Jupiter Ascending : Why is this hated and Interstellar not? Talk about double standards.

The bias is real. Nolan is loved even when he makes bad movies.

Interstellar is far more humiliating to mankind than JS is and yet Nolan is not hounded like the dog that he is.

I didn't enjoy Interstellar much at all but it was leagues ahead of this trash.






http://flickr.com/photos/55196522@N05/sets/72157625135851207/detail/

Interstellar logic: Multistage rocket needed to break escape velocity and reach Earth orbit. But single re-entry vehicle rocket motors are sufficient to break escape velocity around a water planet that is 130% of Earth's gravitational pull.

Also: Love transcends dimensions.

IMO:

Interstellar -> takes itself way too seriously.

Jupiter Ascending -> fun science fantasy movie.

Escape velocity is only relevant if a craft wants to escape without applying any additional thrust. When a craft is going to dock with another craft, it doesn't have to achieve escape velocity.

That is why the lunar lander was able to have such tiny rockets during its ascent stage - it only needed to reach the command module.

---

The Interstellar craft would have had to have enough thrust to achieve orbit, which would have been more than rockets launching satellites from earth.

---

Not if the main module is able to provide its own thrust to slow down for docking.

---

The moon only has 5/6 the gravity of earth.

---

Wrong. The moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth.

---

I stand corrected but you've only strengthened my case.

---

You're welcome.

No, the point is that you don't understand what "escape velocity" means. It's only the velocity needed if no further thrust is applied. An object can escape the earth at 1mph if it is able to apply thrust for a long enough period.

In any event, this is not relevant to ships that are going to dock with another ship.

Maybe you could elaborate on what you think escape velocity means?

---

Multistage rocket needed to break escape velocity and reach Earth orbit. But single re-entry vehicle rocket motors are sufficient to break escape velocity around a water planet that is 130% of Earth's gravitational pull.

---

BINGO!

Don't need to break escape velocity to reach Earth orbit, if you're in orbit you haven't escaped!

Oh boy, don't you know your science.

Multistage rocket's purpose is to conserve fuel, not to break escape velocity. Those spacecrafts are made to explore planets, of course they're capable of taking off and reaching orbit by themselves.

In interstellar, it's enough to make one assumption to explain this.

The fuel and engines of the ranger craft that lands and takes off into orbit again are extremely expensive and difficult to manufacture, making the initial launch from earth more cost-beneficial using a multi-stage rocket. This is why they don't have enough fuel to reach all the different worlds.

As fare as love transcending dimensions, there are two explanations to this that I am perfectly fine with. One is that humans are able to detect and sense gravitational anomalies in a way that isn't consciously obvious, and the brain connects this "sense" with the people that it is linked to. This might be a stretch, but consistent with the movie universe.

The other explanation is that the characters in the movie are wrong. It's a way for THEM to make sense of things, and it gives them hope, but it is never clearly shown in the movie that this hypothesis is actually correct.

Why working on the assumption that fallible people are always right just because they are the protagonists?

None of the writing in JA was a cringeworthy as Matt Damon's lines when he smashes Coop's helmet.

Flagged as awesome.

It's all about the love for Nolan versus the hatred for the Wachowski's.

It's unfortunate some movies these days are judged on who's directors or actors, and not judged on the movie itself.

This is a far worse and excessive movie than Interstellar. I didn't like Interstellar, but in comparison, JA is waste of everyone's time and the studio's money. Nolan needed a critical humbling to learn from his mistakes. The Wachowskis, however, learned nothing over their career and delivered bizarre outings and commercial disasters that their fans felt the need to defend to the death for some reason. The problem was, people felt the need to keep rewarding them with massive budgets to embarrass themselves again. Hell, even M. Night Shymalan didn't burn studio cash like these two jokers did.


