DVD Talk
Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009) [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009)


NoirFan
08-30-08, 06:47 PM
http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd114/besh1/poster.jpg

IMDB (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/)

Couldn't find a thread on this. From Bloody-Disgusting (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/13476). Synopsis has spoilers, so I used tags on that section. One of my favorite actors of the '90s (K-PAX, why?!), Kevin Spacey (pictured inside), has joined the cast of Moon, which will be directed by David Bowie's son Duncan Jones, according to io9. He will be starring alongside Sam Rockwell, Kaya Scodelario, Benedict Wong, Matt Berry, Malcolm Stewart and Dominique McElligott. Astronaut Sam Bell has a quintessentially personal encounter while stranded on the moon for a three-year period. Read on for a longer synopsis.

Sam Bell is nearing the end of his contract with Lunar. He's been a faithful employee for 3 long years. His home has been Selene, a moon base where he has spent his days alone, mining Helium 3. The precious gas holds the key to reversing the Earth's energy crisis. Isolated, determined and steadfast, Sam has followed the rulebook obediently and his time on the moon has been enlightening, but uneventful. The solitude has given him time to reflect on the mistakes of his past and work on his raging temper. He does his job mechanically, and spends most of his available time dreaming of his imminent return to Earth, to his wife, young daughter and an early retirement. But 2 weeks shy of his departure from Selene, Sam starts seeing things, hearing things and feeling strange. And when a routine extraction goes horribly wrong, he discovers that Lunar have their own plans for replacing him... and the new recruit is eerily familiar. Before he can return to Earth, Sam has to confront himself and the discovery that the life he has created, may not be his own. It's more than his contract that is set to expire.

(Spacey is) playing "the voice of the robot. Which is great," actor Sam Rockwell tells io9. "But [otherwise] it's just me, and there are a couple of supporting roles of people who do transmissions onto the space station."

NoirFan
11-17-08, 10:00 PM
Some stunning looking photos here (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14361).

auto
11-17-08, 10:05 PM
Wow. That looks pretty amazing.

NiCK Crush
11-17-08, 10:21 PM
Yea, wow, where did this one come from? This is the first I've heard of it... looks/sounds great. Love Rockwell.

starman9000
11-18-08, 08:22 AM
Love Rockwell and the pictures look great. What's the over/under that this film features Life on Mars and Space Oddity?

NoirFan
11-18-08, 07:40 PM
Love Rockwell and the pictures look great. What's the over/under that this film features Life on Mars and Space Oddity?

"Come on Dad, give me the rights!"

Superboy
11-18-08, 09:54 PM
Is this going to be another Solaris and Sunshine? because I though I liked both those movies, they were tremendously flawed.

chris_sc77
11-19-08, 10:40 AM
M-O-O-N ...That spells Moon!

al_bundy
11-19-08, 10:50 AM
is this like The Island but on the moon

DonnachaOne
11-19-08, 10:54 AM
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/eboniteevans/Mighty%20Boosh/mightybooshmoon.jpg

NoirFan
01-15-09, 06:22 PM
Five clips (http://www.collider.com/entertainment/news/article.asp/aid/10483/tcid/1)

RagingBull80
01-15-09, 11:18 PM
http://i61.photobucket.com/albums/h48/eboniteevans/Mighty%20Boosh/mightybooshmoon.jpg
Everybody look at the moon
Everybody seein' the moon...

...I did a song...

tanman
01-16-09, 11:29 AM
Some stunning looking photos here (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/news/14361).

It looks great. It has a real Alien vib going for it.

JPRaup
01-16-09, 12:07 PM
This could be freaking awesome. I can't wait to see this, I love Rockwell.

NoirFan
01-18-09, 10:48 AM
Variety review (http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117939363.html?categoryid=1263&cs=1):In the sci-fi drama "Moon," the apparently sole human inhabitant of a mining base begins experiencing odd phenomena just as he's about to finish his very lonely stint and return home. U.K.-produced debut feature for advertising whiz Duncan Jones and scenarist Nathan Parker recalls such brainy sci-fiers as "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "Solaris." But despite its handsome look and good thesping workout for Sam Rockwell, the story stretches a bit thin over feature length. Fantasy fans who don't require monsters or laser battles will want a look, though overall modest impact suggests wider smallscreen exposure after brief theatrical play.

Cosmic Bus
01-19-09, 06:39 PM
A mostly glowing review (http://chud.com/articles/articles/17818/1/SUNDANCE-REVIEW-MOON/Page1.html) from CHUD.

NoirFan
01-27-09, 09:21 PM
Bloody-Disgusting review (http://www.bloody-disgusting.com/review/2176): MOON, a sincere and heartfelt feature debut from director Duncan Jones, may not take home the box office cheddar, but mark my words, is a movie that will be worshipped by science fiction lovers for years to come.

kms_md
01-28-09, 10:20 AM
i could not get tickets to the last sundance showing - 9:30 a.m. on saturday (after dead snow the night before :) ). i am really looking forward to its release and hope that a firm release date will be announced. i think sony pictures classic picked it up during sundance.

