Jump to content

Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Citations for use

  • Edward Douglas (2005-03-05). "In the Future With Danny Boyle". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Edward Douglas (2005-03-07). "Danny Boyle on Millions". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Jeff Otto (2005-03-09). "IGN Interviews Danny Boyle". IGN. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Claude Brodesser (2005-06-08). "Searchlight on launching pad". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Fox Searchlight Pictures (2005-08-25). "Danny Boyle's Sunshine Begins Filming". ComingSoon.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Katja Hofmann (2005-11-27). "Scout's report: 3 pix poised for multiplexes". Variety. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • "Sunshine Trailer Footage Online". ComingSoon.net. 2006-06-21. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
Citations to use to expand the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:22, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
All citations, except for the IGN citation, have been worked into the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

British film?

If so why is the stated production in dollars? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Filmed in Britain, funded by Hollywood. 91.109.129.16 17:18, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
It's standard practice in the film industry to state all budgetary figures in US Dollars. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.84.93.130 (talk) 05:52, 5 May 2007 (UTC).

Release Date Delay

According to http://www.comingsoon.net/films.php?id=10612 and http://www.cinematical.com/2007/03/01/nerd-fury-sunshine-bumped-to-december/ the release date has been pushed back from March to December. Nothing official has been posted yet, I believe, but when it is, someone might want to adjust the article accordingly. 70.66.238.119 05:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

US release date is 20 July according to Box Office mojo. 138.194.21.216 06:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Slasher?

Is it really a slasher film? Anchoress 21:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

wouldn't really call it that, tho there are some body counts and gory death scenes. Think of it like 2001 meets Event Horizon.--sin-man 15:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary tag

I added it because the plot summary is too long. It shouldn't be a blow-by-blow account of each scene. Anchoress 21:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I second this -- Wikipedia is not a substitute for watching the film. Especially per Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines#Plot, "The plot section is made self-contained (and is a totally separate section designated by ==Plot==), so plot details and actor names already mentioned in the lead section are repeated here. Plot summaries should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reasons such as a complicated plot." —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any guideline/policy tag on that, the onus is on you to get a consensus that it is too long, I dispute it. Television articles (such as Pilot (House) [FA])) are ~500 words. I've reverted you again until you have a consensus for such an action per WP:CONSENSUS. Matthew 22:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Please don't continue to try to work this issue out through competing edit summaries. This is not only an issue of length. A plot summary is not meant to be a scene-by-scene re-creation of the media; this plot summary is not appropriate in its current form, and the good-faith tag, added with a discussion topic on the talkpage, should not be removed without discussion. Anchoress 22:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
How's this: "It should _not_ be added without discussion due to it being disputed"? Also, I get the feeling "somebody" doesn't understand that these tags shouldn't be substituted, laudable.. I know! The onus is still on you to prove to me it's too long, if you can't do that.. obviously it isn't. As somebody who has not yet seen this film I personally do not find this too long at all. Matthew 22:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for substing it, I always get the tags mixed up, which should and shouldn't be. I'll go fix it. I believe the tag should stay. I get that you don't. Not all information (though verifiable) is encyclopedic. Anchoress 22:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Ran (film) is on par with this article, you're going to need to do better then your opinion. "Not all information (though verifiable) is encyclopedic [sic]" - Indeed. Plots are perfectly encyclopaedic though :-)! Matthew 22:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Listen, we obviously got off on the wrong foot here. I am really sorry if anything I said or did, or the way I express myself, rubs you the wrong way or hurts your feelings. I want you to know that my only goal is to improve the encyclopedia. It is my belief, based upon analysis of WP's policies and experience with other articles, that the tag I added is justified, and I've added it in a good-faith attempt to make WP a better encyclopedia. But it's not just my opinion that not all information is encyclopedic. Erikster, above, linked to the relevant section of WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. For inclusion in WP, information must be verifiable and relevant to the topic. I sincerely hope we can all work together to make this well-written, but overly detailed, plot summary better, thereby improving the article and WP as a whole. Please tell me how I can do a better job with that. Best wishes! :-)) Anchoress 22:38, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The style guidelines that was put together by WikiProject Films outlines the ideal length for a Plot section. This should serve as a rule of thumb for the section, instead of the Featured article of a pilot episode. The majority of Featured film articles conform to this guideline, and there does not seem to be any reason to have such a lengthy section for Sunshine. There should be a case proven for a lengthy Plot section, not vice versa. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a substitute for watching the film in any sense. Plots that are too long may violate #7 of WP:IINFO. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also important to note, at the last Support vote for Ran as an FA, it was just over 800 words. Now it's over 1,100 words, so time has taken its toll on that article. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I actually found the summary to be a bit confusing, as well as long. I have not seen this film, so I cannot edit, so perhaps someone should look at this and change various aspects of ths summary — hippi ippi++++ 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen it yet, so I can't help out yet. I'll see if someone from WikiProject Films can give this a decent rewrite, but it may be best to hold off on that until the film's hype dies down. If someone write something decent and succinct, it might be replaced by unnecessarily long-winded passages the next day. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 12:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

