|
Post by aaronearl on Jun 2, 2007 10:45:15 GMT -5
I was in the U.K. last month and saw Sunshine. It was a visually stunning film. I didn't get the science, though. Since I have joined this fan forum, I have read the paper on super-symmetric Q-Balls. While the paper is certainly interesting, the film left me with little more than the impression that the "stellar bomb" was intended to "jump start" the sun's nuclear processes with a big blast. Too bad the writers from Solar Crisis weren't on hand for this one. However questionable that film's entertainment value, that story came right at me with a solar problem that is within our ability to effect. They didn't need to detonate their bomb in the Sun's core, but near its surface--in a sunspot, to prematurely trigger a massive, Earth-threatening solar flare. Freddie the Bomb--five tons of antimatter in containment, monitored by a self-aware mission computer--from Solar Crisis was much more acceptable to me than "all the fissile material on Earth... " in a pile the size of Manhattan, with big giant thrusters. But, like I said, Sunshine IS visually stunning and I enjoyed watching the film.
|
|
|
Post by aaronearl on Jun 12, 2007 20:43:09 GMT -5
I voted for Sunshine (surprise, surprise!) Well... it's nice to know that someone at least saw Solar Crisis. I dunno... I guess that I like some science in my science fiction. From the moment he sends this message to Earth describing a sudden increase in sunlight as an indicator that they "made it," to the near-event horizon-like events just before activation of the stellar bomb, I felt that the potential body of science in this moving was losing out to pure, "Hero's Journey" interpretations. I mean, an expedition to the Sun is a scientifically-fascinating idea. So, why hasn't the science fiction film industry produced only on scientifically-based film? Just my thouhts. Shine on.
|
|