. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:27, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't see how it needs to be superceded. I've provided the script which distinguishes between Brand and Professor Brand. Others have provided IFC databases and the closing credits. You can look at the audio description track with any film that has a bunch of characters with the same surname and see how they refer to the characters. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:42, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia's Manual of Style exists for several reasons, but one of those is to provide an in-house style that is consistent. Since there is ambiguity when referencing "Brand" (the daughter vs the father), we shouldn't abandon our MoS and feed the problem. The guideline I cited above is a useful one that helps us avoid it entirely, and it takes our personal preferences out of the conversation. While the script also takes the decision out of our hands, it doesn't solve the problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

What if the characters were named by script as Mr. Smith and Mrs. Smith? Should we remove those and use their given names? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:32, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

If we had two characters with the last name Smith, we would state their complete names on first mention. Then for each subsequent mention, we would revert to using their given names only according to that guideline. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film) GMG^talk 10:43, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

That film's likely to use the given names in the script itself. Would have to confirm on audio description and captions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

1. The first-mention-rule makes sense in many cases, but appears to me to be problematic here for Murph Cooper. It is perfectly reasonable to introduce Cooper's children by first name only. I would still prefer to refer to her by a full name with academic title once when grown into an adult, but I am willing to live with another solution.
2. Amelia Brand is a more central character than Prof. Brand. I propose to refer to her as Brand. This also follows the practice in the movie cast list. Her father is introduced earlier in the plot as Prof. Brand. How to refer to him later? As John? Or can we keep Prof. Brand as sufficient distinction?
3. For the Wikipedia cast section I proposed to recognize the academic credentials of the female characters (Dr. Amelia Brand and Dr. Murph Cooper). The known academic credentials of the male characters are listed in Wikipedia ("Dr. Mann", "Professor John Brand"). However, doing the same for the female characters was reverted (and is still not in the article). Can we reach a consensus to add the academic titles to avoid the appearance of sexism in Wikipedia? --Vigilius (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

You're constantly banging on about sexism, when it has been shown whilst there is discrepancy in how characters are named in films when sharing surnames, it is not down to sexism - rather there it is because there is no consistently applied way of referring to said characters. In order for your claim of sexism to be valid, the perceived sexism needs to be applied consistently across not only Wikipedia, but the known universe - and that is patently not the case. There are many examples of where your sexist theory is applied to male characters as well.

I have no real objection to discussing the naming conventions, so long as it's agreed that the reasons for doing so are to establish consistency, not to right some great wrong of sexism - a great wrong that has only been seen by a single editor.

I do have strong objections to referring to Murph as anything other than "Murph" in the plot section for the same reason that has been brought up many times - this is how she is referred to in the film itself. If you consider that sexist, then please find reliable third party sources that also claim that the film is sexist in behaviour - and then you can add a section into the film pointing this out - but you still don't get to change Murph's name. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:54, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Please make clear proposals for a consensus. Addressing all males by surname with academic titles and all females by given name dropping their academic title is sexist, just like it would be in a work environment. Following consistency rules is not always enough. But worse, it is presently not about rules: the current status neither follows MOS:SAMESURNAME nor the names in the script. I am happy to follow MOS:SAMESURNAME as in Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005 film). This would result in changing Cooper to Joseph and Prof. Brand to John, dropping all academic titles in the plot. In my understanding it allows academic titles to be present in the cast and role overview for the sake of clarity. Alternatively see my proposal above. --Vigilius (talk) 00:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

