Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B
This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid
This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.
Sunshine (2007 film) was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: May 21, 2007

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sunshine (2007 film) article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
  1. January 2007 – January 2008

Contents

[edit] Headlines

There are some headlines that could still be implemented into the article, found in this archive. Here are some new ones as well:

These are likely to do it for online sources, though there may be more available in print. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] -273 C near the Sun?

I see there's a discussion about the scientific inaccuracies of the movie and perhaps the scene where astronauts freeze to death due to an allegedly -273 C temperature sustained in space would deserve a mention. -273 C is the theoretical absolute zero, but even the darkest regions of space are not thought to reach this point. At Mercury's distance from the Sun, it floored me a bit that the movie would suggest such a temperature (at Pluto's distance, space is thought to be around -240 C). This being said, I thought Sunshine was a great picture. --Childhood's End (talk) 19:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The difficulty with addressing scientific inaccuracies is that while we could personally point out examples, we don't know which examples out of many are worth noting. If you could find a secondary source pointing out this inaccuracy along with anything else, that would be welcome. We just can't synthesize topics if it hasn't been mentioned before. Glad you liked the film, though! —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In order for the temperature behind the shadow of Icarus I to be higher than it would be near Pluto, air would have to be present to transfer the heat from the light. The only source of heat from that distance is light. Thats why the dark side of Mercury is much colder than it is on the light side. This is also why Harvey's body was incinerated when it came into contact with direct sunlight. Wiitbred (talk) 04:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
The damaged area around the airlock was venting atmosphere, which could act as a convective medium as well as having a refrigerative effect. I believe that expanding gas is used in space for cooling instruments, so it's possible that Icarus would have sensors able to analyse the actual temperature quickly and easily enough for the characters to announce it as they did. That's how I rationalised this part of the film myself, anyway. Wrapping yourself in thermal sheeting for a 5-second trip through vacuum would be pretty silly otherwise. 202.76.142.198 (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

All interesting thoughts, but we can't really discuss the scientific aspects if we can't use any cited information to improve the film article. Per the talk page guidelines, we need to focus on topics to help improve the article. It may be more ideal to find another forum, such as IMDb or even between user talk pages, to discuss the science of this film in general. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The exact temperature is a minor error, especially considering that it is the biologist who said it rather than the physicist; her guess was reasonable. If you were to start listing inaccuracies, a much more major error would be the fact that they cooled down in seconds. It would take a few minutes to cool noticeably, let alone freeze solid. Another would be the design of the bomb, both its geometry and that they mined lots of fissile material rather than make it primarily thermonuclear. Other errors include: communication would not have been lost so early; the orbit shown around mercury is not a slingshot; by the time they got quite close to the sun, the shield would not have blocked light going around it to the rest of the ship; light takes thousands of years to reach the surface of the sun from where fusion happens, so the sun would not have brightened for several millennia; etc. These kinds of errors are common to sci-fi, so I'm not sure it's worth listing them in the article. --Silpion (talk) 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Cast" section seems misleadingly structured

While well-written, the "Cast" section seems misleadingly sectioned and organized. There are two subsections: "Casting," then "Characters." Yet the "Characters" list subsection is often an account of the casting process, so it's odd to have this section presented in contrast to the preceding "Casting" subsection. "Characters" is also an account of the development of the characters by the filmmakers and actor, but isn't that really an account of the production process? And then, sometimes, it's the perspective of the actors on the thematic role of their characters. What is this section really supposed to be? Could that be narrowed down, and/or could the subsection title reflect that better?

Back to the first subsection, "Casting": the first paragraph does describe the casting process, but the second one is not about casting. It's about the production process in terms of the already-cast actors' research process, a rehearsal period of sorts. This paragraph does not belong in a "Casting" subsection. (And then comes the next subsection, "Characters," which often veers back to the time before the actors' group research process.)

