Hacker News Reader

Comment by samplatt | Hacker News Reader

>a sci-fi movie (can't remember)

Sunshine, perhaps? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_(2007_film)

Brilliant, brilliant film. The premise is shonky as they come but it's obvious that the film itself has little to do with the premise. Awesome acting, literally-awesome SFX (their ability to give the sun so much weight is amazing, you really get a sense of an immortal unstoppable force), and a message that's neither shallow nor deep but prompts some self-reflection in ways you don't expect.

View on HN

Maybe I'll give it a shot. For me the premise occupies a sort of uncanny valley of realism: there's no space wizards or wormholes or FTL or aliens, but it's also not realistic enough to be something that could happen. It's kind of like that movie The Day After Tomorrow. It felt like there should have been some kind of mystical or supernatural force behind it all because it could never happen as presented, but they want it to come across as plausible.

No, it's nothing The Day After Tomorrow; the characters in sunshine aren't paper-thin stereotypes. I'd say it's a lot more like Interstellar - though all three involve "do or die" threats to the character to propel the plot, it's much more a drama working within the constraints of a proposed system, rather than a dumb big-budget thriller.

I remember seeing the promo material for this film and thinking "nah I'll skip that one" and then I think a few years later I had a dull evening, found this film and really enjoyed it. After seeing it I recall thinking they really sold it short with the marketing, it was much better than I had expected.

Great soundtrack too.

But at one point, they jump between two airlocks, and while in space for 10 seconds they become completely covered in ice and freeze to death.

I vaguely recall something about the making of the movie where they acknowledge that this wouldn't happen, but it was done because that's what the audience expects.

Frustratingly, when the main character did exactly this in 2001: A Space Odyssey, the audience were frustrated because it was so unrealistic that someone would survive it (-_-)

I always thought that would be a good opportunity to teach people, but I guess if you're in it to make money it makes sense to just pander to what audiences expect.

It's not about pandering or making money (did people go to the movie because they heard there was a scene where a guy freezes in space?????), it is entertainment.

It's absolutely about making money. Most movies are made primarily to make money. And the way to make money is to make it entertaining. Is it less entertaining if it's more realistic? In this particular example the answer seems to be, "yes."

My comment was from the view point of the creators (director, writer, and rest of the crew). There were better ways to make money in movies in 2007 then with a sci-fi space thriller inspired by Solaris and Alien.

To be more clear, I don't think the creators were thinking "will this scene make us more money", nor do I think it's their job. And on the topic of realism in a movie, unless it's a historical film or the goal is to educate, then realism should be near the bottom of the checklist when creating a scene.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com