There should be a brief synposis, followed by a spoiler warning, and then a more detailed discussion of the plot, exploring the various symbols and allusions of the film. And why did my point about the slow motion sequences at the end being a reference to time dilation get cut out? It was plainly obvious that this was the case, as Capa is able to think and act in a normal time-frame while everything around him moves at massively reduced speeds. He had explained earlier in the film that their understanding (or indeed, lack thereof) physics caused him to expect unusual behavior of space and time within the super-massive interior of the sun. For me this was one of the most interesting points of the film.Spoonman.au 05:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember exactly what Capa said about space and time, but it's still debatable as to whether what we were shown onscreen is what was really happening, or just what he was subjectively experiencing (sidenote: the surface gravity of the sun is "only" 28g). David 11:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • At the moment, I think the plot summary covers all the key events, at about a sentence per scene. I think the most obvious way to shorten it would be by removing the detail of the characters' deaths to get it down to an outline of the disasters which befall the ship. Also we could perhaps reduce the detail on the finale. If we focus on the key events rather than outcomes we might even be able to pull off a spoiler-free summary. 80.193.211.68 22:01, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia

  • The name of the spaceship, Icarus, is a reference to the Greek hero who, according to the legend, fell into the sea when he flew too close to the sun, melting the wax holding his artificial wings together.

Above is the trivia section that I've removed from the article per WP:AVTRIV. Feel free to re-add the information elsewhere in the article with citation. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 13:05, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one of them was a personal attack, so I've removed that one. Laïka 19:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't focused too much on this article since the film's release date is still a long way off. With that out of the way, I can't say the Icarus bit is too relevant. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 19:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
can't we make it the "Icarus" in the plot synopsis a hyperlink to the Greek myth?--sin-man 15:21, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that it would be an accurate wiki-link. If I saw it linked like that, I would think that there would be an article about the ship from the film. I think it would be better to find a citation that explains why the filmmakers called the ship Icarus (though it's pretty obvious to people familiar with the lore, we can't make that synthesis), then we could link to the story of Icarus. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 15:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of the words "just" and "barely" from performance figures

I rewrote the following sentence by removing the highlighted words:

Sunshine placed just 4th at the UK box office, barely achieving one million pounds on its first weekend in the UK.

Firstly, they feel a little non-NPOV - particularly "barely". They imply that the film didn't do well - and perhaps it didn't, but there's no justification, and it sounds very strange to say it placed "just 4th" to me. Maybe it should be pointed out that two of the other films above it weren't in their first week, or something David 08:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. One editor has been doing this persistently. Wikipedia doesn't have opinions (see Neutral point of view) but it does report other significant opinions, so I've asked that editor to find a reliable source that has an opinion about the commercial performance of the film and report that. --Tony Sidaway 13:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Later: I've tracked an industry commentary at Box Office Mojo and added that. The words "disappointing" and "poor debuts" which I quote are sourced to that report. --Tony Sidaway 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"An air of scientific plausability"

The article had this statement:

  • Although the film was noted for an air of scientific plausability, the film's scientific content has been criticised by specialists.[1]

An embedded HTML comment said of the "air of scientific plausibility": The BBCi Text movie review comments on this, but the version on the BBC website is heavily abridged and omits it. I'll see if I can track it down. 3/March/07

I think we can wait until we have the source before including it into the article.

