Home

Advertisement

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Sunshine - ranting and spoilers

  • Apr. 9th, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Spirograph
[info]hubblegubble and I went to see "Sunshine" on Saturday. We weren't impressed.


Where to start with this.......

1 The ship is called Icarus and in the myth Icarus doesn't make it and neither does anyone on the ship. It's a foregone conclusion that no one is coming home and personally I require my movie to have a twist to it or some kind of emotional satisfaction. If you know right from the start that they're all going to die then there's no point in watching it.

2 The plot is totally driven by the characters making stupid decisions, by poor standard operating procedures and by bad science. Normally I press my suspension of disbelief button, but there were just too many in this one to ignore. Also I'm fairly non-critical of SF movies, but in this case there were so many I just can't let it go.

2 Right from the beginning you can tell that this ship is in trouble. For a start Mace gets into a fight with Capa because Capa uses up the last of the available time for communicating with loved ones on earth before they move into the dead zone. Why does the captain not allocate the resources more fairly? Everyone should have gone to their cabins, recorded their messages on their camera phones/PDAs/webcam or whatever we undoubtedly have 50 years from now and then downloaded them to the comms station to be sent out as soon as they were ready. Then, if someone is stupid enough to take ages to record something and misses the deadline then it's his own fault, but it won't affect anyone else. So we have poor resource management.

3 Why, if Icarus is so concerned about making sure Searle doesn't harm himself by lowering the filter in the observation room, does she continue to allow him to use it when he's given himself a very severe dose of sunburn? If a crew member endangers himself and shows signs of obsession, why doesn't the captain take some action?

4 I have other problems with Icarus being a crap AI. Why doesn't it warn/remind Trey that a course change requires a shield angle change? Why doesn't it warn everyone when an unknown crew member is on board? Why does it insist on being brought back on line as it perceives that the mission is in danger, but doesn't speak up at any other time, when the mission is also in incredible danger? Why does it have control of the lights, but not of its own cooling system? Icarus and the ship do not require lighting, only the humans and plants do. Why don't the humans have control of the lights?

5 If Capa is so indispensable why is he sent out to repair the shield? He's the only one who knows how to set off the bomb, but that seems to only require him to press some buttons and turn a key. He could have typed up a laminated sheet and trained everyone to do it. He had plenty of time to do that. So now we have poor key-man dependency.

6 What is Cassie's job? If she's the pilot why wasn't she with Trey when he made the course change? Even a 747 has two pilots to check and cross check each other's workings. So now we have poor standard operating procedures.

7 Why on earth would the psychiatrist insist to the captain the they let the youngest, most inexperienced crew member make the most important decision of the mission? I'm going to assume at this point that the sun had already gone to Searle's head.

8 How does Capa intend to use the payload from Icarus I? If the only reason to go to Icarus I is to salvage their bomb, how does he intend to make use of it? He has no plan and the crew don't once have a talk about what the possible scenarios might be. If he's the only one who can set off the bomb how does he propose to set off two bombs? There seems to be no informed decision making at all and the decision should always have been the captain's.

9 If Icarus I failed in its mission for an unknown reason why do they build an identical ship for the second mission?

10 Why is the arming mechanism for the bomb on the actual bomb? Why isn't it in the control room?

11 If the course change resulted in the shield being 1.1 degrees out of alignment, why are the panels jammed at 45 degrees?

12 Gravity. A very poor understanding of gravity in the whole thing. The ship has gravity throughout, I have no problem with this, but when Mace and Capa are in the airlock the gravity doesn't affect them until the air pressure is equalised. I think that someone thinks that we're held on earth by air pressure and men bounce around on the moon due to a lack of air rather than a lack of gravity.

13 When Kaneda and Capa are out repairing the shield why aren't they tethered? To work in low gravity you need to have something to work against or you'd bounce off the hull every time you touched something. No real knowledge of Newton's Third Law. Also if they were tethered to motorised winches they could be hauled in at speed and both would have survived Icarus's attempts to arbitrarily re-take control. How can the loss of the indispensable Capa and the captain be considered as a better option than holding their angled position to the sun for a few more minutes? I mean they've already destroyed their air supply, why not wait another minute or two?

