Not explicitly, but given your obsession with it in this thread, I think we worked that much out.
Okay, so you think Sunshine is a good/great film, we get that. But why do you think it is an important work of science fiction, rather than just a good film? What does it do that other good films don't do? You enjoy it, we get that, but enjoying a film doesn't mean it is important to the genre, only to you.
So why do you think Sunshine is an important work of sci-if? The visuals are great, no doubt, but are they any better than other films? The music is good, but so is the music to many films.
My own view on the film is that the first two thirds are great, but then Sunshine deteriorates into a slasher/horror film, moving from pseudo-possibility to pure fantasy. It tries to be cerebral but then says "nah, &£!? this, let's go all psycho on your ass!" Any possibility of the message of the film being important is lost. It could have been so much more, with elements of Alien (crew dynamics), Silent Running (ecology) etc, wrapped in a more modern container. But ultimately it just borrows, aspires, then fails to be anything other than, at best, an enjoyable film with a semblance of intelligence.
Personally I would rank both Alien and Silent Running as more important works of sci-if cinema.
Star Wars, Blade Runner, and 2001 would probably rank as the top 3, for different reasons. And that's just in the world of cinema. Sunshine, for me, isnt a film I'd ever consider as being particularly important.
And most of those you list, have already been listed. first of all, i never said that other films weren't important to the genre, did i? others posted their favorites or what they considered important or good for the genre, didn't they?
my question to you is: why do you question why i think this film is important to the genre considering people's opinions differ and it's mostly based on popularity or what one likes when it comes to this discussion, you do realize that, don't you? for instance, i don't think interstellar or contact or mission to mars etc was a better film.
besides, the slasher part is a common critique of this film by some but most films can be critiqued to be better done in a myriad of ways. i personally don't think it detracts from the film really at all but was used as a philosophical counterpoint to the idea of saving humanity. it can be interpreted in different ways. if that's all you saw was it turned into a 'slasher flick' then that's on you. he was not the main part of the story, just another obstacle.
What has come out of it? What has been the legacy of the film?
i don't base it on popularity. anymore than i value the kardashians because they have a legacy in mainstream culture. dig?
Any possibility of the message of the film being important is lost.
absolute nonsense . on the contrary, to you and those who share your opinions. the message was pretty clear and that was saving humanity from extinction. pinbacker was an additional counter-ploy to that argument.
But ultimately it just borrows, aspires, then fails to be anything other than, at best, an enjoyable film with a semblance of intelligence.
excuse me? sunshine borrowed?? sunshine is an original concept. it didn't borrow anymore than other films. i could say it even borrowed less. right, because the science fiction films listed so far are all geared to the highly intelligent and that's why they gained so much popularity and viewing by the masses.
you are just being an ass at this point and it's obvious.
the reason why it wasn't popular was it had a visceral serious tone and a
mature and deeper gravitas and character to the cast and mission and the general population doesn't identify with that as much. the frivolous surface layer tone such as interstellar is what they will ooh and aah over.
What does it do that other good films don't do? You enjoy it, we get that, but enjoying a film doesn't mean it is important to the genre, only to you.
So why do you think Sunshine is an important work of sci-if? The visuals are great, no doubt, but are they any better than other films? The music is good, but so is the music to many films.
consider what you wrote and your motivations behind it. what makes you so sure that all other films listed by others are somehow inherently more important to the genre, other than it's popularity?
furthermore, when did i say that the visuals or music in other films can't be or necessarily not good, depending on the film?
by this particular line of questioning, you are insinuating that this film is not worthy to be considered important to science fiction because in your estimation it is not 'better' than other films listed (which i stress is an opinion).
it seems you have an issue because i'm 'loving' on it so much and you are somehow personally offended as if that is lessening the importance of other films. you seem to be under the impression because i value this science fiction film over some others, that i don't like any others. that's your idiocy.
i believe this deserves to be on the list and one of the reasons why i'm praising it is because it has been largely unknown or under the radar when it is just as good or better than some other science fiction films which have garnered more public attention, fame and money. some even on this list.
too bad, i'm such a fan, for you that is. lmfao.
in other words, get over it. it's more than worthy to be listed whether you agree or not.
eat your words, weirdly jealous freak?
www.sunshinedna.com/film/
Boyle was drawn to both the Icarus II’s literal voyage to the Sun as well as its crew’s psychological journey as they head out across the cosmos. “Traveling to the Sun is great visually, but also very interesting psychologically,” he explains. “We wanted to make the film as psychological a journey as possible. There is the question about what happens to your mind when you meet the creator of all things in the universe, which for some people is a spiritual, religious idea, but for other people it is a purely scientific idea. We are all made up of particles of exploded star, so what would it be like to get close to the Sun, the star from which all the life in our solar system comes from? I thought it would be a huge mental challenge to try and capture that.”
in their desire to present, on screen, a believable space mission rather than a piece of science fantasy, the filmmakers looked first to NASA in their research, watching numerous space documentaries as well as classic science fiction films, and meeting with as many scientists and astronauts as possible. Macdonald had seen the young British physicist Dr. Brian Cox on a BBC TV program and contacted him with a view to discussing the project. Thereafter Cox, who works at CERN [the Centre for European Nuclear Research], the world’s largest particle physics laboratory in Geneva, joined the production as scientific consultant, and his input was to prove invaluable. On hand to give the cast and crew a better understanding of the Solar system, he also worked intensively with Cillian Murphy, who plays Capa, the ship’s Physicist.
“The science is extremely sound in the film,” explains Cox. “You can tell Alex is a fan of science as well as a science fiction fan. There were a few edges we ironed out but basically it was the back story rather than the plot that my expertise was needed for.” Adds Boyle,
“You become obsessed with the accuracy of the science and you do try to obey the rules of physics and make it as real as possible, but in the end you have to abandon certain elements and just go for what is dramatically effective.”