Ultimately, the chronology of production seems oddly broken up by a casting section preceding the actual inception of the project as described in "Production." And the whole "Cast" section itself jumps all around from the casting process to the actors' research/prep to thematic perspectives on the characters. Perhaps some of this info should be subsumed into the "Production" section as a "Casting" subsection? And perhaps a remaining "Cast" section should follow the "Production" section, instead of preceding it, as suggested by Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Cast_and_crew_information (which also discusses other options for how to incorporate cast info into the flow of articles). --Melty girl (talk) 23:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I never got a chance to respond to your thoughts on the casting content. Feel free to change around the structure to be more suitable. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I like the major change you made putting "Casting" under "Production", and moving the "Cast" list section down. There's still some tweaks I'd like to make. One question for you... I would like to break the Casting subsection into Casting vs. what happened with the actors in pre-production after the casting process was complete. But this wasn't really rehearsal, it was more research. What would you prefer to call the new subsection? "Rehearsal"? "Research"? "Actor research"? "Character development"? "Cast workshopping"? Some mix of these ideas? Something else? I'm not sure what's best. --Melty girl (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
That's a tough call. Perhaps "Casting and preparation"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking of the post-casting pre-production period. Hmmm... --Melty girl (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Basic premise flawed?

Besides the issues of temperature near the sun, artificial gravity, the amount of nukes required, etc., the entire premise of this film seems to be flawed. The sun will not begin to die out for billions of years. [1] The most likely cause of arctic conditions in Australia between now and 2057 is nukes on earth.[2] I did appreciate what the film was trying to do, just pointing out what I feel is the most egregious flaw from a physicist's perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.192.171 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is science fiction. I don't think it's really possible to make the majority of science fiction films without having some fallacies. We could try to cover the inaccuracies in more detail in the article, but we need to use reliable sources of scientists criticizing the film. There should be some headlines up above to accomplish that. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There's a commentary on the DVD by Dr. Brian Cox, the scientific advisor for the film. He mentions the idea of Q-Balls, which could conceivably affect the rate of fusion in the sun since they consist of a different form of matter which is more stable. The whole idea of the bomb is to disrupt the Q-Ball so that normal reactions can resume. Hellbus (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture of Icarus on the heat shield

When the booster rockets fire to push the bomb into the sun there is a brief shot of the small heat shield on the crew section of Icarus II. There's a picture of Icarus on it that looks like the same style as what you'd see on an ancient Greek vase. Does anyone know if that picture is actually named, or whether it's something that was created for the film? Hellbus (talk) 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This movie never broke even, right?

This movie never broke even, right? As far as I can tell, it was not a financial/popular success, but this isn't stated clearly. The budget and the gross are in different currencies. It would be great if someone could make the financial reality clearer, especially in the lead, where its shortcomings are not made clear at all. --Melty girl (talk) 17:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I think the ambiguity exists because films can do well on home media after their theatrical release. However, I don't think that Sunshine garnered any success in either case. I'll check for any new sources that look at the film's performance in retrospect. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I see about home media. That's great that you're looking for new sources. Do we need a reporter to say unequivocably that the movie was not very successful? --Melty girl (talk) 19:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I took another look at the article. Considering that the gross from its theatrical run seems more than its budget (hard to tell with the influx of exchange rates), it technically didn't bomb. However, it didn't seem to meet expectations, especially in the United States. I looked at the Google Alerts for anything new, but I don't have anything. I can check NewsBank for print sources around the time of its DVD release and up to now. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I crunched the numbers a little. Going by the rate of the pound on 1/1/06, the budget was $34 million, meaning that the film has not broken even -- that's if you convert the budget number from the source in the infobox (£20 million). But there's a Hollywood Reporter article cited for a different reason that gives the more familiar dollar amount I recall seeing for the budget: $40 million. That makes the situation even worse. It really seems like it didn't do as well as it should have at the British box office, and was very overlooked in the U.S. Sad, but true. I'm just not sure how this should be written about skillfully. --Melty girl (talk) 21:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I looked at NewsBank, but there was not any coverage about how it performed in theaters around the time of its U.S. DVD release and since then. I don't really have any ideas other than to leave it ambiguous for now. Boyle's working on Slumdog Millionaire, so when that one starts getting into headlines closer to its release, Sunshine will almost certainly be referenced in retrospect. What do you think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm a little confused. Are you saying that it's unclear that it did not break even while in theatrical release? Do you think my numbers are wrong? --Melty girl (talk) 18:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
As I'm quite sure Erik already knows, it's not up to wikipedians to do any calculations whatsoever to determine how the movie did. Independant sources stating whether or not the movie was financially succesful or not would be appropriate. Gwynand (talk) 18:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Two sources with USD cited are already cited in this article clearly indicate that the film has not broken even (my currency conversion of a third source notwithstanding). If The Hollywood Reporter that says that the film's budget was US$40 million, and Box Office Mojo says that the film has made US$32 million worldwide, why are we neglecting to say that the film has not broken even? Isn't it biased to talk about the gross in the lead section without noting that the budget exceeds the gross? And isn't it misleading to use different currencies to state the gross and the budget, thereby masking the financial failure of the film? --Melty girl (talk) 18:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the movie industry is confusing (to state the obvious). Just because we have 2 sourced numbers doesn't mean we as editors should come to the conclusion in the article about the financial success of the film. If we have a sourced sentence from an article stating that, then cite it and put it in. If we can't find one source that comments on the film's success or lack thereof, we shouldn't take the next step of putting that info in. That would definitely be under WP:OR. I agree that that different currencies to state gross and budget aren't the best way to go... but to the same point, we aren't here to convert. Just put in what we can cite.Gwynand (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but you're still missing the point -- I'm not converting any numbers in the two sources I mentioned above -- they're U.S. sources. But I'm going to stop discussing and start demonstrating exactly what I'm talking about. --Melty girl (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, OK. I'm fairly certain I understand everything you are saying. My final point, which I've said a few times... if you can find indepedant sources which comment on the financial success of the film, then go ahead and add it to the lead or wherever appropriate. That's really all there is too it. If you can't find that, don't add anything. As for the gross and budget, go ahead and add what you can source as well. I'll keep an eye on the page and help out where I can, as I'm sure Erik will too. Gwynand (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Cool... see what you think about the changes. --Melty girl (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Perfect. Separately sourced, and in this case where we are working with mostly american gross revenue, I think it is appropriate to have this second budget currency included. Gwynand (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article possibility