14 What kind of engines does Icarus have that allow it to reverse thrust away from the sun? The engine requirements for the return journey would be much higher than the trip to the sun, but as soon as the payload has separated they have four minutes to get clear of the bombs thrusters while still keeping their much smaller shield in between them and the sun. You can't just throw thrust engines into reverse, because it's not a bloody outboard motor. There's nothing in space to suck on to create a reverse thrust.

15 Why do they slingshot around Mercury? The only reason to sling shot is to pick up speed which they immediately need to dump when they get to Icarus I. How do they slingshot and keep their shield between them and the sun and keep their engines behind them? If Icarus can keep the ship sufficiently oriented during that maneuver it should have had no problem with Trey's initial course change.

16 Why are the comm units spinning? The only reason to spin something on a ship is to induce an artificial gravity, so that would probably be required for habitation modules. But the ship has gravity through out so it's not that. How do you send a signal from spinning communications units to a very small point millions of miles away? You need a directional antenna, not a spinning transmitter. Very poorly thought out.

17 When Icarus drops the payload it returns home with a much smaller shield. Wouldn't the comms units be destroyed then? Why not just drop the comms units once you reach the dead zone. You don't need them, keeping them spinning (for whatever reason) requires energy and you're going to lose them anyway once you've dropped the bomb.

18 Why is their only method of oxygen production in one area? Why aren't there plants all over the ship acting as CO2 scrubbers and why are there no seeds in storage? Why haven't they established base camps of supplies, fuel, food and O2 at various points for the return journey. Even during the old days of Antarctic exploring they saw the value of this. Are we really so much stupider in 50 years? If so, then quite frankly we deserve to die out. Very poor redundancy plans and backups.

19 Why is the sprinkler system in the o2 garden insufficient to put out a fire? Surely one of the first scenarios you work through before launch is a fire in the garden. Why if they have a gas management system, don't they flood the burning garden with CO2 instead of o2? It would have put the fire out and not harmed the plants. Trying to make a fire's duration shorter by flooding it with 02 and burning the available fuel quicker is foolhardy and none of you kids should try it at home. The standard firefighting methods even in these primitive times are water, foam and CO2. No one in their right mind would use o2 to fight fire.

20 Why do the crew get to run about the ship willy nilly when there's a crisis? Very poor discipline.

21 Why does Harvey the comms officer tell everyone that he had heard IcarusI? He should have discretely told the captain and let him decide to tell the others. In a confined situation any communication received from outside become very important. Look at what happens in Big Brother when they hear people over the wall, shouting. They have emotional breakdowns. The presence of IcarusI should have been kept quiet. What if they had received word from earth that there had been a war? The captain would have kept that info from them to maintain morale. Very poor psychology and standard operating procedures again.

22 Why, when they know that comms 3 and 4 will be destroyed by their attempts to repair the shield, don't they cut off air and power to the units to isolate them? All they do is tell Icarus to shut off the sensors and silence the alarms. Surely to protect the ship systems they should isolate failing units. Why doesn't Icarus do this, if it's such a great AI? Who is responsible for ship operations?

23 When Trey is on suicide watch, who is actually watching him? Icarus? Cause we know how good she is at speaking up.

24 When Capa finds out that an unknown crewman is on board why does he go for a wee look himself. Why doesn't he ask Icarus to shut the observation room door and do a ship-wide comm to the others to warn them? Why doesn't he ask Icarus to raise the filters in the observation room so he can actually see who is in there?

25 Why is there a manual lock on the airlock door on one side only?

26 Why are the tags used to communicate with the ship and monitor vital signs held on my a piece of plastic string? Why aren't they on a wrist band?

27 What was the plan once they got onto Icarus I? It should have been prioritised that they go to the o2 garden and salvage what they can. They should have run an umbilical over to the o2 tanks and stolen what o2 they had without even going on board. They should have worked out well in advance how they were going to use the second bomb. In the end they achieve nothing at all by going to Icarus I, not even the only reason for diverting their mission of getting the second bomb.

28 Why, when Capa Harvey and Mace blew themselves out the damaged airlock, didn't they tie themselves to Capa's suit? They found enough silver insulation to wrap themselves in, why just try and hold on instead of tethering themselves to him so no one drifted off? Poor Operating procedures and decision making again.

29 How do we hear Harvey's arm smash? In space no one can hear you scream far less smash to bits.

30 Where is the observation deck? Is it in the shield facing forwards? No it's not. It's in the side. How does it get a direct view of the sun if it's behind the shield? Is it an image from Icarus's sensors? Well then how does it have the capacity to burn skin and drive a man mad if it's only an image?

