Talk:Space Cowboys

Question
Doesn't the film seem to Imply that the Cromwell character was a Soviet Spy? Based on his dialogue with the Russian General and the Character's general duplicity. It never gets resolved? Should he (Cromwell Char.) be tried for treason or something? May in the sequal (LOL!). Really what was Gerson's involvement? How could the Russians steal the plans w/o Gerson's help??

71.111.132.242 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

24 and Space Cowboys
After watching this film recently, I noticed that at least three members of the cast for this film have starred in 24:

Rade Šerbedžija as General Vostow in Space Cowboys, and as Dmitri Gredenko in 24 series 6.

James Cromwell as Bob Gerson in Space Cowboys, and as Phillip Bauer in 24 series 6.

William Devane as Eugene 'Gene' Davis in Space Cowboys, and as James Heller in 24 series 4, 5, and 6

Also, oddly enough, the father of Kiefer Sutherland (who plays the main character, Jack Bauer, throughout 24), Donald Sutherland, has a role in Space Cowboys as Captain Jerry O'Neill.

Perhaps this is worth mentioning in the Trivia section?

Reception?
Anyone know about the 'Reception' of this film? soldierx40k 03:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll start a section
 * —FlashSheridan (talk) 08:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Heinlein Allusion?
Does anyone have a noteworthy source for an allusion to Robert Heinlein’s story “Requiem”? The plot similarity is noted at ; the final shot bears a striking resemblance to the original illustration, Astounding, January 1940, p. 81. —FlashSheridan (talk) 08:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

when I first saw the movie, I 'flashed back' to Requiem also. I went ahead and added the comparison. DocKrin (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting. When I first saw it thought of the 1929 German film, Woman in the Moon.  JDZeff (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Cowboys 041000 800.jpg
Image:Cowboys 041000 800.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

trivia
the following trivia entry sucks on several levels:


 * It took three days to travel to the moon for the Apollo missions. Hawk would not have had this much time in his suit, however, the film indicated that spare air tanks were connected to Hawk's life support gear. Additionally, the rockets used to power Hawk's flight to the moon would have been generations ahead of the Apollo rockets and could be faster. However, soft-landing on the Moon, to the extent where he could crawl over and look back at the Earth, would be impossible.

87.162.91.115 (talk) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I Agree. Especially, since a landing WOULD be possible, as long as the thrusters of the satellite could be fired up multiple times. They should provide enough thrust, because a military satellites like this would be able to make multiple major orbit changes in a short timeframe to position and shoot its missile and avoid beeing attacked by enemy missiles (It takes much longer to track a satellite that changes orbit).

cavac —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cavac (talk • contribs) 22:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

don't forget that launching 6 nukes into the moon is not the best idea, I mean, if they land too hard, they can destroy the moon, which will definitely have devastating effects on Earth, and in the ending we see that everything burned up (aside from Hawk), including the nukes...and all those space collisions are not portrayed correctly, are they? in space, objects increase speed drastically, which means that the part of the satellite's shell - the one that hit the shuttle - would have blown it to bits...--92.114.148.36 (talk) 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC) Thousand of such nukes would make only relatively small dent into moon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.73.25.226 (talk) 21:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I know this comment was years ago, but the above user is an absolute buffoon for thinking that six nukes could actually destroy the moon. There's a lot of scientific inaccuracies in this film too. 50.89.97.148 (talk) 02:57, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Movie genre?
It's classified as a space drama, but isn't it technically hard sci-fi?--92.114.148.36 (talk) 18:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This film was announced in pre-production as starring Sean Connery (IMDb says he would have played O’Neill) and Jack Nicholson (as Sullivan), with the proposal that footage of a younger Connery as James Bond in astronaut gear from “You Only Live Twice”, would have been manipulated to effect at least some of the flash-back elements. There may have been more info (Premiere magazine or Empire of the period, perhaps?); I can’t remember now, but it might be useful if someone wants to try and track it down. Jock123 (talk) 07:37, 23 September 2022 (UTC)