You can drop the sexist claim, as it will have no bearing on our decision here. You are clearly in the minority on that one. Also keep in mind that MOS:SAMESURNAME is a guideline, not a "rule" per se. I think a good compromise here is to allow full names/academic titles to be used on first mention in the plot, and then resort to given names for each subsequent mention. The exception would be the main character, Joseph Cooper. His nickname, "Coop" should be allowed as an alternative to Joseph, since he is never referred to by other characters as Joseph that I'm aware of (correct me if I'm wrong). The cast section may need to be handled in a separate decision. Academic titles there are fine, but the primary entry (or first mention) for Murph's character should not be Dr. Murph Cooper. The character is primarily portrayed in the film as a child, though the description can mention her eventual profession. Let's see what others think before making any changes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Referring to a character in a plot section by anything other than what they are commonly referred to in the movie would be jarring and confusing to readers, at least to some degree. Frankly, I find the idea of referring to Cooper as "Joseph" absurd, as practically no viewer would identify him that way. I don't think biographical name guidelines necessarily apply to fictional plot summaries, and I don't think we should be modifying or interpreting a plot summary for a fictional work through any lens, valid or not. Note the following from WP:NCCHARACTER, which is a supplemental guideline to WP:WAF: Guidelines intended only for real-world people do not apply to fictional characters. Two examples are Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies. Seems pretty clear that consensus is not that the two should always be treated the same. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That excerpt from WP:NCCHARACTER is good point to take into consideration, but I don't believe it's as clear cut as it may seem on the surface. What we have is a supplemental guideline to WP:WAF that basically says fictional characters are not necessarily treated the same way as real-world people on Wikipedia. I do not dispute that. There is a lot of advice at WP:NCP and MOS:BIO that was clearly written with real-world topics in mind. But on the same token, WP:WAF does not tell us how to "distinguish between people with the same surname in the same article or page", so we still need to find a solution. Generally, I agree that we should stick to how the characters are commonly referred to in the film as closely as possible, but since we are using an out-of-universe style to summarize in-universe elements, we may sometimes have to fall back on a real-world style guideline for a solution.

In the absence of widespread consensus (or in other words, when WP:WAF doesn't provide the clarification we need), we should be able to borrow from a real-world guideline that does (i.e. MOS:SAMESURNAME). Surely there's a compromise in here somewhere that satisfies both sides. No doubt "Joseph" will not work, but something like "John" might be fine for a secondary, less-essential character that is only mentioned a couple times in the summary. It will not seem out of the ordinary to someone who has never seen the movie, because to them, they are reading an out-of-universe summary and that clearly defines who John is. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

The claim that this behaviour is sexist has been refuted. It's also clear that there is no established process, consensus or policy for a naming convention. Therefore the question to ask is "Why should the characters in the plot description be referred to as anything other than what they are referred to in the actual film? I have made it constantly clear that I believe the answer is "They should not", ergo Murph is Murph, Cooper is Cooper, and Amelia is Amelia. Chaheel Riens (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

There is an established guideline as described above, MOS:SAMESURNAME, but the question remains unanswered as to whether or not this can or should apply to fictional characters. I think it can, but I'm not sure that it should necessarily, which is why I was hoping we'd get some fresh eyes to weigh in. I'm actually fine with the suggestions made at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 71#Question about name usage over at Interstellar (film)
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 64#MOS:SURNAME

It seems reasonable to go with credited names, and when that fails, follow MOS:IDENTITY and look to what the sources have to say. But at some point, this really needs to be addressed at WP:WAF as to whether an out-of-universe style of writing means we're allowed to (or even encouraged to) follow a real-world guideline like MOS:SAMESURNAME. Maybe I'll begin a discussion there at some point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

(About sexism: Being in a minority does not invalidate an argument. See also: Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Use_surnames) --Vigilius (talk) 16:06, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It can be valid all day long, but being in the minority means it will have no bearing on consensus. To keep the conversation constructive, you're better off focusing on an actionable compromise instead of worrying about how the problem is perceived. That was my point. Linking to an essay, by the way, isn't helping that cause either. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I also just noticed you tried making these changes to the cast section. Although I mentioned academic titles might be acceptable for one or more characters, that wasn't an open invitation to change it for every character. I made it quite clear that "Dr. Murph Cooper" would cause an issue. We also still need to take WP:FILMCAST into account which states, "All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source." A separate discussion is likely needed BEFORE making any proposed changes, and at the very least, you should be prepared to cite secondary sources in support. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Based on the above, I also changed the listed "Murph Cooper" to just "Murph", as this is how she is referred to throughout. Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Vigilius: I reverted this edit, because it goes against the leaning consensus in the discussion above, as well as the ones I linked to. The AFI synopsis even distinguishes Hathaway's character as Amelia on each subsequent mention. This shouldn't be an issue at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:12, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with reverting; it is good if we are limiting the issues to Amelia vs. Brand. Why do you argue that we follow neither MOS:SAMESURNAME (which would prefer <Brand over Amelia [correction: treat male and female equally as Joseph and Murph/John and Amelia]) nor the cast listing (which has the character as Brand)? --Vigilius (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC) [corrected Vigilius (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)]