31 How big is the bomb? As big as Manhattan we're told. Is that to give americans the idea that it's big? Is it joke referencing the Manhattan project since it's a nuclear bomb? Or is it bunk? Even a bomb as big as the whole world wouldn't make any significant difference to the massive fusion reactor that the sun is. No effect at all. Vaporised in an instant. Not a snowflake's chance in hell.

32 Why is there only one airlock? Why no escape pods or shuttles? Why is it even a manned mission at all? If we can fire a probe to Mars and it still functions years later why can't we punt a bomb at the sun?

33 Is this crew really the best that mankind has to offer? A boy that is so clever he can't think himself out a wet paper bag. A computer expert who thinks the best way to save the machine is to dive into its cooling tanks ad thinks it's ok to fight fire with o2. A captain that can't/won't make decisions. A overly talkative and cowardly communications officer. An arrogant pilot that won't accept input from his co-pilot and becomes suicidal. And a psychiatrist with an obsession? A biologist without a separate potting shed or a seed store.
<\lj-cut>

Ahhhhh. I needed that. Sorry if anyone liked it, but it might have made sense in the fifties, not now that we have science taught in schools.

Comments

(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2007 07:01 pm (UTC)
Gravity Well

34. If they're parked within such a close distance to the sun, they might need slightly more thrust to escape the gravity well than their engines (slingshot aside) might provide

35. Why introduce "the scary monster"?

36. When asking about oxygen left, Icarus doesn't bother to mention there's a 5th person on-board (see #35). However, it can exactly pinpoint the location of the greebly to the observation deck. Why?

37. Following on from #36, why didn't Cappa a) tell the others; b) lock the doors to the room it was in (since Icarus has already shown in can do that); c) in the face of going in there on his own without telling anyway (always a good ploy....) doesn't he tell Icarus to turn up the solar filters in the observation room such that he can see the greebly?

[info]dyllanne wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2007 07:36 pm (UTC)
Re: Gravity Well
38 What kind of material is the shield made out of? It needs to withstand the heat and light of the sun, but also all the other EM radiation that the sun produces, like radio waves, microwaves and x-rays. I'm assuming some kind of gold/ceramic miracle material. Is there enough gold in the world to coat something as big as Manhattan to a depth sufficient for the job? Or did we all have to chip in our sovereign rings along with our nuclear fuel to fund this mission. A mission, which was pointed out by Capa during his simulations, has only a 46% chance of succeeding anyway.

39 What did the film-makers ask their physics adviser? What are conditions like at Mercury orbit? What's the escape velocity of the sun at that distance? Would gold melt at Mercury's distance from the sun? Explain astro-physics to us and tell us why a thrust engine isn't an outboard motor. What is gravity? I doubt they asked anyone these questions.



(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 9th, 2007 09:37 pm (UTC)
Re: Gravity Well
Hi Carolyn, That's an impressive rant about Sunshine! I edited your comment on my site to link directly to your post. It's interesting how much promotion has gone into the fact that Danny Boyle had a science adviser, Brian Cox from Manchester University. According to the following site, they even held a press conference at CERN with Cox. Weird.

http://space.newscientist.com/article/dn11385-science-fiction-movie-review-isunshinei.html

-Jason
http://dynamicsubspace.net/
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Apr. 10th, 2007 04:00 pm (UTC)
Re: Gravity Well
Yeah, I read Cox's explanation for why the sun might be dying and why a nuclear bomb might fix it and I have no problem with that. In fact I think it's the only question they asked him, but they quite obviously were very shaky on other more fundamental aspects of science.

In general I'm very accepting of the more fantastical aspects of SF. But a film or TV series has to show that the creators have thought about the technical problems and invented a way round them. As a for instance, everyone knows in Star Trek that matter to energy conversion is not possible, but because of the explanations that:-
a We know this process requires a lot of computer memory and consequently people cannot be stored in the transport buffers for long without degradation
b It's a high energy process so we can't do it with shields up or without full power
c We understand that there's a fundamental uncertainty at a quantum level about the momentum and location of an electron so we've invented the heisenberg compensators as a work around,

then it shows that some thought has been put into the problem and how it might be solved. This is what makes SF. It's also what makes SF very difficult to tackle well as explanations have to have a ring of truth about them. I notice that Alex Garland hasn't written SF before. I think it shows.