I'm leaving it as follows:

  • The film's scientific content has been criticised by one specialist.[2]

Note the change to the singular. --Tony Sidaway 05:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. My reasoning was that by leaving it in but uncited someone might come up with another review which fitted the job while I looked for mine, but in retrospect there doesn't seem to be enough "churn" in editors looking in to justify that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.193.211.68 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

GA Review – GA on Hold

Problems to be fixed;

Images
  • Image:Sunshine_2007.jpg – expand the caption to say who the cast members pictured are.
  • Image:SunshinePic.jpg is superfluous since all the cast are in the image mentioned in the point above. It would be hard to justify under fair use – remove from article and put up for deletion. Done
Lead
  • Lead section needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD so that it provides a succinct summary of the main article.
Plot
  • Too long – I'd say you could cut it by a third.
  • Why do two of the lines in the plot summary contain inline citations? You don't usually see citations in plot summaries.
Cast
  • This section should be text, not a list. Done
  • You should briefly cover previous roles the cast are notable are. Try also to find some interviews with the actors – how they were cast, any good quotes about how they approached their roles etc.
I think this point has been adequately addressed, though I can't pull up the version you originally critiqued. I think every actor that was cast due to a previous performce has been mentioned. The few actors who weren't pulled specifically for past performances still have filmographies on their respective pages.Brinlong (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Surely Cillian Murphy should come first as he's the star? Done
Production
  • This section feels too short to me – since it's a recent film, there must be easily available articles, interviews etc you can draw on to beef this up.
Ratings
  • Is this section needed? I can see it growing into a huge list as the film is relased in more territories. Perhaps it should be confined to English language territories?
Performance
  • You've found reviews from good sources – The Guardian, The Times etc. Perhaps a few brief quotes from the reviews to give a flavour of what was said?
  • Line “Critically, the film was moderately well received in the UK[3][4] with several commentators noting that the film owed more than a nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey (and Kubrick's style in particular), Silent Running and the Doctor Who episode The End of the World in the treatment of the observation deck.”. You need to make the references point specifically to each point made i.e. like this “Critically, the film was moderately well received in the UK with several commentators noting that the film owed more than a nod to 2001: A Space Odyssey (and Kubrick's style in particular),[5] Silent Running[6] and the Doctor Who episode “The End of the World”[7] in the treatment of the observation deck.” Note also that the Doctor Who episode should be enclosed in quotes and not italicised per WP:MOS. Done

Good luck! - Joe King 19:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Considering the plot, I don't think it needs to be cut, as current Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines suggest that plot summaries be between 400 and 700 words. I put this in Word and got about 700, so it could be trimmed a little. I don't know if the plot can be trimmed or needs to be copyedited since I didn't read it (haven't seen the film yet). But for now, it is within the proper range of a plot, but do look and determine if a copyedit of the plot is needed. I do agree that the inline citations should also be removed from the plot. The soundtrack section should also be expanded upon, as it's only one sentence. Look to other passed GA/FAs for examples on what else to include. --Nehrams2020 19:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that the plot section is disproportionately long relative to the rest of the article. If (as I suggested above) a bit more meat was put onto the other sections it probably wouldn't look so bad. That said, if the film articles style guide recommends 400-700 words and the summary as it stands is 700 words then it's already at the upper limits of what is recommended. At 107 minutes, by modern standards, it's not a long film and has a linear plot. I still maintain it's possible to shave 100-150 words of what's there. The last paragraph could be trimmed to a single short sentence, for example. Joe King 21:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been accumulating news headlines for this film with the intent to provide encyclopedic content, but the film isn't out in my area yet. I'll try to see what headlines I could dump here for usage in the article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
For the plot, I just wanted to point out the guideline, just in case you weren't aware of it (for future reference if you want to review other film articles). If the plot should be trimmed down based on your recommendations then that's valid. Again, I can't say too much about it, since I don't want to read the plot until I see the film. It won't reach the U.S. for months, and I'm sure that this review will pass/fail before then. Keep up the good work, this was an excellent review. --Nehrams2020 22:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