No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Long live the Xbox One

The difference is:
Love of Nolan vs the hated of the Wachowski's

Soft scifi vs hard space opera scifi

Interstellar appeals to a younger audience, JA appeals to an older audience
This was an surprise to industry experts, 82% of JA weekend audience is over 25 years old

How does Interstellar appeal to a younger audience when it's an adult-skewed film with deep science as well as sci-fi, compared to a movie that features half dog people flying around the universe shooting laser guns?

As far as space opera goes, there's movies that have done it better without being completely hokey and confusing the audience while they were at it.


No one is on my ignore list, because I'm not a pussy
Long live the Xbox One

---

How does Interstellar appeal to a younger audience when it's an adult-skewed film with deep science as well as sci-fi,

---

Because Nolan skews to a younger audience, no matter what film he makes. 95% of Nolan's die-hard fanatics are young fan boys and girls who revere him like a God. The only time you'll find older people that fanatical is over something like The Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit films or Avatar. Though I will admit that the Guardians of the Galaxy soundtrack pulled us in to see that gem as well.

---

As far as space opera goes, there's movies that have done it better without being completely hokey and confusing the audience while they were at it.

---

Considering how much you HATE the Wachowskis (especially your extreme personal issues with Lana), I'm absolutely *SHOCKED* that you bought a ticket to see their new film Are you sure you watched this one, champion?

---

Interstellar appeals to a younger audience

---

You need to do your homework. Interstellar's US opening weekend saw 75% of its audience come from the over 25 demographic. It also had slightly more appeal to women (48% of the audience vs JA's 43%).

---

This was an surprise to industry experts, 82% of JA weekend audience is over 25 years old

---

Correction: 82% of Friday's audience.


"Security - release the badgers."

Just to clarify, you are using the terms hard and soft incorrectly. Hard sci-fi is based on known scientific principles, soft sci-fi is conjecture and "what could be." Interstellar tries to be hard sci-fi because it is based on Einstein's theory of relativity. Jupiter Ascending is soft sci-fi because it uses technology that doesn't exist and we can't explain based on our current understanding of science.

Traditionally, hard sci-fi books and stories were written by actual scientists like Asimov and Clarke.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_science_fiction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_science_fiction

Eer i wouldn't call Nolan a dog. Not at all.
But for the rest, I agree with you.

Critics and moviegoers had decided beforehand that Interstellar would be a meaterpiece, and that Jupiter had to fail. Not fair.

I was mightily disppointed with Interstellar.

The two movies have in common beautiful visuals and somewhat cringe-worthy dialogues. The difference is that JA is a feel good space opera that doesn't take itself seriously, whereas Interstallar was this self-serious pseudo-philosophical tripe expecting us to swallow that love will save the universe and that it's ok to set fire to your brother's corn field, because because.. just because! Besides, the brother looks grouchy, so he had it comming!
And don't get me started on two brilliant astronauts (Damon and McCaughnohey) meeting : they fight Rolling on the ground, and one leaves the other for dead without checking, like in a James Bond parody.

Ok, I'm not here to put another movie down. It's just that the latest Nolan movie had ludicrous moments and yet, it was not as harshly judged as JA, which also had flaws.

Yes, doouble standard, indeed.

---

Critics and moviegoers had decided beforehand that Interstellar would be a meaterpiece, and that Jupiter had to fail. Not fair.

I was mightily disppointed with Interstellar.

The two movies have in common beautiful visuals and somewhat cringe-worthy dialogues. The difference is that JA is a feel good space opera that doesn't take itself seriously, whereas Interstallar was this self-serious pseudo-philosophical tripe expecting us to swallow that love will save the universe and that it's ok to set fire to your brother's corn field, because because.. just because! Besides, the brother looks grouchy, so he had it comming!
And don't get me started on two brilliant astronauts (Damon and McCaughnohey) meeting : they fight Rolling on the ground, and one leaves the other for dead without checking, like in a James Bond parody.

Ok, I'm not here to put another movie down. It's just that the latest Nolan movie had ludicrous moments and yet, it was not as harshly judged as JA, which also had flaws.

Yes, doouble standard, indeed.

