PDA

View Full Version : Sunshine



maestrowork
07-20-2007, 01:58 AM
The previews looked good. The international cast includes Cillian Murphy, Michelle Yeoh, and Chris Evans. It's directed by Danny Boyle of 28 Days Later fame.

I am so there.

davids
07-20-2007, 02:04 AM
So is this a screen play or an adaption-sorry I am sorta way behond knowing what the hell is going on-but if congrats are in order-and it sounds like they are then-and so forth and fifth and have fun

aadams73
07-20-2007, 02:11 AM
We are SO there too, this weekend. I'm in the mood for a really good sci-fi flick.

maestrowork
07-20-2007, 02:21 AM
We are SO there too, this weekend. I'm in the mood for a really good sci-fi flick.

Yeah, something that doesn't involve dancing robots or saving the world with a USB drive and Macintosh.

davids
07-20-2007, 02:24 AM
Aha-as usual no one explains shit to me-it is some kind of TV stuff or a movie? Don't worry-lost interest-if it had been something like I thought that'd be different-thanks anyway!

maestrowork
07-20-2007, 02:25 AM
Yeah, "Movies and TV" ;)

davids
07-20-2007, 02:30 AM
Yeah, "Movies and TV" ;)

Yeah though I walk throught the valley of the Friday night fights and they are stinkers!

aadams73
07-20-2007, 02:38 AM
David, it's a movie opening this weekend. Here's the synopsis from Rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/)
------------
Fifty years from now, the sun is dying, and mankind is dying with it. Our last hope: a spaceship and a crew of eight men and women. They carry a device which will breathe new life into the star. But deep into their voyage, out of radio contact with Earth, their mission is starting to unravel. There is an accident, a fatal mistake, and a distress beacon from a spaceship that disappeared seven years earlier. Soon the crew is fighting not only for their lives, but their sanity

davids
07-20-2007, 02:40 AM
David, it's a movie opening this weekend. Here's the synopsis from Rottentomatoes.com (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/)
------------
Fifty years from now, the sun is dying, and mankind is dying with it. Our last hope: a spaceship and a crew of eight men and women. They carry a device which will breathe new life into the star. But deep into their voyage, out of radio contact with Earth, their mission is starting to unravel. There is an accident, a fatal mistake, and a distress beacon from a spaceship that disappeared seven years earlier. Soon the crew is fighting not only for their lives, but their sanity

Somebody do care-maybe I will go check it out-maybe! thanks kiddo

Rainy Night
07-20-2007, 02:54 AM
Yeah, something that doesn't involve dancing robots or saving the world with a USB drive and Macintosh.

HA! My first short film I destroyed the earth with a USB drive and a Mac.

Bmwhtly
07-20-2007, 11:30 AM
It is a very good film. (It was out over here a while back).

Kinda like if 2001 and Alien had a kid. But that kid was raised by Danny Boyle.

It also bears more than a passing resemblance to a Dr Who episode. I'll let y'all guess which one was better.

J. Weiland
07-20-2007, 12:10 PM
It's brilliant.

III
07-20-2007, 10:49 PM
I'd never heard of this. Sounds pretty cool. Will it be better than, worse than, or as good as Ice Pirates? (That's pretty much how I've rated all sci-fi films since I was thirteen).

OddButInteresting
07-21-2007, 02:02 AM
It was released here in the UK back in April.

Sunshine is truly a work of art. No doubt about it. However, many, including myself, found the film's third act a little far-fetched. By all means don't let this put you off, but I'd sooner wait until a few of you have seen it before I get into a discussion.

Let me say though, that it's the kick up the arse the genre needed.

Zoombie
07-21-2007, 05:54 PM
Am I the only one who thinks the premise is hysterically bad science?

Literally, hysterical. I laughed through the whole trailer. The idea of anything humanity can build in 50 years could reignite the sun is sort of like saying, a gnat can flip an Imperial Star Destroy on it's back. And sun's don't just stop working arbitrarily. Most suns have a good long life span...say...a few billion years. Ours is not going out in 50 years...ever.

And that's what I was laughing through the entire, overly dramatic trailer.

Bmwhtly
07-21-2007, 11:14 PM
It's directed by Danny Boyle of 28 Days Later fame.And written by Alex Garland of 28 Days Later fame (as well as The Beach - The novel, not that abortion on toast of a film)


Am I the only one who thinks the premise is hysterically bad science? No. But while the mission is obviously the premise of the film, the guts and the bollocks come from everything but the mission.
In fact, you don'teven have to believe in their ability to jump-start the sun. Watch the film believing that their on a failure of a mission; makes no difference to what happens. All you have to believe in is that the crew believe in the mission.

In My Opinion

Will Lavender
07-21-2007, 11:49 PM
Can't wait to see it. I love far-out-in-space sci-fi thrillers.

