Talk:Sunshine (2007 film)

Basic premise flawed?
]] This entire thread is a WP:FORUM violation. [[

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. The most likely cause of arctic conditions in Australia between now and 2057 is nukes on earth. 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Dr. Cox needs to go back for refresher courses if he is going to be a science advisor.  This film is technically flawed on many levels.  The film was also advertised to be the most technically accurate SF films since "2001: A Space Odyssey".    Hardly even close IMO.--71.82.65.193 (talk) 03:19, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Not the least of which the sort of given that such an advanced ship-controlling AI would have automatically adjusted the vital reflective panels whenever the course trajectory was changed. Or that the character voicing-over / narrating the story could not survive. Or that the actor playing that character would have taken voice lessons to subdue that sardonic tone of amusement that totally takes you out of the drama of the opening narration. Without getting too carried away: I personally question how much of the loving attention to detail put into this movie's article is not in some way commercially backed. There's stuff in this article that isn't even in the film, and it's definitely not that good of a film. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 05:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)

Next time bring Hydrogen, you get more bang:weight with Hydrogen, morans.98.165.6.225 (talk) 07:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Another flawed premise of the movie is the mining of all fissionables. Earth needs her fissionables. Mars is cold and dead because it has no fissionables. The radiation keeps us warm, indirectly. Granted, there is no way to remove the fissionables from the mantle and core, but based on the mass of the bombs, we can stretch the imagination to imagine that they would have had to do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.49.126 (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody seemed to question why this is a manned (actually, 2nd manned) mission at all - particularly in the highly advanced year 2057, or why so many astronauts are required for such a mission.--173.69.135.105 (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this is produced by Fox and any ownership associations tied to that media outlet, deconstructing the theme is a political affair. The plot is garbage, however, the implied messages are the main point. Multiple right-wing ideas are conveyed in several formats: crosses are portrayed throughout visually, biblical language is used throughout and obvious, the earth is cooling down instead of global warming, man can save the environment instead of doing irreversible harm, and most likely more obvious platform ideas - it's not worth sifting through the rest of the movie to spell them all out. The media infestation of stupid and harmful agendas that support corporate interests is no longer a matter of speculation and this movie is yet another example. Good luck to those who see this before it's deleted... your masters are monitoring and reversing anything like this comment. But who is monitoring them? Delete at your peril. Wiki adores those who lick boots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.52.200 (talk) 10:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the Director or Physicist associated with the movie explained that the stellar bomb is so dense that it is what provides gravity for the crew of the Icarus. This is also why, when Pinbacker drops them off the side of the bomb, they don't fall forever "down" but slide to a stop. They are being pulled to the center of the cube.
 * This is preposterous, unless Icarus also provides some sort of artificial gravity (which also seems apparent given the economics of the movie).  There are a great many significant flaws which this movie's physicist fails to address.   Tossing the grain of sand represented by Icarus into the Ocean represented by the Sun is only one of many.99.45.156.176 (talk) 02:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Error regarding the cold
The article opines that "but orbiting the planet of Mercury behind a heatshield as close as they are, the temperature would be higher than −173 °C (100 K; −279 °F)." But the Icarus ll has long since slingshot itself out of Mercury's orbit. The scene in question takes place in a tandem hook-up with the Icarus l which is in close orbit around the sun. Orthotox (talk) 08:29, 31 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orthotox (talk • contribs) 08:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Subliminal Insertions / Flicker Images / Fight Club Penis, Without The Penis
As per the above comment, during the link up with Icarus I, there is a flash frame image of a mans face, try as I might with the software available to obtain a copy of the image I just can't get it. It's seven AM and I just watched some derp jump out of a balloon all night. I'm unsure whether this serves as some form of paraliminal plot development, or whether it's a dude who worked on the film being funny, but there's no mention of it in the article where shit like that usually always gets a mention.

The version I have is a 1080 pirated copy released by YIFY, I have confirmed that it isn't an insertion after the film left the studios hands and is part of the film itself, however the 1080 version it is the most visable. It is between 49:21 and 49:22 into the film in this version. (I own the film on DVD, but grabbed the 1080 because all I saw on the DVD was a minor flicker). I seem to have a knack for spotting these kind of things, and it's really infuriating when I can't find any bloody mention of it online!

Hope this helps future editors who may uncover the secret of the creepy asian dude face at that time frame! BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 19:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Managed to find something on it, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instances_of_subliminal_messages refers to it as 'mystery faces' and links to: http://www.eeggs.com/items/51061.html BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 19:51, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought it occurred about four or five times during the scene, appearing and reappearing some seconds later, confusing, but it didn't seem unintentional. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 01:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Like wow isn't this the best part of the whole movie, Dumbasses?--71.82.65.193 (talk) 03:23, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Just over 49 minutes in, there are at least 3 faces inserted into the film. They each only appear for maybe one frame as the light from a torch shines at us. I used "Movie Maker" to record the film and see them.(109.107.111.160 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC))

Other movies with similar plot
I thing it would be fair to mention Solar Crisis (film) (1990) as similar plot movie. The list could be longer but this is the only one I remember now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.177.32.154 (talk) 12:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * "Similar" indicates OR. Anyway, scifi films based on solar threats (whether death or supernova) are about as common as spy movies about Russia. Thanks anyway! drewmunn talk 07:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I know this page is not a forum to discuss the film but I'm staggered that none of the critics mentioned Event Horizon. Whilst I'm a fan of both films, the similarities are pretty obvious. da nn o _ u k  02:28, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Spuriously informative "'although' not considered a box office success"
It kind of goes without saying that a movie that spent US$40mil and came up short US$8mil would be rather widely not even in the running for the preliminaries for consideration as to whether it's a box office success. So it's probably entirely beside the point that the film lost eight million dollars despite trying so hard to be a big, successful film that an entire $40mil was put into it. Arguably, most of the "critical success" the film enjoyed could have been bought-out as well, with that kind of budget to throw around, seeing what little good the money did for the film's actual creation. So why are we mentioning "it was not considered a box office success", at all? That's like adding a statement in an article about Adolph Hitler, "although he wasn't considered a great humanitarian..." If it's informative, it's only spuriously informative. It attempts to mislead the audience that oh, gee, maybe there's another way to look at this film as a box office success because "although" many other peoples' opinions (and maths) are that it's not "considered" a box office success, gee, they could potentially be wrong. Numerous, numerous things about this article strike me as positive spin on a horrid thing. I question the motivation and source of some of the edits that have been made to this article. I wouldn't doubt that people affiliated with the studio or the film's production came here and frilled it up a bit to make it sound like this amazing "sleeper" film, under the auspices of post-market hype. And of course I am cued into that likelihood by statements such as "although not considered a box office success" well nobody's begging that point, are they? The statement serves no purpose except to put in the reader's mind that maybe it deserves a second look. Yet nobody anywhere in the world is giving this film a big second look so maybe that statement and that whole super-positive, awestruck attitude about this film need to be removed from the article. Gabriel Arthur Petrie (talk) 06:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wholeheartedly agree. In fact, anyone with half a brain would see this right off the bat with how long the scroll bar is after loading. Such a mediocre film doesn't usually warrant this level of detail.


 * Still, I think it's true to say this is an example of setting the bar for a higher standard of article. Perhaps those who wrote this article wanted the accolades that came from the effort, but I think it could be a great example of how quality films, the nature of this film being dubious, ought to have a higher standard of article. If this article serves in that capacity, then it ought to stand. Certainly, no article ought to be trimmed to a stub for being too accurate. 68.233.191.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that even in March 2014, the lead said "Although the film was not considered a major box office success, preceding its initial screening to the public, the film was generally met with positive critical reviews." (emphasis mine) That's the whole reason the box office non-success was mentioned. In fact this is mentioned on many films that were in retrospect hailed by critics. Regarding your comment, ideally all articles on Wikipedia would cover their subject in-depth and in a manner satisfying the featured article criteria. This applies to all articles which meet our notability guidelines, regardless of whatever you think of the subject itself. Opencooper (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Good article
I think this article should be nominated again for good article status. An assessment could reveal perhaps a few things that can then be improved, but this article can't be far from it. Debresser (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunshine (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premiere.com/features/3943/danny-boyle-basks-in-the-sunshine.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824124310/http://www.realmovienews.com/dvd/news/1231 to http://www.realmovienews.com/dvd/news/1231

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sunshine (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129030430/http://www.bifa.org.uk/nominations/2007 to http://www.bifa.org.uk/nominations/2007

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sunshine (2007 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928190815/http://www.sunshinedna.com/?p=262 to http://www.sunshinedna.com/?p=262
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071029161124/http://videoeta.com/movie.html?via=form&id=79062 to http://videoeta.com/movie.html?via=form&id=79062
 * Added tag to http://articles.boston.com/2007-07-20/news/29227875_1_crew-member-icarus-ii-ship

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Just saw it again on HBO. He said god told him to send humanity to HELL,not heaven.
What kind of evil man sends people to heaven?..lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.212.202 (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the GA nomination
The nominator appears to have not worked on the article except for nominating it as a good article. I don't think this is allowed. - NowIsntItTime 15:16, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * It's allowed per WP:GAC, "Anyone may nominate an article..." However, it helps if the person worked on it since they can readily make changes. Disclaimer: I worked on this years and years ago. No interest in revisiting, though. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. So sorry, I have seen Good Article nominations discarded by that rule and thought it wasn't allowed period. - NowIsntItTime 20:12, 19 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Besides this, I have looked over the article and it looks perfect. The only thing I saw was that the part about the makers consulting NASA was unreferenced, though I'm pretty sure "The Australian" citation covered it, so no worries. Someone else might want to be thorough and go through it once more, but if it were up to me I'd pass it. -NowIsntItTime(chats)(doings) 17:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)