---

Ditto everything shipagan said. Completely agree.

Yes it is but trolls can't stop to repeat same thing over and over again. You don't like movie, OK, but don't rate it 1/10.

I don't like a movie, I don't rate it .. very simple.

Troll/hater you've been ignored!

I like Interstellar, but I hate Nolan. You watch a movie for fun, not for director

Troll/hater you've been ignored!

i'm not crazy about nolan, but whatever one thinks of them (i think they're overrated), his batman movies have generated a lot of goodwill amongst critics. most of the wachowskis' goodwill was used up on matrix 2 & 3.

The 2008 script draft of Interstellar is a fantastic science-fiction story.
The actual movie slightly improves the first act but the rest is a lot worse.

Originally it went from Spielberg schmaltz in the first act to a James Cameron adventure in the second to a Kubrickian third act that's best described as a mix of AI and 2001. Nolan stripped away most excitement and originality.

The visual spectacle described in that draft is almost completely missing from the finished product. Compare the first page alone to the movie's opening: http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Interstellar.html

Interstellar is far more humiliating to mankind than JS is and yet Nolan is not hounded like the dog that he is.

Chicken Pox versus German Measles. An experience not so pleasant awaits the afflicted in the event of either.

Interstellar was one of Nolan's weaker films, that's true, but it did have a few moments when it was brilliant. It also had fantastic acting (minus Damon), something that JA really needed.

I hate nolan and I liked Interstellar.

I was not crazy about it, but it was good Sci-Fi.

The two movies have nothing common, so comparing them to eachother is like cmparing apples to oranges.

I loved Interstellar because it made me think.

I thought JA was okay. I didn't hate it though. But nothing in the movie made me think. It was a pretty mindless action movie.

I really enjoyed both.

And I'm a science geek, if that counts for anything.

There is simply no response to the level of stupid in this post.

Top 60 Favourite Movies: http://www.imdb.com/list/ls073854144/

---

The bias is real. Nolan is loved even when he makes bad movies.

Interstellar is far more humiliating to mankind than JS is and yet Nolan is not hounded like the dog that he is.

---

Offensive user name EXCELLENT post.


(In reply to hwcperfect re Godzilla 2014)
LaLlama: Make me give a *beep* whats going on

Some people survive the crushing gravity of an event horizon for a major plot hole involving resurrection, and others survive a near deathly hernia from the side splitting unintentional hilarity of Jupiter Ascending. It's all "relative".

Action Hero's Anthem

Now, I haven't seen this one, but I can tell that they're two completely different films. Yes, both are Sci-Fi but Interstellar actually tries to present a very plausible scenario to us. What I know of science, I've only learnt from popular science books (the "stephen hawking" king) but for me it presented a world which could very well be our own.

Jupiter Ascending is another in a long line of attempts to boot up a franchise in the wake of Twilight and The Hunger Games. I'm not saying that's good or bad, but even I can tell it's a different kind of sci-fi to Interstellar all together.

Why even compare them? I doubt few people would think they are similar. I didn't think The Hunger Games was very similar to, let's say, Moon even though both are sci-fi.

(also, doesn't this film take place partly on Jupiter? We know that's a gas giant, which is a completely different beast altogether, so why the hell nitpick on a shuttle escaping from the water planet if you're OK with the whole Jupiter thing. That means you're holding Interstellar to a level that you're not doing with Jupiter..)

I like Nolan and the Wachowskis.
Respect to everyone's opinions, but personally I loved interstellar because it drew me in. The curiousity of exploring space in a somewhat realistic fashion, the powerful score etc.
Jupiter Ascending had amazing effects, but I didn't connect with the story or characters and just found it boring.
It had its moments but I just didn't find myself enjoying it, as much as I wanted to.
Interstellar 9.5/10
Jupiter Ascending 4/10
(don't trash me for having an opinion, it's all subjective)

I work in a library and everyone who has checked out Interstellar so far hasn't liked it.