Icarus 2

icarus2b.jpg (159 KB)

From the Danny Boyle film “Sunshine”.

  • Leave a comment ?

    39 Responses to Icarus 2

    1. The opening and the ending is the best. Everything else was old ideas a new. Fantastic cinematography too.

      Reply

    2. Good movie. Would have been better if it didn’t fly into horror mode in the third act, but still an underrated movie. Unlike his overrated Slumdog Millionaire.

      Reply

    3. I liked this movie a lot, horror act and all. Just saying that.

      Reply

    4. @brisingre: I thought you were saying something else, my mistake.

      Reply

    5. The science in this movie made me cringe again and again and again.

      Reply

    6. If you are looking for a science based film, maybe don’t watch science fiction…

      Good movie, easy to find free online 😉

      Reply

    7. BEST FILM EVER!!!!!!!!!!!
      .

      @clawoo:
      Shows what you know. The science in the film was 99% accurate (and the missing 1% was deliberate, it’s Danny Boyles signature).

      Reply

    8. @clawoo:

      If you have access to the DVD, listen to the science adviser commentary track by Dr. Brian Cox. THEN, and only then, are you allowed to harp on the science.

      Reply

    9. I bought this movie because Cillian Murphy is in it and ended up only mildly entertained. But, yes, the cinematography was stunning.

      Reply

    10. @AlecDalek:
      @POLYONYMOUS:

      Thanks for your valuable input. Sadly, Alec, you are wrong. A star does not die out, i.e. dim in brightness. A star either goes nova, or loses enough mass for its gravity to shrink and cause its volume to expand (red giant phase). Sure there are other ways a star can go frak itself, but our sun being the dull star it is does not really have many other options.

      Brian Cox (kudos to him for being a passionate speaker about science) repeatedly stated that he did in fact advise the producers about the science involved, but in many aspects his input was not really taken into consideration so they basically pulled sciencey stuff out of their collective asses.

      Reply

    11. That scene when we see the sun head on, only to find it is its reflection on the Icarus shield, on the big screen is amazing.

      Reply

    12. @njch412:
      I love science fiction, but I like it the most when the authors go to the sun and back to make it as realistic as possible.

      For example, I love BSG, but there were scenes when I would just want to jump out of the chair and yell “WRONG, BEOTCH”. There are so many ways to avoid bad science in a movie and it ticks me off whenever that does not happen.

      Reply

    13. @clawoo
      It annoyed me too, but I still loved the movie.

      As for flawed science in science fiction, this bothered me more than most. In BSG, the only really impossible piece of science that I can think of off the top of my head is the jump drive, which pretty much works by magic, and that’s alright because I can’t say how it should be working, and they never give an explanation as to how it works that I can say is bullshit. In Sunshine, however, they say specifically that they are going to jumpstart the sun by nuking it shitless, and I can say that that will never, ever work.

      Reply

    14. @brisingre: I’m reminded of watching an interview with Mel Gibson, where an actual Native American woman was criticizing his portrayal of her ancestors in Apocalypto. To which he replied “You know what lady, fuck you, make your own movie.”

      Reply

    15. @Paul_Is_Drunk: I hate that movie.

      You know what was good about it?

      The dancing.

      The quiz man’s dancing, and the big dance number at the end. Those were good.

      The rest of the movie, fuck off, fucking fuck fuck.

      Except for the way his brother died, how awesome is that.

      Reply

    16. Some sci-fi writer had a stock response whenever a disgruntled science geek asked him something like “So, how does ‘hyperdrive’ work, anyway?” which was “It works GREAT. Thanks for asking.”

      Reply

    17. I ignore the Science in Science Fiction. Usually the best parts of movies like this are the characters. Which in this instance made for a very enjoyable film. Hiroyuki Sanada made a great captain.

      Reply

    18. @brisingre: that’s exactly how I feel about science fiction movies. If you can’t get the science right in your movie, don’t talk about it.

      There are several annoying “oddities” in BSG, for example artificial gravity: where does it start acting against a body and where does it end? How does the shape of the hull determine the shape of the gravitational field? How does the landing bay work? If there was gravity, the ships would instantly fall when in range of the gravitational field because they are still in the vacuum of space (i.e., no lift). Also, there was this episode where Helo and Tyrol got rid of the ashes of (they thought) Hera. They were standing inside the Raptor with the door open (in the range of gravity) and when they dispersed the ashes outside the raptor, it “flew” like it was in vacuum.

      Also, the combat suits which become vacuum-proof by grabbing a pair of gloves and a helmet. What the hell is up with that?

      But, still, it’s a good series, because the actors make up for it (somewhat. Kara needs to kill some more people.).

      I enjoyed Sunshine and I would say it is a good movie. Why isn’t it great? The actors weren’t that great, the dialogue could have been better, the science regarding the plot of the movie was fucked up.

      Reply

    19. This was one of my favorite new sci-fi films. It’s one of Danny Boyle’s best, easily.

      Reply

    20. The other great thing about this film: Rose Byrne.

      SO SEXY!

      Reply

    21. The premise of this movie was all right, but to those of you saying the science was good, I vigorously beg to differ. The science in this film had so many holes in it, if it were a cheese, it would be well aged Emmental…

      And yes, Sci-fi is not supposed to have realistic science, but this movie wasn’t even consistent within the realm of it’s own fictional science…

      Reply

    22. I humbly submit that Event Horizon was both better as a Science Fiction movie and as a Horror movie.

      Reply

    23. @Annarchy: I actually liked Event Horizon better than Sunshine… For one thing, the science seemed more plausible, and it actually explains itself much better than Sunshine did…

      Reply

    24. @Phyreblade: You are PERMANENTLY HIGH if you think Event Horizon was either better or more plausible than Sunshine –are you shittin’ me?!

      “She tore a hole in our universe, a gateway to another dimension. A dimension of pure chaos. Pure evil. When she crossed over, she was just a ship. But when she came back, she was alive!”

      Reply

    25. @HoChunk: Well,yes, I am high 24/7/265, but that has nothing to do with it. 😛

      For me, especially when talking about sci-fi movies, how good a movie is not about the reality of the science. It is about how consistent and explainable it is within the paradigm it is framed.

      The idea of what happened to the Event Horizon is outlandish, but makes sense within the world of that movie, and adequately explains *everything* that happens during the course of the movie. The reality of the science actually has no bearing, that is why it is called science fiction. It’s all about how well the story is told and how easy it is to ignore the implausibility of the action.

      Event Horizon was so far out there, that it was easy to explain things away. Sunshine, on the other hand, attempted to remain somewhat close to the realities of science, and yet took inexplicable pseudo-science and plot deviations that made no sense, even within the premises of the move. Just too many things that did not makes sense even within it’s own paradigm.

      That’s why I preferred Event Horizon to Sunshine. My opinion does not actually make it a better or worse movie. It just made it more enjoyable to me.

      It’s funny, I know doctors who hate shows like Scrubs, and police officers who hate Monk. I love both shows. Their biggest gripe? They are both too unrealistic. I think they are simply missing the point, but that’s just my opinion…

      It’s entirely possible that I’m the same way those doctors and police officers are when it comes to Sci-fi flicks. But at the end of the day, it’s just my opinion…

      Reply

    26. @HoChunk:
      Suspension of disbelief was much easier with Event Horizon than with Sunshine. Besides, Fishburne and Elliot just rock.

      Reply

    27. @Phyreblade: @Annarchy: True, that when a story is full of shit from the first 30 seconds ’til the very end, it’s easier to switch the mind off and go along for the ride. Bottom line is that Sunshine, while flawed, doesn’t insult anyone’s intelligence (assuming you have intelligence to insult) as badly as EH. And while Fishburne & Neill DO rock, they can only do so much when burdened with crap dialogue. Sunshine tried to be something special and fell a bit short. All EH tried to be was a phoned-in ripoff of Alien & Hellraiser.

      Reply

    28. @Annarchy: lol I just noticed –are thinking of Sam Elliot?

      Reply

    29. @HoChunk: I think we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. EH was basically Hellraiser in space, no argument there, but I did, in fact, find Sunshine insulting to my intelligence.

      Sonic scalpels whose blades vibrate from *side to side*? Instant communication blackouts? The anomalous Captain Crispy, who always looked like he was trapped in between dimensions? Instant freeze dried astronauts? There are so many inconsistencies.

      Seems more like the stuff of EH to me, except I’d argue that EH did it better…

      Reply

    30. @HoChunk:
      Hm. I disagree.
      @HoChunk:
      No, I was thinking of Neil. But, I had a der moment. LOL.

      Reply

    31. @Phyreblade:
      Um, what was “sonic” about the scalpel? It moved forward & back, like a jigsaw. Ostentatious, perhaps, but wrong? You’d have to ask a surgeon.

      “Instant communication blackouts” –Are you referring to the more-intense-than-predicted solar wind breaking off communications at the beginning? Seemed pretty straightforward to me.

      “Captain Crispy” –I understand the criticism of this by many (touched upon here by Paul_is_Drunk.) I think it was a definitely a risk for the story to gear-shift into slasher mode at that point, and I have problems with the notion that this guy had spent 7 years burning off all his skin in the observation room, yet this didn’t seem to affect his health in the least.

      There are PLENTY of tech problems in the film –how they were generating their artificial gravity in non-spinning sections; why the communications boom had to rotate (and having a direct-sunlight reflection from it flash into the hydroponics bay, igniting it); how the curve of the forward shield actually did NOT allow for any sort of shadow for the two astronauts to work in while repairing it (get a close look at the graphic that Rose Byrne pulls up when she takes control & you’ll see what I mean); etc etc.

      My point is that if you’re going to choose stuff to take issue with, start with the most obvious.

      As for the difference of your (& Annarchy’s) opinion, chalk it up to differing tastes, not plausibility. EH was a horror flick with a smattering of sci-fi: Sunshine was vice-versa.

      Reply

    32. @Annarchy: Yeah, I get those 🙂

      BTW: Which one of you trivia buffs can tell me which film Captain Cripsy’s name, “Pinbacker”, was an homage to? (Google away, cheaters)

      Reply

    33. @HoChunk: I’m just calling it a sonic scalpel because it sounds cool. It may not have necessarily been “sonic”. However the point is that it did not move backwards and forwards. It vibrated laterally, *side to side*. I remember thinking to myself, WTH is that? That is just *not* how a powered blade works.

      But your post actually confirms my position. As you pointed out, there are *plenty* of scientific inaccuracies, you even mention a couple which I hadn’t thought of.

      I watch sci-fi to get immersed in another world, A fictional world where things are completely different and you can explore what-ifs that are completely outside of our present way of scientific thought.

      Movies like EH let me do that, because they don’t even pretend to be realistic, they make up their own set of rules, and that makes it easier for me to suspend my disbelief.

      On the other hand, a movie like Sunshine, that presumes some basis in realistic science, automatically makes itself much harder for me get into when it presents so many obvious scientific anomalies…

      To me, Sunshine was like a Sci-fi movie entering Masahiro Mori’s “uncanny valley”. The closer to reality it got, the more distracting/disturbing the little oddities became…

      Reply

    34. @HoChunk:
      Wild guess: Pinhead?
      Which, by the way, is who I was strongly reminded of by Neil’s character in EH. Towards the end, that is.

      Reply

    35. @Annarchy: Yeah, you’re right, Dr. Weir totally went pinhead getting to the end… I wonder if Dr. Wier was short for Dr. Wierd…

      Reply

    36. @Phyreblade:
      Quite possible. Freaked me out sufficiently.

      Reply

    37. @Phyreblade: Watch it again. It moved forward & back, like a saw. Maybe you’re confused because it did it so rapidly. If you’re going to point out the scientific inaccuracies, point out the valid ones, and not the ones that might simply be a matter of your own limited perception.

      The rest of your post confirms that you are much more into Fantasy than Science Fiction.

      Reply

    38. @Annarchy: Nope.

      Anyone remember a mid-’70’s low-budget scifi flick called “Dark Star”?

      www.imdb.com/title/tt0069945/

      Reply

    39. @HoChunk: LOL Fine, I’ll go watch it again, but even if my oh so limited perception of how that blade operates is flawed, it does not invalidate all of the other flaws that you yourself mentioned.

      But beyond that, I find it humorous that you would actually attempt to tell me what my preference in movies are, based on this discussion.

      No matter how flawed *my* perceptions may be, you cannot argue against the flaws that *you yourself* have admitted to, so resorting to ad hominem to make my opinion seem biased seems rather silly to me…

      Reply

    Leave a Comment




    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Motorcycles Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas