Heh - I found this thread wondering the same thing!
The DVD came out in the UK the same week I saw it in the theater in the US so it must have a short turnaround for DVD - it's not like there's a lot of work involved collecting supplimentals. But still I so no release info.
Sunshine was directed by Danny Boyle, and written by Alex Garland - the same team who did 28 Days Later so there's your selling point. "A new thriller by..." You could also drop Starring Red Eye's Cilian Murphy
I don't think they really need to do anything to launch the DVD. Most films, it seems to me, simply come out. It's only the BIG movies that have the advertising campaigns (and gets Best Buy to insert a still from the film on every TV and computer screen in it's supplement).
just saw this last night, and absolutely loved it...
it really did resonate with me on the same visual and narrative frequency as soderbergh's Solaris. it is a beautiful movie. really.
some of the shots of the sun and the icarus' descent into it are just breathtaking, and you get a palpable sense of the unimaginable power and beauty of stars.
i didn't mind the appearance of the captain of the icarus I, though i thought it was strange that he not only survived aboard the icarus I, but that there was no sign of his presence there when the crew of the icarus II were searching the ship.
Saw this last night as well and found it awfully disappointing. Stupid plotting, bad direction (final third of the film) and characters I just didn't give a damn about.
Yea, I couldn't get into it either. The best thing about the movie was the great score. Other than that, everything this movie tried to do has already been done before and better. 2001, Alien, Solaris.. hell, even Event Horizon. Where 28 Days Later re-invented the zombie genre.. this did nothing but re-hash old ideas and even scenes for the sci-fi genre.
I've had this exact conversation with several of my friends after watching it. Focusing on the science & mechanics of the ship and the fissile materials of "re-igniting the sun" is completely missing the point of the film.
Considering the plot revolves around the obstacles a group of scientists encounter traveling en route to the sun to bring hope to the earth... I don't think I need to draw an arrow to point out: this is metaphor. You may disagree with it, or even have, say, a "No True Scotsman" interpretation of it, but the film to me seems pretty pointedly clear in the philosophical area.
If it was just that, I would be predisposed towards it, but its not. It makes this argument with a strongly emotional display of sound and wonder and light and color and tactile sensation and sadness and achievement and sacrifice and hope and resilience. I saw it several times theatrically & I don't know that it will have the same impact on the home theater, but no matter the format- the content is, to me, downright inspirational.
Is it Adult Sci-fi? I would say so. I wouldn't limit the audience to adults though. I think it could provoke fascinating discussions amongst teenagers/high school age.
In a year filled with lots of good films, Sunshine is at the top of my list. I'm sort of amazed and thankful they were even able to make it.
Wow. Really disappointed by this one. After a riveting and "serious" first half, I never expected it to plummet to something less satisfying than Event Horizon.
Anton, I loved both Soderbergh's Solaris and The Fountain. One of my absolute favorite current directors is Tom Tykwer. I assure you, I understand metaphor. The problem is, when the vehicle used to deliver the metaphor is so convoluted and mucked up in mechanics and confusion then, for me at least, it collapses. Notice I had no problem with the "mechanics" of The Fountain, which are almost entirely unscientific. Sunshine throws in everything but the kitchen sink, uses a bunch of neat looking, but ultimately tiresome visuals and obscuring tricks, in my opinion, to hide the fact it is nothing but the seed of an idea that is horribly realized.
The only reason the scientific implausibility bothered me is because by the time those elements came around, the incompetent narrative had completely removed me from the "story" and I was left looking for something to focus my attention on.
Case in point. If you disagree with the message, you are also actively looking for a reason to pick it apart. And that's fine. I did the same thing with No Country For Old Men, which is a fantastic film that I completely disagree with.
Actually, my problem is not with the message, but the lack of any meaningful message, or just how feeble I find the "message" to be.
I also don't know how arguing the strengths/weaknesses of the movie tread on HTF rules. This section and this thread are for the discussion of movies.
I suspect the "you" is used as a general term, because that is the last thing I do. I appreciate a well argued point I disagree with as much as one I agree with. My problem is I find the "message" virtually nonexistant and feebly presented.
It's quite interesting to me you keep telling me that I don't understand the message of the film, don't like the message and therefore look to pick it apart and so on. Don't assume you know my thought process. Plus, after all this, you have never really said what this obvious message is that we should all be so clear on. I am just saying that both the message and delivery are weak, plus the narrative is a complete mess.
-->4. No politics or religion. We do not permit the discussion of politics or religion at HTF. However, there is a narrow exception to this rule. If the subject matter of a movie or television show includes politics and/or religion, then they may be discussed insofar as they pertain to that specific movie or television show. We stress, however, that such discussions are carefully monitored and will be moderated if it appears that any participant is using this narrow exception to introduce a broader political or religious discussion than is warranted by the movie or television show under discussion. Also, anyone who has not seen a particular movie or television show is disqualified from discussing its political and/or religious content under this rule.
