MovieChat Forums > Sunshine (2007) Discussion > The concept of this film is LAUGHABLE !!

The concept of this film is LAUGHABLE !!

posted 9 years ago by Ehab-Elayyan
68 replies | jump to latest

I am shocked to know that this movie is directed by Danny Boyle.

First of all, our sun is nowhere near it's death, it still has a couple of billion years to exhaust it's nuclear power, this won't be happening in the 2050's and the idea of it is just absurd and uneducated.

Second of all, how can they compare the sun's unimaginable nuclear fusion to ANY KIND OF MAN-MADE BOMBS ??? are they really that naive to think that a quadrillion gazzilion bombs can actually affect or even reach the sun's surface?? people should read and learn about physics before coming up with such horrendous ideas.

Not to mention that when the sun is about to die it only gets bigger and bigger devouring Earth entirely... therefore the temperature here on Earth before it's wiped out by the sun would be hotter not colder as they suggest in this film.

I'm not going to get into the third act and how UNBEARABLE and PAINFUL it was to watch.

Boyle should stay away from Sci-Fi films.

[–] Robot-Werewolf 9 years ago

They clearly knew they weren't making a documentary, and Danny Boyle has apparently said he won't do another science fiction film, but here are some relevant quotes from the scientific advisor, Brian Cox:

Why is the future of the sun—and mankind—in jeopardy in the movie?
The sun is dying, and we're going to try to do something about it. [Screenwriter] Alex [Garland] and [director] Danny [Boyle] contacted me and said, "We've got a film, and this is what happens. Can you think of any way in which that might occur?" My first reaction was, "Well, no. It's going to die in five billion years, and that's it." But I asked a lot of friends at CERN—there's a good collection of brains there—and we managed to come up with a wild scenario involving new particles, which we expect we might discover at CERN.

What's the wild scenario?
One theory is that there are particles called Q-balls, which would've been created in the big bang and would be drifting around. If they drifted into the heart of a star, and if they were more stable than the matter the star is made of, then they could start eating the star from the inside out.

Scary.
Well, it's almost certain that if these things are there, they wouldn't go into the sun because the sun's not dense enough to [hold] them. But if you get a really dense star, it could possibly cause a problem. We imagined that this Q-ball object is beginning to damage the core of the sun.

It's theoretically possible?
Just about, yeah. It was very soon after I came on board that I convinced everybody that if the sun had gone out, there was nothing you could do—you're not going to be able to relight the sun. But if a cancerous little thing had drifted in there and was causing trouble, then you could imagine removing it.

[–] Ehab-Elayyan 9 years ago

I'm very much aware of the theories they have to come up with to make a Sci-Fi movie, and I'm a Huge Sci-Fi fan, Interstellar is my all time Favorite movie.

The difference is in Interstellar, Nolan EXPLAINED very clearly what's causing the death of our planet, and from there on we were on board, it's tangible and believable, and the wormhole is also theoretical, but it wasn't very strange for us as audiences since it was already used in other films, he even made us look past the fact the Cooper went into the black hole to transfer data (which is theoretically IMPOSSIBLE). it's the way the director presents his extreme idea and how he finds holes in the scientific fabric to suggest a believable, almost logical explanation for us to be invested in the story.

Here, on the other hand, the story doesn't make any sense, and the most important factor to make it believable isn't explained in any way nor it is presented in a direct manner.
It's just a mess.

[–] Porkleaker 8 years ago

Interstellar is your favorite? But the explanation for everything else in that movie is "love" ....Seriously, if you're going to complain about bad science, then Interstellar is pretty high on that list.

[–] dgbenner 8 years ago

hahah. well said.

[–] goldencut 8 years ago

Lulz...;) well said, have to second that. "Interstellar" was one of those movies that AIM to be a genre classic from the beginning, to be the next "2001: A space..." or "Blade runner" but fail to be one, possibly precisely because of that mindset. And that's the vibe I got from "Interstellar". But to each its own, I guess...
On the original post:

...our sun is nowhere near it's death, it still has a couple of billion years...

Considering how many different objects and phenomena there are in the Universe (of what we probably just know a tiny fraction) one can't just postulate that our Sun MUST follow the predicted path of a Main sequence star and nothing else is possible. Things can happen, pulsars can send gamma rays our way, things fly around in interstellar space, there's dark matter, dark energy etc, it could even be that we don't actually know our own star as well as majority assumes we do. If we knew everything about our Sun then what the hell are all those scientists studying it for anymore?

...compare the sun's unimaginable nuclear fusion to ANY KIND OF MAN-MADE BOMBS...

I think the story went that at some point in the future we learned how the Big-Bang-singularity actually works (LHC guys in the CERN?), and later we managed to recreate this (or related) phenomena on a minuscule scale. So it's not just big pile of dynamite, it's the power of Big Bang.

...sun is about to die it only gets bigger and bigger...

Sun 'gets bigger' later in its life-cycle because its energy output increases (up ~30% already) which causes its outer layers to inflate but its mass (~gravity) has gone down, hence it becomes Red Giant. The story presented is that none of that have yet happened - instead of billions of years of burning (yay, sunlight!) and solar winds (over million tons a second) the process actually retarded and is in danger of stopping altogether. So Sun's mass is approx. the same as it is now but energy production is down so the Sun would actually contract and would be smaller (and colder). Just as the epilogue presented it.

Of course the movie was actually about people, almost all our movies are, those that are not can mostly be seen on Discovery channel, but I think the science still matters and it's not totally absurd here.

[–] Hagaxxx 7 years ago

You nailed.

[–] nocakeforyou 8 years ago

Interstellar is kind of a really bad example... The entire movie is Nolan jerry-rigging the plot together with broken rules and duct tape so he can have his big emotional moments. And they are some big emotional moments, but it doesn't change the fact that the entire basis for the plot is stupid. How does he find the NASA base? Because of basically magic. Why is earth dying? Because dust storms are killing our food. Where is the entire drama coming from? We need to solve a math problem, but can't show the audience why that's so hard to do that you need to go inside a black hole to do it.

Sunshine has a very simple plot motivation: the sun is dying too early, and we need to stop if for the whole human race to survive. They didn't ask science first if they could tell that story, they just told it.

[–] notfunnysmallboy 8 years ago

alright mate. you sound like colin grigson.

sci-fi fans can be such tits. it's just a film. accept it or sod off

[–] raytech-790-178703 8 years ago

Love transcends the 5th dimension and you call that good science fiction? You got to be kidding. Maybe I should just "hope" for a time machine and then once things get all discombobulated, "hope" some more, and then "hope" for a happy ending.

[–] mikebos 8 years ago

"Interstellar is my all time Favorite movie."

Well, that explains it.

Here's a pretty red balloon for you to play with.

[–] vidville-69614 8 years ago

Interstellar was bloody awful.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] amotherscrime 8 years ago

Did you just tell someone to kill themselves because they dislike a movie? Who's the simpleton, really?

[–] geekfurious 8 years ago

I agree that SUNSHINE is garbage science... but it's also garbage story telling.

However, for someone worried about accurate science in your space travel movies you sure give INTERSTELLAR a pass for violating one of the most basic and easily demonstrated aspects of space travel: retroburns.

[–] TrentReznorandAtticusRoss 8 years ago

Interstellar is my all time Favorite movie.

Dude, that films logic tries to cover up the holes with ideas of magic beings and love. Great film, but at the very least, no matter how over the top Sunshine's premise seems to you, it's still easier to accept than"

"This film is totes 100% accurate, except for when we try to explain black holes and interdimensional travel - then it's actually magic".

[–] The LA Baker (799) 4 years ago

Theoretical particles disrupting the sun's nuclear reaction is less believable than love? Interstellar is sci-fi for the masses. It is dumbed down and silly. Had you said Moon, that would make more sense. Moon was far more realistic and sci-fi.
I don't think you actually like sci-fi if Interstellar is your favorite. You seem to be more a fan of sappy drama.

[–] asom (6504) 3 years ago

Interstellar and science ... buahahaha.

Like how he was able to transmit billions of terrabytes of data trough the moving watch. Heh.

And of course, the only explanation for everything is ... love ...

[–] yurenchu 9 years ago

The movie wasn't about the sun, it was about the behaviour of the human collective aboard Icarus 2. Furthermore, the movie takes place in its own universe, it's not real.

______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0

[–] MerovingianGoddess 8 years ago

Sunshine is definitely not about the sun or the saving of our dying star that permeates all aspects of life on planet Earth. This movie a single view of human behaviour in such a stress intensive environment. Anyway, the movie is science fiction. Do you need the movie to be an adapted screenplay of an Arthur C. Clarke movie to give it enough credibility for suspension of disbelief? What is wrong with people today?

Merovingian Goddess
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room!

[–] Harley0187 8 years ago

Well said!!!!!!!

[–] dargis49-300-900689 9 years ago

All of what you say is all theory. Thats how long they think the sun has. That is how they think the sun will die.

No one knows for sure. Theoretically this could happen.

[–] roofall 9 years ago

Exactly... About 13.8 billion years ago (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe), when our universe had -possibly- (re)cycled, maybe the "one man [that had] remained" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/trivia?tab=qt&ref_=tt_trv_qu) was thinking to himself how there's plenty of time to drink his tea, before it happens - but, then, he blinked & then there was light (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_there_be_light). :)

*you never know, (when) it can happen.

http://i.media-imdb.com/images/warning_small.png

Posting Quotas Are In Place
Please wait: 00:01

[–] forever_mclaren 8 years ago

Lol yea and "theoretically" there are leprechauns riding flying unicorns at the end of rainbows in Ireland.

[–] dustypistol 9 years ago

I can understand when people are ranting and raving about how unrealistic a movie is when it advertises itself as being very scientifically informed and its plot as very plausible (i.e. "Interstellar").

However, when people are ranting and raving about how unrealistic a movie is and how its plot "would never happen", and the movie is, low and behold, not a documentary but was actually made for entertainment purposes, it's silly to discount the movie's entertainment value or give it a super low rating because of its tendencies toward the unrealistic. There are obviously things in movies that lower the verisimilitude, but IMO people decide way too often that "this is crap" because of some "error(s)" in the plot.

I mean, it's a sci-fi movie. "Sci-fi" meaning science fiction. "Fiction" meaning not true and not needing to adhere to the basic truths of real life. That's what makes so many movies (and shows, and books, and paintings, etc.) wonderful to watch. They're pieces of art (not implying that they're always good or great art), and therefore there's a thing called "artistic license" or "creative license" that the creators use to make it interesting and fun for the viewers.

Or at least, "creative license" and "suspension of disbelief" used to exist, before IMDb forums where everyone seems hell-bent on picking apart everything that's "wrong" with each movie. What's the point of fiction if everything in it has to be true and based on what we currently think will probably happen?

Science fiction invents its own possibilities!! "Sunshine" doesn't have a text before the movie starts telling us "this is all based on astronomers' current projections, and could probably happen in real life". It's fiction. Often things that people saw as "crazy" in older sci-fi stories actually ended up becoming true, so try having some imagination and suspending your disbelief sometimes. ;)

[–] VivienCastro 8 years ago

I disagree with you. I am all for fiction, sci-fi, and horror. But that doesnt mean that anything goes just because it's a fiction anyway. There are some logical principles. If you set your movie in a fantasy universe where the physics functions differently and let us know, it's ok. If you set it on this earth, then I imagine it to follow laws of nature unless you explain how or why it isn't doing that and the logic (at least to some small degree) of the supernatural element.

Someone brought up watching zombies - I can watch a zombie story, even with a very simplified explanation that it's about a virus. That is fine. These stories establish some facts about their zombies. If we establish that they are decaying humans, yes I would mind if a zombie were suddenly to start flying, become telepathic, or even started sprinting to catch humans. Create your fictional universe by all means, but it still needs to be guided by logic.

Sunshine was set in our universe, dealing with our planet and our sun, so yeah, I wanted some basic sense. I am ok with the very unlikely possibility that something is causing the sun to die so soon, but to imagine a bomb reigniting it this way is too weak. They should have put more effort into the science part of sci fi and come up with something that could *in theory* be possible, or invent some completely new fictional elements that make it work.

[–] MCStradale 8 years ago

Do you have such little imagination that you need a movie to spell everything out for you? How about you use your own imagination to fill in the gaps, after all it is fiction and made for entertainment so have a little fun and expand on this universe the creator has made. If directors spelled everything out for the audience then movies would be pretty damn boring.

[–] Joel44410 8 years ago

Fiction and logic are essentially yin and yang. They both need to be balanced to create a proper structure that guides its audience. "Sunshine" is a proper balance between these two, as fiction is the premise while logic is the understandable physics.

Movies are inherently more fictional than logical, and this has now become the "scale" for each film. No audience member wants to watch a film that has advanced logic that they need to study to understand, and the same goes for fiction, where something is beyond preposterous and is unwatchable.

[–] asom (6504) 3 years ago

Zombies are the PERFECT example of a totally unrealistic thing, but you are ok with it.

A zombie is dead, no virus can reanimate a corpse that doesn't have a functional nervous system and digestive and sanguine and etc.

That zombies (dead organisms that can move and attack and bla bla) can exist is much more unrealistic than the sun ending tomorrow ...

[–] Harley0187 8 years ago

You schooled the idiots..

[–] outofmana 9 years ago

I think what you meant to say is "While all normal people enjoy films and ignore any impossibilities and plot holes for the sake of entertainment, I on the other hand want to try to convince complete strangers on the internet that I'm smart by pointing out obvious imperfections in the story"

Whenever I was younger, sometimes I would watch movies and think to myself "That's not possible, I know the intricacies of the subject and I can prove there is a hole in this plot. I should tell someone so they know of my discovery" But fortunately when most people become adults they stop worrying about how people perceive them...

What I'm trying to say is: if you worry about the scientific validity of every films plot then you're going to miss out on a lot of enjoyable films

[–] mdjb1 8 years ago

Well said. Suspension of disbelief is essential to watching basically any film.

[–] hypermecha 9 years ago

I am shocked to know that this movie is directed by Danny Boyle.

Why? Because zombies eating humans is so much more believable than the sun dying?

First of all, our sun is nowhere near it's death, it still has a couple of billion years to exhaust it's nuclear power, this won't be happening in the 2050's and the idea of it is just absurd and uneducated.

First of all, it's "its," not "it's." You know so much about science, but apparently not much about proper grammar. Second of all, did you ever think that something unexpected could come along in space and it could run into our sun and cause some kind of weird reaction with it, long before it gets near burning out? They don't specify exactly what happened, they merely say it's dying. Since our sun wouldn't just go cold when it's dying, maybe something like a huge meteorite hits it and causes an unusual reaction. They were intentionally vague about that part because, y'know, it's FICTION. Just like how there's no such thing as the "Rage" virus that instantly makes people go bloodthirsty mad and start eating people. Get it?

econd of all, how can they compare the sun's unimaginable nuclear fusion to ANY KIND OF MAN-MADE BOMBS ??? are they really that naive to think that a quadrillion gazzilion bombs can actually affect or even reach the sun's surface?? people should read and learn about physics before coming up with such horrendous ideas.

I agree with you. Some people should read & learn about physics. *cough* They didn't say they launched an incendiary bomb at the sun. They didn't specify what it was at all, just that it was large and it would get the sun burning brighter. Maybe rather than a fuel kind of thing it was just a catalyst, meant to cause a reaction, not actually provide fuel for the sun to burn. You know, just like how nuclear physics works? 

Boyle should stay away from Sci-Fi films.

How about you just stay away from Boyle films, and next time we won't have to hear you brag about your grade-school level grasp of physics? You're entitled to your opinion but you know these messageboards are meant for fans to chat with other fans about the movies they like, and you're not really supposed to come here just to rant and incite reactions. You're not here to chat, only to yell your dull, negative opinion that no one really gives a crap about because you didn't think it out very well. You just make a bunch of assumptions. No one's claiming this movie is academy award material. It was interesting and better than a lot of other movies of the same genre, which, incidentally, is science FICTION. Herp-a-derp!

🐯

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] hypermecha 9 years ago

the ones who have really internalized knowledge of physics (and other special subjects) tend to offer explanations, whereas the ones who haven't tend to accuse others of being inexcusably ignorant.

No one here in this thread is a physicist, that is for sure. That's my sincere observation.😝 However, I'm not ignorant, and I did offer an explanation that makes sense, which is that, first of all, in the movie they never say why the sun is dying. No one said it was dying "naturally" as it will in 3 billion years by going supernova. My suggestion that something else happened to affect the sun, such as maybe a meteorite hitting it or something, as far-fetched as that may be. As already said, this isn't a hard science movie. It's science fiction, so arguing over physics is very nearly pointless in the first place. The movie is structured after ancient mythos and has spiritual elements to it. We're arguing over what happened to the sun, while one of the characters in the movie claimed to have been "talking to god for the past 7 years," and yet no one is complaining about that. How is it that the sun burning out is less plausible than a man thinking the sun was "god" and it talked to him and told him to prevent the mission(s) from being completed by slaughtering all the crew, making humans extinct?

Secondly I also offer the idea that the "payload," to which it is only ever referred to as "the payload" and never indicated what the content actually was, might not have been billions of tons of explosives but perhaps something that was just going to act as a catalyst to set off a chain reaction. Much like a nuclear reaction.

When I said people should read & learn about physics, I meant that everyone should. I'm not saying you need a PhD in physics or anyone has to be a rocket scientist.
It's just to better understand the world we live in. I never even used the word "ignorant" let alone suggested it was inexcusable. You're just whining about semantics and I don't see you volunteering any explanations, so take your own advice. Your "sincere observation" doesn't add a damn thing to the conversation.
🐯

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roofall 9 years ago

This message has been deleted by the poster

Let's, just, hope that they learned something from this experience, lolz! xD

http://i.media-imdb.com/images/warning_small.png

Posting Quotas Are In Place
Please wait: 00:01

[–] MaximRecoil 8 years ago

You're entitled to your opinion but you know these messageboards are meant for fans to chat with other fans about the movies they like, and you're not really supposed to come here just to rant and incite reactions.

No, this isn't a fan forum, it is a discussion forum. Criticism is a valid form of discussion.

Message Boards

Discuss this movie with other users on IMDb message board for Sunshine (2007)

I don't dance, tell jokes or wear my pants too tight, but I do know about a thousand songs.

[–] Ehab-Elayyan 8 years ago

hypermecha I wonder why you take my criticism so personally as if you were Danny Boyle's manager or something, I'm criticizing a film, that is MY opinion about a FILM.. so next time you post something make sure that your response is objective towards my statement and not about my grammar which BTW if you read it again would realize that IT was grammatically correct.

I know exactly what Sci-Fi films are about and, please everyone here wants to sound smart and you're no different, at least I didn't offend or look down on anyone because of what they think, so in my opinion people who criticize films on IMDb boards, whether negatively or positively are just fine, they're still talking about films and they're entitled to their own opinions. it's people like you who take it personally that trash this board.

Good day.

[–] Lupin-III 8 years ago

Why? Because zombies eating humans is so much more believable than the sun dying?

Danny Boyle has never made a zombie movie.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] RickyDeg 8 years ago

Yes, the concept is laughable but the execution is terrific.

"...I reserve the right to change my opinion on a movie at any point in time."

[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

the execution is terrible, this is the most ugly movie i have ever seen.

[–] more-13 8 years ago

terminator is laughable too.

time travel, lol, so unrealistic.

[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

time travel on subatomic level is possible, read steven hawking.

[–] more-13 8 years ago

Arnie isn't subatomic afaik

[–] yusef-ghanima 8 years ago

science fiction is not science or reality it's FICTION based on science

[–] more-13 8 years ago

and if you followed the conversation you'd have read that I defend fiction.

[–] The LA Baker (799) 4 years ago

Time travel forward is possible and happens all the time.
Traveling to the past seems unlikely, but humans flying, let alone going to space and the moon, seemed very unlikely, too.

[–] asom (6504) 3 years ago

Not quite. All kind of things are flying. That other things can fly is not a stretch when you already have a precedence ...

No thing has ever traveled in time ..

[–] The LA Baker (799) 3 years ago

Yeah, I see stuff flying to the moon all the time...

Nothing has ever travelled in time, you say? You failed in physics.