-Цитата от Лобсанг 
случайно наткнулся
на вьюху Нолана и чё-то твой коммент про одобрение Хоккинга вспомнил. вот как оно было на самом деле:
- Kip Thorne served as an executive producer on the film and helped hash out a lot of the science. In a strange coincidence, the Stephen Hawking biopic The Theory of Everything opened the same weekend as Interstellar. Did you also consult Kip’s good pal Hawking for Interstellar?
No, it was all Kip. And a lot of Hawking’s work, via Kip, informs the film. He’s one of the great minds when it comes to black holes. But Stephen Hawking did come to the premiere in London and I got to meet him for the second time. He watched the film and when I was introducing the film I saw him and Kip in the audience and made a joke that, “If this audience doesn’t understand the science of the film, I can’t really say to the studio, ‘Oh, well, they just don’t get it!’”
Did Hawking give you any feedback on the film?
He seemed to enjoy the film very much. I was reluctant to ask anything too specific, because I felt like I would be asking for trouble!
ну и по поводу критики он вполне ясно ответил:
- К моим фильмам всегда применяются особо высокие требования в тех вопросах, которые прощаются другим картинам, и я не против этого. Научная часть фильма готова выдержать оборону, у Кипа (Торна — физика-консультанта, работавшего над сценарием и спецэффектами, TJournal) есть книга о том, что в фильме настоящее, а что является спекуляцией, просто потому, что большая часть из этого, конечно же, спекуляция. [...] Там была куча бездумных твитов от людей, которые видели фильм всего один раз, но так и не поняли его научную часть. Вам понадобится побыть с ним немного дольше и, вероятно, почитать книгу Кипа. Я знаю, где мы смухлевали так, как принято мухлевать в кино, и я сообщил ему [Кипу] об этом.
оригинал
People online have been attempting to poke holes in the science of Interstellar. Do you find that literalness a bit silly? This is a movie, after all.
To be honest, I haven’t read whatever holes people are trying to poke so I can speak to the validity of it. My films are always held to a weirdly high standard for those issues that isn’t applied to everybody else’s films—which I’m fine with. People are always accusing my films of having plot holes, and I’m very aware of the plot holes in my films and very aware of when people spot them, but they generally don’t. But what were some science issues people had with the film? That was Kip’s domain.
One thing I see being brought up is the time dilation on the planet that they land, where one hour equals seven years (or a factor of 60,000), and to get that time dilation you’d have to be literally skimming the surface of the black hole.
Like “a basketball on the rim,” which is a phrase we use! That’s completely accurate, so there’s no hole there at all. Those issues are all buttoned-up, and Kip has a book on the science of the film about what’s real, and what’s speculation—because much of it is, of course, speculation. There have been a bunch of knee-jerk tweets by people who’ve only seen the film once, but to really take on the science of the film, you’re going to need to sit down with the film for a bit and probably also read Kip’s book. I know where we cheated in the way you have to cheat in movies, and I’ve made Kip aware of those things.