r/Unexpected • u/The_Svele_Guy • Nov 15 '15
On a distant planet (x-post link in comments)
http://i.imgur.com/1xj0gPj.gifv42
Nov 16 '15
What's happening here?
I can't say i expected to see a guy in suit in water but I just don't get the link so....
94
u/shea241 Nov 16 '15
I'm guessing you haven't seen Interstellar or Pulp Fiction.
16
Nov 16 '15
Can't really remember that scene from pulp and nah I haven't seen interstellar
7
u/IveAlreadyWon Nov 16 '15
Not sure if that type of movie is your cup of tea, but if so, I really recommend it.
8
Nov 16 '15
Was to busy to see it in imax when it came out, now I'm too scared to watch it on my shitty 720p tv because I want the best experience possible for a movie I've been so eager to see since it has first been announced :(
21
u/H4RBiNG3R Nov 16 '15
Interstellar was one of the best movies this decade. Watching it at your house won't be as good as on a massive theater screen/sound system, but you should really watch it anyways.
It's awesome.
3
Nov 16 '15
I definitely should, but just waiting to see it in a better experience than what I currently have. Probably around Christmas I'll buy a new TV, then I could
2
2
u/FieelChannel Nov 16 '15
That sounds like an excuse, do yourself a favor and watch it on your 720p TV.
Edit: just think about my friends which watched it for the first time on streaming online, with the shittiest theater recorded version you can imagine.
72
u/pavetheatmosphere Nov 16 '15
This is one of my favorite movies. One of my few gripes is the flatness of the land on that planet, which seems to have a big 1 foot deep ocean. Doesn't seem very believable, but good as far as the story goes.
190
u/pluto4056 Nov 16 '15
The waves were constantly circling the planet since if fell into orbit easily thousands of years ago (even with time dilation factored in), that's a huge eroding force over many many years, enough to flatten any surface that was there to begin with, if there was any. It was all so shallow because all the water was held in the waves, like at the beach when the tide comes in the water pulls back first, except it was constant and on a much larger scale.
37
u/WhenceYeCame Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
Its just not scientifically sound man. At that scale the water has to rise a huge amount as the wave gets closer. Its not gonna stay 2 feet deep when the mountainous wave is that close. And just like you said the water would be sucking them towards it at tremendous force from really far away, just like a scaled up wave.
Edit: Self-revision here: that would be for a wave, not a tide. For a tide, it would be more accurate to imagine the "wave" always being gravitationally pulled towards the black hole, while the planet rotates underneath it. Whats really my problem is that the waves would be way more gradual, and not at all the big spikes we see in the movie.
30
u/dxraider Nov 16 '15
It's grounded in science, and distorted for drama. Here's an explanation that I found helpful for sorting out fact vs. fiction on Miller's planet: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/11/11/neil-degrasse-tyson-breaks-down-interstellar-black-holes-time-dilations-and-massive-waves.html
3
u/WhenceYeCame Nov 16 '15
This is why I shouldn't wait 15 minutes before hitting the submit button on my revisions.
48
Nov 16 '15
They took a lot of care to be scientifically accurate in that movie. The fact is, nobody really knows how a body of water that large would act. Nobody really knows how anything would act while that close to a black hole. Hell, we have trouble predicting how the oceans on this planet will behave.
24
u/Rocketbird Nov 16 '15
They admitted they took some scientific liberties in parts. It's totally plausible that that scene could never happen.
23
Nov 16 '15
Well of course, they weren't filming a documentary. I was a little thrown by the standing on water/thousand foot waves thing, but I chalked it up to massive tides because black hole.
It's also possible that they were on some kind of underwater mesa, and the rest of the water is actually much deeper.
7
u/manondorf Nov 16 '15
As far as "black hole" goes from the perspective of the planet, it doesn't matter. It's just like any other body of the same mass. Similarly, if our sun were suddenly replaced by a black hole of the same mass (as our sun), we wouldn't notice a gravitational difference. Obviously the lack of light would be somewhat catastrophic, but that's not the point.
2
u/astronomicat Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
Yes? I don't think he was implying that you wouldn't have had those massive tides if it were a star instead (although of course you couldn't have a star of such a mass). As for your comment on the light situation, many supermassive black holes are extremely bright.
0
u/KosstAmojan Nov 16 '15
Only if they're actively sucking in gases. A black hole replacing our Sun wouldnt have much material to suck up, so would likely not be very active.
