You will be redirected back to your article in seconds
Back to IndieWire

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Twitter Review Makes Us Re-Think ‘Interstellar’

Neil deGrasse Tyson’s Twitter Review Makes Us Re-Think 'Interstellar'

"Interstellar" received a surprising Twitter review from scientist Neil deGrasse Tyson yesterday, who pointed out the film’s creative and accurate depiction of outer space. 

READ MORE: Review: Christopher Nolan’s ‘Interstellar’ is Smart Sentimentalism as We’ve Never Seen It Before

The scientist famously trashed "Gravity" for its inaccuracies, but gave "Interstellar" a glowing review for a number of science-related points, among them: exploring Einstein’s Relativity of Time in a unique manner and one of the film’s producers begin a physicist (Kip Thorne). 

Tyson also pointed out all the lead actors, including Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain, play a scientist or an engineer. 

Read the tweets below.

This Article is related to: News and tagged , , , , , ,


Comments

spirit

I come from the heavens and can see the light and the truth. Tom you are asking legitimate questions to which bob is trying to debunk most unsuccessfully . Strike two against the operative degrasse who is propagating that gmos are healthy. To you mr. Tyson, please eat them all and then sinus a favor and feed yourself to the gmo fed hogs in a confinement . Maybe Bon can say that you passed successfully through the van Ellen radiation belts and successfully returned to your home when actually you shall be used as fertilizer in a Monsanto field of corn.

pdnotsoquick

engibeer? Is that singular or plural?

Joe Malave

Warning: I like these kind of science fiction movies…I thought the movie was deep! I think this movie will inspire people to debate about the science of the movie and think more about science in general. An educational and motivational win!!…I liked it, a lot! What 3 hours? I never yawned once! My mind was transported through a worm hole and landed in a tesseract! That led me to thinking about quantum mechanics, wave function collapse and subsequent multiverse theory. That in turn led to thoughts on Schrodinger’s Black Cat experiment and the famous Double Slit experiment. So wow…I thought the movie was a mind trip! My son Wyatt, the extreme movie critic, liked it too!

DD

Tom, I believe you when you say that you understood the movie. However, some of your questions about the story were in the dialogue if you were paying attention. Why does he not ask about his son? Well if you think about it, the son gave up on him, and before Cooper left, he got to say "goodbye" he never made any promises to him. That was the focus of the story, that was the human side of the story. We can all relate to a time when our parents made a promise to us as kids. Plus, Casey Affleck’s purpose in the story is to show you what humanity has come to. Affleck represents or symbolizes what humanity has come to– they’ve given up, they’ve become stubborn. They practically would let themselves die. You also have to think about the age difference between Tom and Murph. By the time the movie ended and Murph was already on her death bed, we can already assume Tom has already passed. A 2 minute conversation with NASA? What?? Just because the conversation only lasted about 2 minutes on screen doesn’t mean the conversation actually finished in 2 minutes. Time is different in movies than it is for us. 20 seconds for us, can be an hour on film for them. Who was going to pilot the ship before Cooper, magically showed up? Are you sure you understood the movie? Cooper didn’t magically show up. That was the whole binary code sequence, he translated them to coordinates. In Interstellar, humanity isn’t advancing in technology anymore, because their main source of food is running out. So everyone is either a farmer or is in school to be a farmer. They don’t need engineers/ pilots anymore. Notice, the old computer Coop uses, it’s outdated. And nobody has a cell phone, Coop communicated through a walkie-talkie. Cooper is probably one of the very few advanced pilots left and Dr. Brand says so himself "We are the same NASA you flew before". Cooper has piloted with NASA before but as he states, "He never left the atmosphere". Dr. Brand and Cooper have worked together before. Plus, if you notice at the very beginning of the movie, Cooper was flying the same ship that he would pilot later on, when they landed on Miller’s planet. Why do we have to show the mother dying, when that information is already given to us. And they did show Murph decoding the message S-T-A-Y, when Coop is in the 5th dimension, looking at his daughter. Not trying to be mean at all, but you should see the film again. Trust me, I had to watch it twice and I picked up things I didn’t pick up in the first viewing.

