Bad Astronomy ALert: Movie "Sunshine"

[matthewota]

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

[01101001]

See also Small Media topic: Sunshine: The Movie

[antoniseb]

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.

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.

[George]

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

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

[Paracelsus]

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.

[EvilEye]

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

[Occam]

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.

[Gillianren]

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.

[Paul Beardsley]

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

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.

[Paracelsus]

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.

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:

So, anyway, younger girls won't like this movie, unless they know what happens under an automobile hood. Younger boys won't like it because the only thing that's possibly going to blow up real good is the sun. But science-fiction fans will like it, and also brainiacs, and 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.

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.

[Paul Beardsley]

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.

[Paracelsus]

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.

[Gillianren]

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.)

[Paracelsus]

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.

[Paracelsus]

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?

[Premodial]

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.

[Paracelsus]

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.

[Topvax]

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.

[Unregistered]

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

[Paracelsus]

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.

[SeanG]

Slate Magazine analyzes the portrayal of sudden decompression in the vaccuum of space, as depicted in the film, "SunShine"

http://www.slate.com/id/2171522/fr/rss/

[Paracelsus]

Slate Magazine analyzes the portrayal of sudden decompression in the vaccuum of space, as depicted in the film, "SunShine"

http://www.slate.com/id/2171522/fr/rss/

Yeah, even the film's blogger admits that the instafreeze effects in the film were **.

Notice that Harvey did a bad, bad thing during the little jaunt: he held his breath.

Big, big, no-no.

[pilgrim]

A friend of mine was at a public astronomy lecture recently where the speaker described sunshine as a fun film to watch which requires you to switch your science brain off. To me it personally sounded as trying to reignite a burnt out candle stump by chucking a bomb at it. This was not helped by the fact an aquaintance went to see it and told me there was a scene with two characters 'hopping' between two spaceships, wrapped in tin foil for protection. Apart from evoking a mental image of the hitchhikers guide to galaxy, this made me think there's a lot of better ways to spend 10 euro than on a ticket to see Sunshine. I haven't seen it so this is more of an opinion based on hear-say and trailers but for those who have seen it,please tell me the whole space-ship hopping isn't actually in the film...

On a different note, the link in the first thread has a trailer to a much better film: Once. Actually, I have many a reason for a soft spot for it, including having seen it shot (if anyone's seen it, the shot where Glen Hansard, the busker, is playing on Grafton street and Market Irglova, the girl, comes up to him with a vacuum cleaner would have had me in it if the camera had pointed the other way along the street). I'd say if you haven't seen it, check it out, and listen to the music (mostly the Frames and Swell Season)

News release from Fox Searchlight Films



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



Matthew Ota

[Code Red]

I just got this out on DVD for a laugh, and yeah the science was shocking but what really disappointed me is that what started off as an interesting look at interpersonal relationships on a deep space mission turned in the last five minutes into a "yikes there's a space monster on board!" slasher movie.

Very poor.

[KrisSam]

im all for accuracy in movies, but with something as scientific as this, i feel that as long as the story is decent and involving then im fine with straying from the truth a bit. though these sorts of movies usually dont get me going very much. i did love 28 days later though. so who knows. i guess ill have to see.

[corsair]

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.

In talking to Phil the other night (obvious name drop) in DC, he said that he had notes from this movie but hadn't written it up yet. He also said that we was perplexed by the movie since it started out as a sci-fi movie and then moved into a slasher pic in the second half.

We asked when he was going to do more movie reviews and he replied that there really weren't that many movies out worth doing these days.

-corsair

[idav]

People think about this movie in the most simplistic of terms.

"Spaceship! It's a scifi movie!, wait, people! it's a drama, wait people died, it's a slasher!"

No, it's a movie that's supposed to make you think. It's as much about psychology as it is astronomy. It's as much about people as it is about space.

I'm not sure how to go in to it further without spoilers but it's honestly frustrating that the overall theme of this movie has been lost on everyone that seems to have watched it. This movie is very good.

If BA used the word slasher to describe Sunshine then he's far less observant than he advertises.

[Gillianren]

No, it's a movie that's supposed to make you think.

What several people whose opinions I trust thought was, "My, this movie's bad."

[KaiYeves]

We asked when he was going to do more movie reviews and he replied that there really weren't that many movies out worth doing these days.

Sure, '06 was a bit of a lean spell, but in the past six months he whiped out reviews of Transformers and Cloverfield.

[Noclevername]

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.

It may not have literally been made in Hollywood, but it was certainly a Hollywood-style movie. Hollywood-esque, at least.