• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Rate the last movie you saw

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
@gourimoko

Help me understand what I was watching happen behind the book-cases please...

The entire first, second, and third act is actually a single closed-timelike curve.

In the first act, the gravitational disturbances in the crop machines are Cooper interacting through the gravitational force (which can and does traverse higher dimensions).

The dust particles and how they grouped together on the floor in the beginning of the movie, is Cooper, again, interacting through the gravitational force by slicing his hand through space.

The books falling... Cooper..

Now here's the kicker.... The wormhole appearing near Saturn..... That was also Cooper (or in other interpretations, humanity in general).

The bookcase (or "tesseract") was not a construct of some "higher dimensional beings" but of Cooper having traversed the inner horizon of a rotating black hole and his mind interpreting the surroundings the same way ours interpret our surroundings on Earth.

Cooper could interact with all of the places he had been, because he had previous been there; he knew of them, and since he was effectively in all places and times at once, his mind constructed the tesseract in a way that he could interpret and understand.

Is this physics? Well.. very loosely.

The physics is consistent in that Cooper could change his own past; many physicists reject the chronology conjecture outright (just as many reject firewalls, and other self-consistent conjectures that don't have mathematical foundations).

This part of the movie loses people because quantum effects do not move in a single dimension with respect time. This is explained though, in the movie, but it probably lost quite a few people.

I'll try to explain this briefly:

There are various mathematical solutions to general relativity that result in the creation of black holes (this is actually my area of expertise).

The most commonly cited solution (and the simplest) is the Schwarzschild GR solution which describes a non-rotating, non-charged gravitationally collapsed mass.

When most folks think of a black hole, they think of a Schwarzschild black hole for simplicity sake.

But this isn't a common occurrence in nature, because most stars spin and angular momentum is conserved at all times; even during gravitational collapse. In fact, the spin of the collapsing core accelerates often to relativistic speeds as the core shrinks.

For quite a few reasons this doesn't result in a Schwarzschild black hole, but one of the most commonly cited is that due to angular momentum being conserved, the traditional point particle-like singularity would be incapable of demonstrating spin (points can't spin), therefore, the most base object (configuration of matter-energy in the universe) capable of conserving angular momentum is a zero-thickness ring with a net positive radius.

This 2-dimensional ring would now have two event horizons, instead of just one; an outer and inner event horizon.

From the outside, it would look like any other black hole (but it would have spin and likely have an accretion disc - we see this all the time). Once you cross the event horizon, it would be like any other Schwarzschild black hole event horizon and you'd find yourself being pulled towards your doom at the singularity.

But unlike a non-spinning black hole, once you crossed the inner event horizon, things would change.

You would now regain freedom of motion and freedom of your future worldline (on a penrose diagram the transformation that takes place when you cross the first event horizon would be reversed).

In front of you would be a large ring which would have a repulsive gravitational effect, and through the center of the ring would exist (potentially) a conduit to any other potential past or present timelike infinity (everywhere and everytime).

We can assume that Cooper passed through the ring singularity and was nestled for an indeterminate period of "time" in this region between universes (what the movie refers to as "the Bulk"). It is at this point where Cooper is affecting changes in what would seem to him to be his past. <-- it might not be his past, but in fact a parallel future (many worlds + consistent chronology).

This may seem irrational, but it isn't. From Cooper's perspective, the universe exists in a space around him; it has literally curved around him into a closed (unstable) bubble held open by the negative energy of the ring singularity.

Now.. is any of this predicted by science? Like the bookshelf, and mental perception of higher dimensions, etc?

No.

But, what happens within an event horizon, let alone near a singularity is mostly unknown. The very concept of a singularity is largely rejected by most popular quantum gravity theories like Loop Quantum Gravity and most popular interpretations of String Theory.

So... we have no idea, and that's kind of the point of the movie.

There's a great deal of metaphysical speculation that takes place not only throughout the movie (Love being a force of nature for example) but particularly at the end with respect to Cooper's experience in "The Bulk" and the formation of the tesseract.

The movie more or less is trying to demonstrate how life is not just a biological phenomena but something more; that the mind isn't confined to the physical confines of the brain; and that emotions like love are real physical phenomena and not just biochemical responses to stimuli.

This was Dr. Brand's argument as to why they should go to Edmund's planet (and she was right) - and why Cooper knew his daughter would eventually go back for the watch (and he was right).

From a science standpoint, yeah it's very loosely possible (in the loosest sense imaginable), but not remotely probable; yet from a literary standpoint I think it's brilliant.
 