The word "God" is specifically emphasized in the movie, so in the context of the movie, it is certainly allowed. It is only a problem for HTF when people start editorializing, harping or generally going overboard.
well, John, let me guide you out of the forest here.
I was and am (I think understandably) wary of taking the discussion here not only because of the religion aspect, but for the very reason you listed here: editorializing, harping and going overboard. Your posts have contained phrases like
That tone doesn't exactly suggest an openness to discussion. But, you know, we like movies, we don't like movies, & we can get passionate about them. So, thats great. Lets have the discussion and let the mods make the calls.
When considering Sunshine, you have the story of a self contained group of of astronauts and scientists. The opening narration explains that the "sun is dying" - but not why the sun is dying. Only that "the mission is to re-ignite the sun". We are heading out on an existential journey in more ways than one here: On the plot level, failing the mission is tantamount to an eventual extinction of humanity. Its even pitched in apocalyptic tones: "that payload is the last best hope". We are on a journey that others have taken before, and failed. We are exploring without certainty ("we don't know if its going to work".) We are discussing and arguing what the best methods are. We are trying to improve on our knowledge of why the predecessors failed. When confronted with thorny moral questions, we make choices based not based on majority rule, but on trying to determine what is the most rational approach given our available knowledge.
All throughout the film there is a simple and basic attention paid to the sensual. We're staring at bright light. we're listening to crashing ocean waves, the voices of children playing, seagulls. We're splashing water on our face and digging in the dirt for vegetables. We're wrestling in anger with bared teeth and banging into walls. In a poignant moment, were pausing to marvel in wonder at the orbit of a planet in space. Why? These scenes may be developing the characters, but they are not advancing the plot. So what are we doing here? Why are these scenes important and necessary?
Humanism, is defined as (according to wikipedia) "a broad category of ethical philosophies that affirm the dignity and worth of all people, based on the ability to determine right and wrong by appeal to universal human qualities—particularly rationality.It is a component of a variety of more specific philosophical systems and is incorporated into several religious schools of thought. Humanism entails a commitment to the search for truth and morality through human means in support of human interests. In focusing on the capacity for self-determination, Humanism rejects the validity of transcendental justifications, such as a dependence on belief without reason, the supernatural, or texts of allegedly divine origin. Humanists endorse universal morality based on the commonality of the human condition, suggesting that solutions to human social and cultural problems cannot be parochial" I know people hate wikipedia, so here is a shorter definition from my ancient copy of the American Heritage dictionary: "A philosophy or attitude that is concerned with human beings, their achievements and interests, rather than with the abstract beings and problems of theology."
This film is an expression and example of humanism. Particularly and pointedly Secular Humanism, or some may prefer the term Atheism. We aren't looking for a saviour in this film. We are saving ourselves. The movie provides a big canvas display of the fragility of human life, and more pointedly the endurance of human life in the face every possible natural and man made force. There is an open sense of wonder and fascination and joy at the awesomeness (in its true sense, not the eddie izzard hot dog sense) of the universe and the resilience of nature. We make mistakes. We sacrifice. We are attacked. We fall. But, we pick ourselves up and accomplish, and we propel ourselves forward no matter how vast the void is.
This is the message that you described alternately as: feeble, weak, or without purpose. I disagree.
I don't think it is in any way accidental that the tone shifts with the introduction of the Pinbacker character. We're calling him "Pinbacker". His body is grotesquely and horrifically damaged. He is responsible for the failure of the previous crew. He is strong and aggressive. He is murderous. His is not the goal of life, but the goal of death. He is claiming to have "spoken with god". This is not exactly subtle, or ambiguous here. Why is it fascinating and engaging as the crew are problem solving and debating, and frustrating and jarring when they are reduced to fighting for survival against Pinbacker? That's the demonstrative advocacy going here; the frustration that we are forced to battle this insanity, especially placed in the context of an extinction, is the point.
You may disagree with this interpretation of the film. Great. I'd like to hear what your take was, if it was not this.
As I mentioned before, if the film was only presenting a humanist parable, (as interesting as I might find it) that itself might not be enough. I.E. its not what the film is about, its how its about it. But, this is why I feel Sunshine is an admirable success. In showing this story there are moments in the film that blend visuals and sound in such a powerful, sad, and hopeful crescendo that it becomes so beautiful... its nearly painful to look at it. The challenge that is often leveled at this philosophy is one of nihilism and sadness, or even despair. This film does not despair. Yes, the end is incredibly sad, but its not a Pyrrhic victory. Its a celebration of discovery, of knowledge and perseverance.