NoirFan
04-04-09, 12:43 AM
For those of you in the SF area, this will be part of the upcoming San Francisco International Film Festival (http://fest09.sffs.org/films/film_details.php?id=60).

redrum
04-09-09, 09:49 PM
http://movies.ign.com/dor/objects/14313551/moon/videos/moon_trl_040909.html

^trailer

looks good

FinkPish
04-10-09, 12:14 AM
That trailer looks great. This one is high on my list now.

riley_dude
04-10-09, 12:33 AM
Looks interesting.

riotinmyskull
04-10-09, 03:43 AM
trailer looks fantastic. can't wait!

redrum
04-10-09, 07:21 AM
Clint Mansell is scoring this? must see off that alone

BuddhaWake
04-10-09, 08:28 AM
I thought this film was very good, got a chance to see it a couple of weeks ago at the philly film fest and really enjoyed it and thought that this was what sunshine could have been.

Superman07
04-10-09, 09:56 AM
Wow - that trailer looks amazing.

Slumbering Fist
04-10-09, 12:36 PM
In space no one can hear you Flowbee.

Shilex
04-10-09, 06:31 PM
I thought this film was very good, got a chance to see it a couple of weeks ago at the philly film fest and really enjoyed it and thought that this was what sunshine could have been.

That's good to hear considering I really really liked Sunshine (up until the third act superhuman).

Looks like my kind of sci-fi (complete with it's own HAL aka Kevin Spacey)

NoirFan
04-10-09, 07:42 PM
New poster:

<a href="http://s226.photobucket.com/albums/dd114/besh1/?action=view&current=MoonPosterBig.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://i226.photobucket.com/albums/dd114/besh1/MoonPosterBig.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket"></a>

riotinmyskull
04-10-09, 08:07 PM
i really hope this movie is good because i'd like that poster on my wall.

AGuyNamedMike
04-10-09, 08:20 PM
Yep, a very nice retro/minimalist poster right there! :up:

kms_md
04-10-09, 08:27 PM
well done trailer. i am looking forward to wide release.

Deftones
04-10-09, 09:26 PM
that looks fantastic. :up:

redrum
04-10-09, 09:27 PM
uhh why does it says 950,00 miles on the poster?

Cosmic Bus
04-10-09, 09:50 PM
uhh why does it says 950,00 miles on the poster?

It's set on a moon, not the Moon.

redrum
04-10-09, 09:52 PM
spoiler alert

Doctor Gonzo
04-11-09, 12:26 AM
pIexG8179K8

redrum
04-11-09, 12:09 PM
it is a typo

from duncan jones twitter

Trailer is out... poster is out... and all I can think of is WHY DIDNT THEY GET THE BLOODY NUMBER RIGHT ON MY BLOODY POSTER!!! } *grumble*

it will be the right number on the actual poster, that is only the digitally released one

BuddhaWake
04-11-09, 06:49 PM
I'm going to sugest not to watch the trailer. it gives WAY too much away taking away a lot of the mystery from the movie.

JetSter735180
04-17-09, 07:22 AM
When does this come out ? Or is it already out, I haven't seen a good SciFi movie in a long time, and im looking forward to this one.

riotinmyskull
05-20-09, 08:07 PM
http://chud.com/articles/articles/19479/1/REVIEW-MOON-ALEX039S-TAKE/Page1.html

8.5/10

Quezacotl02
05-21-09, 07:41 PM
Caught this film at the San Francisco International Film Festival. It is a beautiful, extremely well done film. Sam Rockwell is outstanding, and does a stellar job at carrying the entire film. The use of models is greatly appreciated, and achieves such great effect. Pays homage to the great space films, but avoids blatant plagiarism. Really a wonder to watch.

As a side note, Duncan Jones is a very down to earth guy. Easy to talk to, and hung around the theater well after the film, and Q&A were over. Can't wait for his next film!

Moon should be released early June '09.

NoirFan
06-09-09, 04:41 PM
Clip #6 (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810031757/video/13872784)

Duncan Jones interview (http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=56027)

RichC2
06-09-09, 04:44 PM
Caught this film at the San Francisco International Film Festival. It is a beautiful, extremely well done film. Sam Rockwell is outstanding, and does a stellar job at carrying the entire film. The use of models is greatly appreciated, and achieves such great effect. Pays homage to the great space films, but avoids blatant plagiarism. Really a wonder to watch.

As a side note, Duncan Jones is a very down to earth guy. Easy to talk to, and hung around the theater well after the film, and Q&A were over. Can't wait for his next film!

Moon should be released early June '09.

Darn, we had a bet that he would be sporting a cod piece in honor of his father at some point.

marty888
06-10-09, 05:11 PM
Opening Friday .... just checked on Rotten Tomatoes - with 24 reviews in, it sits with a 96% !!!!

(The only negative is from the increasingly useless Village Voice.)

Indy Jones Fan
07-09-09, 08:42 AM
Opening tomorrow at my local AMC. Looks really good, gonna check out a matinee showing.

fmian
07-09-09, 09:56 AM
Arggg... I have to wait till September to see this!! Damned life on the Southern Hemisphere!!

Brian T
07-09-09, 12:24 PM
This is playing at just two theaters here in Toronto, so I'm hoping it opens a bit wider at some point. It could have legs, though maybe not against all these summer spectaculars. I can understand reviewers drawing thematic/visual comparisons to SILENT RUNNING (big time!), 2001, ALIEN, maybe even BLADE RUNNER--there's a definite Syd Mead vibe--but equally as much as any of those, this movie plays like a big, wet smooch to Peter Hyam's 1981 sci-fi epic OUTLAND (a personal favourite), from the costumes and sets and monitor displays, right down to the digital clock counting down the arrival of the "rescue" team during a very suspenseful climax. This is premium grade, thought-provoking hard-science goodness wrapped up in a blanket of retro-coolness for lovers of its antecedents. Never an intellectual dull moment, with countless clever little touches to provoke interesting discussion afterward. As well, it seems like some thought was put into naming the characters, robots, even the moon base (Sarang - too cool).

Blu Man
07-09-09, 02:23 PM
I'm in. Looks good. Loved Rockwell in The Green Mile and he wasn't bad in Choke either.

redrum
07-09-09, 04:11 PM
seein it tommorow, very excited, don't think i've seen a limited released movie in a theatre before

Greg MacGuffin
07-09-09, 09:43 PM
Saw this on Sunday and I can't stop thinking about it. Very powerful piece of film making that should hold up well on repeat viewings. On the surface, it is sort of minimalist and spare, but underneath there is a lot to absorb. I'm looking forward to seeing it again so I can catch all of the things that I missed.

redrum
07-09-09, 09:58 PM
how's Mansell's score?

Indy Jones Fan
07-10-09, 04:49 PM
Overall I really liked the movie however, (major spoiler alert. Click only if you've seen the movie.)
I feel like the the big reveal that they are clones came too soon. I think the story was more interesting and surreal when we didn't know who or what the second Sam was. More of a mystery leaving the audience to wonder if there really were 2 Sam's or if one of them was hallucinating/going mad. Perhaps only the last 10-15 minutes should have dealt with their realization that they are clones and that the company would not have allowed them to live?
Just my opinion of course.

Greg MacGuffin
07-10-09, 07:30 PM
how's Mansell's score?

It's good. Probably not as memorable as Requiem for a Dream, but I imagine if you like his previous work, you'll like this. The sound in my theater was horrible, so I didn't really get a good sense of it. Too busy straining to hear the dialogue.

The Antipodean
07-11-09, 04:06 AM
If Sam Rockwell doesn't get an Oscar nomination for Best Actor for this, I will resign my membership in the Academy. Well, if I had one. Either way, he's freaking awesome, this is a great slow burn of a movie.

Tarantino
07-11-09, 11:53 AM
Saw this last night at a small Monterey indie theater on the coast. Kept our interest the whole time. It was a very good movie and Rockwell definitely needs an Oscar nom for his performance(s).

= J

NoirFan
07-11-09, 11:53 AM
Saw this last night at a small Monterey indie theater on the coast. Kept our interest the whole time. It was a very good movie and Rockwell definitely needs an Oscar nom for his performance(s).

So it wasn't booooooooring?

filmerp
07-11-09, 07:25 PM
Overall I really liked the movie however, (major spoiler alert. Click only if you've seen the movie.)
I feel like the the big reveal that they are clones came too soon. I think the story was more interesting and surreal when we didn't know who or what the second Sam was. More of a mystery leaving the audience to wonder if there really were 2 Sam's or if one of them was hallucinating/going mad. Perhaps only the last 10-15 minutes should have dealt with their realization that they are clones and that the company would not have allowed them to live?
Just my opinion of course.

That's actually what I quite appreciated about the film- that Sam's character wasn't far behind the audience in his logic. I pretty much figured that he must be a clone as soon as the second version woke up on the table after the crash since someone would have needed to bring him back to the base, and it would have annoyed me greatly if he weren't dealing with the same conclusions as I was for another hour.