Gouri dude.... Top 5 post. Thanks for teaching me cool stuff
 
Lots of "meh" reviews pouring in for "Age of Ultron."

Is the bloom finally coming off the rose for Marvel? Any planning to skip it now?

I kinda figured we were due for this, especially with how high expectations were after the first Avengers. Not sure if I'll rush to go see it first weekend now.
 
Last edited:
Lots of "meh" reviews pouring in for "Age of Ultron."

Is the bloom finally coming off the rose for Marvel? Any planning to skip it now?

I kinda figured we were do for this, especially with how high expectations were after the first Avengers. Not sure if I'll rush to go see it first weekend now.

I didn't like the last Avengers movie.. That goes for the last Iron Man movie too.

Guardians of the Galaxy was fantastic though and Captain America has generally been great, but the rest have been basically pretty "meh."

Outside of movies directly under Marvel's control, the last 2 X-Men films were also not bad. They've turned those movies around, somewhat, since the first trilogy.

I just think this Avengers movie is going to focus way too much on CG action and effects and not really spend a great deal of time building up the villain.
 
I didn't like the last Avengers movie..

I liked the first Avengers. To me it was a fun culmination to what they had been building, and by far the best thing they had done.

That goes for the last Iron Man movie too.

That was a real let down for me. I was pretty pumped because I love "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," but it ended up being a let down and I think they really missed an opportunity to have an awesome Hulk/Iron Man smash up movie with Banner helping him through his issues post-Avengers. This would especially make sense since it seems like they are going to battle in the new movie. For the record, I never thought IM 1 was as good as others felt nor was IM 2 as bad as people act like.

Guardians of the Galaxy was fantastic though and Captain America has generally been great

Guardians and Cap 2 have definitely been the best of Phase 2 so far. Cap 1 was fun as well.

Outside of movies directly under Marvel's control, the last 2 X-Men films were also not bad. They've turned those movies around, somewhat, since the first trilogy.

I wholeheartedly agree. I was really surprised that Singer kept things rolling with DoFP because the first x-men are pretty bad in my opinion, but they may have been due to the restrictions placed on him by Fox who had no clue what they were doing.

I just think this Avengers movie is going to focus way too much on CG action and effects and not really spend a great deal of time building up the villain.

From the glimpses I've taken at the reviews (I didn't want to spoil anything) it sounds like this is going to be a massive movie with tons of crazy action but with way too much shit going on story-wise. I wonder if the decision to break up the third movie is due to them realizing it's starting to become impossible to throw so many characters into a movie and have it be all cohesive. They can't really just go the X-men route and have less popular characters just pop-in for a cameo. They all have to be a BIG DEAL with their own arc and it might just be too much.
 
I liked the first Avengers. To me it was a fun culmination to what they had been building, and by far the best thing they had done.



That was a real let down for me. I was pretty pumped because I love "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," but it ended up being a let down and I think they really missed an opportunity to have an awesome Hulk/Iron Man smash up movie with Banner helping him through his issues post-Avengers. This would especially make sense since it seems like they are going to battle in the new movie. For the record, I never thought IM 1 was as good as others felt nor was IM 2 as bad as people act like.



Guardians and Cap 2 have definitely been the best of Phase 2 so far. Cap 1 was fun as well.



I wholeheartedly agree. I was really surprised that Singer kept things rolling with DoFP because the first x-men are pretty bad in my opinion, but they may have been due to the restrictions placed on him by Fox who had no clue what they were doing.



From the glimpses I've taken at the reviews (I didn't want to spoil anything) it sounds like this is going to be a massive movie with tons of crazy action but with way too much shit going on story-wise. I wonder if the decision to break up the third movie is due to them realizing it's starting to become impossible to throw so many characters into a movie and have it be all cohesive. They can't really just go the X-men route and have less popular characters just pop-in for a cameo. They all have to be a BIG DEAL with their own arc and it might just be too much.

I think it was a mistake to take Ultron and use him this way for a couple of reasons.

1) Ultron and Ant-Man are supposed to be father and son. Removing this dynamic makes Ultron vs Ant-Man and vs the Avengers far less interesting.

2) Ultron most memorable battle against the Avengers, IMHO, is actually when he was a secondary villain, being used by Doctor Doom (Secret Wars). Now, I realize they couldn't use Doom for this film, but Whedon should have realized that Ultron alone might not work in 2 hours.

3) Ultron isn't the easiest character to write for... His stories are interesting because he is constantly reincarnated by various means and has some fairly witty dialogue.

