MovieChat Forums > Nightfall (2000) Discussion > The plot, movie + book vs. short story (...

The plot, movie + book vs. short story (plot hole?)

posted 12 years ago by markfilipak
3 replies | jump to latest

I may be tripping, but...

***** SPOILERS *****

I read the short story in an anthology when I was a kid, in the late-50s or early-60s. I loved the story and could find no fault in it. Yesterday I read the Wikipedia synopsis of the book. I never read the book.

In the movie and (apparently) in the book, nightfall occurs when only one sun is in the sky and is eclipsed. That's NOT what I remember from the short story...

As I recall (thinking back 50 years!) nightfall in the short story occurs when all six suns are aligned, an event that presumably occurs only once every 1000 years, not because of an eclipse. From a plot standpoint, that makes more sense for two very good reasons:

1, If an eclipse obscures one of the suns, it would produce darkness ONLY if the other five suns are on the other side of the globe at the time of the eclipse. Thus, the other side of the globe would not see nightfall and WOULD NOT go mad and global civilization WOULD NOT collapse.

2, An eclipse is visible only by the half of the globe that's facing the eclipse and even then, is total only along a thin line of totality. The eclipse is partial along a relatively narrow swathe to either side of the line of totality. But the eclipse is not an eclipse at all in the rest of the globe that's facing the event. Thus, even the side of the globe facing the eclipse would be largely unaffected and WOULD NOT go mad and global civilization WOULD NOT collapse.

On the other hand, if the six suns align, half the world is plunged into darkness and that darkness "travels" completely around the globe (as the globe rotates).

The premise of the story is that nightfall affects the entire planet and that the entire planet goes mad and civilization collapses. For the reasons above, if nightfall is the result of an eclipse, a majority of the globe's inhabitants see absolutely no nightfall and so are unaffected. The only way to save this gaping plot hole is if all six suns align as I've suggested.

Am I simply mentally correcting for a plot hole in the original short story, or did the original short story have the same flaw as the book and the movies?

Given the obviousness of the plot hole vs. the regard in which the short story is held, I suspect that my memory is not faulty and that THE SHORT STORY INVOLVED AN ALIGNMENT OF THE SIX SUNS INSTEAD OF AN ECLIPSE.

Can anyone shed some "light" on this?

[–] flashbuck 11 years ago

Here's a reply to your message...almost a year later! (My guess is you've re-read the story in all this time, but I'll reply anyway.)

I just read the original short story AND the novel; in both, the premise is the same. Five of the six suns set, leaving only one in the sky (a fairly common occurence), but once every two thousand years, a huge moon on an eccentric orbit eclipses that one sun, leaving the planet in darkness. The moon is so large in the sky, the sun so apparently small, that the eclipse lasts long enough for the entire planet to experience a period of darkness.

The novel is basically the original story sandwiched in between a prequel and a sequel. Havng never read the original story, I loved the novel. After I read it, I hunted down the original story and thought it was better. Sometimes it's best not to know what happened next. I really didn't care for the ending of the novel.

I haven't seen this movie, but I did see the 1988 version, which most people absolutely revile. It certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with Asimov's story, but I actually thought it was kind of interesting in its own way.

Sounds like this movie is just as bad as--or worse than--the 1988 movie. I saw the trailer and it looks like it at least has SOMETHING to do with Asimov's story, so I'm kind of curious. Is it worth my time at all?

[–] markfilipak 11 years ago

Hi Flash,

flashbuck doeth wrote: "Is it worth my time at all?" No. It's a pretty horrible film.

I appreciate the rest of your post. I must say I'm disappointed with Asimov. I reread the Foundation trilogy as an adult and was underwhelmed.

Regarding "Nightfall" and its renown, I guess I'm guilty of embellishing the story. Assuming the planet to rotate in approximately one of our days, then I don't for even a second believe that an eclipse could persist for 24 (of our) hours. Sorry. I just don't buy it. I can confidently state that that's impossible - no moon could be that big or travel through such a solid angle of eclipse that slowly.

I guess that's why I created the fiction in my own mind that ALL of the suns line up once every 1000 years. It's the only way that the entire planet could experience nightfall.

I'm sure you agree that, if even a small part of the planet DID NOT experience the civilization-killing nightfall, then that part would, in the following 1000 years, become the dominant power and would subjugate the more 'primitive' parts that had experienced nightfall. Within the following 1000 years, the civilization-killing quality of nightfall would end because, judging from the level of technology present at the end of the preceding 1000 years, the advanced part of the civilization would attain spaceflight.

I'm a really big fan of Hard-SF. I, for one, would definitely not vote "Nightfall" to be the best science fiction story ever. In fact, I'd vote that it's fatally flawed.

Thanks again for your help. Ciao - Mark.

[–] flashbuck 11 years ago

I really can't argue with any of your points. The same things troubled me too, but I let them go because it was such a terrific story.

I too was a bit disappointed with the original Foundation trilogy, but I felt much more satisfied with the later books. Aside from that, I must confess to an apalling lack of experience with Asimov.