SAMENAME has not been accepted on the lines that it's for real world examples, not fiction, but mainly because that re-introduces the very first problem that arose here of having two characters referred to as "Brand". Let's not discount the initial discussion over at project which decided that "Amelia" and "Brand" were acceptable. Chaheel Riens (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Vigilius, how are you arriving at that conclusion? SAMESURNAME favors Amelia, not Brand. As for the plot vs cast sections, the reason why we have different approaches in both sections should be obvious. As mentioned earlier, the cast section is a separate entity where names are NOT being repeated or used in the context of a synopsis like they are in a plot summary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

We know that Amelia Brand is credited as Brand. I believe it requires a justification to deviate from that. SAMESURNAME would mean Murph and Joseph, Amelia and John. This rule has been rejected for the men and accepted for the women, which is not the same as following SAMESURNAME. I understand that Wikipedia:Writing_about_women#Use_surnames is an essay, but I still believe it expresses Wikipedia values to not follow sexist conventions. It does require a justification to use the bad and belittling habit to use first names for women and last names for men. So: Which Wikipedia rule precisely forces us to use "Amelia" instead of "Brand"? --Vigilius (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Have we reached either the WP:IDHT or WP:POVFIGHTER stage yet? We can't be far off. How about WP:STICK? Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Not far off I'm afraid. We're beginning to talk in circles without anything new being introduced. As for the last point made above, I think it's clear that Joseph and John are not names said by the characters in the film, but Amelia and Murph are. That is why a past discussion and this one has resulted in a consensus that supports those instances. Originally, I was thinking there was a way to compromise using given names for all characters, but some of the points made by others swayed me away from that option. Let's not forget the other point Vigilius is avoiding either. The AFI synopsis even uses Amelia and Murph, but does not use Joseph or John. The discussions we've had should be enough, but having a secondary source that agrees as well is the icing on the cake. The claimed sexist convention is not something Wikipedia has chosen; we are following policy and simply reflecting what is in both primary and secondary sources. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks GoneIn60 – also for reflecting that it is not as simple and clear cut as Riens claims. This has been a frightening long discussion and I cannot truly cannot follow your arguments. I therefore am asking for a summary, why this treatment of female characters (which I consider sexist, other are welcome to disagree) is considered to be necessary in Wikipedia. I understand that you believe it is good practice to follow AFI, this is one argument. But I still do not see which Wikipedia Policy you are referring to in your previous comment. It is not SURNAME SAMESURNAME FILMPLOT FILMCAST. Which are you referring to? --Vigilius (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is a good policy to rely upon. Also, as I alluded to above - WP:POVFIGHTER and others. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Vigilius: It may be helpful for you to read through WP:PG to understand the differences between a policy, guideline, and essay on Wikipedia. One of the site's core policies is WP:V, which in a nutshell means that all information in the article namespace should exist in reliable sources. My comment above alludes to this concept, that the actions we've taken in this article can be verified in primary and secondary sources. The accusation that something published is sexist may or may not be valid, but Wikipedia is not a judge; it is simply a reflection of what has been published.