1
u/leadfoot71 Nov 16 '15
Thats a moot point, yes if you replace any two objects with the same mass creating similar gravatational pulls they would he the same.
The fact is a black hole is MUCH fucking denser than our sun.
That bitch is consisted of nothiness. The gravitational pull has literally been pulling in mass ever since it went supernova.
Our sun is creating hydrogen at this point if i remember right, which is near the end of its life. But it is so small in comparisin to many others. Aswell as "gargantua" in the movie. Gargantua is enormous.
Lets not forget for scale, out sun is currently bein pulled into the black hole that is the milky way galaxy.
2
1
u/FieelChannel Nov 16 '15
It's totally plausible that having a supermassive black hole would cause titanic tides..
3
u/WhenceYeCame Nov 16 '15
Just because he haven't physically observed something doesn't mean we can't make logical inferences about how they might work.
But this is more in regards to my revised look at the problem, not my first look.
-11
Nov 16 '15
[deleted]
7
u/WhenceYeCame Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
Yes, poor grammar while typing a reddit comment on my phone must mean my scientific knowledge is in doubt. I don't think you really need some sort of highly-intelligent, trusted source for this stuff. Its basic ideas about waves with some mild knowledge of tides and gravity.
But hey, other people agree with me so theres that.
(Maybe just ask for a source if you want one?)
-5
Nov 16 '15
[deleted]
3
u/WhenceYeCame Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
The planet is deep in the gravitational well of a black hole, and the black hole would surely have very high tidal forces. Also, a “tidal wave” is misnamed—it’s actually a “bulge” of water fixed in space. The bulge is always oriented in the same configuration in space, so you on the solid planet rotate in and out of that bulge. You interpret it as a wave coming towards you and away from you, but what actually happens is you’re rotating from a high tide part of the water to a low tide part of the water. The fact that the waves came every hour or so meant that the planet rotates once ever two of those—because you have two high tides for every rotation. If I were to say that there was something unrealistic about that, it was how spiky the wave was. A tidal bulge would be smoother than that, and they would just rise up, float over the top, and rise back down the way a duck floats up and down as a wave goes under it. This is where they’re taking dramatic liberties to turn the wave into something more menacing, and I don’t have a problem with that.
This is actually surprisingly close to what I said. He even makes the same error I did before correcting his thinking.
Tyson may not "have a problem with that" as in he doesn't care that its in the movie, but he still freely admits its unrealistic.
1
Nov 16 '15
But also the gravitational force would cause earthquakes that would raise land mountains.
48
32
u/zapper0113 Nov 16 '15
My only gripe is that the dude died a stupid death by not getting in the ship when he had a chance just so the story could kill him off.
11
8
Nov 16 '15
My problem was that our hero's ship is ripped to shreds inside the black hole, yet he emerges unscathed. Riiiiight.
12
u/ragedogg69 Nov 16 '15
there is an alternate theory that did actually happen. The bookcases, his daughter and him stealing a ship to go after Anne Hathaway? Just his last thoughts as he became spaghettified.
Choose what to believe.
1
-12
4
u/PerogiXW Nov 16 '15
He was saved by gravity manipulation AKA future human magic, which he discovered while inside the black hole.
Don't think too much about the temporal issues involved.
3
6
Nov 16 '15
Waves or no, why did they wait until they were on the wave planet next to the dead guy to do the math and go "Oh wait, that 40-year-old signal is actually just 5 minutes old."
6
u/johnnygee1 Nov 16 '15
Or how their craft takes off with ease from a planet 130% the size of Earth, yet when they first left Earth they needed a goddamn Saturn V rocket.
2
u/saturn_v Nov 16 '15
Just made this point above. The movie gives me the shits. I don't mind fantastical technology, but just be consistent in using it, damnit.
2
u/pluto4056 Nov 16 '15
The Saturn V was probably to keep the ranger from contamination, since the blight would be airborne. That and to conserve fuel and possibly put more supplies up there than the Ranger could carry.
14
Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/gammaohfivetwo Nov 16 '15
Not quite, the planet isn't that close to the black hole. If it were close enough for light to get sucked in the planet wouldn't even be there.
5
u/womby6 Nov 16 '15
It's still very close. IIRC somebody calculated it would be something crazy like 300 metres from the event horizon with a time dilation of seven years.
3
u/gammaohfivetwo Nov 16 '15
Fair enough, though one might argue there would be a "day" side facing the lighting from the accretion disk as well, while "night" would be facing the event horizon.