I wasn't a huge fan of 28 Days Later. Thought it was a good film, certainly not great. Maybe Sunshine will be an improvement; I like space dramas a whole hell of a lot better than zombies.

Will Lavender
07-21-2007, 11:50 PM
It was released here in the UK back in April.

Sunshine is truly a work of art. No doubt about it. However, many, including myself, found the film's third act a little far-fetched. By all means don't let this put you off, but I'd sooner wait until a few of you have seen it before I get into a discussion.

Let me say though, that it's the kick up the arse the genre needed.

This is what Slate.com is saying today. (http://www.slate.com/id/2170731/nav/tap3/)

Says the film is "almost great."

Bmwhtly
07-22-2007, 12:12 AM
I wasn't a huge fan of 28 Days Later. Thought it was a good film, certainly not great. Maybe Sunshine will be an improvement; I like space dramas a whole hell of a lot better than zombies.Fear not.
I happen to like both, butaside from sharing the writer & director & actor, the tow films are completely disparate. They don't share anyhting when it comes to tone, style or intention.
Except maybe the idea of Isolation. But that's inherent to both genres.

OddButInteresting
07-22-2007, 01:51 PM
Literally, hysterical. I laughed through the whole trailer. The idea of anything humanity can build in 50 years could reignite the sun is sort of like saying, a gnat can flip an Imperial Star Destroy on it's back. And sun's don't just stop working arbitrarily. Most suns have a good long life span...say...a few billion years. Ours is not going out in 50 years...ever.

Ugh, I got enough of this crap from my housemates last year.

This is coming from someone who knows very little about the science, and I can acknowledge that the concept is a little far-fetched (even the film's scientific advisors were well aware of this). However, I did a little research after seeing the film (the World Wide Web is truly a wonderous resource). Whilst this isn't addressed in the film, it's based on the [currently unconfirmed] theory that a mass of dark matter, known as a Q-Ball, can infect stars and rapidly accelerate their rate of decay. The sun is not dead in the film, but it's not too far off.

And as for the bomb...as I said, I understand it's bollocks, but this is fiction. From a psychological perspective the film is entirely plausible as an exploration into how the pressure of a great burden within such a claustrophobic environment affects the mind-set of those within it.

They could've set it in a bloody submarine, but then you don't have the difficult task of re-igniting the sun and saving the planet to burden the crew-members.

It's all psychological, and I wish the boffins would give the film a chance and stop being so damn critical of the science, as if it's the only aspect of the film and the crutch that it's balancing on.

maestrowork
07-22-2007, 07:10 PM
It's all psychological, and I wish the boffins would give the film a chance and stop being so damn critical of the science, as if it's the only aspect of the film and the crutch that it's balancing on.

Exactly. All the other stuff is a set up for what the story is really about. They could have set the movie 300 years from now but that would lose a lot of the "immediate" feel. And to those people who said, "Oh, right... in 50 years" -- it's fiction. Would you have chastise 2001: Space Odyssey because, yikes, 2001 came and went already! Pam Am doesn't even exist anymore. It's just a setting. I really have no problem with premises that are a bit far-fetched but I do have a problem if the story itself is crap (Supernova, Red Planet, or the Core, anyone? There are so many bad SF/F and it doesn't matter if they're set in 2207 -- they are still crap).

I'm really looking forward to a good one in the veins of Alien.

Smexc
07-22-2007, 08:16 PM
...I am so going to watch the movie now. Damn, i knew i shouldn't ev deleted the movie.

Zoombie
07-23-2007, 02:14 AM
Well, they surely could have come up with something slightly more plausible. Like, say, diverting an asteroid by attaching ion thrusters to it and pushing it out of Earth's way.

There, the drama and psychology of "oh shit, we need to save the world!" and science that doesn't make me laugh. I've always thought that if you get the science right, it grounds the world. It's easier to care about characters if you can suspend disbelief. I just can't suspend in the idea that we could re-ignite the sun.

If Star Trek could calculate the correct number of tribbles, then Sunshine can at least have a semi-reasonable premise. Is that too much to ask for? Really?

OddButInteresting
07-23-2007, 04:28 PM
At the end of the day it really depends how knowledgable you are in the field of science. If you're a physics graduate, you're going to notice the flaws. If you (like some of my housemates) spend most of your waking hours dug in to New Scientist or Wikipedia, you're also going to notice the flaws.

But, if you're like me. A Theatre Studies student whose interests lie mostly in art and history, then these (perhaps obvious) faults are going to fly right by your eyes. My focus is entirely on the characters and the pressure of their situation. It is also on the artistry of the piece and its composition. And I have to say, the images in the film were incredibly moving. Two such moments in the film were Searl's 'sun-bathing' sessions on the observation deck, and that beautiful moment when the crew looked on as Mercury passed by the sun. The subtext, the psychology, and the imagery all harmonise to generate an effect that is moving, thrilling, and at times, horrifying.