While I'm at it:-

40 In the case of Sunshine they didn't even check out the available info on the sun. If they had typed "sun information" into google the very first entry the very shows that the sun has differential rotation and doesn't present an identical face all the time. Even in geo-stationery orbit the equatorial region moves faster than the poles.

I've just worked out why I'm so annoyed about this movie. The technical aspects of a trip to the sun have been side-lined as so unimportant that not even basic facts have been checked. Is a movie only good if it looks and sounds good? Is that the extent of the quality parameters in a movie these days? I hate the way that ignorance is tolerated and in a lot of cases encouraged these days. Ignorance used to be abhorred, now we think it's a laugh or it's cute that someone doesn't know the name of the first man on the moon.

In the modern world everyone is required to be innovative, creative, a good communicator, assertive and sociable. If a technical person is not naturally like that then they can expect to have to work hard on those aspects to be promoted or compensated. A boss will send a science nerd on course after course to try and force then into the modern ideal employee. However a person who is already creative, a good communicator etc does not have to do one single course on basic arithmetic to get ahead. Why are technical skills and knowledge held in such low regard?
(Anonymous) wrote:
Aug. 27th, 2007 08:48 pm (UTC)
Re: Gravity Well
In the end, where they go down the Gravity well of the sun, it seems they become kind of weightless for the first time in the movie. The gravity of the sun would make them flat like pancakes.
[info]dalg wrote:
Apr. 10th, 2007 12:06 pm (UTC)
Plot hole shmott hole.....I liked it. *duck* :-)
Can think of worse ways to spend two hours. BTW don't blame Danny Boyle if you didn't like it, it was written by Alex Garland of The Beach and Teseract fame. Now just waiting for 28 Weeks later.
(Anyone who knows me in real life will know my taste in movies, I have a HUGE BS tolerance and love bad movies)
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Apr. 10th, 2007 04:10 pm (UTC)
A lot of people liked it. I thought it looked good. I like Cillian Murphy and thought he was ace in "28 Days Later". I liked the characters and the dialogue was acceptable. I liked the way Icarus looked. I liked the sun effect even though it had its flaws. I even didn't mind the "trip to the sun" premise. I'm actually not blaming Danny Boyle at all as I believe he made a good looking, but poorly plotted film. I have enjoyed his previous work like Trainspotting and 28 Days Later. In fact it was my enjoyment of those movies that extracted £13.90 from us and encouraged us to spend one of our four nights out per year on it. I just wish I had gone to see 300 instead.

What I didn't like were the way the plot was moved along solely by poor decisions, bad science and inconsistencies. And the way basic aspects of science were ignored because it either didn't suit the budget or that Alex Garland wasn't paying attention in physics.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 12th, 2007 09:14 pm (UTC)
If you only have 4 nights out a year, I'm glad for your sake that you didn't waste 25% of them on 300. Having said that, if I had 4 nights a year, I could spend each of them watching Ghosts of Mars and would love it dearly every time.
[info]tanngrisnir wrote:
Apr. 14th, 2007 03:54 pm (UTC)
Heh. I haven't really caught up with my flist, but [info]dalg recommended I should read this excoriation of the film. Very nice. Haven't seen the film, not sure if I shall bother doing so, but I loved your comments. Especially the stuff about trying to fight fire with O2. *snort*
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 10:33 am (UTC)
Do you freeze in outer space?
Another lack of basic physics knowledge: You don't freeze to death when you're in outer space unprotected (The escape from I1 to I2). To lose heat you need something to lose heat to, and if there were something to lose heat to it would probably be quite warm being so close to the sun..The lack of pressure is the problem..
[info]hongi wrote:
Apr. 15th, 2007 05:25 pm (UTC)
9 If Icarus I failed in its mission for an unknown reason why do they build an identical ship for the second mission?

Presumably because they had very little time or choice of designs. As you mentioned, the Icarus I was lost for unknown reasons. For all the ground controllers knew, it could have been a design flaw or some problem with the crew. If it was a design flaw, I'm not sure they had another 7 years to come up with and build an untested design. At least they knew the Icarus design flew. As the crewmembers keep telling us, it was their last chance to restart the Sun resource-wise and time-wise.

3 Why, if Icarus is so concerned about making sure Searle doesn't harm himself by lowering the filter in the observation room, does she continue to allow him to use it when he's given himself a very severe dose of sunburn?

The key point is that Icarus is concerned about Searle harming himself by lowering the filter by a certain percentage point, at which stage he WILL be harmed irreversibly. Maybe Icarus saw no big deal with lowering the filter to a manageable level. Maybe Icarus thought that sunburn wasn't that big of a deal. We don't really know the parameters of Icarus' programming. Maybe it only acts in life-or-death situations.

As for all the other complaints, the dimming of the Sun must have spontaneously lowered humanity's IQ.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 29th, 2007 12:46 am (UTC)
Some possible answers
Nice list. Although it has some plot holes and the Icarus I captain thing is simply stupid, nevertheless I did enjoy it. Let me try to partially defend the movie a bit:

> 8 How does Capa intend to use the payload from Icarus I?

I thought this one was qute obvious. The plan was to transfer part of the crew over to Icarus I and launch the Icarus I payload as it was planned. Infortunatly, they find out that this isn't possible because the Icarus I computer - which seems to be play a vital role the maneuver - is destroyed.
What I found confusing is that in the end, the Computer is not needed for the operation - Cappa does everything manually. That didn't really make sense.

> 9 Why do they build an identical ship for the second mission?

I don't think it is identical. It looks like the Icarus II Shield is a bit bigger in some scenes. Why do you think they are identical anyway?

> 10 Why is the arming mechanism for the bomb on the actual bomb?

The MANUAL arming mechanism is on the bomb. Initially, the bomb was supposed to be triggered by the computer. I guess the reason why they cannot trigger it remotely is because radio doesn't work so close to the sun.

>14 What kind of engines does Icarus have that allow it to reverse thrust away from the sun?

Well, the movie doesn't show a lot details on this. However, I thought it was smart to make the smaller, secondary shield of the crew section concave. I persume it should show that they wanted to use solar wind to gain at least a slight advantage.

>15 Why do they slingshot around Mercury? The only reason to sling shot is to pick up speed which they immediately need to dump when they get to Icarus I.

Well, I agree that this is all not realy thought-out. Especially since they don't really slingshot - they go in orbt of mercury.
Appart from this, I persume that Icarus I and Icarus II, both plan to go into a very low sun orbit. This is also where the both ships meet. If this is true, the visualisation in the movie is quite misleading. For this kind of maneuver, a slingshot might be useful to decelerate the ship, just like the MESSENGER probe does that in order to go into Mercury orbit.

> How do they slingshot and keep their shield between them and the sun and keep their >engines behind them?

In a real slingshot you wouldn't need engines at all. Going from mercury into a low sun orbit, you could start the engine when the ship is in mercury's shadow and after that, quickly re-orient the ship before you are exposed to sunlight.

> If Icarus can keep the ship sufficiently oriented during that maneuver it should >have had no problem with Trey's initial course change.

From what I understood, everything was done manually because this kind of maneuver wasn't authorized.

>25 Why is there a manual lock on the airlock door on one side only?

There are two - one on each side. Still - I agree that it doesn't make sense that each of them can only be acessed from one side.

>26 Why are the tags used to communicate with the ship and monitor vital signs held on my a piece of plastic string? Why aren't they on a wrist band?

What would that change anyway? I thought that was pretty comfortable.

>30 Where is the observation deck?

Yeah that's strange. In the "explore" section of www.sunshinedna.com you see that it is supposed to be between the payload an the shield. It is behind some special shield tile which can be adjusted it it's reflectibility. I thought that wasn't realy explained well in the movie because it means that you have to access the payload to go into the observation deck.


> 31 Even a bomb as big as the whole world wouldn't make any significant difference to the massive fusion reactor that the sun is.

They don't really explain what kind of bomb that is. They call it "stellar bomb" indicates that it is not your average fusion bomb. The fancy sparks aren't part of any known bomb mechanisms, too.
The problem with the sun seems to be also a very special one. They talk a lot about it on http://www.sunshinedna.com . I was a bit disappointed that it wasn't properly explained in the movie.

[info]dyllanne wrote:
Apr. 30th, 2007 12:52 pm (UTC)
Re: Some possible answers
>>26 Why are the tags used to communicate with the ship and monitor vital >signs held on my a piece of plastic string? Why aren't they on a wrist band?

>What would that change anyway? I thought that was pretty comfortable.

Well, Pinbacker removed Capa's ability to communicate with Icarus and the crew by removing his tags with a knife. If they'd been on a wrist band another fairly clunky plot device would have been removed.

The clumsy plotting is my main problem with this whole movie.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Apr. 29th, 2007 12:49 am (UTC)
...


However, I agree with most of your points, especially that stupid thing with just one airlock on a ship of that size. They seem to abandon Icarus I way to quickly. And also, I have two things you have missed:

When the two ships meet, you see the back of the Icarus I shield from the observation deck of Icarus II. You also see reflections on Icarus I - the sun is being reflected in Icarus II shield onto the back of Icarus I shield. I thought it was a nice detail but it creates some problems - wouldn't the reflected sun rays burn Icarus I? If not, then it would mean that the Icarus II shield actually absorbs most of the sun radiation. If this is true, wouldn't that require some absurd cooling mechanism?

In the Kaneda accident scene, the computer insist on rotating the shield back into the "normal" position. Why is that? Kaneda and Mace seem to agree that it is vital to "protect the payload". Protect from what? The fire? How would that stop the fire? I thought THAT was a juicy plot hole.
[info]syrazemyla wrote:
May. 1st, 2007 08:21 pm (UTC)
Also, what the hell is the bomb made of?

A bomb the size of Manhattan made of fissile material wouldn't offer very much more oomph than a normal nuclear bomb. As portions of it go supercritical and explode, it blasts the rest of the uranium/plutonium away, which stops the runaway reaction. This is why they went with fusion bombs in the first place, because you can add a lot of deuterium/tritium mix to it, and almost all of it will detonate.

And I don't think it would be a fusion bomb, either. Why would you be toting along a bunch of deuterium and tritium when there's a near-unlimited source of it in the sun? And if the sun is stopping burning because of a lack of deuterium and tritium, you could throw an Earth-sized chunk of it into the sun and it wouldn't make a mite of difference.

And the solar physics hurts even more. Back in the 1800s, physicists didn't know about fusion, so they suspected that the sun was a ball of gas that burned because the gas was collapsing gravitationally and turning gravity to heat. They calculated that a ball of gas the size of the sun would collapse and burn for 100 million years. So even if something magically stopped all the fusion in the sun, we wouldn't have anything to worry about; by the time the sun stopped burning, we'd probably be extinct anyway.
[info]dyllanne wrote:
May. 2nd, 2007 10:01 am (UTC)
Exactly. The sun is already a runaway nuclear reaction. What would be the point of a adding a few drops o unranium to it?

I think at the rate we're going we'll have degenerated too far to care in about 100 year, never mind 100million years.
[info]raistllynn wrote:
May. 1st, 2007 10:52 pm (UTC)
Oh, Ca! When did your 'suspension of disbelief' button break!
[info]dyllanne wrote:
May. 2nd, 2007 10:22 am (UTC)
There was a disbelief overload in the anti-matter reaction chamber.
This film broke it.

The thing about the "suspension of disbelief" button is that during a book/film you can press it a couple of times and if the explanation for why you have to press it is plausible enough then the premise remains believable. This is the whole reason that SF is still popular. I remember an eminent SF author saying this at an Albacon. (It may have been David Gerrold). That's why Star Trek was so successful. Because the impossible elements of the show were well researched and the pseudo-science was part of the mythos.

If Sunshine had contained one or two science mistakes or one or two plot holes, I would have probably enjoyed it. But while I was watching this movie they just kept piling on the shite till I was actually angry. I've never left a movie so furious. Hence the massive rant. LJ can be so useful as therapy and letting it all out is so cathartic.

It's not easy to write good SF, that's why only the cleverest authors do it. (Just look at the biographies of Peter F Hamilton, Stephen Baxter etc) Alex Garland has never written SF before and it bloody shows. I just got the impression that he hadn't paid attention in school and I hate people who revel in their own ignorance. He had a science expert make comments on why the sun might be dying, but he didn't ask any other questions. I guess they were too ignorant to realise that they didn't know squat about space or physics or chemistry or anything else that I regard as general knowledge. I know he's friends with Danny Boyle, but really there's no point supporting poor work to the detriment of your own.

I can't believe I'm STILL ranting about this.

[info]chelonianmobile wrote:
Jun. 3rd, 2007 04:12 pm (UTC)
Hi. Was just reading the archives of [info]mock_the_stupid and saw you mention this in one post.