SAMESURNAME, FILMPLOT, and FILMCAST are style guidelines recommended by WP:MOS. While it is important to take them into consideration, they don't focus so much on content as they do on presentation. Guidelines are more like "strong recommendations" as opposed to "strict rules" that don't have the same influence on our actions that policies do. Most importantly, WP:NCCHARACTER already explains that SAMESURNAME, as well as other "Name" guidelines, do not apply to fictional characters. The discussions I linked to above provide some good examples of why this is the case, and I particularly like the Romeo and Juliet example. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

As I intimated above, and in all seriousness, WP:CONSENSUS is a good yardstick. Note that consensus does not require that everybody agrees - "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable)", and also see that under the section No consensus that the generally agreed process is "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". This is pretty much the stage we're at here - and to be honest that we've been at for weeks. Chaheel Riens (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

At Caltech, it is almost universal practice that scientists (and grad students, and engineers...) call each other by their first names. All 1000+ people working on LIGO call Kip Thorne "Kip" (Except when necessary to discern him from a fellow scientist named Kipp). People on campus reserve the "Dr." for the school president, i,e, Dr. Baltimore, Dr. Chameau, etc. Sometimes a person having a very common given name will be referred to by their surname, i.e. "Feynman", and there is an unusual exception in the case of Sterl Phinney, who is oftener than not referred to as Sterl Phinney.

Plot structure

@GoneIn60: I dislike paragraphs that end at the beginning of a line. Just like with widows and orphans, the practice should be considered undesirable, whatever it's called. I like paragraphs ending at the end of a long line because they look balanced, are not an eyesore and in this case roughly represent the three-act structure of the movie. Furthermore, I don't see why it's fine that the last paragraph has barely three lines while the rest have substantially more. Makes the section look careless. Cognissonance (talk) 19:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The line width is entirely dependent on your screen size, window size, font size, etc. I agree it looks ugly, but since it's different for everyone (and constraining the layout is a non-starter for several reasons), the only real choice is to break paragraphs based on the content, not the appearance. Which happens to just be general good practice for writing anyway. --Fru1tbat (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Screen, window, or font size do not make that huge of a difference. I copyedited the rest of the article to look balanced and appealing, before and after the GA review. The plot being the only ugly section is just tearing me apart, especially since it makes sense having three paragraphs given the three-act movie structure. Cognissonance (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean about screen configuration not making a difference - my current rendering of the article does not match the alignment in your screenshot at all. I don't think 3 acts necessitate 3 paragraphs, but considering it's only 4 right now, I guess I don't care that much. I would have just moved the last short one into the previous one, though. --Fru1tbat (talk) 21:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget about mobile page views making up more than half of page views nowadays. For this article, in the last 90 days, 439,265 out of 702,140 page views were through mobile web. I do not endorse making these changes just because of how one editor sees the content. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Cognissonance, I disagree that it's a must to give each act its own paragraph. but let's assume for a moment that having just three paragraphs is the better choice. Why are we placing a paragraph break between:

"He steals a lander and heads for the Endurance."

and

"While a booby trap set by Mann kills Romilly, Amelia rescues Cooper with a second lander and they race to the Endurance."?

That seems like an odd time and place to break. If we absolutely had to have 3 paragraphs to satisfy the eyesore claim, then it would make more sense to me to begin the third paragraph at the line: "With insufficient fuel to reach Edmunds' planet...", which seems like less of spontaneous break. I could live with that, however, keep in mind that the closing act (or final chapter) following the climax often has its own paragraph. When writing a plot summary, including the climax in the closing paragraph can detract from the ending as well as make the final paragraph seem very long in the tooth. So despite an editor or two possibly seeing it as an eyesore, I think it's a better choice to have 4 paragraphs instead of 3, but I'm willing to compromise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: Would you accept this. Cognissonance (talk) 21:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Reluctantly, yes. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:30, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I am also reluctant. My OCD still spergs up every time I see that last line. Cognissonance (talk) 14:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Fru1tbat, I think the break you introduced is fine, but per this recent discussion, the 3-paragraph proposal above was a compromise already discussed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me - I forgot exactly where things ended up. I haven't been keeping a close watch, but it appears the article has had more than 3 paragraphs for over a month. I was just compromising between the previous version and Cognissonance's last edit before mine, really. --Fru1tbat (talk) 13:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

PLOT: Why did they think the Ocean World was the best option and visited it first?

And why did they decide so quickly, that it was a bad idea after landing on the ocean world?

