Post by untitled on Aug 1, 2008 5:47:28 GMT -5
Some movies live forever, and I certainly hope that this is one of them.
I finally saw "Sunshine" tonight after having desired to do so since I first saw a trailer for it some time before it came out. But my interest was mild because I figured it for a pleasant little sci-fi actioner, something along the lines of "Red Planet."
I liked "Red Planet," but boy, is this a whole lot better than that. I wasn't surprised to read on Wikipedia that Boyle's influences included "2001" (I bet most everyone can spot that one), "Alien," (still my favorite Ridley Scott film) and Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (a film that changed the way I watch and evaluate films.)
I'm a 31-year-old guy who grew up loving "Star Wars" but in recent years has begun to turn a more critical eye toward sci-fi (and other genres, as well).
I don't want to belabor things that've probably been discussed an nauseum elsewhere on this site, but since this is my intro post I figure I'm allowed a little self-indulgence.
* I particularly liked the way the sun seemed intelligent, much like the planet in Tarkovsky's "Solaris." In fact, I think Boyle and his effects staff mimicked that effect much better than Soderbergh in his "Solaris." I quite like Soderbergh's film, too, but there's a warmth in Tarkovsky's that Soderbergh left out. Obviously "Sunshine" doesn't have that problem.
I find myself wondering if the sun itself, or the Q-ball, for that matter, was able to have some kind of sentience, what would it want? And how would it act on those desires? Clearly the sun is an obstacle to its own re-ignition - no greater or lesser than before the Q-ball infiltrated it. So I can only assume that the sun desires no trespassers, whether they possess good or ill intent. Kind of like the stereotypical old man living on the slope of a volcano who tries to shoot the rescuers looking to save him from a lava flow. The primary directive renders all other directives moot.
But what does the Sun want, ultimately? To consume itself, I guess. That is the eventual outcome as I understand it.
* It also happens that I am a longtime fan of the band Pinback (named after the character in the film "Dark Star"), so the character Pinbacker is quite a source of amusement for me.
* Pinbacker's argument seems to be that since the universe itself will die eventually, anyway, what's the point of restarting the sun? We have been issued a death sentence already, and the Icarus II and its payload merely represent an appeal that is doomed to fail, providing only a little more time and an unrealistic hope. I guess you see a similar attitude in death row inmates who instruct their attorneys to drop all appeals. The difference, of course, is that Pinbacker is making this decision for all of humanity, and this must be where his insanity comes in.
* The fact that a character (Harvey) could freeze to death that close to the sun is a testament to the ingenuity of humanity. The fact that we're capable of great atrocity is really no big deal, when compared to other species, because leopards, squirrels, triceratops ... all would do just as great evil as we if given the opportunity. We are not intrinsically more evil than other species, we're just better at acting on our potential for evil.
(the fight against evil must persist in all places and at all times, of course; I'm merely saying that we shouldn't hang our heads in shame at the fact that members of our species have been evil.)
What we have to be proud of is the ability to do amazing things, achieve things our bodies are not designed for, things that were unimaginable centuries, decades ago.
And this is exactly why Pinbacker was so misguided. He could be wrong. We're pretty clever little mammals, and if we manage to avoid wiping ourselves out, we might just figure out a way to survive the death of the universe, too. Sure, the odds are against us, but we've got a whole lotta time to work on the problem, I reckon. Plus, the odds were pretty steep when there were just a few thousand of us eking out a meager survival on the plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. One might argue that that was the hard part. Now that there's darn near 7 billion of us, it's gonna be pretty tough to get rid of us.
* In some ways this is the movie that I wanted "Event Horizon" to be. I see that film also cited on the Wikipedia page. That film was a great disappointment to me -- I expected something like what "Sunshine" is, and it wasn't even as good as "Red Planet."
If you've bothered to read this far (or even if you haven't) please feel free to respond as you see fit. I am not sensitive to intelligent criticism, and in fact I very much enjoy a spirited debate with those who disagree with me strenuously, provided the discourse remains cordial.
I finally saw "Sunshine" tonight after having desired to do so since I first saw a trailer for it some time before it came out. But my interest was mild because I figured it for a pleasant little sci-fi actioner, something along the lines of "Red Planet."
I liked "Red Planet," but boy, is this a whole lot better than that. I wasn't surprised to read on Wikipedia that Boyle's influences included "2001" (I bet most everyone can spot that one), "Alien," (still my favorite Ridley Scott film) and Tarkovsky's "Solaris" (a film that changed the way I watch and evaluate films.)
I'm a 31-year-old guy who grew up loving "Star Wars" but in recent years has begun to turn a more critical eye toward sci-fi (and other genres, as well).
I don't want to belabor things that've probably been discussed an nauseum elsewhere on this site, but since this is my intro post I figure I'm allowed a little self-indulgence.
* I particularly liked the way the sun seemed intelligent, much like the planet in Tarkovsky's "Solaris." In fact, I think Boyle and his effects staff mimicked that effect much better than Soderbergh in his "Solaris." I quite like Soderbergh's film, too, but there's a warmth in Tarkovsky's that Soderbergh left out. Obviously "Sunshine" doesn't have that problem.
I find myself wondering if the sun itself, or the Q-ball, for that matter, was able to have some kind of sentience, what would it want? And how would it act on those desires? Clearly the sun is an obstacle to its own re-ignition - no greater or lesser than before the Q-ball infiltrated it. So I can only assume that the sun desires no trespassers, whether they possess good or ill intent. Kind of like the stereotypical old man living on the slope of a volcano who tries to shoot the rescuers looking to save him from a lava flow. The primary directive renders all other directives moot.
But what does the Sun want, ultimately? To consume itself, I guess. That is the eventual outcome as I understand it.
* It also happens that I am a longtime fan of the band Pinback (named after the character in the film "Dark Star"), so the character Pinbacker is quite a source of amusement for me.
* Pinbacker's argument seems to be that since the universe itself will die eventually, anyway, what's the point of restarting the sun? We have been issued a death sentence already, and the Icarus II and its payload merely represent an appeal that is doomed to fail, providing only a little more time and an unrealistic hope. I guess you see a similar attitude in death row inmates who instruct their attorneys to drop all appeals. The difference, of course, is that Pinbacker is making this decision for all of humanity, and this must be where his insanity comes in.
* The fact that a character (Harvey) could freeze to death that close to the sun is a testament to the ingenuity of humanity. The fact that we're capable of great atrocity is really no big deal, when compared to other species, because leopards, squirrels, triceratops ... all would do just as great evil as we if given the opportunity. We are not intrinsically more evil than other species, we're just better at acting on our potential for evil.
(the fight against evil must persist in all places and at all times, of course; I'm merely saying that we shouldn't hang our heads in shame at the fact that members of our species have been evil.)
What we have to be proud of is the ability to do amazing things, achieve things our bodies are not designed for, things that were unimaginable centuries, decades ago.
And this is exactly why Pinbacker was so misguided. He could be wrong. We're pretty clever little mammals, and if we manage to avoid wiping ourselves out, we might just figure out a way to survive the death of the universe, too. Sure, the odds are against us, but we've got a whole lotta time to work on the problem, I reckon. Plus, the odds were pretty steep when there were just a few thousand of us eking out a meager survival on the plains of Africa tens of thousands of years ago. One might argue that that was the hard part. Now that there's darn near 7 billion of us, it's gonna be pretty tough to get rid of us.
* In some ways this is the movie that I wanted "Event Horizon" to be. I see that film also cited on the Wikipedia page. That film was a great disappointment to me -- I expected something like what "Sunshine" is, and it wasn't even as good as "Red Planet."
If you've bothered to read this far (or even if you haven't) please feel free to respond as you see fit. I am not sensitive to intelligent criticism, and in fact I very much enjoy a spirited debate with those who disagree with me strenuously, provided the discourse remains cordial.