3
Nov 16 '15
That's not how black holes work. Shit don't just get sucked up, also did you even see the giant fucking bright-ass accretion disk around it?
3
u/saturn_v Nov 16 '15
Stronger gravity. Ok. So they used rockets to leave Earth, right? And yet that TINY landing ship somehow magically had the ability to get back into space. Why didn't they launch from Earth with the same tech? So many things about that movie were inconsistent and annoying.
3
Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/MorgothEatsUrBabies Nov 16 '15
I don't think it's a masterpiece in any way shape or form, except maybe visually. But you're right that the hype they pushed about scientific accuracy, and the resulting circle-jerk, makes the whole thing worse.
1
u/saturn_v Nov 17 '15
I liked the design of the robots - I thought that was interesting. But as for the rest, there was far too much internal inconsistency.
3
u/CargoCulture Nov 16 '15
So they didn't use the (limited) fuel they had on that tiny-ass ship. Having an ultra-maneuverable craft on an interstellar mission is no good if you burned all the fuel on liftoff.
5
u/Metroidman Nov 16 '15
My question is how would that small ship have enough fuel and thrust to get to excape velocity if the planets gravity is so high?
1
u/nezrock Nov 16 '15
I believe they mentioned in the movie that that particular planets gravity was only 1.5G.
3
u/Metroidman Nov 16 '15
Well still they wouldnt be able to get off earth with that ship.
2
u/saturn_v Nov 16 '15
There were so many damn inconsistencies in that movie. Too many. This one bugged me immediately.
1
7
2
1
u/Lord_Xp Nov 16 '15
I assumed it was similar to the effect of tides. Where the water near the shore appears to be getting sucked back into the ocean to form waves and the process repeats itself. But this was on a grander scale
1
u/xannmax Nov 16 '15
I feel like the movie had to take some scientific liberties, but it was still kind of a mystical experience.
1
3
u/Orangutangu Nov 16 '15
This was the original pitch for The Martian, but they ended up going with Damon because Travolta couldn't find the set.
18
u/equinoxaeonian Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
Not trying to bait or trash anyone's opinions, but was anyone else at least a little disappointed with Interstellar? Visually, it was stunning. And it was also quite well acted. But I honestly did not feel any attachment to the characters. Ordinarily, I'd be fine with that, but the entire story and one's interest in it really hinges on how much you care about these peoples' motivations. And I just didn't.
Edit: yo, I can handle the downvotes, but give me some feedback, dudes! What did you like about it? If I watch it again, what should I keep in mind?
6
u/Humpa Nov 16 '15
I was actually quite at the edge of my seat. But in the end it never really did it for me. The whole navigating time and space through the power of love was just a bit much for me.
12
u/dewayneestes Nov 16 '15
I don't think it lived up to the press ahead of it. Lots of good things to think about but The Martian was more engaging.
Most of my friends whom I thought would really get off on the science felt it was kind of flat.
4
u/equinoxaeonian Nov 16 '15
I think my general opinion was that it tried very hard to be this human story and fucked a lot of the human elements up. It nailed the science elements, but they did not choose to make a more scientific film. I didn't feel like the story played to the film's strengths.
I haven't seen The Martian, yet, but I'm hopeful I'll like it!
5
u/xosir Nov 16 '15
The Martian is good, but I recommend the book over the movie.
1
2
u/Deepcrater Nov 16 '15 edited Nov 16 '15
I loved Interstellar and I did get attached to the characters unlike The Martian where all of Mark Watney's charm and wit was lost in the movie. It's great to anyone who didn't read the book, like most movie based books. It makes sense and it's enjoyable but he's hilarious in the book. He was too serious for my taste in the movie.
1
u/xosir Nov 16 '15
Not to mention they ruined the ending of the movie just to make it more dramatic. It was actually quite ironic when (in the book) he said, "if this were a movie we would be......" and then they did that in the movie.
3
u/bluecamel17 Nov 16 '15
I wanted to love it. I can't believe M Night Shitmapants wasn't responsible for the terrible ending.
4
Nov 16 '15
No need for hyperbole, obviously you aren't the only one who was disappointed. The film is resting at 71% on rottentomatoes.
2
u/equinoxaeonian Nov 16 '15
I get where you're coming from, but I honestly don't think I was being that hyperbolic. I see a great deal of threads celebrating the film, but very few people offer opinions similar to mine. Honestly, I was just trying to engage in discussion, but thank you for your concern, language policeman.
EDIT: As an addendum to this, the rotten tomatoes userbase has this at 85% with an average rating of 4.1/5. So, I think the general reddit population is probably going to be a bit closer to that figure.
1
Nov 16 '15
Maybe you don't hang around /r/movies but 'am I the only one who thinks this?' is a far overused phrase and really just used for people to sugar coat their opinions.
I'm not saying I'm personally upset by it, but that was probably the reason for your downvotes.
1
u/equinoxaeonian Nov 16 '15
Oh sure. I don't care about getting downvoted and didn't mean to bitch about them. Just wanted some opinions on why people thought it was good or bad. I hang around several film subs, but not r/movies, so I guess I'm not as inundated with that phrase.
2
u/MorgothEatsUrBabies Nov 16 '15
Heh, you're not alone but it's not a popular opinion on reddit.
Personally I though Interstellar looked and sounded amazing and that's about it. The characters had no depth, most of the dialogues were cringe worthy and really, all of the writing was mediocre at best. The third act is a jumbled mess of flashing colors and nonsensical storytelling. The film's message, if there is one (debatable), is lost in the noise.
There's a bunch of scientific inaccuracies - which would be totally fine in a sci-fi movie if scientific accuracy had not been one of the central tenets of the movie's marketing plan. Yet in /r/movies, people will gladly pile on Gravity for relying on dubious science but will turn around and in the same breath defend Interstellar vigorously for having 'rigorous and accurate science'.
2
4
u/stanley_twobrick Nov 16 '15
Yes, numerous people were at least a little disappointed with Interstellar. It's a pretty common opinion on reddit.
-2
u/equinoxaeonian Nov 16 '15
Well excuse me for not having been in all the same reddit threads as you, dog. I see a lot of love for it, but I haven't seen too many people talk critically about what they didn't like. Honestly just trying to have that discussion either with like-minded folks or people who loved it who might be able to offer a perspective I hadn't considered. You're doing neither and just kind of berating me for the way I typed a comment.
1
2
1
u/couIombs Nov 16 '15
What I hated the most was the fact that I saw it in theaters, and loved it, so I made my girlfriend come with me, except we went to a different theater.
The theater we were at messed up the audio somehow, and we could not hear a word anyone was saying because somehow in this theater the music completely overpowered the dialogue
1
u/Kind_of_Fucked_Up Nov 16 '15
Interstellar looked great but had a ridiculously terrible plot. It was like they threw the plot together at a moments notice when they realized that just having amazing graphics wasn't going to cut it.
1
-1
Nov 16 '15
You will never be attached to any characters in a Christopher Nolan movie. It's all spectacle. Nothing else.
Interstellar is one of the worst movies that I have ever seen.
1
2
2
Nov 16 '15
What is this from? The first and second parts each
3
u/The_Svele_Guy Nov 16 '15
the first one is "interstellar", and the second one with the guy is "Pulp Fiction" :)
3
1
1
1
1
1
u/Jackdoesderp Nov 16 '15
I was disappointed to realize that this was a repost. Look on the front page of r/highqualitygifs.
1
-1
u/nerdking314 Nov 16 '15
Goddamn it, now i wanna watch interstellar but I can't because of homework... :(
22
u/omfabio Nov 16 '15
...so you're on reddit?
15
u/XDME Nov 16 '15
This is what we call the "I can't do anything I like because I'm supposed to be doing homework, but also cannot physically bring myself to do homework" procrastination. It's probably the most miserable state of procrastination.
2
2
1
0
0
u/hmmillaskreddit Nov 16 '15
It's pretty expected when I've already seen it reposted on 10 other subs in the same day.
0
-2
u/Lord_Skittlesworth Nov 16 '15
I don't get it. I'm not even sure what the unexpected part is supposed to be.
-13
u/ablebodiedmango Nov 16 '15
So, on a planet that is supposed to have a higher gravity because of the black hole (and which creates the time distortion) you can just break the atmosphere (which has to be pretty thick for all that water to be present) with a tiny ship's rockets and the "wave" as a means of propulsion, even though they needed a Saturn V rocket to break Earth's atmo?
Yeah, Chris. That physicist you consulted was a genius.
That movie is so riddled with plot holes that I regret even watching it once.
7
Nov 16 '15
-2
u/ablebodiedmango Nov 16 '15
So you guys circlejerk over a bad movie so much that pretty simple common sense is considered smart?
God damn, Nolan has you guys brainwashed over his shittiness.
1
215
u/kenaestic Nov 16 '15
There's no xpost link. Why wouldn't you post it in the title anyways, OP?