5 ms·

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's 2007 film Sunshine is another great example of this genre. Rather than abandoning a frozen earth due to the dying sun, they send

Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's 2007 film Sunshine is another great example of this genre. Rather than abandoning a frozen earth due to the dying sun, they send a mission to deliver a bomb into it to "restart" it. A real all-star cast featuring not only a young Cillian Murphy, but a young Michelle Yeoh, Chris Evans, Hiroyuki Sanada, Benedict Wong, Cliff Curtis, and Rose Byrne! Highly recommended, despite never satisfactorily explaining why they require a manned spacecraft to do the job rather than sending a robotic drone ship. Seems to me that adding humans to the mix greatly increased the complexity and risk of the mission.

hackable_sand 3y ago
I thought they did explain why they needed humans, but I bet we can hand-wave that away with some radiation technobabble.
throwup238 3y ago
Event Horizon is a great movie to watch after Sunshine
- 0x38B 3y ago
  These two articles in American Cinematographer (1 and 2) give some interesting background on the movie; concerning the ship they write: > When it first appears onscreen, the Event Horizon craft itself resembles a giant crucifix hovering over the surface of Neptune. "The spaceship was built on a cruciform, like all cathedrals are," Anderson explains. "We began the design process by literally scanning [photos of] the Notre-Dame Cathedral into the computer and then constructing the Event Horizon out of those Gothic elements. For example, the big thruster engines are an adaptation of the Notre Dame towers, repositioned on their sides. A lot of the iron and steel work of the superstructure is based on the cathedral's stained-glass windows. The ship also has a lot of triptych windows and big recessed crosses. > "When Adrian and I first sat down, we said, 'Let's do something completely different,"' says Anderson. "Since we were going into outer space, I felt we had to have a really strong design concept; otherwise Event Horizon would have ended up looking like [a bunch of] other movies cobbled together. We spent a lot of time coming up with a design concept, which we called 'techno-Medieval.' When the lights are on, everything looks very technological and very spaceship-like. But when the lights go off and the haunting begins, you start looking at the shapes, and the architecture is actually very medieval. We extended that techno-Medieval design idea into as many aspects of the picture's look as possible, without rubbing the audience's nose in it." 1: https://theasc.com/articles/unearthly-terrors-event-horizon https://theasc.com/articles/unearthly-terrors-event-horizon 2: https://theasc.com/articles/event-horizon-scare-tactics https://theasc.com/articles/event-horizon-scare-tactics
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    “We began designing the spaceship by scanning the Notre-Dame Cathedral” is an example of exactly the right kind of non-spoiler spoiler, one that doesn’t ruin the film but only makes me interested in watching it.
  - voltaireodactyl 3y ago
    Thank you for these excellent links, the added context to that design process is deeply satisfying.
  - entrox 3y ago
    It‘s fun to imagine that Event Horizon is actually in the same universe as Warhammer 40k. Not only does the plot fit perfectly with the ship going through the warp, the Gothic design matches the aesthetic as well. Even if not intended, it just works so well.
    - throwaway17_17 3y ago
      TL;DR — I agree wholeheartedly and thanks for the chance to blather about a fictional universe I really enjoy, also a huge wall of text about Event Horizon as a ‘prequel’ showing an interesting division within the 40K fandom. I agree so hard that I would upvote your comment a thousand times if I could. This fan originated ‘prequel’ to the 40k universe is absolutely perfect in both aesthetic and tone. But I think, despite the wide support this concept has, it displays a really interesting view into some large tonal changes in the fandom and published materials and attitudes. Within the 40k fandom I think there are a group of fans (mostly older now and less involved in the hobby) that disagree with Event Horizon as a ‘prequel’. It is an interesting dichotomy between what 40k has been since the late 90’s and what it was at its start and during its early editions. Early fans, in the discourse I have seen online and in older GW periodicals, really focused on the political satire and the somewhat eclectic humorous undertones (and often overtones). The tongue-in-cheek demonization of the human faction, via making them so crazily over-the-top authoritarian, WWII-type theocratic fascists, is clearly pitched as a