What pissed me off about my housemates last year is they would wait(yes, wait) for their moment to bash a film's plausibility, even if they'd seen the film a thousand times before and knew it was coming. Most notably being Agent Smith describing a virus as an organism in The Matrix when lecturing Morpheus. What hacked me off the most is that not only was it pointless for them to get all smart-arse about it ("A virus isn't an organism!"), but it was mentioned a good ten minutes before that moment in the film. They were just waiting for their moment to look clever, and it was sad.

They also made similar remarks about Morpheus saying that the machines combined human body electricity with a "form of fusion": "But you can't combine anything with fusion! Fusion's a reaction that produces energy!". And "If the machines just required the heat from the human body, why didn't they just start a fire and extract the energy from that?". Argh! It drove me around the bloody bend!

If you want good Tech, watch an episode of Star Trek. I love The Next Generation because each episode provides an interesting problem for the crew, the characters are both varied and all have appealing qualities, there's a great dose of humour, and there's sometimes an underlying philosophical subtext that really touches you come the end of the episode (The Q-featuring episode, "Tapestry", is a great example).

But, for all those people who do feel the need to act clever (or like Zoombie, rather than being picky their knowledge on the subject means they spot very significant flaws), the production hire a second party of writers to work on the science and technology aspect of the episode. Apparently the writers just put "[TECH]" in the script when they reach this stump, and that is where the second party take over.

If the lack of plausibility really bothers someone, then by all means express why you find the film's concept ridiculous (and why, as a result, you wouldn't enjoy watching it rather than refusing to see it on principle). But, just because people like me buy in to the concept, it doesn't make us ignorant, pathetic, and sub-human.

Zoombie: I'm not accusing you of anything, by the way. I'm just expressing my opinion on the critique of the film, using the experiences I had watching films with my housemates as an example. They could be quite elitist and snobbish at times, especially when it came to those who didn't know a great deal about science or mathematics. Occassionally it would be in jest, but I always got this feeling they held me in quite low esteem.

maestrowork
07-23-2007, 06:17 PM
Well, they surely could have come up with something slightly more plausible. Like, say, diverting an asteroid by attaching ion thrusters to it and pushing it out of Earth's way.

That has been done a million times. Going to the sun is a million times more interesting than a stupid asteroid. And how is Star Trek more "plausible"? I mean, warp drive in the 21st century? The Borgs destroyed the world? What is SF if it has to be grounded by (present) reality?

And you haven't even watched the movie yet. How do you know the science is not plausible? I mean, no one in 1919 would have guessed or believed that we would land on the moon in 1969.

maestrowork
07-27-2007, 06:51 AM
Just saw it. The first 2/3 definitely was great -- maybe not the best sci-fi ever but definitely on the right track. At the edge of my seat the whole time, then the last act was just ... bizarre. And I wish they had stuck with the man vs. nature theme through and through but the psychological aspects of it was pretty well-drawn without going over the top. Love the theme of sacrifice and doing what is right. That is courage.

Gives me hope that more and more of such quality sci-fi will be made in the future.

III
02-25-2008, 08:28 PM
Just watched this last night. Definitely the best Sci-Fi movie I've seen in a very long time. It was reminiscent of classics like Alien and 2001 and utilized some of the most beautiful and seamless CGI imagery I've ever seen. The sound editing was just amazing. I highly recommend it.

** SPOILERS **
I loved the storyline and the characters. When the ship announced that there was a 5th crew member aboard on the viewing deck, I thought it would be a plot twist where the entire mission was a training exercise to see who could handle the stress, so when it turned out to be the captain of the other ship I admit I was kind of disappointed. I understand that they wanted to make him a "creature", but his seemingly superhuman strength (danging the guy by the throat with one arm) seemed a little too cartoonish. Still the storytelling was so much better than the recent brand of Hollywood Sci-Fi adventures like Armageddon and Mission To Mars. Hopefully this marks a resurgence of great storytelling and vision in Sci-Fi.

small axe
02-26-2008, 12:54 PM
Have you seen EVENT HORIZON? That's creepy good, far darker ...

I admit my take on SUNSHINE was tainted because the stupid DVD kept sticking/freezing ... so the mood was sort of ruined for me.

SPOILERS: The evil captain seemed to be talking about religious visions he'd had? Was that true, or was he just gone barking mad? I got the sense that even the 2nd ship's crew was having some sort of revelations or visions associated with sunlight. Did that get developed in the story? Like I said ... my dvd kept skipping and sticking, so I must've missed something important?