Moon (2009)

[Rippers]

Originally Posted by AE35Unit

Well i watched the trailer and I just thought it was copying 2001!

Me too. Like the idea, from what I saw on the trailer. Does look very familiar in a lot of ways though.

Still made me sit up and take notice.

[AE35Unit]

Originally Posted by Rippers

Me too. Like the idea, from what I saw on the trailer. Does look very familiar in a lot of ways though.

Still made me sit up and take notice.

I'm dying to see it. In fact i'd just buy it. I just have a feeling its gonna be good! I know I said it appeared to copying 2001 but that was based on a short trailer but on the whole this looks a winner!

[Rodders]

Anyone seen this yet? I'm still in the process of trying to persuade the wife to see it. She's having none of it.

[AE35Unit]

Originally Posted by Rodders

Anyone seen this yet? I'm still in the process of trying to persuade the wife to see it. She's having none of it.

Not yet,have to wait for it to come out for rental.

[Ursa major]

Unfortunately, the film is not (yet) in any of my local cinemas.

[AE35Unit]

Have not seen it advertised at all either,no trailers on TV or owt. Come one guys,get promoting! Now if it was some big action Hollywood block buster everyone would be talking about it.

[AE35Unit]

There's an in depth look at the set of this film in the new issue of Deathray magazine! (Also an interview with Stephen Baxter and a new story by Alastair Reynolds!)

[Patrick Mahon]

I was in central London on Monday, and saw lots of posters advertising this in various underground stations - looks interesting...

[Coops]

I have seen this movie. It was well done and did not have a 2001 feel to me. I will not post spoilers because it might ruin the movie for some, but I did guess the major plot twist a lot sooner than the characters did. The ending was satisfying but there were a number of technical inconsistencies like the treatment of gravity and instantaneous communication that stretched belief.

[Thadlerian]

Originally Posted by Perpetual Man

... using as little CGI as possible, so most of the shots are model work.

Now this does indeed sound interesting. We're back to good old movie magic

[williamjm]

Originally Posted by Coops

I have seen this movie. It was well done and did not have a 2001 feel to me. I will not post spoilers because it might ruin the movie for some, but I did guess the major plot twist a lot sooner than the characters did. The ending was satisfying but there were a number of technical inconsistencies like the treatment of gravity and instantaneous communication that stretched belief.

There were a few elements that were reminiscent of 2001 - Kevin Spacey's computer has to be a deliberate reference to HAL, although the computer's role in this is somewhat different to 2001. However, the style of film-making is much more down-to-earth (or down-to-regolith) than 2001, it's a fairly straightforward Science Fiction story. I thought it was a good film, as you say some details aren't quite scientifically plausible but the main plot itself does work well and Sam Rockwell does a terrific job in the lead role.

[HareBrain]

I saw this on a flight (not to the moon) three weeks ago, and though it passed the time amiably enough, I was bothered by the enormity of some of the plot holes. But maybe they're not holes at all, perhaps I've just misunderstood something.

Actually, there's really only one plot hole, but it's a big one, and it is this.

Why have Lunar Industries bothered with the enormous trouble and expense of the set-up they've created? Why use clones at all? I see nothing about the main character's job that suggests it requires certain inherent attributes - it could be done by a YTS trainee (sorry, showing my age) or a robot a lot less sophisticated than the one they've provided to act as housemaid/companion. If a three-year stint is too long for the average Joe to cope with, why not make it a year, or a month, and rotate the miners? How could shipping a person there and back every so often be more expensive than (a) developing the technology to grow adult clones, (b) developing the technology to upload memories (guh, what???), and (c) building a network of heavy, metal-construction signal jamming antennae?

I thought the film did some things very well. But my opinion of it overall will be much improved if someone could tell me why there are good reasons for the above.

[williamjm]

I'm not sure it really makes sense, although I think some of your assumptions may be inaccurate - we have no reason to think that they developed cloning or memory upload technology specifically for this purpose, for all we know in that future cloning is a well-understood and mature science.

Despite that, I agree that their scheme does seem very elaborate and expensive and it would only make sense if it was extortionately expensive to send replacement crews up to the lunar stations.

[Sparrow]

I totally agree with you, Hare.

And the sad thing is, otherwise, the movie is excellent. It's got a great look, wonderful actors, it's quiet and broods along sort of like 2001. Except on closer inspection it's completely absurd. Unlike 2001 where all the science and technology are coherent and compatible, Moon cherry picks technoscience.

[HareBrain]

Originally Posted by williamjm

I'm not sure it really makes sense, although I think some of your assumptions may be inaccurate - we have no reason to think that they developed cloning or memory upload technology specifically for this purpose, for all we know in that future cloning is a well-understood and mature science.

That would be a fair point, except that the very end of the film suggests (I think?) that the people back on Earth think of the escaped Sam as a crank, which then suggests that the technology isn't widely known.