--ee1518 (talk) 17:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Because the data looked the most promising and a planet made entirely of water with a giant wave rotating the planet every hour is probably not habitable WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Plot overword or... whatever it's called

The plot currently has over 800 words, contrary to WP:FILMPLOT, which requires maximum of 700 words to retain focus, unless it cannot be further trimmed. GeraldWL 06:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh it doesn't matter that much as long as it's not noticeably or annoyingly long, some films are more complicated than others. WeGotThatBeduguhuc (talk) 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2023

Correction to plot summary, which incorrectly states that the message on the watch was "STAY". Suggested change:

Back on Earth, Murph attempts to solve Professor Brand's equation. Hoping to look for clues in her bedroom, she revisits her family house. Cooper survives falling into the black hole and finds himself inside a five-dimensional tesseract, out of view from beyond the event horizon. The tesseract is composed of moments (in time) from inside Murph's bedroom. Frustrated, Cooper discovers that he can move the books on the bookshelf in Murph’s room and uses them to convey a message in morse code: “STAY”. Deducing that this construct has been created by future humans with the ability to time-travel, Cooper understands his mission is to communicate with Murph. From inside this higher dimension, he sends messages to her using gravity. Murph finds her father's old wristwatch on the bookshelf and picks it up. She notices the seconds-hand moving irregularly and realises that the movement is a message in morse code. Kestreldreaming (talk) 07:43, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done – small jars tc 12:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Cult following" in the lead

I think the sentence in the lead "Since its premiere, Interstellar gained a cult following, and now is regarded by many sci-fi experts as one of the best science-fiction films of all time" is not supported by its sourcing. It mentions "cult following", a term not present in its two sources or the rest of the article. It links to List of films considered the best#Science fiction but is not present in that article. Its two references use "scientifically accurate" as a qualifier; they're essentially saying what the previous sentence in the lead already states: "It has also received praise from many astronomers for its scientific accuracy and portrayal of theoretical astrophysics". I request to remove the sentence, or at least the "cult following" part. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Banking over $700 million USD at the box office, receiving five Academy Award nominations (and winning for Best Special Effects), Interstellar has become one of just a few movies to immediately cement itself as an all-time classic, both for its story, and the accuracy that was put in for the science of it all. This is from the MovieWeb source, which is a bit of a stretch ("cement itself as an all-time classic"), but as cult following notes under the "cult film" section, it's a blurry line between something mainstream and something designated as "cult". That being said, this appears to be when it was added by an anon editor, and as the statement doesn't appear anywhere else in the article body I would support removing it until a source that more clearly designates it a movie with a cult following is provided. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:54, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the consideration. I'm changing this heading as I think it might encourage more discussion. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 07:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Tagged the statement with {{cn}} for the moment. Citogenesis is a thing, so if it's not directly sourced in a short time, I'll remove the "cult following" statement. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Trolls

I loovveee how the Good Article disclaimer, at the top of this page, encourages "If you can improve (this article) further, please do so" - while citing Wikipedia's "Be BOLD policy" for good measure - then two admins (User:EdJohnston and User:Novemberjazz), for no reason whatsoever, proceed to call relevant edits to the Plot of this article to be "disruptive editing", before closing the page down for six months so that no anons, unlike them, can edit. Genius! :) 2601:249:8780:5E90:E5CB:5B16:6CDE:DC01 (talk) 07:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not use the talk page to try to get consensus for your changes? Since others have reverted you, it suggests that you don't yet have support for what you want to do. EdJohnston (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

IP, understand that I am not an administrator. I have no control over the protection of this page or any other page. Novemberjazz 16:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 May 2023

Under “plot” the following line is incorrect:

They return to the Endurance after only an hour, but 23 years have passed aboard and on Earth due to the time dilation caused by Gargantua's extremely strong gravity.

(The film states that 1 hour is equal to 7 years, and that they were gone for a longer period than an hour)

It should be changed to the following:

After a longer period than intended, they return to the endurance. Upon arriving, they discover that 23 years have passed, due to the time dilation caused by Gargantua's extremely strong gravity. 68.187.89.114 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AnnaMankad (talk) 11:42, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Interstellar was influence by Tarkovsky's Solaris, not the Mirror

Interstellar was influence by Tarkovsky's Solaris, not the Mirror, as suggested in the article. Proghani (talk) 23:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Source? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)