GA failed

Now that the requisite seven days have passed, I've marked the items above where I feel the editors have addressed the points raised. Unfortunately, I feel that the bulk of my recommendations - including several that would be quick to fix - have not been acted on. The Production section has been improved but I feel is not broad enough in its coverage to warrant GA e.g. it's a very visually striking production but no reference to effects, production design etc. Accordingly, I have decided to fail this article. Erik has provided a lot of useful material for future improvements and I suggest the editors get to work on it. I like this film a lot and I want to see a good article on it on Wikipedia. Joe King 22:26, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Potentially usable headlines

There is more than enough information about the film, especially its production, to create a superb article, if anyone has the time and the skills to draw it all together into an encyclopedic presentation. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Part two

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Part three

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Part four

Headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

More headlines. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Cast or Characters?

The section currently headed "Cast" is really all about the characters. When adding information about casting, should it be integrated alongside these small summaries of the fictional characters? Or should there be two sections- one for the cast the other for characters? I had a look at the V for Vendetta film page (it's a featured article) and in its cast section half the names are followed by descriptions of the fictional characters and the other half have descriptions of how the actors got the job. I think the best thing to do would be to have the short summary of the fictional character first, then add actor info, eg: "Rose Byrne as Cassie: Pilot. Cassidy was originally a pilot in the US Airforce. Rose Byrne was offered the role after Danny Boyle was impressed by her work in Troy. She loved making the film, particularly because it involved no location work... la di da." Iscaria 11:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Inaccuracies?

The paragraph states that Mercury is orbiting in the wrong direction, but that is only from Earth's perspective. If the ship was 'upside-down' then the planet would be revolving in the opposite direction. In the space there is no up or down left or right, as it is 3D space with no gravity, therefore it can be any direction you want. Dr dozzy 14:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


I wouldn't think someone who thinks space has no gravity should be making criticisms. Hint: If Mercury is orbiting the sun, some force must constrain its path and that force is...

I think Dr. Dozzy was trying to point out that the whole "orbiting wrong" part is irrelvant, due to the fact that the planet is not viewed from the perspective of Earth, but a ship, which by all means could be "upside down" relatively to Earth. Sybaronde 13:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the "link spam." I am new to Wikipedia and wasn't sure why the fansite link kept disappearing without a reason why. I feel that Sunshine Fan Online should be listed under the Sunshine 2007 film page because it is a fansite of all aspects of the film and was made for everyone who is a fan of the film, notably the American fanbase. We offer exclusive material and a fan forum in which the people from SunshineDNA are very much a part of. This fansite (along with its fan forum) is even listed there. Please reconsider the link.

Thanks in advance, Sunshinefan07 15:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Change Release Date?

Doesn’t appear that this film is opening up ANYWHERE in the U.S. tomorrow. I searched for articles to cite this but haven’t found any yet. We should change the release date when someone finds info on this. I am certainly confused but am looking for an articleGwynand 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this at the official-seeming supplementary site. It says, "Sunshine will be released on the 20th of July in LA, NY, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Toronto and everywhere else on 27th of July." —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
OK, that looks good. I thought I did a decent search showing no showtimes in NY, LA or Chi, but since have found a site that is showing lots of those showtimes for tomorrow. The advertising has certainly been confusing concerning a wide release...Gwynand 17:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Might be something worth mentioning if it's covered, especially with the film being released last April and having its US release date moved at least twice. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I've revised the release/box office performance of the film a great deal, though there needs to be more detailed coverage for critical reaction. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Revision

I've been revising the article based on the headlines found on the talk page, so some items may be redundant or out of order. These will be fixed in the long run, so I'm just making others aware of the slight mess. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

This is a difficult one - having sat through nearly two hours of poor sound quality, pretty limited special effects, abysmal "science", and a storyline that was recently (embarrassingly) surpassed by a Doctor Who episode, how do you convey how confusing and dull this film is (why do spaceships always have long corridors for people to run up and down in??) without delinating from the NPOV value of even including this dismal film as a separate article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.121.252 (talk • contribs) 16:23, July 21, 2007

You don't. An editor should not let personal views of a film become part of the editing process. What you're talking about is in regard to the critical reaction of the film, and the reaction has been fairly positive. I don't know if the negative reviews' complaints are similar to yours, but that shouldn't matter. You should not cherry-pick for negative reviews that are similar to your dislike of the film. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.253.132 (talk • contribs) 04:02, July 23, 2007
It's not an opinion, it's a response based on official policy. Please read WP:NPOV and avoid peddling your perspective about the film on Wikipedia. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 10:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur with Erik. I personally did not enjoy the film, but it was received well by critics and fans alike in general. The one thing that is possible... I have noticed a consistency between the negative reviews (and there are a few) that has the idea of this movie stealing ideas from other films (Space Odyssey, Event Horizon, many others). This might be worth a sentence in the article, if it's backed up by at least two sources.Gwynand 12:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Reading the underdeveloped Critical reaction subsection now, there seems to be a need to explain why the film was well-received by some. Beyond the ratings of the review aggregator sites, the subsection reads mostly negatively, and there needs to be better balance to the film's reception. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said, interesting opinion. But you should avoid using inflamed POV words like "peddling", as it completely undermines the point you're trying to make - go check out the rules about this. Other than that, be assured that as a fan of the movie your views are welcome here on Wiki, as they provide balance. Nobody said no one liked the film. Some people loved it. But then, some people loved "Ed The Duck", so it isn't always easy to reach a consensus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.12.121.252 (talk • contribs) 14:23, July 23, 2007

I haven't seen the film yet. I have no opinion on it. I plan to report the critical reaction to the film as objectively as possible, based on the available reviews. I'll have other editors take a look to ensure that it's balanced. So my usage of the word "peddle" isn't biased; it fits the description of what you want to do, to include your own perspective of the film somehow. Your opinion of the film is not notable; nor is mine or Gwynand's. We use the opinions of credible, published film critics. And please sign your comments by typing four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No, your use of the word "peddle" is in an abusive, pejorative sense against another contributor - you could have used the neutral phrase "put forward" or something similar. I suggest that if you intend to continue contributing to Wiki, you drop this habit of going into attack mode everytime you read an opinion that conflicts with yours. Your point about established film critics, however, is correct, but an article like this should never read like it has been written by fans and should contain a proper balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.82.32 (talk • contribs) 04:15, July 25, 2007
You clearly stated your negative opinion of the film and wanted to put it in the article. That's a little more driven than "put forward". It is not an opinion; you are wishing to violate WP:NPOV, and despite how I may word it, I am right to invoke that policy. If you would like to provide a better idea of the film to readers, please feel free to flesh out the Critical reaction section with credible, published film reviews that you can find at Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, or elsewhere. If you feel that this article reads like it has been written by fans, please feel free to point out where it seems to be the case. It is merely a long body of prose containing descriptive information about the film. There's nothing in it about the director or the actors saying, "This is the best film I've ever done," which would be POV. I wrote the entirety of the article from what I believe was an objective perspective, since I have yet to see the film. From what I've read, I will probably expect a fairly decent film, but not great, so perhaps that has some bearing on how I've written the article. Like I said, your input is welcome about any POV issues; I am just opposed to your intent to insert your negative perspective of the film in some manner. Also, please sign your comments by writing four tildes (~) at the end. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Another note: If you had come here saying that you think that the critical reaction section needs to be expanded or that something elsewhere in the article sounds too POV, you would have been better received. However, outlandish statements like "...of even including this dismal film as a separate article" reflects a preconceived perspective that is not put aside for objective editing and collaboration with other contributors. The stark negative nature of your comment was the reason for my firm language, though "peddle" could probably have been replaced by something more neutral. For that word choice, I apologize, but the rest of my message still stands. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Erik, your word chice was my only bone of contention. Tell you what - I would like you to watch this movie and then perhaps have another look at the article and have a think about rewriting it slightly from a NPOV, which I believe you could probably deliver more than myself or a fan of the film. I would really respect your take on things. Your previous point (again) about film critics remains, but Wiki is not just about reviewing films, but giving a wider picture, so if you do catch it, have a think about doing this - I think it would be a positive development.

Reviews

American reviews to use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. I'd say the article needs to lose all but one brief lines on the scientific criticism. It can certainly leave the line about criticism towards the slasher film aspect of the movie. What certainly needs to be added is praise for cinematography and possibly the psychological aspect of the film. The current line in the article doesn't seem to properly reflect reviews.Gwynand 16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What about a subsection focused on the science of the film, either praise or negativity? And we can have a more generic Critical reaction subsection focus on the film's elements -- characters, story pacing, visual effects, et cetera. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Scientific reviews. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 19:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Responding to a request to have a look at this article by User:Erik, I must say that it's much improved over the version that was nominated for GA a few months ago. The cast and production sections look pretty good to me and, on first impressions, are up to GA standard. A few observations:

  • The lead section is far too short - see WP:LEAD for guidance.
  • I think the caption with the cast photo should be changed to give the names of the cast and characters.
  • I still think the plot summary is too long.
  • The critical reaction section needs a lot of work; it's too short relative to the size of the other sections of the article. Also, I think you should make use of choice quotes from the reviews you are citing. I have no problem with the section on the criticisms of the scientific content since the film was marketed as having drawn from scientific advice.
  • Soundtrack section - is this needed? It seems to be just duplicating most of the information in the musical score section. I think you should consider merging the two.

Hope this is of some help. As I said, you've done a lot of good work with the article. Best of luck with improving the artice further! - Joe King 13:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have yet to see the film, so I haven't been able to look at the plot summary (as I don't want to spoil myself). If anyone else is willing to rewrite it, that would be great. It's the same case for Critical reaction; I want to avoid spoiling myself, and I may not do a good job regardless if I haven't seen the film to understand specific critiques. There are a lot of people in the cast photo to identify; do you really think it's necessary? The caption helps tie the image to the context better, per fair use criteria. I will also see about expanding the lead section; it won't be exhaustive due to the lack of a complete Critical reaction section. I'll also see about the Soundtrack section; that was just there before, and I left it alone for the time being. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the backstory should be put in better perspective. It's important to remember that while the filmmakers may have worked up a detailed backstory for themselves, virtually none of this is explained in the film. No mention of the year it takes place in, or of what countries launched the mission, or even anything about the state of politics, culture, technology etc. on the Earth. This ambiguity was surely deliberate.--Pharos 05:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

So what do you want to do? I'm not sure if I understand. Also, the word count in the Plot section is over 1,200 words, so it should be reduced per WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Musical score

It would be best to merge the soundtrack article to the film article until there is sufficient content for the soundtrack article to be larger than a stub. I have sought more information about the film's musical score, but it is not very widely-reported and should belong here until that is no longer the case. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:04, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Faces in the Dark

Who were the people seen in the flashes of light when the crew was exploring the Icarus? Were they flashes of Icarus I's launch photo; and should this effect be mentioned in the article?

The ending

The plot summary currently contains this:

The quantum effects local to the star combined with the massive force of the explosion, which Capa speculated could exist beforehand, slow local time long enough for Capa to reach out and touch the star's surface.

I don't remember any "quantum effects" being mentioned, nor the slowing of local time. My feeling was that the whole scene was metaphorical, but I don't remember anything on screen to support or detract from either opinion. David 08:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If he could reach out to the surface, then certainly the heat radiation from the sun's surface could reach him. I was wondering why he wasn't carbonized (or worse, even) by the sun at that point. Sybaronde 13:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Something else about the ending, isn't that the Sydney Opera House in the background when we see Capa's sister? --FreemDeem (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

length of plot section

I think the length of the plot section is appropriate. It may be longer than recommended, but the movie is somewhat confusing, and many readers (including me) will appreciate this level of detail. --345Kai 08:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries of films should follow the guidelines seen at WP:MOSFILMS#Plot. It's not necessary to give a blow-by-blow account of the film, just enough to provide background for the real-world context (Production, Reception, etc). —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
It's down to 894 words now, so the tag can go. Neil ム 22:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Is the plot really that complicated to warrant the maximum limit? I haven't seen the film myself, unfortunately, despite working on so much of this article. I can't really analyze it, lest I spoil myself too much... :) —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, trimmed it and worked on it a bit. We can probably knock nother hudnred or so off it as it is, or totally re-write it if we feel the need to bring it down much more. Geoff B 13:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Any way to make the paragraphs fuller? There's ten separate paragraphs now -- can any of the content be combined for bigger paragraphs? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It's not much, but it's a bit better. 623 words. Geoff B 20:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. All we need is a more comprehensive Critical reaction section, and I think article could be a Good Article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Science

"Activation of artificial gravity is, in fact, displayed on screen after the death of communications officer Harvey." This is irrelevant, in that the criticism is "on the lack of source of artificial gravity onboard the spacecraft". Star Trek and Star Wars both have artificial gravity through similar technobabble. I highly doubt that solar physicist cares at all about technobabble, be it explicit or implicit, in a science criticism. This statement implies that the criticism has been refuted, when nothing of the sort has happened. The statement should be removed.209.161.220.5 06:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to do so yourself. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is the unexplained artificial gravity so important, while other innaccuracies aren't? For example, the bizarre "freezing" in vacuum, and Phd-holding scientists thinking wrapping yourself in insulation will do something in a vacuum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.161.164 (talk) 01:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Capa

Capa's name is that of an influential photographer (see Robert Capa). Is this worth mentioning? It's a bit trivia-ish, but thought I'd put it out there.Vanityjunkie 18:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any kind of direct connection between the real-life figure and this fictional character. I wrote a lot of production detail into the article, and I didn't come across any mention of the photographer. I think it would be best to have an independent, secondary source in order to verify and signify this connection. Maybe the upcoming DVD release will make a mention of this? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 20:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Cox's description of the scientific background

Regarding:

"However, Dr. Brian Cox of CERN, science adviser to the film, has described it thusly:"

No, no he hasn't. He came up with the background, I wrote that description of the background for the IMDB entry, and Ebert then quoted my description of Cox's background for the film. The sentence quoted there was never uttered by Cox, and neither Ebert nor the IMDB entry he quotes claim so. Therefore, I'm changing the description. 86.139.121.127 16:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Good work. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:48, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Single Frames

I noticed a couple single frames in the movie. You can't see them very clearly if you are watching the movie, but only if you are stepping trough the movie frame by frame. One moment i noticed them was when the crew entered icarus 1. Especially when the flashlights met directly with the camera. The look like photos of some people having fun. Anybody else noticed that? Any ideas of who these people could be? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.122.169.8 (talk) 14:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

They're images of the photos of the crew of Icarus I, which are seen in full later. David 19:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

2001 comment

I added a comment in the introduction about 2001 a space odyssey, as many scene from the movie are directly comming from it (slow motion, dying computer, passages in the vacuum 1 and 2 without space suit, explosion of the air-lock door, etc ...). Rephrasing maybe needed, if possible from people that at least have seen 2001 and know what they are speaking about... I could not phrase that it is mostly an inspiration of the realisation, and not the script./pyc 01:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that was fast ! If I don t get any comment, I put it back tomorrow. Well the day after tommorrow so that Geof gets time to rent a good movie and understand some stuff about sunshine and the scenes that makes it a good movie. /pyc 01:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.164.82.143 (talk)

OR, POV, no sources. I removed it. Perhaps now you have time to look up how Wikipedia works? Geoff B 00:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the lead section needs to be expanded to two or three paragraphs, providing a concise overview of the article. The film is in part visually inspired by 2001, according to the citations in the Design section. The relevant passage: "Boyle also cited inevitable visual influences from science fiction films in space by Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris in 1972), Stanley Kubrick (2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968), and Ridley Scott (Alien in 1979).[39] Influences from other science fiction films also included Paul W. S. Anderson's Event Horizon (1997), John Carpenter's Dark Star (1974), and Douglas Trumbull's Silent Running (1971).[24]" I haven't written a full lead section yet since I like to do so when the article is "complete", which it is not with the underdeveloped Critical reaction section. If either of you wants to write out the section per WP:LEAD criteria, feel free to do so. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Our sun is white

Our Sun is white, only perceived yellow from Earth because of Rayleigh scattering - Just wanted to point this out. I disliked the movie completely and this was also one of the things that bugged me the most. In the movie, the sun never seemed to be portrayed as white, instead, it's always shown as a yellowish light. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofunniku (talk • contribs) 12:57, November 17, 2007

I understand what you're saying. I'll see if I can find a reliable source that includes that error about the sunlight. (Perhaps the filmmakers wanted to have a spectrum of color to work with for the sake of creativity.) If you can find a source to address the error, that'd be great. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:02, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
And while I have no sourcing for this, it's possible that the "death" of the sun has had a further impact on the spectrum of light it emits? Just playing devil's advocate, I really enjoyed the movie. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Another reason for a yellow sun would be for commercial appeal. Most people aren't aware of Rayleigh scattering. Fllmtlchcb (talk) 14:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
It's probably likely. The director wanted to avoid presenting a star field, but he found that it was necessary to use one to show that the spacecraft was in motion. Conventional licensing, I guess. If there are sources analyzing the scientific accuracies or inaccuracies of the film, they'd be welcome. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Still, I think we can forgive hollywood for making this mistake. After all, every human being since the dawn of man has looked at the sun (not for very long) and been under the impression that the sun is yellow. Hollywood has made much more blatant errors then this. --123.51.103.64 (talk) 06:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

POV

Stating what is or is not in the movie is not POV or opinion. If the film makers make claims that are not supported by the finished film it is perfectly acceptable to point out the discrepancy.

Removing the balance makes the page nothing more than a commercial for the film and that is NOT acceptable.

comment added by Cyclades —Preceding comment was added at 07:46, 27 December 2007

Both Erik (talk · contribs) and I (twice) have now removed the same uncited, personally interpreted original research from this article. Please do not re-introduce to the article without reliable sourcing and a neutral point-of-view. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 09:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care how many times you've removed the comments. Stop it.

Citing the facts of the content of the movie are not opinion. I suggest you look up what opinion actually means.

It's very clear from your actions that you haven't even seen the film if stating plot points is going to be labeled as opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclades (talk • contribs) 17:11, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

comment added by Cyclades —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.93.130 (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Cyclades, what you are offering isn't a NPOV addition. Although if you see the movie you can interpret the scenes to not be claustrophobia inducing, that is your personal opinion on the matter. And your statement about the Q-ball does not belong. The plot section is for what is included in the movie, not what is left out (regardless of it being the motivation behind the movie). Fllmtlchcb (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Another View, Dr. Chris Lintott, The Guardian, accessed 31 April 2007.
  2. ^ Another View, Dr. Chris Lintott, The Guardian, accessed 31 April 2007.
  3. ^ Prepare for a scorcher, Daily Telegraph, accessed 27th April 2007
  4. ^ Sunshine, Time Out, accessed 27th April 2007
  5. ^ ref1
  6. ^ Ref2
  7. ^ Ref3
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sunshine_(2007_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1137210931"