caricature of the then super powerful right wing party, under Thatcher and her ilk. The other factions had less direct satirical targets, but, as an example, the Orcs power of ‘be stupid but believe and results will follow’ can be seen as a critique of the apparent lack of intellectual curiosity and focus on conformity present in the UK, or as a statement on the semi-‘Cargo Cult’ mentality around the rising hyper-consumerism that was beginning to be pushed on the public by plutocrats. There are plenty of other broad and specific satirical or openly political commentary throughout the 80’s material, especially in White Dwarf supplemental writing. However, then there are the fans that came into the hobby in the late-middle and late 90’s and up til present day. 40k has been a cornerstone, forerunner, and standard bearer for Grimdark(tm) for nearly the last 30 years. This block of fans (by far those most active in the hobby, particularly the lore/fluff/art creation and discussion) absolutely sees Event Horizon as being a perfect fit for 40K. The days of satire are long past, now the factions and characters in the setting are nearly played straight as examples of their respective stereotypes and associated tropes in genre fiction. Granted, 40k established a good portion of the grimdark tropes, but it has remained steadfast in utilizing and somewhat revising those trappings of the genre without apology. Where 80’s 40K would have by now been lampshading everything in the setting and potentially altering fluff to better satirize the current global political and societal milieu, the current fandom and GW itself are committing to playing the universe out. I love 40K and think both perspectives have merit, but at the end of the day 40K is still my vibe no matter which side of this divide I may find myself.
- Reason077 3y ago
  Yes! And then I'd follow up Event Horizon with Pandorum. Perhaps not quite as good or as well-known as the other two, but still clever and worth watching.
  - rasz 3y ago
    If we are at waking up with no memory I highly recommend Eden Log (2007).
- xoxxala 3y ago
  Event Horizon is the closest we’ll get to a Warhammer 40k film.
  - jtms 3y ago
    We are at least getting a 40k series with Henry Cavil I believe
  - shawn_w 3y ago
    Ultramarines says hi.
- Borrible 3y ago
  Just in case you don't know 'Fading Suns'. Role-playing gothic sci-fi in a galaxy where the stars are dying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fading_Suns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fading_Suns
amenhotep 3y ago
Every now and then I listen to the music for Capa's jump, then I have to watch the video, then I get all emotional. And the ending never fails to bring a tear to my eye. Amazing film. Somehow knowing the secret to Murphy's acting in that scene (Boyle secretly got a crew member to sit on his back) and having that objectively hilarious image in mind while watching it doesn't diminish the effect appreciably, which is remarkable!
- beAbU 3y ago
  Mind elaborating on what you are saying about Cillian having a crew member on his back? I'm a little confused..
oceanplexian 3y ago
> Seems to me that adding humans to the mix greatly increased the complexity and risk of the mission. We spent the last few years watching robots with state of the art 21st century technology and software crash on the moon repeatedly, and yet, in the 1960s a few hot shot test pilots could stick a landing on their first try. Given the choice between robots and humans, I’ll take the humans.
- strogonoff 3y ago
  Human ingenuity aside, I wonder if sending humans on missions can offer higher success rates due to higher stakes for all involved (the cost of human life). When we send humans to the Moon, the pressure to get things right is higher and consequences of failure are very dire. Sadly, of course, not a guarantee of success.
  - alistairSH 3y ago
    Which then leads me to wonder... The risk vs reward calculation for human-involved missions is necessarily higher than robotic missions. Is that additional cost an order of magnitude higher? IE, we can afford one and only one human mission, but three robotic missions? Does the math work out in favor of the single high-success mission, or the three slightly lower success missions? Obviously depends on the expected success rate and cost of each. But, probably why we haven't done a lot with human missions since the 60s.
    - strogonoff 3y ago
      I am not sure such utilitarian math is the true solution, attempts to put a number on the value of human life seem all silly. I would rather say that the failure of a robotic mission costs an amount X, while the failure of a human mission intuitively has infinite price.
      - pixl97 3y ago
