MovieChat Forums > Interstellar (2014) Discussion > Grow the crops on Earth

Yeah, Interstellar has so much stupid illogical stuff in it, in fact the entire plot is clumsily constructed out of them.

But this, the Blight, is unforgivable, since it drives the movie.

1. Michael Caine shows Matthew McConaughey that not even his NASA people can grow crops in isolation, as they still have blight. He even shows him the blighted leaves growing in isolation.

2. YET, somehow, Michael Caine also "knows" that they can grow crops in space. This is no different from growing them in isolation. They're the same crops. You'd be bringing Earth crops into space.... How does he think the blight won't follow?

3. At the end of the movie, there are crops in space, and the blight is of course absent.

So the great NASA solution is a complete contradiction in logic, and thus at the end of the movie, the driving conflict simply disappears. As if you reached the end of Star Wars and the Rebels were celebrating because the Death Star simply vanished and no one says anything about what happened to it.

The movie can be picked apart with huge logic lapses just like this in nearly every scene. I mean that, it's from the beginning. Huge stuff, like people DYING from DEADLY DUST that simply BLOWS INTO THEIR HOUSES and builds up in huge piles.... Apparently they haven't heard of ventilation filters or window seals.

They can build airtight space ships and space stations, but they can't keep out the dust to save their lives, literally SAVE their LIVES. Oh and McConaughey also has a bunch of robotic farm equipment. But no seals on the windows, no filters on the ventilation intakes. They are helpless against dust getting in.

reply


This is why I fail to get excited when they say "ooh , we may have found a planet like earth - we can all move there soon! its only 1000 light years away" (re finding new planet cos this ones broke).
Even when its Mars and they say "Definately found water this time - its frozen and 3 miles down - but you wont be short of a refreshing glass of the h2o when you get there"

To move to rocks that inhospitable , youd be living in a sealed glass dome , so you might as well do that in earth orbit , or better yet right here!


reply

>So the great NASA solution is a complete contradiction in logic, and thus at the end of the movie, the driving conflict simply disappears. As if you reached the end of Star Wars and the Rebels were celebrating because the Death Star simply vanished and no one says anything about what happened to it.

"Somehow, Palpatine returned."

reply

And the water planet... They drill in time dilation, must go fast, every wasted second means people are dying on Earth. So they land, and they send out the smallest crew member, the woman, trudging slowly through waste-deep water in 150% Earth gravity, and it takes forever. Then she gets stuck. THEN McConaughey sends the robot immediately, no hesitation, because HE ALREADY KNOWS the robot can do this better than a human.

The robot saves her and gets the beacon she was sent to grab, and returns, in seconds.

If time was so important, why did they waste time sending her out to get stuck instead of just sending the robot first?

Hell, the entire excuse of having to land people on these planets instead of robots is insane. The excuse is that robots don't have survival skills... yet ALL they are doing is TAKING SAMPLES. Robots can take samples. Robots can transmit the data back to you in orbit. No need to waste time, risk lives, and waste fuel.

Interstellar is beautiful, but it's possibly the stupidest science fiction story ever filmed. It's one of the reasons I think Nolan might actually be an idiot savant. Dark Knight Rises had similar idiocy in its story and plot, really stupid stuff.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

"robots cannot evade the problems created by the changing circumstances the way human can in nature"

This, in defense of not sending out a robot to simply retrieve a beacon. Especially considering THE ROBOT WAS SENT TO RETRIEVE THE BEACON WHEN IT REALLY MATTERED. Thus, you are completely contradicted by the movie, because the movie contradicts itself.

If your statement was even remotely logical, the other crew members would have rushed out to save Amelia instead of sending the robot.

The robot should have been sent first.

Just because you don't like my SOLID argument doesn't make me a troll, you petulant little child.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

ooh can i join in ?
"robots cannot evade the problems created by the changing circumstances the way human can in nature"

Well they could just ask the humans what to do , like the robot on mars does.

reply

[deleted]

You can't even spell head?

reply

bump

reply

I barely remember this movie. Two things are stuck in my head - a robot on a water planet and two guys drinking beer on a porch and discussing the drought. I mean, production of drinks is one of the first things to cease if water becomes scarce.

Nolan really when downhill for me after the first Batman, and the second is watchable only for the Joker. His movies are engineered. I can't think of a better word to describe them.

reply