Some good questions from Matt D.:
As of late, in many circles of sci-fi fandom, there’s been an almost obsessive need for scientific accuracy or realism in sci-fi films. Many going so far as to say they hated Interstellar because of the “gaping flaws” in the science. Astrophysicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss went so far as to say that Nolan’s latest work “was one of the worst movies ever made” because he was unable to see beyond the “bad science”.
I can almost forgive him for saying that. He has spent countless hours studying and analysing the things that Interstellar depicts.
I’ve never felt the need to see authenticity in my science-fiction. I don’t care how far out the “science” is or how many liberties the writers/directors/illustrators take with the subject matter.
For me, sci-fi is about imagination. It’s about dreaming up what can’t be done and finding out ways of getting it done: warp drive, reanimation, travelling to parallel worlds. If we start worrying about whether warp drive is possible as it’s depicted in Star Trek, to the point where we can’t even watch it, what’s the point of watching/reading any science fiction?
Sci-fi is about hope. It’s about dreaming. It’s about looking to the stars or at the robots my son plays with and saying “what if?” Our Universe is so vast and so complex. I think it was Neil DeGrasse Tyson that said we’ve discovered and understand about 5% of the Universe. With human understanding of what’s out there being so limited, why would we not got all out when it comes to sci-fi? Why would we cripple our own enjoyment of a medium that has so much to offer? There’s so much theory; so much speculation. Too much for me not to be enthralled by Interstellar. Or The Matrix. Or Doctor Who.
Because, as long as we can still imagine it, I’m going to watch it. And until I no longer enjoy it, I declare, to all those that dare say Interstellar is bad: “No. No, it is not. Now pass me my light sabre and let’s ride the TARDIS.”