Another point: What the hell was the use of those vibrating scalpels? I could just about get that there'd be some sort of use if they made chopping motions with the blade going up and down, or stabbing with the blade going back into the handle and out again, but vibrating from side to side? All that'd make is a really big, messy, jagged cut, which is no use to anyone.
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Jun. 7th, 2007 09:36 am (UTC)
Yeah. You're right. You can't use it as a pecision cutting device as the point shakes all over the place and if the vibration is supposed to make it a more powerful knife then the vibration is in the wrong direction.

I think Alex Garland, the writer, read an SF story once that may have contained vibrablades as a story element, but as he just wasn't paying attention at all in physics, totally misunderstood the principles on how they'd work.

I like your icon. Sunshine should have been called "The ship's called Icarus. Ending Obvious."
[info]chelonianmobile wrote:
Jun. 7th, 2007 12:12 pm (UTC)
I maintain that they should make a sequel entitled "Lollipops and Rainbows".
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Jun. 8th, 2007 09:35 am (UTC)
Oh.....oh... I know. It's a prequel and they go on a space ship journey to the end of the rainbow to find the crock of gold that they need to make the shield for the Icarus. Cause there isn't enough gold in the world to do it. But they meet a leprechaun who wants to keep his gold and Cillian Murphy has too look even younger and more scared than he's ever looked before. And only the power of love (or lollipops) can vanquish the evil leprechaun.
[info]chelonianmobile wrote:
Jun. 8th, 2007 10:41 am (UTC)
I was thinking more like the son of one of the crewmembers goes insane from taking Halloween candy laced with LSD and ends up in psychic contact with the dead crew.
[info]merphilostenes wrote:
Jul. 27th, 2007 06:14 am (UTC)
what's with the fucking cg on the icarus I captain?
Jesus christ! I mean COME ON! I think I'd probably own this movie if it had been made in the eighties. I'm a sucker for campy cult classics like say, I don't know...Scanners. But wow. It's 2007. Not even Freddy wasn't as poorly done up, even in the FIRST nightmare on elm street. I guess Boyle wanted to throw in a zombie. And everyone knows the only zombies allowed in space are the intergalctic wanker zombies in Peter Jackson's Bad Taste.

sigh.
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Jul. 27th, 2007 02:40 pm (UTC)
Re: what's with the fucking cg on the icarus I captain?
Yup. I too am a fan of Scanners. I even have time for "It:The Terror from Beyond Space" which may be the very original inspiration for Alien. But Sunshine just completely shat all over the genre for me.

My husband Al even said "What was the point of introducing the greeblie?" which is his word for the burnt shambling Pinbacker.
[info]sleet01 wrote:
Jul. 30th, 2007 08:25 pm (UTC)
Total agreement here!
I totally agree with all your points! My wife and I got more intellectual stimulation from breaking down every logical and factual error of this movie than we did from watching it, not to mention that our time was much better spent.

Re: 32, There are _two_ airlocks, a fact conveniently neglected until the very end! Capa jumps out of the one at the center of the smaller mirror when he is (inexplicably!) racing against the clock to get to the payload, so why didn't they just detach the Icarus I as well and mate its second airlock with the Icarus II?

I'd like to add a number myself, though:

50) Why isn't the payload instantly destroyed when it plummets into the Chromosphere at (supposedly) relativistic speeds? Leaving aside all the other (many, many) issues I have with this film, why doesn't acceleration affect any of the characters in the final few scenes?

Actually, I suppose all of this could be summed up in:

0) Why was this movie even made?
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Jul. 31st, 2007 03:28 pm (UTC)
Re: Total agreement here!
When we came out of it, my husband asked, as he usually does, "What did you think of that then?" I must've paused for a good ten seconds before the rant started and didn't stop till I had typed it all into LJ. After I had was done, he said, "So not one of your favourites then?"
[info]catvincent wrote:
Sep. 13th, 2007 01:44 am (UTC)
Just saw this disappointing flick and linking to this if I may.

I notice no-one else mentioned the thousands upon thousands of cubic metres of air in the (fully-pressurised for no good reason) Payload, which surely could have sustained the crew for a good long while...
[info]dyllanne wrote:
Sep. 13th, 2007 09:28 am (UTC)
Happy to have your linkage.

