There weren’t a great many times where I had to go in and explain things after the fact. The story was built from the ground up on the science to a very great extent, through brainstorming sessions I had with the Nolan brothers. Let me just say as we start that I was doing a lot more than simply justifying the science in the film. It’s given me a deeper appreciation of just how much work has gone in to legitimizing the plot of the film. I want to begin by saying how much I enjoyed your book. A transcript of our conversation, edited for length and clarity, follows.
Thorne and I discussed Interstellar and his book in a telephone interview. If you enjoyed the film, but found parts of it confusing or puzzling, The Science of Interstellar and the perspectives it provides might be for you. Thorne is even-handed in his treatment of the film’s science, admitting where artistic license was substantial and where it was used barely at all. The book tells the story behind the film’s creation, and provides deep, thorough explanations for many facets of Interstellar that might otherwise seem nonsensical. Thorne sent me a copy of his new book, The Science of Interstellar, and encouraged me to read it and reconsider my criticisms. Perhaps because I called some of its science “laughably wrong,” my post drew the attention of Kip Thorne, the Caltech physicist who served as science advisor on the film.
However, I also criticized it for its depiction of interstellar travel and a plot filled with details that didn’t seem to make much sense. In an earlier blog post about Christopher Nolan’s latest blockbuster movie, Interstellar, I lauded the film for its ambition, its visuals and the strong performances of its cast.
0 kommentar(er)
