EDIT: forgot to mention he shared the 2017 Nobel prize after LIGO detected gravity waves.
If they wanted to create something physically accurate, then all we'd have seen is a blinding white globe as the accretion disk of a black hole emits tremendous amounts of energy and couldn't be resolved to the iconic shape in the movie by the naked eye.
The hapless astronauts would've likely received a fatal dose of ionizing radiation in minutes (if not seconds), and Matthew Mcconaughey would've been shredded by tidal forces long before he entered the event horizon of a stellar mass black hole.
The movie took some liberty with physics, but managed to capture the imagination of so many people. I much prefer it this way. Those who want to dig deeper can either watch an actual documentary or read some books on the topic.
Here's an article that includes a picture of what they thought it would really look like: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26966-interstellars-t...
I think that would have worked perfectly fine. Maybe throw in some more stuff circling it further out.
You suggest that had they done no effort at asking scientists about the theories, no criticism would be warranted, but since they did and cherry-picked what would best support the narrative, they deserve scrutiny.
And I disagree.
I hope once day, there will be a movie that accurately portrays the reality. I know I am not alone. There are dozens of us! Dozens!
A film that has a deep, complex internal consistency can engage audiences and them feel like they want to know more. They don't have to understand the details, but they like to feel that you do.
Reality is a rich source of such consistent details. In historical films, for example, few audience members will really appreciate that you got all of the costumes correct down to the specific year, but the film can feel better than one that mixes Georgian with Victorian with French Court styles.
Getting the physics right won't automatically make a story better. It can constrain the story too much. But if you choose to go down that route, and can still tell a good story, the audience will benefit even when they don't know what they're looking at.
It's why actors like to go into "back story" for a character even when the audience doesn't know what that back story is, and why they work on physicality (walking like the character, holding a fork like the character, etc.) even when nobody will notice. One beautiful example of that: look at the way people moved chess pieces in Queen's Gambit. Even if you don't play, you knew that the actors knew it (and indeed, it came as no surprise to me that they were trained by Gary Kasparov). It's a little thing, but it was just one of a million things that helped that project go right.
It's not that the audience wouldn't have appreciated that moment or not. It's rather that the film suffered (in my opinion) from a lot of focus on getting the details right, which meant that the things they got wrong jumped out to me -- not as a physicist, but as a storyteller.
They didn't want to tell a story about physics -- which is a fine choice. They wanted to tell a story about love in a sci-fi setting -- again, a fine choice. But it meant that the film looked like "Look here at what we got right, look over there at what we got right, NO DON'T LOOK OVER THERE NOTHING TO SEE."
It's a choice every sci-fi film has to make. I think that this film was less successful (artistically) than it could have been because they made the wrong choice there. I think they'd have done better not hiring a physics consultant than having one and not giving them absolute control over things -- which shows up in things like those tiny details.
This is, of course, just the way I look at it. I'm not here to say it was a good or a bad film, or whether you should enjoy it. I'm saying, "I didn't enjoy it, and I think this is part of why." Not from a physics standpoint, but an artistic one. You are, of course, free to disagree with that on every level. I just thought it might be interesting to hear how a different director saw it.
Interesting to see the edges of a black hole. Nothing gets more powerful than that. Why build bigger and bigger colliders if you can get accurate data with something on a cosmic scale.
Interesting to see what particles of spacetime do there. A string is a particle with one dimension. Why is it constricted like that. And what applications exist in manipulating that constricted degree of freedom.
If we are imaging black holes, and manipulating instruments in the plasma of stars, and there's no consequences, at what point is everything out there a refraction pattern controlled by our actions. A star or a galaxy leaves our ability to view it. We still know about it through black hole imaging. No way nature could do that. We manipulate that distant celestial object to rely on our ability to image a black hole, and then suddenly stop. What happens?