Sunshine (Page 3 of 4)

I picked up the DVD in one of those bargain bins.  If the name Brian Cox doesn't ring a bell it should.  He's a physicist at CERN, and was the film's scientific consultant.  He's also the presenter on the BBC series Wonders of the Solar System, and has done a couple of TED talks about the LHC.  Anyway, he did a commentary for the DVD that goes into some detail regarding how they really did try to ground the film in some scientific principals.

Basically the idea they went with is that there are these hypothetical supersymmetrical particles, or Q-balls, that could get lodged in a star, causing it to burn through it's fuel faster than normal (or something like that).  So the idea is that by "dislodging" these particles the star's normal cycle.

It's still a far fetched idea, and he goes on to talk about how the whole solar bomb concept is on the very edge of our scientific understanding, and even the mission physicist (presumably the second best in the world) isn't entirely sure how it works.

Pretty interesting stuff, worth at least a rental to have a listen.

Sort of.  He goes into how most of what Pinbacker is going on about is true; eventually the sun will die, consume the Earth, and nothing will remain to indicate that we ever existed.  On a grander scale the universe is expanding, accelerating in it's expansion in fact, and eventually the entropy of that expansion will result in heat death.

Professor Cox doesn't agree with his whole quasi-spiritual-it's-God's-plan-and-who-are-we-to-defy-God angle, but basically what happens to Pinbacker is an existential crisis resulting in a psychological break.  He realizes that eventually it's all going to end anyway, so fuck it, who are we to stop it?  He also talks about the scene where Kaneda is reviewing Pinbacker's log about the meteor storm which he refers to as "beautiful," and how a loaded and inappropriate word that is to describe such an event, given their mission.

Remember how we agreed that Icarus was a silly choice for the name of the mission?  Let's recap: Daedalus builds the wings for Icarus to escape from Crete.  He tells Icarus exactly how to use them, and even warns Icarus not to fly to close to the sun.  Obviously Icarus disregards the instructions, and pays the price for it.  Now, I'm paraphrasing Dr. Cox here, let's look at the myth as an allegory for modern science and hubris, and how we use that technology.  Science leads to technological development, but not the wisdom to use it properly.  Had Icarus listened to the scientist, Daedalus, he would have survived.  Icarus, the computer that runs the ship, does everything to remind the crew that the mission is the important thing here, don't go getting all hypnotized by the power of nature. 

That's essentially what happens to Pinbacker.  I rather think that in this context it would be more appropriate to call the ship Daedalus, the scientist who's always there telling the crew "look, do it this way and the mission will succeed."  I guess it works as a reminder, and Icarus sounds better and is arguably more well know than Daedalus. 

I suppose one could also argue it works when one factors in human hubris, but I think that just makes the entire crew, everyone on Earth who worked on the project in fact, dumber for it.  I mean, say there was a myth about a god called Titanic, who's father built him a boat large enough to fit all his worshipers in, so they might cross the sea to a land where they could worship in peace (or whatever).  This ship was also fast enough to outrun any monster (insert name of God-of-the-sea here) could send after them, but he was warned not to sail too fast, for the journey would have it's obstacles, and if he sailed too fast he would not be able to avoid them.  Titanic, eager to get his people to this new land, disregards his father's advise, and strikes a volcano (or something) God-of-the-sea placed in their path.  The ship is destroyed, and all of Titanic's worshipers die.  Now, would you still name that big ocean liner Titanic?  Probably not.

I think what they were really going for with the film, was a look at the line that separates the known from the unknown, and what it would be like to stand on that line, and be mesmerized by it.  It's the beauty of the know, and the allure of the unknown that drives scientist at the edge to push out even further.  In a way they did the same thing in Event Horizon, only there they got to the edge of their knowledge and found darkness.  Here they reach the edge of knowledge and are simply mesmerized by it, like a moth to a flame, or Deer staring into the headlights of an oncoming car.

Heck, it happened to me once.  Back in high school I had a job a movie theater.  I didn't have a car at the time, so I rode my bike.  So I'm riding home one night, and there happened to be a full moon out.  Now, I know I should be paying attention to where I'm going, but there's no traffic, and the road is going straight ahead, so I take a moment to gaze up at the moon.  Next thing I know I'm plowing sideways into a guard rail and rolling down an embankment.  I still have a scar on my shin from that experience.