4) One of the most fascinating dynamics when Ultron fights the Avengers is that between Ultron and Vision. I would be curious how this is handled in this movie. But again, considering in this version it's Iron Man who creates Ultron (making him responsible, IMHO), I don't see how the same dynamic could work.

I just think Ultron would've fit better in a Secret Wars / Infinity Wars story arc and not as a standalone villain.

And if they were going to go that route, they really shouldn't have made Iron Made virtually solely responsible for his creation, especially considering Hank Pym exists in this cinematic universe.
 
Last edited:
I think it was a mistake to take Ultron and use him this way for a couple of reasons.

1) Ultron and Ant-Man are supposed to be father and son. Removing this dynamic makes Ultron vs Ant-Man and vs the Avengers far less interesting.

2) Ultron most memorable battle against the Avengers, IMHO, is actually when he was a secondary villain, being used by Doctor Doom (Secret Wars). Now, I realize they couldn't use Doom for this film, but Whedon should have realized that Ultron alone might not work in 2 hours.

3) Ultron isn't the easiest character to write for... His stories are interesting because he is constantly reincarnated by various means and has some fairly witty dialogue.

4) One of the most fascinating dynamics when Ultron fights the Avengers is that between Ultron and Vision. I would be curious how this is handled in this movie. But again, considering in this version it's Iron Man who creates Ultron (making him responsible, IMHO), I don't see how the same dynamic could work.

I just think Ultron would've fit better in a Secret Wars / Infinity Wars story arc and not as a standalone villain.

And if they were going to go that route, they really shouldn't have made Iron Made virtually solely responsible for his creation, especially considering Hank Pym is in the movie.

I'm not as familiar with the comics, but the back story they are trying to tell in the movie kinda makes sense to me since they have established Stark as the scientist/tinkerer, and we've already seen how messed up he was in Iron Man 3 so it makes sense that he would try to create an AI to help protect the world while reigning their powers in a bit.

It seems like they are setting up Ultron to kind of be the Joker, in that he doesn't care what destruction he creates while the Avengers seem to be very much aware of they damage their "good" has caused.

We'll see if that actually ends up being true, but from the trailers so far it seems like that is the story they are telling.
 
I'm not as familiar with the comics, but the back story they are trying to tell in the movie kinda makes sense to me since they have established Stark as the scientist/tinkerer, and we've already seen how messed up he was in Iron Man 3 so it makes sense that he would try to create an AI to help protect the world while reigning their powers in a bit.

I hear you bro, but, simply put, as smart as Tony Stark is, he's not smart enough to create Ultron. Only Pym, Reed Richards and Victor von Doom are intelligent enough to create something like that, at least, IMHO.

It also diminishes Ultron that he's really just some AI. He's not really a computer program at all, but a human mind suffering from an extreme case of mental illness including having a remarkably pronounced Oedipus complex. So, by Stark more or less just inventing him, you further take away from what makes Ultron such an interesting character.

ultron-first-appearance%201.jpg


It just seems silly to me personally, coming from a background reading the comics.

And if Stark creates Ultron and Ultron is dead set on destroying humanity, and then Stark goes and proposes/supports/fights for the Registration Act, it's like, Stark/Iron Man is no longer a good guy. He's now, at best, just as much of a danger to humanity as any of the other Avengers' villains.

That's the problem I have with Stark being responsible for so much in this version of the Marvel Universe.

Everything has Stark's hand in it, and that's just unusual and unnecessary. It makes Stark as much a part of any problem as he possibly can be of any potential solution. It's further made unnecessary because they had originally planned to tie-in Hank Pym (Ant-Man) and Ultron but for whatever reason Whedon axed the idea.

I think that was a huge mistake, and likely one of the reasons this movie doesn't seem to work.
 
Last edited:
I hear you bro, but, simply put, as smart as Tony Stark is, he's not smart enough to create Ultron. Only Pym, Reed Richards and Victor von Doom are intelligent enough to create something like that, at least, IMHO.

It also diminishes Ultron that he's really just some AI. He's not really a computer program at all, but a human mind suffering from an extreme case of mental illness including having a remarkably pronounced Oedipus complex. So, by Stark more or less just inventing him, you further take away from what makes Ultron such an interesting character.

ultron-first-appearance%201.jpg


It just seems silly to me personally, coming from a background reading the comics.

And if Stark creates Ultron and Ultron is dead set on destroying humanity, and then Stark goes and proposes/supports/fights for the Registration Act, it's like, Stark/Iron Man is no longer a good guy. He's now, at best, just as much of a danger to humanity as any of the other Avengers' villains.

