MovieChat Forums > Sunshine (2007) Discussion > The concept of this film is LAUGHABLE !!

The concept of this film is LAUGHABLE !!


I am shocked to know that this movie is directed by Danny Boyle.

First of all, our sun is nowhere near it's death, it still has a couple of billion years to exhaust it's nuclear power, this won't be happening in the 2050's and the idea of it is just absurd and uneducated.

Second of all, how can they compare the sun's unimaginable nuclear fusion to ANY KIND OF MAN-MADE BOMBS ??? are they really that naive to think that a quadrillion gazzilion bombs can actually affect or even reach the sun's surface?? people should read and learn about physics before coming up with such horrendous ideas.

Not to mention that when the sun is about to die it only gets bigger and bigger devouring Earth entirely... therefore the temperature here on Earth before it's wiped out by the sun would be hotter not colder as they suggest in this film.

I'm not going to get into the third act and how UNBEARABLE and PAINFUL it was to watch.

Boyle should stay away from Sci-Fi films.

reply

"First of all, our sun is nowhere near it's death"

... You realize that this isn't a documentary, right?

This has to be a troll post. Nobody is this stupid.

reply

You're an uneducated zilch

reply

Maybe u should take up a hobby instead of watching movies u seem stressed out about the science in science fiction.

reply

This film is a metaphor for dying.The setting only serves to give the crew more obstacles to overcome on the journey.The sun is life and death personified,and man's attempt to overcome death.It is a very good movie.

reply

What is painful is how serious you took this movie, plus you found all these things implausible, yet mention Interstellar is one of your favorite movies? Ouch man!

Sunshine is an awesome film, it is high concept and could have been a good movie on it's own merit (not having a dying sun/the rest of the "made up aspects").

Interstellar is a bit more emotional and takes itself a bit more serious, but was not be any means based in reality or more realistic. Matthew McConaughey was good in it, like usual. But it was in the same vein as Batman or Inception, fantasy with realistic elements. Nothing more or less and certainly not something compare because they are both "realistic" with fake elements. Sounds like typical movies to me. Even documentaries often take liberties with the story, changing things due to budget, to increase entertainment, or whatever reason.

Neither of these movies were 100% realistic, but dust is less scary than our sun dying. I enjoyed watching Sunshine a lot more, as I found it less slow. Interstellar was good in a lot of ways, but reminded me of every other Nolan film, both good and bad ways to me.

You are not watching documentaries, you are watching movies! They are meant to entertain. That is like saying a Super-hero movie is fake or even a sitcom with fantasy elements is not realistic. Look at the factual errors in Braveheart, yet I find that a great and ENTERTAINING movie. If I want to read about the real William Wallace, I would and would find much more realistic accounts of his life. Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves is likely more far fetched than some other iterations of Robin Hood, yet it is (to me) the most entertaining version of Robin Hood.

If you liked Interstellar better, more power to you and nothing to say against that. But the fact you find all these things wrong with Sunshine is kind of ironic because Interstellar is even more fantasy and less plausible.

reply

It's a fictional movie. No need for real life science here.

reply

[deleted]

Yes, indeed. And the makers of the film clearly have not heard about unmanned space missions.

reply