So here's what happened in Sunshine.  Icarus I sets out, and along the way Pinbacker got mezmerized by the sun, the power of nature, and ultimately the futility of it all.  Maybe he killed off his crew, maybe they had similar experiences to his, we'll never know.  Pinbacker then spends the next seven years getting a tan, "speaking to God," and somehow not dying from exposure.  So that's Icarus I.  Had Icarus II stayed on course and on mission, all would have likely been fine, but that wouldn't have made for a very dramatic movie, so they pick up Icarus I's distress signal.  Shit.  Well, now what?  Well, you know guys, this bomb we have to deliver?  It's kind of, well, experimental isn't it?  Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a spare?  Capa reluctantly concludes that two is better than one, and Trey makes the calculations to alter their trajectory for a rendezvous.  BTW, also according to Dr. Cox, Trey, the navigator, was supposed to be some sort of mathematical prodigy who had never made a mistake, so score one for hubris.  Heat shield = fucked, captain = dead, Troy = fucked, and, ultimately, dead.  Oh, and com tower = totaled, reflecting light into oxygen garden = fire = we need O2.  Dock, bomb's fine, O2's good, crew's crispy, but we could pull through this.  Pinbacker goes "Oh no you don't, God has spoken!"  BANG! Airlock = fucked.  Crazy (but not as implausible as you might think) blow the inner door (sorry Searle, you'll have to stay behind to blow that manually) and fly though open space (sorry Harvey, should have held on tighter) manuver, and we're down to five crew members + Pinbacker.  So, mission?  Well, we've got enough air for four of us to make it there, but not five.  Fortunately Trey helped us out with that and offed himself, so as long as we don't have any more problems we should be able to complete the mission, even if we can't go home.  Well, it's for the human race and everything so I guess...what's that Icarus?  There isn't enough air to get us there?  But you said there was enough for four...  Oh, shit.  Pinbacker: Surprise, slash!  Capa: Shit, I'm locked in an airlock.  Shit, Mace seems to be fucked, as are the Icarus mainframes.  I have no idea what Cassie or Corazon are up to right now, but I've got to get out of here and complete the mission.  Let's see, what do I have...a suit and a torch...that'll work.  Sorry girls, but if Pinbacker hasn't got to you yet, or you haven't had the idea of getting into the bomb compartment, you're ride is about to be cut short as I decompress the entire fucking spaceship.  Oh, hey Corazon, hope you were already dead.  Ok, timer set, now I just have to walk to the bomb, making sure not to trip on anything on the wa...shit.  Ok, made it with two seconds to spare, damn I'm good!  So long Icarus II, guess we'll never find out how that tiny heat shield was going to protect us all the way back to Earth, when we had this huge one to get us out here in the first place.  Ok, lets set this sucker off!  Oh, hi Cassie, guess your still alive after all.  Shit, so is Pinbacker.  Cassie, while you're around could you help me deal with this guy, he's kind of lost it and killed everyone else.  Ok, that's done, now, Tab A into Slot B...enter PIN number...and that should do it!  Ooooh, pretty!  Eight minutes later, on Earth: Hope you kids have had fun making snow men in Sydney; break out the short pants cause everything's gonna be just fine!  Oh, except you'll never find out what happened to your uncle, but he'll be listed as presumed dead in few years when the mission never returns.  Poor kids.

One dude lost his shit, another dude flipped a coin, and another dude forgot to carry the 1.  That's about it.  Now go listen to that commentary.

Brian Cox is quite popular over here in the UK and he's had several TV series - Wonders of the Solar System and Wonders of the Universe being the best ones. I'm a big fan, he's similar to Carl Sagan in the sense that he clearly loves science and relishes telling people about it.

I was listening to this track the other day and the Going to the Mansion thing came up and it reminded me a lot of the movie Hollow Man.  I thought that movie had a lot of potential to explore what it would do to your morality if you could no longer be seen.  The movie started out ok, although obviously the science was bullshit. The final 3rd of the movie totally went to the mansion.  The guy you couldn't see all of a sudden had super powers and couldn't be killed.  Not only that but he had the remarkable ability to never get dirty for more than a couple of seconds at a time.  Trey mentioned Hollow Man in another commentary that I forget, something about somebody that worked at a visual effects company asking him his opinion on taking on the project and his response.  They totally did there job but that movie seriously needed script work.  I've watched Hollow Man more times than I care to admit but I ended up with a decent Rifftrax-esque commentary for it.

I still have a soft-spot for Hollow Man. You have to approach it more as a slasher movie instead of a smart sci-fi movie. And a slasher movie where the slasher is an invisible guy, directed by Verhoeven is still pretty awesome. The FX work is really good too.

For Sunshine, the biggest problem is execution. Crazy psycho on a spaceship is a perfectly reasonable choice for a 3rd act, it's just executed really badly, with that awful editing where you can't tell what the hell is even going on. If you did that exact same 3rd act, but filmed it the way the Kitchen scene is done in Jurrasic Park, it would be amazing.

The same could be said about the film, Supernova, starting James Spader, of all people. It has the same, essential lot, as Sunshine, but gets a lot...weider.

Yeah, the FX work in Hollow Man is still among my favorite pieces.

Co-written by Michael Bay? What?

(it's a joke people)

I don't think the problem is scientific. It's tonal. Sunshine turns into a completely different kind of movie in the last half-hour, and it's not nearly as good.

We're talking about two different things. Plot-wise, it was foreshadowed, sure. But the way that Boyle depicted it was not. It did turn into a slasher movie. And there's probably a way to do that while keeping it in line with everything that came before.

To your spoiler: I'm not sure what you're getting at. "well it was a good movie, but it didnt play by my film school textbook, so its no good, I give it 1 star" makes no sense. If it's a bad movie, it's a bad movie. Literally no one has ever said this.

The fact that it changes tones so rapidly and unexpectedly is a bad thing. It is a thing that good movies shouldn't do. You can enjoy it if you want, that's perfectly alright. But we're not talking about enjoyment. We're talking about quality. It's not about "playing by some rulebook." Sunshine does something in its third act that fundamentally changes the kind of movie it is, and what it becomes is dumber than what it was. For me, and the podcast hosts, that's a major mark against the film.

So when you say, "the movie was good, therefore, it shouldn't matter why it was good," I'm confused as to what your point is. If you don't care about what makes a movie good, then there's no point in arguing about exactly that, right? Maybe you could clarify? I'm genuinely confused and I want to understand what you're saying.

Sorry, but