That's the problem I have with Stark being responsible for so much in this version of the Marvel Universe.

Everything has Stark's hand in it, and that's just unusual and unnecessary. It makes Stark as much a part of any problem as he possibly can be of any potential solution. It's further made unnecessary because they had originally planned to tie-in Hank Pym (Ant-Man) and Ultron but for whatever reason Whedon axed the idea.

I think that was a huge mistake, and likely one of the reasons this movie doesn't seem to work.

I guess this is why it benefits me that I don't have much more than a cursory idea of the comics.

It's like not reading the book before seeing the movie, which in most cases is the way to go so that you're not frustrated by everything they've fucked with. :chuckle:

As far as Stark being responsible for this, I think they are basically making him Dr. Frankenstein with his monster being Ultron. He's meddling in things he doesn't understand, and when he realizes his mistake he will spend the rest of his life trying to fix it but knows that someone needs to be holding him accountable so he can't make the same mistake again. At least that's how I see them spinning this into him being for registration.
 
I guess this is why it benefits me that I don't have much more than a cursory idea of the comics.

It's like not reading the book before seeing the movie, which in most cases is the way to go so that you're not frustrated by everything they've fucked with. :chuckle:

As far as Stark being responsible for this, I think they are basically making him Dr. Frankenstein with his monster being Ultron. He's meddling in things he doesn't understand, and when he realizes his mistake he will spend the rest of his life trying to fix it but knows that someone needs to be holding him accountable so he can't make the same mistake again. At least that's how I see them spinning this into him being for registration.
I totally agree with your Frankenstein analogy. But.... Dr. Frankenstein pays for his sins and then some. Doubtful they'd put Stark through something so dark and disturbing.
 
I totally agree with your Frankenstein analogy. But.... Dr. Frankenstein pays for his sins and then some. Doubtful they'd put Stark through something so dark and disturbing.

Killing Pepper would be a start. Not sure who would do it though.
 
Killing Pepper would be a start. Not sure who would do it though.

That probably wouldn't do it bro.. :chuckle:

Let's see... Well first, we'd need to see Harold Hogan strangled to death by Ultron, but have Rhodes framed for the murder and subsequently executed.

We'd then have Ultron to admit the deed to Stark (now engaged to Pepper), and threaten Stark with Pepper's life.

Stark wouldn't believe Ultron and goes on to marry Pepper but Ultron sneaks in/ (or kidnaps her) then rapes her before their marriage can be consecrated and then, so no one else can have her, he tears her to pieces.

Stark goes mad and dies before ultimately getting his revenge. Ultron, finding out about his creator's death, and immolates himself at the North Pole.

....yeah...

So that's why it's prolly not a good idea to go the whole Frankenstein route unless you're willing to really damage the character responsible for the whole thing...

If Stark is truly responsible for Ultron's creation, and he's laughing and joking throughout the film while this guy is going around tearing New York City apart, then what kind of hero is he really?
 
That probably wouldn't do it bro.. :chuckle:

Let's see... Well first, we'd need to see Harold Hogan strangled to death by Ultron, but have Rhodes framed for the murder and subsequently executed.

We'd then have Ultron to admit the deed to Stark (now engaged to Pepper), and threaten Stark with Pepper's life.

Stark wouldn't believe Ultron and goes on to marry Pepper but Ultron sneaks in/ (or kidnaps her) then rapes her before their marriage can be consecrated and then, so no one else can have her, he tears her to pieces.

Stark goes mad and dies before ultimately getting his revenge. Ultron, finding out about his creator's death, and immolates himself at the North Pole.

....yeah...

So that's why it's prolly not a good idea to go the whole Frankenstein route unless you're willing to really damage the character responsible for the whole thing...

If Stark is truly responsible for Ultron's creation, and he's laughing and joking throughout the film while this guy is going around tearing New York City apart, then what kind of hero is he really?

That's why I said it would be a start. :chuckle:

Obviously I don't expect a literal transposition of the Frankenstein story. An adaptation makes sense though.

I mean, just because they've taken inspiration from "Pinocchio" with the music and themes of the trailers doesn't mean I expect to find the Avengers inside the belly of a whale in "Age of Ultron."
 
If Stark is truly responsible for Ultron's creation, and he's laughing and joking throughout the film while this guy is going around tearing New York City apart, then what kind of hero is he really?

A box office hero. :chuckle:
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top