I think that this article is ripe for Good Article status. I think it needs two elements, though: 1) the incorporation of DVD extras like the commentary and featurettes, and 2) a better-shaped Critical reaction section (with some analysis of its scientific accuracies or lack thereof). Perhaps some copyediting as well. What do others think? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

One more suggestion: perhaps the scientific analysis should not be lumped together with the film critics' response. These seem like two completely separate issues to me. --Melty girl (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I haven't had a chance to mess with that section, but the distinction is definitely appropriate. Maybe just have a "Scientific accuracy" subsection to follow the "Critical reaction" subsection, and re-title "Release" as "Reception"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. --Melty girl (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Bertaut (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)==The crew of Icarus I== Don't know if it's worth mentioning in the article, but when Searle seals Capa into the spacesuit on Icarus I you can see a mission insignia with the names of the Icarus I's crew. This is what the names looked like to me:

  • Pinbacker
  • Fischer
  • Nakazawa
  • Lin
  • Esteves
  • Chow
  • Roes
  • White

Hellbus (talk) 04:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty interesting. Do you think that it really has a place in the article, though? Every film has a lot of minor details that could be pointed out. I haven't seen any mention of these names elsewhere. I'm not sure if the names in the article will give readers a better understanding of the film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 04:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
It's probably not important enough to mention in the article, since Pinbacker is the only one of them who wasn't dead when the ships rendezvoused. There's also the picture of all of them that Searle finds, but there's no way to identify who's who. That picture reminds me though - I found it odd that pieces of that picture were inserted into the film as single frames in a couple places as a kind of subliminal message. Hellbus (talk) 18:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I definitely noticed that. That would be worth a mention, but I'm not sure what could be said about it. Fight Club had something similar, and the director said of the frames, "Our hero is creating [...] in his own mind, so at this point he exists only on the periphery of the narrator's consciousness." (Removed the reference to avoid spoilers if you haven't seen it.) I have not found any secondary sources mentioning the frames in Sunshine. Is there anything in the DVD extras that mentions it? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Danny Boyle talks a little about it on his commentary, but I can't remember what he says. Hellbus (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
That is interesting, but I think it's probably more suited to the Trivia section on IMDB than a Wikipedia article. Bertaut (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)