        Conversely setting human life to infinity cost quickly breaks down with the trolley problem. Any problem where groups a or b are going to die then whatever group is bigger lives, even if it doesn't make sense, such as group b is all very old and group a is very young but slightly smaller.
jawngee 3y ago
> a young Michelle Yeoh She was 45 or 46 when she made Sunshine.
- Cthulhu_ 3y ago
  Cillian Murphy was also 31 by then, still relatively young I suppose but not young like the poster seems to imply.
- brazzy 3y ago
  Yeah, she starred as the "mature" woman already in Tiger and Dragon in 2000. I guess it just means that I'm oold for having that as a benchmark for Michaelle Yeoh's age rather than *Everything Everywhere All At Once"...
SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
"adding humans to the mix" is not the most unrealistic thing by far, in that uneven film. The basic premise (suns do not forget to shine one day) and proposed fix (any human efforts would be of insignificant scale compared to a sun) take that honour. The third act of the film is a runner-up.
- Reason077 3y ago
  Most sci-fi films (heck, most films) require some level of suspension of disbelief. If you're unable to do that you'll find it hard to enjoy much at all. Do Marvel films seem realistic to you? Star Wars? Star Trek? Cartoons?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    I watch a lot of sci-fi films and read a lot of sci-fi books - because I enjoy it when it's any good, so I don't need suspension of disbelief explained to me at all, thanks. I personally found this specific film not deserving of being called a "great example" of anything. It's at best a plodding, uneven, middling example of something, IDK what. Yes, I know that your milage may vary, but this film's status baffles me and others https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39917027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39917027 If anything, calling parts of it "good" and other parts "original" is generous. Most of it is neither. Perhaps if you just haven't seen or read that much, then some of it appears novel and good? It is not trying to be the same genre at all as Marvel or Star Wars fantasy films - some of which succeed on their own terms. Unlike "Sunshine". So that straw man distraction question is irrelevant.
beAbU 3y ago
Sunshine is one of my favourite sci-fi movies for all the wrong reasons. The premise and setting is total bullshit handwavium. But I absolutely loved the story, tension and slow boil. The cast as you say was brilliant. It's a B-Grade disaster movie /really/ well executed.
- hobs 3y ago
  Let me just say that I fully disagree, the movie was plodding and preachy and boring up until the "twist" when it got TERRIBLE. I cannot believe the number of people who have said that its a good movie, the entire movie required a suspension of disbelief far and away of what I am willing to give.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
    Agreed. The premise was astoundingly silly, and the plot was "both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good". I really do not know why some people rate this film so highly.
  - Pigalowda 3y ago
    I remember seeing reddit users recommend it as a great scifi film in 2012. I watched it and was horribly disappointed - it’s “the core” in space with a space zombie. I guess people like sucking down wet farts for 2 hours. Who am I to stop them?
rk06 3y ago
> despite never satisfactorily explaining why they require a manned spacecraft to do the job rather than sending a robotic drone ship. Seems to me that adding humans to the mix greatly increased the complexity and risk of the mission. As a software engineer, this statement baffles my mind. like how could anyone in right mind trust software to make right choices in prod on first try?
- kjkjadksj 3y ago
  You think a manned mission obviates software?
  - rk06 3y ago
    No, but manned mission can override software if unexpected scenarios are encountered. You can't expect software team on earth to account for all possibilities for a first time mission. Software can be tested for individual operation. But can't be relied for end to end co-ordination.
    - kjkjadksj 3y ago
      All the controls they have use software to do work. Its not like a car you can’t rebuild your engine or jerry rig a solution yourself in outer space. If things don’t go as planned usually people just die, heroic MacGyverism is for hollywood.
ardel95 3y ago
So that xkcd “daylight savings time” meme was an actual movie?
obruchez 3y ago
"Beyond the Sea" (the Black Mirror episode) had a similar problem: 2 astronauts are working in a spaceship and they can regularly go back to their families using some very advanced technology (VR, humanoid robots, etc.). Why are they not using that technology to "work from home"?

