Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)

Film: British B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

Science Fiction B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Sunshine (2007 film) was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 21, 2007). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sunshine (2007 film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2

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

• Alwin H. Kuchler
• Britain bathes in Boyle's 'Sunshine'
• The wrong stuff
• New to DVD: 'Sunshine'

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's a tough call. Perhaps "Casting and preparation"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of the post-casting pre-production period. Hmmm... --Melty girl (talk) 20:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Even when the sun will die, it will first emit more energy, because it will become a red giant. It will swollow the inner planets at least up to the earth, before it will ultimately reduce its energy emissions again and finally becoming a white dwarf. --MrBurns (talk) 17:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Cool... see what you think about the changes. --Melty girl (talk) 19:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

I would add that one should not forget that a movie does not 'break even' just by making back its budget, since movie budgets typically do not include advertising costs, which can be quite expensive. And I agree that it should be mentioned that the movie was financially unsuccessful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.162.125 (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sounds good to me. --Melty girl (talk) 20:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bertaut (talk) 19:26, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I recently saw "Leave Out All The Rest", a linkin park music video and I noticed a strong link and influence from the movie sunshine. Just wondering should it be added? or is it not worth mentioning. --81.132.219.10 (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone else noticed that the plot is strikingly similar to Event Horizon? A ship goes missing, then reappears 7 years later? A crew visits it to find it empty? Sounds exactly like Event Horizon. Also, Event Horizon is set in 2047, and Sunshine is set in 2057. Coincindence? I doubt it.--Metalhead94 (talk) 11:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"In the film, unsuited astronauts experience freezing during a desperate jettisoning, which would be incorrect due to the lack of their bodies' heat dissipation in a vacuum."

This can't be right. Heat is lost via conduction, convection, or radiation. We are constantly radiating away heat, so surely one could freeze (although I haven't seen the movie, so I might not know the context). But by this logic, the sun shouldn't cool over time and the earth shouldn't heat up. I'm going to remove it unless someone can explain why it should be there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.33.130 (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe the amount of heat radiation of a human body isn't enough to instantly freeze when exposed to vacuum. 84.250.37.116 (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, and Brian Cox talks about it on his commentary. In a vacuum you can only lose heat through radiation, which is part of the reason why vacuum flasks keep things at a constant temperature so well. Also, a black body at human body temperature would radiate heat at a rather low intensity. Hellbus (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am always skeptical about these 'naked spacewalks' for various reasons. They say our body is ~70% water, but that does not really paint an accurate picture. The reality is that we are more like soda pop in a bottle, where we have a certain amount of nitrogen, oxygen, and other trace gasses dissolved in our bloodstream at STP. The key here is the STP part. As with a bottle of soda, when the pressure is decreased, the gasses rapidly come out of solution, which is what produces the fizz. Similarly, if your body went rapidly from STP to the vacuum of outer space, you would almost certainly experience a similar effect. To be blunt, your blood would quite literally boil and you would surly die of an aneurysm or internal bleeding from all the vessels which would be breached by the gasses trying to escape. About the closest I've seen to this being accurately portrayed is in the film Event Horizon, where it shows all the vessels on Justin's body becoming visible as they rapidly expand when the airlock pressure is decreased. But still, it does not explain where the gas goes, which is the same problem in this film. It seems wholly impossible to survive such a drastic change in atmospheric pressure. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mercury is the swiftest of planets, but doesn't it seem to be traveling much too fast in this movie? Partway through the first act, there is a bit of dialog indicating that the Icarus II is a little more than 30 million miles from the Sun (I don't remember the exact figure, but it struck me as odd that it was given in miles.) This distance would be reasonably close to 50 million km, implying that, at the moment, Mercury happened to be at or near perihelion (46 million km.)

Almost immediately, the crew assembles in the observation room to witness the solar transit of Mercury as it makes a dramatic pass between the Sun and the Icarus II. The majority of the transit is depicted, from exterior ingress though a point well past minimum separation. Judging from the planet's speed and the apparent size of the Sun, it seems the entire transit must have taken less than 2 minutes.

I haven't done the math regarding the angular diameters of the Sun vs. that of Mercury's orbit from that distance, but given that Mercury has an orbital period of 88 days, doesn't the film greatly exaggerate its speed (which seems to approach 1 degree/minute)?

OK, since the Icarus II is relatively close to Mercury compared to its distance from the Sun, the transit could take place rather quickly. In that case, though, isn't the angular diameter of the Sun with respect to that of Mercury greatly exaggerated? The Sun dominates the viewer's field of vision, whereas Mercury's angular diameter seems to be about 1 or 2 degrees. Rangergordon (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's an additional factor that could be considered: angular motion of Icarus II relative to the sun. Mercury and Icarus II could be moving in opposite directions, increasing the relative velocity and thus making the transit appear faster. The most likely explanation, however, is that it was sped up so that the scene didn't take too much time. Hellbus (talk) 01:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether or how to mention Searle's habit of going to the observation room and dosing himself with ever larger amounts of sunlight. The commentaries mention two views on this. One is that Searle was becoming like Pinbacker, the other that Searle was a professional to the end and was trying to understand how the mission might have affected the minds of the Icarus I crew. If I remember right, Cliff Curtis felt that the second interpretation was correct. Hellbus (talk) 01:45, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Scientific Accuracy section fails to mention themost obvious lapse of scientific accuracy. Once again, Hollywood presents us with a movie in which sound travels through the vacuum of space. rowley (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]