Good point about the payload air supply.
(Anonymous) wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2009 04:58 am (UTC)
ok I really liked sunshine. I started researching a bit about it online and found some people that went crazy for the "obvious" scientific mistakes. Well, let me tell you something: this is a movie meant for a general audience, and general audiences dont know physics, dont know about gravity, nuclear bombs, the difference between mass and size, etc etc.
ok, I have a university degree in Marketing and I only had one year of physics in highschool. I cannot remember a thing I was tought during that year. so:
+when they say the bomb is the mass of manhattan I think: wow that must be a very powerful bomb
+when they show harvey freezing in space: I think of course, space is really cold so you freeze really fast, your body becomes ice and if you hit something it breaks into pieces.
+when they say the bomb can create an explosion and restart the sun: I think is that really possible? I had never thought of that, that's clever
+when I saw the crew wore the communications tags like necklaces I thought Cool, they dont need intercoms, they just talk to it directly because they are wearing it
+when mace told icarus to flood the oxigen garden with o2 I thought really? I did not know it could be done, it must work the same way when you blow out a candle
+the ship name is icarus: that does not mean anything to me, I thought it is probably the name of the greek/roman god of the sun or fire or something like that
+I did not think anything about the manual lock being on one side of the door, how I am supposed to know where the lock has to be?
+when they take a slingshot around mercury I thought they did this to gain speed and head to the icarus I
+when capa and mace return from icarus I and the airlock was depresurized and they fell down to the floor I thought of course they fell down, now they have gravity in the airlock
and there are some other things that you point out that are explained in the deleted scenes... I am not going to explain what I thought of every little thing, because there were some thing that I did not even think about when watching the movie... do people move really fast or really slow when space walking? I have no idea.... trey telling everybody he heard the icarus one, I did not think anything special of it, why wouldnt he tell them all?

now regarding all that I am pointing out: does it mean that I am an ignorant? of course not, it just means that physics, astronomy, space travel, sun science, military chain of command and all that stuff is not my area of expertise, as opposed to you, who apparently excel in all those areas. and I take a very wild guess and say: most of the people who watched the movie are not experts either. the main thing that bother them was pinbacker being alive and trying to sabotage the mission. Lots of people loved the visuals, the mercury transit scene, the soundtrack, capa's jump to the payload, and the sequence were capa delivers the bomb

I am a person very interested in music, specially in the renaissance and baroque periods. nevertheless, mozart is my favourite composer. Now, does that mean that I cannot enjoy the movie Amadeus even though it is full of mistakes regarding his life??? does that mean that I am going to disect the movie bit by bit and hate it because of it inaccuracies? no, it does not mean that, because it is entertainment.
perhaps I watch the movie and say: he is not conducting right, maybe you watch it and not think anything of his conducting at all because you dont know how conducting is supposed to be. Nor do most people. So, to summarize: it is a movie, it is meant to entertain, it is not a documentary, and it is meant for a general audience who is not an expert.

[info]dyllanne wrote:
Mar. 15th, 2009 07:41 pm (UTC)
It's nice that you enjoyed it. I'm pleased for you, really I am. I think I even say, at one point, what I did like about this movie. ie the way it looked and the actors in it.

>all that stuff is not my area of expertise, as opposed to you, who >apparently excel in all those areas.

Eh? I don't think there's any need to be nasty and sarcastic is there?

>does it mean that I am an ignorant? of course not.

I think my point is that "ignorance of science" is still "ignorance". While I know that everyone can't know everything, I think the attitude that "ignorance of science" is alright as it's only science is reprehensible.

If "Amadeus" annoyed you and much as "Sunshine" annoyed me then you're perfectly entitled to comment on it at great length and in as much detail as you can be bothered to go into. It really doesn't matter what audience the movie is aimed at, if it annoys one viewer they are free to comment as much as they like on it, aren't they? Especially in their own LJ. We do still live in a free world where we can express our opinions? Good, I thought so.

I also don't think that just because something is aimed at a general audience and is for entertainment only, that it doesn't matter if it's wrong to the point of utter ridiculousness. There's a book by Bob Usherwood called "Ignorance is not our Heritage" about the dumbing down of public libraries. I think dumbing down in entertainment is part of this general striving for mediocrity that seems to be the trend. There's no need to talk down to the general audience. It can still be correct and entertaining. They are not mutually exclusive.

It's nice of you to stick up for this movie and for that reason I am happy to keep your comment as counter-point to my rant. Pity your reply was anonymous though.