Luis

I thought the film was amazing a lot better than any film I have seen this year or last. Not Birdman, not gone girl, not whiplash, not nightcrawler have been better in my opinion.

steveromm

there is nothing in the film about the string theory, the fact that space maybe only two dimensional, that everything we see is a hologram, that’s space is infinite and then going into a black hole means the total destruction of any object including planets, light, and certainly a tiny spaceship would not be able to travel through the black hole as was shown in the movie. It was absolutely wrong regarding all aspects of scienceand had no plot that made any sense.

John

PUDQUICK is a grammar nazi, and like most grammar nazis misses the point.

Hugh W. Baca - "Star Gazer"

It was an exciting adventure into outer space and we need to keep in mind – it’s just a movie and provides us with entertainment. If you want to be a "cosmos scientist – go back to school and study. Otherwise – sit back and enjoy the movie.

Bob

Hey Tom! Since someone else decided to steal my fake identity and explain to you that no, I do not in fact have mental disability, I figured I’d chime to not only reiterate their sentiments, but to laud you on your brilliant response to me destroying all of your horribly thought out criticisms of the film. Great work on all fronts! "Are you retarded?" not only proves you to be an intelligent, mature adult, but someone capable of receiving even a fraction of the criticism that he dishes out with any kind of humility.

BOB

Dear Tom, No.

TOM

Dear Bob.

Are you retarded?

Dan

PDQUICK, the tweet actually says:

"All leading characters, including McConaughey, Hathaway, Chastain, & Caine play a scientist or engineer."

Dale

*being (not begin)

Paul

*’with confusion’ thanks autocorrect.

Paul

Wow, thanks for clearing that up, pdquick. I think you’re the only one smart enough to figure what he actually meant and the rest of us were just paralysed work confusion.

SV

The movie was one of the best movies I’ve seen. An epic.

Paul Eichhorn

In what world do you not orbit and map out a planet down to 1 meter resloution before you pick out a random place to land? Not scientific at all. No Satellites deployed from the first explorations to query? Bogus. Neil picks and chooses his science accuracy.

Bob

Tom – You make some SOLID points, so I’ll break your comments down and reply to your individual questions/concerns:

You: It is not that the plot is confusing, it is poorly executed.
Me: Can you link us to one of your 70mm IMAX films that take place throughout multiple galaxies? I hope it includes various scientific theories that most filmmakers would never dare to attempt to build into their scripts, let alone attempt to film and show to the entire world. I just wanna see yours so we can see how you may have done it differently. I’m sure it’s pretty "ambitious."

You: It is not hard to wrap your brain around the science of this film (we’ve seen versions of it in other sci-fi since the 60’s).
Me: Gotcha, which is why the studio had a book published about the science of the movie and Neil deGrasse felt the need to discuss any inaccuracies (of which there were seemingly none). But yea generally pretty simple algebra or whatever.

You: Instead, the mind-benders are, "Why does he ask if his daughter is dead and not the son after never showing any affection for the character who writes him for 40 years?"
Me: I doubt it has anything to do with the fact that he and his daughter have an incredible connection that he simply never felt for his son. I’m sure no mother or father can relate to this emotion/conflict. I also bet it has nothing to do with the fact that the son wants to be a farmer and the daughter wants to explore space. I dunno, maybe it’s just me, but maybe Cooper shares a special bond with his daughter that he’ll never have with his corn husking son, who to your point is respectful, loyal and committed to his father. It’s weird how sometimes you can try so hard to be like one of your parents, and yet they will never fully appreciate you. I doubt Nolan cared about that part of the story though. Probably just laziness. It was certainly never made clear how much more important it was to Cooper to get back to his daughter (see: the whole film), or to keep the promise he made to her almost a hundred years earlier. But yea, totally dumb. Nolan must have missed this. Can’t believe they even let that guy make movies! Lolxx.

You: "How does a 2-minute conversation at NASA convince him to leave his family for a minimum of 10 years?"
Me: I’ll try not to be as sarcastic for this one. Do you think that Nolan was perhaps aware that people like you would complain about this when he gave Cooper the line of dialogue asking (forgive any paraphrasing) "why me? you just me an hour ago." Doubt it. Good catch. CLASSIC Michael Bay sh$t right there.

You: "Who was going to pilot the ship before Coop magically shows up?"
Me: If you understood the film, which you said was easy to understand, you would know that Cooper was always going to fly it. But if someone didn’t understand it, for example, I dunno, you, or if someone refers to is as magic, then I would probably say that one of the other fully capable engineers would have captained the aircraft. And I would even feel as comfortable to say that Nolan never denies that his movie is A MOVIE and is in need of a hero.

