The Last Movie You Watched

[paulpablo]

Just watched the butterfly effect with Ashton Kutcher.

It's a really good film.  I'm ill and on painkillers so at first I thought the illness must be making me confused with how jumpy the begining of the film was but it all came together really well.

I like to think I'm a really harsh critic on films, I don't like middle of the road bullshit.  This passed the test though definitely.

[Drich]

interstellar was on FX last night... Got a little complaint/plot hole so spoiler if you haven't seen it.

So the 4 astronauts go though the worm hole and wind up on the other side of the galaxy or whatever, and the decide to explore the planet nearest the black hole first, as a result of this planet proxcimity to the black hole 1 hour planet side = about 7 to 8 years our time. So they put the ship in orbit just outside this time dilatation. and send down a landing party of 3 leaving one guy in the mother ship. things don't go to plan and they wind up spending about an hour maybe two planet side and when they get back they find out 27 years have past...

My problem?

Why didn't the retard they left behind move the ship in a closer orbit so as to minimalize the time distortion??? Say an hour goes by, and they thin an hour =7 years and they plan less than an hour total mission time, but never the less an hour goes by... so why not move the ship closer at that point? I mean after 27 years one must think there is no return, the mission is over ect, so again why not make your time better match the away team's time so you are not spending decades while the rest are spending minutes?

[pocaracas]

interstellar was on FX last night... Got a little complaint/plot hole so spoiler if you haven't seen it.

So the 4 astronauts go though the worm hole and wind up on the other side of the galaxy or whatever, and the decide to explore the planet nearest the black hole first, as a result of this planet proxcimity to the black hole 1 hour planet side = about 7 to 8 years our time. So they put the ship in orbit just outside this time dilatation. and send down a landing party of 3 leaving one guy in the mother ship. things don't go to plan and they wind up spending about an hour maybe two planet side and when they get back they find out 27 years have past...

My problem?

Why didn't the retard they left behind move the ship in a closer orbit so as to minimalize the time distortion??? Say an hour goes by, and they thin an hour =7 years and they plan less than an hour total mission time, but never the less an hour goes by... so why not move the ship closer at that point? I mean after 27 years one must think there is no return, the mission is over ect, so again why not make your time better match the away team's time so you are not spending decades while the rest are spending minutes?

hehe.... so you have a beef with that, butt not with the amount of energy it takes to go in and out of that "orbit just outside this time dilatation"?
Not with the fact that there is such an orbit?

At some point, we have to go "meh, it's Hollywood, they want to make us feel the difference in time passage as soon as possible, or else we'll be disconnected, when it resurfaces again, later in the movie, with the guy's daughter... whatever... it's "sci-fi"..."

also, the guy that stayed back on the ship was not the captain, if I remember correctly, so he just had to follow the other guy's orders, so they could find the ship, when they got back from the planet. Space is big.... there's lots and lots of space... moving a small spacecraft means it will be difficult to spot it upon return... unless we're in star trek where scanners can do anything, except peek around the moon's gravitational field (looking at you, Mr Worf)

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1568412' dateline='1497534383']
interstellar was on FX last night... Got a little complaint/plot hole so spoiler if you haven't seen it.

So the 4 astronauts go though the worm hole and wind up on the other side of the galaxy or whatever, and the decide to explore the planet nearest the black hole first, as a result of this planet proxcimity to the black hole 1 hour planet side = about 7 to 8 years our time. So they put the ship in orbit just outside this time dilatation. and send down a landing party of 3 leaving one guy in the mother ship. things don't go to plan and they wind up spending about an hour maybe two planet side and when they get back they find out 27 years have past...

My problem?

Why didn't the retard they left behind move the ship in a closer orbit so as to minimalize the time distortion??? Say an hour goes by, and they thin an hour =7 years and they plan less than an hour total mission time, but never the less an hour goes by... so why not move the ship closer at that point? I mean after 27 years one must think there is no return, the mission is over ect, so again why not make your time better match the away team's time so you are not spending decades while the rest are spending minutes?

hehe.... so you have a beef with that, butt not with the amount of energy it takes to go in and out of that "orbit just outside this time dilatation"?
Not with the fact that there is such an orbit?

they were at 80% earth gravity AND if you remember they were working on an antigraveity formula "plan a" to get the massive star destroyer type ships off the ground to save the planet. They said they only has 1/2 the equasion mean could only reduce mass by half.

So no taking that all into account lifting off from a planet would take a less than 40% effort than it does now. Even so they did indeed make a big deal about fuel consumption which was the primary rean they could only go to one more planet after that one.
 

At some point, we have to go "meh, it's Hollywood, they want to make us feel the difference in time passage as soon as possible, or else we'll be disconnected, when it resurfaces again, later in the movie, with the guy's daughter... whatever... it's "sci-fi"..."

Because it is sci-fi you'd think their be a little better attention to technical detail. After all that is what seperates this genere from the rest.

also, the guy that stayed back on the ship was not the captain, if I remember correctly, so he just had to follow the other guy's orders, so they could find the ship, when they got back from the planet. Space is big.... there's lots and lots of space... moving a small spacecraft means it will be difficult to spot it upon return... unless we're in star trek where scanners can do anything, except peek around the moon's gravitational field (looking at you, Mr Worf)

what they don't have radios?

Captian Matt could have been like : "alright, alright allll right, we back babby! Oy! where the ship? dingus where did you park the ship? meet us around front where the ship was supposed to be!

[pocaracas]

interstellar was on FX last night... Got a little complaint/plot hole so spoiler if you haven't seen it.

So the 4 astronauts go though the worm hole and wind up on the other side of the galaxy or whatever, and the decide to explore the planet nearest the black hole first, as a result of this planet proxcimity to the black hole 1 hour planet side = about 7 to 8 years our time. So they put the ship in orbit just outside this time dilatation. and send down a landing party of 3 leaving one guy in the mother ship. things don't go to plan and they wind up spending about an hour maybe two planet side and when they get back they find out 27 years have past...

My problem?

Why didn't the retard they left behind move the ship in a closer orbit so as to minimalize the time distortion??? Say an hour goes by, and they thin an hour =7 years and they plan less than an hour total mission time, but never the less an hour goes by... so why not move the ship closer at that point? I mean after 27 years one must think there is no return, the mission is over ect, so again why not make your time better match the away team's time so you are not spending decades while the rest are spending minutes?

hehe.... so you have a beef with that, butt not with the amount of energy it takes to go in and out of that "orbit just outside this time dilatation"?
Not with the fact that there is such an orbit?

they were at 80% earth gravity AND if you remember they were working on an antigraveity formula "plan a" to get the massive star destroyer type ships off the ground to save the planet. They said they only has 1/2 the equasion mean could only reduce mass by half.

So no taking that all into account lifting off from a planet would take a less than 40% effort than it does now. Even so they did indeed make a big deal about fuel consumption which was the primary rean they could only go to one more planet after that one.

oh.... right, right.... I'd forgotten about that...

At some point, we have to go "meh, it's Hollywood, they want to make us feel the difference in time passage as soon as possible, or else we'll be disconnected, when it resurfaces again, later in the movie, with the guy's daughter... whatever... it's "sci-fi"..."

Because it is sci-fi you'd think their be a little better attention to technical detail. After all that is what seperates this genere from the rest.

They should.... with NdGTysen selling the movie and all...

also, the guy that stayed back on the ship was not the captain, if I remember correctly, so he just had to follow the other guy's orders, so they could find the ship, when they got back from the planet. Space is big.... there's lots and lots of space... moving a small spacecraft means it will be difficult to spot it upon return... unless we're in star trek where scanners can do anything, except peek around the moon's gravitational field (looking at you, Mr Worf)

what they don't have radios?

Captian Matt could have been like : "alright, alright allll right, we back babby! Oy! where the ship? dingus where did you park the ship? meet us around front where the ship was supposed to be!

ah, but radios in outer space need to be directed at something...
Again, lots of power is required for omnidirectional radios that have a decent reach.

LOL @"dingus where did you park the ship?" seems taken out of Red Dwarf!

[Drich]

they were at 80% earth gravity AND if you remember they were working on an antigraveity formula "plan a" to get the massive star destroyer type ships off the ground to save the planet. They said they only has 1/2 the equasion mean could only reduce mass by half.

So no taking that all into account lifting off from a planet would take a less than 40% effort than it does now. Even so they did indeed make a big deal about fuel consumption which was the primary rean they could only go to one more planet after that one.

oh.... right, right.... I'd forgotten about that...

Because it is sci-fi you'd think their be a little better attention to technical detail. After all that is what seperates this genere from the rest.

They should.... with NdGTysen selling the movie and all...

what they don't have radios?

Captian Matt could have been like : "alright, alright allll right, we back babby! Oy! where the ship? dingus where did you park the ship? meet us around front where the ship was supposed to be!

ah, but radios in outer space need to be directed at something...
Again, lots of power is required for omnidirectional radios that have a decent reach.

LOL @"dingus where did you park the ship?" seems taken out of Red Dwarf!

then have the dude drop a beacon or radio relay or something. whatever the measure it beats spend 30 years waiting for someone to show up.

[rado84]

"The fate of the furious" - just finished it. Can't wait for the next one!

[Foxaèr]

Anomaly

Eh, I couldn't even finish watching it that's how dumb it was.

[emjay]

RoboCop... the remake. How did that one slip me by?... that was so cool.

[Foxaèr]

RoboCop... the remake. How did that one slip me by?... that was so cool.

I remember watching the original when I was a kid, but I didn't realize there was a remake.

Was it that good?