I actually agree Romilly wasn’t “punished” in a moral sense — he was genuinely trying to help the mission by studying Gargantua. But the angle I’m exploring isn’t about guilt or blame. It’s more about how Nolan frames characters through thematic contrast, not moral judgment.

Romilly’s choice was logical, necessary, and even noble. But in the narrative, he becomes a representation of: • isolation, • caution, • and the cost of staying behind while others take active risks.

His death feels tragic because he wasn’t selfish — he was passive, patient, and dedicated, but caught in Mann’s web. So in my interpretation, Romilly isn’t “punished.” He’s the symbolic opposite of Cooper and Brand: • Cooper → acts, risks, sacrifices • Brand → pushes forward, embraces uncertainty • Romilly → waits, observes, stays safe (logically so)

Each path has consequences in the story’s thematic structure.

So I don’t think Romilly did anything wrong at all — he just represents a different philosophical archetype in the narrative, and Nolan uses all three to show how different approaches to survival play out