hackable_sand 3y ago

I thought they did explain why they needed humans, but I bet we can hand-wave that away with some radiation technobabble.

throwup238 3y ago

Event Horizon is a great movie to watch after Sunshine

0x38B 3y ago
These two articles in American Cinematographer (1 and 2) give some interesting background on the movie; concerning the ship they write: > When it first appears onscreen, the Event Horizon craft itself resembles a giant crucifix hovering over the surface of Neptune. "The spaceship was built on a cruciform, like all cathedrals are," Anderson explains. "We began the design process by literally scanning [photos of] the Notre-Dame Cathedral into the computer and then constructing the Event Horizon out of those Gothic elements. For example, the big thruster engines are an adaptation of the Notre Dame towers, repositioned on their sides. A lot of the iron and steel work of the superstructure is based on the cathedral's stained-glass windows. The ship also has a lot of triptych windows and big recessed crosses. > "When Adrian and I first sat down, we said, 'Let's do something completely different,"' says Anderson. "Since we were going into outer space, I felt we had to have a really strong design concept; otherwise Event Horizon would have ended up looking like [a bunch of] other movies cobbled together. We spent a lot of time coming up with a design concept, which we called 'techno-Medieval.' When the lights are on, everything looks very technological and very spaceship-like. But when the lights go off and the haunting begins, you start looking at the shapes, and the architecture is actually very medieval. We extended that techno-Medieval design idea into as many aspects of the picture's look as possible, without rubbing the audience's nose in it." 1: https://theasc.com/articles/unearthly-terrors-event-horizon https://theasc.com/articles/unearthly-terrors-event-horizon 2: https://theasc.com/articles/event-horizon-scare-tactics https://theasc.com/articles/event-horizon-scare-tactics
- strogonoff 3y ago
  “We began designing the spaceship by scanning the Notre-Dame Cathedral” is an example of exactly the right kind of non-spoiler spoiler, one that doesn’t ruin the film but only makes me interested in watching it.
- voltaireodactyl 3y ago
  Thank you for these excellent links, the added context to that design process is deeply satisfying.
- entrox 3y ago
  It‘s fun to imagine that Event Horizon is actually in the same universe as Warhammer 40k. Not only does the plot fit perfectly with the ship going through the warp, the Gothic design matches the aesthetic as well. Even if not intended, it just works so well.
  - throwaway17_17 3y ago
    TL;DR — I agree wholeheartedly and thanks for the chance to blather about a fictional universe I really enjoy, also a huge wall of text about Event Horizon as a ‘prequel’ showing an interesting division within the 40K fandom. I agree so hard that I would upvote your comment a thousand times if I could. This fan originated ‘prequel’ to the 40k universe is absolutely perfect in both aesthetic and tone. But I think, despite the wide support this concept has, it displays a really interesting view into some large tonal changes in the fandom and published materials and attitudes. Within the 40k fandom I think there are a group of fans (mostly older now and less involved in the hobby) that disagree with Event Horizon as a ‘prequel’. It is an interesting dichotomy between what 40k has been since the late 90’s and what it was at its start and during its early editions. Early fans, in the discourse I have seen online and in older GW periodicals, really focused on the political satire and the somewhat eclectic humorous undertones (and often overtones). The tongue-in-cheek demonization of the human faction, via making them so crazily over-the-top authoritarian, WWII-type theocratic fascists, is clearly pitched as a caricature of the then super powerful right wing party, under Thatcher and her ilk. The other factions had less direct satirical targets, but, as an example, the Orcs power of ‘be stupid but believe and results will follow’ can be seen as a critique of the apparent lack of intellectual curiosity and focus on conformity present in the UK, or as a statement on the semi-‘Cargo Cult’ mentality around the rising hyper-consumerism that was beginning to be pushed on the public by plutocrats. There are plenty of other broad and specific satirical or openly political commentary throughout the 80’s material, especially in White Dwarf supplemental writing. However, then there are the fans that came into the hobby in the late-middle and late 90’s and up til present day. 40k has been a cornerstone, forerunner, and standard bearer for Grimdark(tm) for nearly the last 30 years. This block of fans (by far those most active in the hobby, particularly the lore/fluff/art creation and discussion) absolutely sees Event Horizon as being a perfect fit for 40K. The days of satire are long past, now the factions and characters in the setting are nearly played straight as examples of their respective stereotypes and associated tropes in genre fiction. Granted, 40k established a good portion of the grimdark tropes, but it has remained steadfast in utilizing and somewhat revising those trappings of the genre without apology. Where 80’s 40K would have by now been lampshading everything in the setting and potentially altering fluff to better satirize the current global political and societal milieu, the current fandom and GW itself are committing to playing the universe out. I love 40K and think both perspectives have merit, but at the end of the day 40K is still my vibe no matter which side of this divide I may find myself.
Reason077 3y ago
Yes! And then I'd follow up Event Horizon with Pandorum. Perhaps not quite as good or as well-known as the other two, but still clever and worth watching.
- rasz 3y ago
  If we are at waking up with no memory I highly recommend Eden Log (2007).
xoxxala 3y ago
Event Horizon is the closest we’ll get to a Warhammer 40k film.
- jtms 3y ago
  We are at least getting a 40k series with Henry Cavil I believe
- shawn_w 3y ago
  Ultramarines says hi.
Borrible 3y ago
Just in case you don't know 'Fading Suns'. Role-playing gothic sci-fi in a galaxy where the stars are dying. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fading_Suns https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fading_Suns

amenhotep 3y ago

Every now and then I listen to the music for Capa's jump, then I have to watch the video, then I get all emotional. And the ending never fails to bring a tear to my eye. Amazing film. Somehow knowing the secret to Murphy's acting in that scene (Boyle secretly got a crew member to sit on his back) and having that objectively hilarious image in mind while watching it doesn't diminish the effect appreciably, which is remarkable!

beAbU 3y ago
Mind elaborating on what you are saying about Cillian having a crew member on his back? I'm a little confused..

oceanplexian 3y ago

> Seems to me that adding humans to the mix greatly increased the complexity and risk of the mission. We spent the last few years watching robots with state of the art 21st century technology and software crash on the moon repeatedly, and yet, in the 1960s a few hot shot test pilots could stick a landing on their first try. Given the choice between robots and humans, I’ll take the humans.

strogonoff 3y ago
Human ingenuity aside, I wonder if sending humans on missions can offer higher success rates due to higher stakes for all involved (the cost of human life). When we send humans to the Moon, the pressure to get things right is higher and consequences of failure are very dire. Sadly, of course, not a guarantee of success.
- alistairSH 3y ago
  Which then leads me to wonder... The risk vs reward calculation for human-involved missions is necessarily higher than robotic missions. Is that additional cost an order of magnitude higher? IE, we can afford one and only one human mission, but three robotic missions? Does the math work out in favor of the single high-success mission, or the three slightly lower success missions? Obviously depends on the expected success rate and cost of each. But, probably why we haven't done a lot with human missions since the 60s.
  - strogonoff 3y ago
    I am not sure such utilitarian math is the true solution, attempts to put a number on the value of human life seem all silly. I would rather say that the failure of a robotic mission costs an amount X, while the failure of a human mission intuitively has infinite price.
    - pixl97 3y ago
      Conversely setting human life to infinity cost quickly breaks down with the trolley problem. Any problem where groups a or b are going to die then whatever group is bigger lives, even if it doesn't make sense, such as group b is all very old and group a is very young but slightly smaller.

jawngee 3y ago

> a young Michelle Yeoh She was 45 or 46 when she made Sunshine.

