From the Interstellar wikipedia page: The resulting visual effects provided Thorne with new insight into the gravitational lensing and accretion disks surrounding black holes, resulting in the publication of three scientific papers.[71][72][73]
You must log in or register to comment.
The paper does state that no astrophysical insights were gained, more insights on how to produce pretty yet accurate images. But still, cool!
It’s a good movie!
No, it’s really not.
Christopher Nolan’s screenplays tend to be hit or miss, and Interstellar is deep in the “miss” category
That’s like, your opinion man.
Interstellar is a great movie
The story is a complete mess that hinges on every scientist involved being extremely incompetent
Interstellar is the sort of movie that would have done a lot better in the hands of a director like Spielberg. Nolan’s dry, clinical, super grounded approach is unspeakably jarring in a movie whose ultimate thesis is that love is a kind of fundamental force. It wants to be a magic-realist fantasy, but Nolan tries to treat it like a pseudo-documentary.
It’s kind of simultaneously hit and miss for me.
I crode so hard…
You can see a very distinct before/after Interstellar whenever black holes are depicted in media. Prior to Interstellar, black holes were depicted like whirlpools even though Jean-Pierre Luminet generated an image in the 1970s that shows gravitational lensing.