You: "Why did we spend so much time setting up the drone and the school that have minimal payoff when we would have connected with the characters significantly more if we say, saw their mom die of a respiratory disease or if we saw Murph decode S-T-A-Y in the first act?"
Me: I would say that Nolan wanted to stay clear of the plot trope that literally every sci-movie ever has used (see: your incredibly brave suggestion that they show the mother die of a respiratory disease) when we can gain so much more out of the film through Cooper and his children’s emotions, but that would probably be too dumb and easy. Also if you watched the movie, Murph does decode "S-T-A-Y" in the first act. That part was a bit confusing though. But it came out in her dialogue when she said..(Again, forgive my paraphrasing): "It means S-T-A-Y, Dad." Tough to catch that part if you were playing candy crush though.

You: The reviews of this have been pretty fair – it looks great, shows wonderful ambition, and there are fundamental script issues that shouldn’t exist at this high quality level.
Me: Great examples of script issues. Also, throwing out the "fundamental script issues" line – you’d make a great Hollywood exec! But honestly, I’m sure Christopher Nolan was too stubborn to hire someone to help him with any dialogue and just figured "hey, this is probably a good enough script without any plot holes, should we just shoot it? I’m tired. I doubt anyone will have any problems with the dialogue. It’s pretty easy to cater to the whole world, and I think this script does just that."

Me: I’m skipping your comparison of this film to Indiana Jones because it bored me.

You: Honestly, you would probably understand this film better if you stripped the dialogue out and watched the visuals on their own.
Me: Again, I thought you did understand it, so assuming you’re talking to all the other stupid people who didn’t get it (Nolan himself says it will take multiple viewings to truly digest it)… But you’re probably right, summarizing all of your comments by saying the film would have been easier to understand if you removed all of the dialogue makes so much sense. Have you considered writing a screenplay without words? If so, count me and my family in for 5 tickets, please!

Paul

For a brilliant depiction of the effects of a nearby black hole, read Frederik Pohl’s "Gateway"

Sir Farts A Lot

Now I *REALLY* don’t want to see this movie. Who cares what this lying, boring blowhard has to say?

Cartologist

It’s a movie, lighten up ��

Robeen

Should have stayed with engibeer

pdquick

"All of the actors…play a scientist or engibeer"? That would mean that all the actors play the same character, taking turns, and that the character is either a scientist or an engineer. For some reason, we don’t know which. I think what the writer meant to say is, "All the actors…play scientists or engineers."

Josh

I think I’ve seen to many episodes of Star Trek and Doctor Who to be woed by the future humans explanation.

Tom

It is not that the plot is confusing, it is poorly executed. It is not hard to wrap your brain around the science of this film (we’ve seen versions of it in other sci-fi since the 60’s). Instead, the mind-benders are, "Why does he ask if his daughter is dead and not the son after never showing any affection for the character who writes him for 40 years?" "How does a 2-minute conversation at NASA convince him to leave his family for a minimum of 10 years?" "Who was going to pilot the ship before Coop magically shows up?" "Why did we spend so much time setting up the drone and the school that have minimal payoff when we would have connected with the characters significantly more if we say, saw their mom die of a respiratory disease or if we saw Murph decode S-T-A-Y in the first act?" The reviews of this have been pretty fair – it looks great, shows wonderful ambition, and there are fundamental script issues that shouldn’t exist at this high quality level. I like and respect Nolan a lot, but this lacks the narrative control of Hitchcock, Spielberg, even Kubrick. Spielberg shows you the map room in ACT I, tells you how it works, and draws you an actual picture. Then, when Indy gets to the map room, it is all visuals and the audience can participate in the discovery – enjoying it with the character. Nolan gets you in the map room and a character says, "the sun is telling us where the Ark is." You think, "Oh, that’s cool," but you don’t feel it the same way and over time the questions and weak justifications pile up. I say all of this having generally enjoyed the movie, but it bugs me when people say, "You just didn’t get it." This isn’t actually rocket science. Honestly, you would probably understand this film better if you stripped the dialogue out and watched the visuals on their own.

Ryan Strandjord

He can tweet what he wants, still didn’t like it. And not because of the science either, the story lines were really weak and cliche. The science and action sequences are about all this film has to set it a part.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *