News release from Fox Searchlight Films

SUNSHINE - synopsis

It is the year 2057, the Sun is dying and a solar winter has enveloped the
earth. Earth's last hope lies with the Icarus II, a spacecraft with a crew of
eight men and women led by Captain Kaneda. Their mission: to deliver a nuclear
device designed to reignite our fading sun.

Deep into their voyage, out of radio contact with Earth, the crew hears a
distress beacon from the Icarus I, which disappeared on the same mission seven
years earlier. A terrible accident throws their mission into jeopardy and soon
the crew finds themselves fighting not only for their sanity and their lives,
but for the future of us all...

Trailer at: http://www.foxsearchlight.com <http://www.foxsearchlight.com/>


Bases on the synopsis, this movie is ripe for critiquing by the Bad Astronomer.
Any Astronomy 101 student would know that:

1. The Sun, when it dies, will not cause a "solar winter". It will swell into a red giant and fry the earth.

2. The Sun will not go off the Main Sequence for at least 3 billion years, not in 2057.

3. A nuclear bomb would do nothing to effect the Sun's output. A Coronal Mass Ejection makes any human made nuke seem like a toy pistol cap explosion.

Here we go again, Hollywood script writers ignore basic science and just write garbage. I would not even waste the time at a free screening to watch it. And the ultimate indignity is that they will call it a "science fiction" movie.

Matthew Ota

See also Small Media topic: Sunshine: The Movie

__________________
0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...

I'm not trying to say this movie is about good science, but the premise is not that it is dying in the usual way, but rather that a small quantity of special sub-atomic particles are interfering with the Sun's fusion process, and that this device is somehow capable of transforming these particles. So your three complaints aren't going to be the real BA issues that will need to be addressed.

Among the issues I think are problems (having not yet seen the film):
- If the core of the Sun slowed down its production, it would be aeons before the photosphere cooled off.
- If the core of the Sun slowed down, the photon pressure would be relieved and the Sun would shrink until it was hot and dense enough to start up again.

I am also curious to know what magic materials and systems can keep spaceships intact for seven years deep in the Sun.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I wonder if they include the trip-at-night joke?

A much cooler Sun has one redeeming value - it would acually look yellow!

__________________
Lighten up! This is a stellar board! Author: duh.

"The Sun, with all the planets revolving around it, and depending on it, can still ripen a bunch of grapes as though it had nothing else in the universe to do..." Author: Galileo supposedly.

More info on the movie may be found here: http://www.sunshinedna.com/

I'll be interested to see the BA's review of this one.

The lady who did the blog is married to the film's science advisor and has posted on the BAUT a few times. She said that her husband was brought on board after Garland had already written the script, so there may not have been a hell of a lot he could change. Given the howling scientific inaccuracies in the script for '28 Days Later' (also written by Alex Garland), the story for this movie represents an improvement, I think.

As far as your comments go, antoniseb, I'd wondered about those issues myself. I'm guessing that some artistic license was taken to move the plot along, as a 7-year journey through the sun would not be very interesting to watch.

Frankly, I'm really looking forward to this movie, scientific bloopers notwithstanding. Whatever your opinion of the accuracy of the science in his scripts, you have to admit that Alex Garland knows how to tell an engrossing story. '28 Days Later' was outstanding, despite its flaws.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Why should movies be scientifically correct? They are supposed to be an escape from reality... not a primer.

Because if they don't follow some basic rules they just become pointless garbage. Using this grade of science, the people on Titanic could have delayed the sinking by all moving to one end until help arrived.

__________________
This is not an idea to be tossed aside lightly - it should be thrown with great force

According to Richard Roeper and the critic from the Village Voice, it's not even interesting. The first twenty minutes or so are very pretty. The movie itself is very boring.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

This comes up time and again and it makes no sense to me. It seems to suggest that if the writers do their homework then the entertainment will somehow evaporate and the film will turn into a boring lesson.

To my mind, it is a lot easier to engage with the fantasy aspects of a film if the reality bits are portrayed well.

Yeah, some have liked it, and some haven't. Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum liked it and gave it a B+. Rotten Tomatoes gave it a 74% 'certified fresh' rating. Roger Ebert (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...VIEWS/70702003) gave it a decent review saying:

Others didn't, either complaining that it was derivative, or saying that the third part seemed tacked on and sucked.

We'll see. I'm planning to see it the 27th and will give my honest (I swear! ) feedback on the BAUT afterwards. I have been looking forward to this movie for months, so I may not be the most objective of reviewers, however.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

I think that "brainiacs" comment is telling. I doubt many people call themselves brainiacs, so it sounds as if the reviewer doesn't know much about science but is guessing that those who do will be impressed by it.

Well, considering that Roger Ebert (who is as 'lay' as a layperson gets) wrote the review, I'm guessing that you are correct. I think he puts himself in the 'those who sometimes look at the sky and think, man, there's a lot going on up there, and we can't even define precisely what a soliton is' category.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Put it this way about Roger Ebert (whose reviews I like reading even when I disagree): he knows enough to have believed Oliver Stone and JFK. Which, for those who don't know, means he believed a steaming pile of historical errors. (Documentable ones. So very many documentable errors.)

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

Yeah, my mom didn't like JFK either and pointed out that it was loaded with historical errors.

As far as I'm concerned, Oliver Stone peaked when he made 'Platoon'. I haven't liked anything he's made since.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Well, I've seen the movie and liked it, although there are quite a few plot holes and science bloopers in there. Well, no movie is perfect, and 'Sunshine' is a lot better than most of the crapola advertised as 'sci-fi'. I'd be interested to see what a professional astronomer/astrophysicist has to say RE the science in the movie.

Question for the BA: Will you be posting a review of 'Sunshine' on your blog or the BAUT?

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

You just gotta love holywood flicks. I believe half the time they make these sci-fi movies that really have no idea on what they are really making it about.

This isn't a Hollywood flick. This movie was made in the UK under DNA films, which is an independent film studio, and promoted by Fox Atomic, which is the indie arm of 20th Century Fox.

No, Alex Garland really didn't know what he was talking about. It was a good film, nonetheless.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)

Must admit that I liked the human interactions and reactions - that was the point of the movie, I guess. The science largely sucked and distracts.
Some examples:
1. No sun like ours has taken this path to cooling off.
2. What substance is going to survive the corona - there's no safe passage?
3. No apparent effect of the sun's immense gravity on the the ability of Capa to walk around near it's surface.

Has anyone noticed that it is just "CORE" with the sun, instead of the earth?
We know exactly what a soliton is.
Penny

I saw your post this morning at about 4:30 am, but it is marked as being posted at 9:30 am...

Certainly, 'Sunshine' and 'The Core' have similar central motifs: a crucial part of our environment is endangered (the earth's magnetic field in 'The Core' vs. the sun in 'Sunshine') such that humanity faces extinction, and a group of experts is sent to fix things. Many stories share central motifs with other stories; this does not necessarily mean that these stories are trivial and derivative for doing so. Also, while 'Sunshine' wasn't perfect by any means, it was much better than 'The Core', as far as acting, production, directing, dialog, etc goes.

Yes, a Q-ball is defined as a type of soliton, but I don't understand what point you are trying to make with your last statement.

__________________
The dose makes the poison--Paracelsus (1493-1541) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus

I don't know. That's why I'm asking--Noclevername

Intelligence may not be clearly defined, but you know stupid when you see it--Noclevername

Science is a way of thinking much more than it is a body of knowledge--Carl Sagan (1934-1996)