Cthulhu_ 3y ago
Cillian Murphy was also 31 by then, still relatively young I suppose but not young like the poster seems to imply.
brazzy 3y ago
Yeah, she starred as the "mature" woman already in Tiger and Dragon in 2000. I guess it just means that I'm oold for having that as a benchmark for Michaelle Yeoh's age rather than *Everything Everywhere All At Once"...

SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

"adding humans to the mix" is not the most unrealistic thing by far, in that uneven film. The basic premise (suns do not forget to shine one day) and proposed fix (any human efforts would be of insignificant scale compared to a sun) take that honour. The third act of the film is a runner-up.

Reason077 3y ago
Most sci-fi films (heck, most films) require some level of suspension of disbelief. If you're unable to do that you'll find it hard to enjoy much at all. Do Marvel films seem realistic to you? Star Wars? Star Trek? Cartoons?
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  I watch a lot of sci-fi films and read a lot of sci-fi books - because I enjoy it when it's any good, so I don't need suspension of disbelief explained to me at all, thanks. I personally found this specific film not deserving of being called a "great example" of anything. It's at best a plodding, uneven, middling example of something, IDK what. Yes, I know that your milage may vary, but this film's status baffles me and others https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39917027 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39917027 If anything, calling parts of it "good" and other parts "original" is generous. Most of it is neither. Perhaps if you just haven't seen or read that much, then some of it appears novel and good? It is not trying to be the same genre at all as Marvel or Star Wars fantasy films - some of which succeed on their own terms. Unlike "Sunshine". So that straw man distraction question is irrelevant.

beAbU 3y ago

Sunshine is one of my favourite sci-fi movies for all the wrong reasons. The premise and setting is total bullshit handwavium. But I absolutely loved the story, tension and slow boil. The cast as you say was brilliant. It's a B-Grade disaster movie /really/ well executed.

hobs 3y ago
Let me just say that I fully disagree, the movie was plodding and preachy and boring up until the "twist" when it got TERRIBLE. I cannot believe the number of people who have said that its a good movie, the entire movie required a suspension of disbelief far and away of what I am willing to give.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
  Agreed. The premise was astoundingly silly, and the plot was "both good and original; but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good". I really do not know why some people rate this film so highly.
- Pigalowda 3y ago
  I remember seeing reddit users recommend it as a great scifi film in 2012. I watched it and was horribly disappointed - it’s “the core” in space with a space zombie. I guess people like sucking down wet farts for 2 hours. Who am I to stop them?

rk06 3y ago

> despite never satisfactorily explaining why they require a manned spacecraft to do the job rather than sending a robotic drone ship. Seems to me that adding humans to the mix greatly increased the complexity and risk of the mission. As a software engineer, this statement baffles my mind. like how could anyone in right mind trust software to make right choices in prod on first try?

kjkjadksj 3y ago
You think a manned mission obviates software?
- rk06 3y ago
  No, but manned mission can override software if unexpected scenarios are encountered. You can't expect software team on earth to account for all possibilities for a first time mission. Software can be tested for individual operation. But can't be relied for end to end co-ordination.
  - kjkjadksj 3y ago
    All the controls they have use software to do work. Its not like a car you can’t rebuild your engine or jerry rig a solution yourself in outer space. If things don’t go as planned usually people just die, heroic MacGyverism is for hollywood.

ardel95 3y ago

So that xkcd “daylight savings time” meme was an actual movie?

obruchez 3y ago

"Beyond the Sea" (the Black Mirror episode) had a similar problem: 2 astronauts are working in a spaceship and they can regularly go back to their families using some very advanced technology (VR, humanoid robots, etc.). Why are they not using that technology to "work from home"?