DonnachaOne
07-11-09, 08:03 PM
Moon is great, a 2000 AD story come to life. Sam Rockwell is very, very good. I love how the film for the most part avoids cliches, setting it apart from typical sci-fi films. It honestly feels like a short that was adapted into a longer film, like a "Tales From The Crypt" episode that you really enjoyed and thought was interesting enough to be extended beyond the ending. The application of a literal "ticking clock" is a little disappointing, considering how entertaining the rest of the film is. The look of the film is beautiful and never seems cheap or fake - if there's any CG in this I didn't see it. I was also happy to see British actors Benedict Wong and Matt Berry crop up as corporate bastards (that's two very intelligent space films for Wong, along with Sunshine), and Kevin Spacey's voice as Sam's doting robot assistant was a pleasure to hear. Other reviews might talk of a "twist". It's not really so much of a twist as a complication that happens at the end of the first act, but which works better if the audience isn't already aware of it. It's fairly easy to guess anyway, and I'm happy that it wasn't used for the ending, but rather the beginning of Sam the astronaut's story. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing what Duncan Jones does next.

RD1973
07-12-09, 08:16 PM
Moon is great, a 2000 AD story come to life. Sam Rockwell is very, very good. I love how the film for the most part avoids cliches, setting it apart from typical sci-fi films. It honestly feels like a short that was adapted into a longer film, like a "Tales From The Crypt" episode that you really enjoyed and thought was interesting enough to be extended beyond the ending. The application of a literal "ticking clock" is a little disappointing, considering how entertaining the rest of the film is. The look of the film is beautiful and never seems cheap or fake - if there's any CG in this I didn't see it. I was also happy to see British actors Benedict Wong and Matt Berry crop up as corporate bastards (that's two very intelligent space films for Wong, along with Sunshine), and Kevin Spacey's voice as Sam's doting robot assistant was a pleasure to hear. Other reviews might talk of a "twist". It's not really so much of a twist as a complication that happens at the end of the first act, but which works better if the audience isn't already aware of it. It's fairly easy to guess anyway, and I'm happy that it wasn't used for the ending, but rather the beginning of Sam the astronaut's story. I'm really, really looking forward to seeing what Duncan Jones does next.

I just saw it today and I have to agree, its very good. And Sam Rockwell is awesome. After all the shit we've had to endure this summer, things are picking up now.

I do have a few nitpicks, though. I thought the smiley faces on Gerty were a little too cute. Also, I wish the movie would have gone on a little longer (maybe 10 minutes). I would have liked to see a little more of each character's fate and the corporation's reaction to the tower going down.

Just one question: Why does Sam get sick? Exposure to solar radiation, being in space too long, limited life-span, or natural causes? I think I know, but I'm not quite sure.

Scotts35
07-12-09, 09:09 PM
It's good. Probably not as memorable as Requiem for a Dream, but I imagine if you like his previous work, you'll like this. The sound in my theater was horrible, so I didn't really get a good sense of it. Too busy straining to hear the dialogue.

You were probably in a DTS equipped theater for a movie that had no DTS discs shipped with the prints (at least mine didn't).

Phod
07-12-09, 09:44 PM
Awesome movie, my favorite of the year so far.

I enjoyed how there were a lot of unanswered questions that you could speculate on after the fact.


Did the Sam Bell on Earth know about his clones?

Did he even work for this company... ever?

Was he up there for a period of time, which is where the original Tess messages came from, or not? If he was there, did the corporation have the clone plan in place the whole time?

Why did the clone Sam see an image of his grown daughter a couple of times... some weird clone connection?

Indy Jones Fan
07-13-09, 12:08 AM
That's actually what I quite appreciated about the film- that Sam's character wasn't far behind the audience in his logic. I pretty much figured that he must be a clone as soon as the second version woke up on the table after the crash since someone would have needed to bring him back to the base, and it would have annoyed me greatly if he weren't dealing with the same conclusions as I was for another hour.
I guess I would have preferred it to not have been so obvious to Sam's character or the audience. I guessed it right away too which is what disappointed me.
As I said though I really liked the movie and this was just a very small complaint. :)

DonnachaOne
07-13-09, 10:45 PM
I do have a few nitpicks, though. I thought the smiley faces on Gerty were a little too cute. I think they worked. I can easily see some corporate hardware using some insincere CG sprite to make the interface "friendlier", much like Microsoft Word's paper clip or Search Tool's puppy. And of course, there was always the annoying sure feeling that in the end, Gerty would get a "mad face". I was pleased that they declined to use such a cliche.


Also, I wish the movie would have gone on a little longer (maybe 10 minutes). I would have liked to see a little more of each character's fate and the corporation's reaction to the tower going down.Well, everything we learn is through Sam's eyes, really. I like how the end could easily be interpreted to be Sam's expectation of his reception.

Just one question: Why does Sam get sick? Exposure to solar radiation, being in space too long, limited life-span, or natural causes? I think I know, but I'm not quite sure.Well, Sam reviews the video messages, going back in three-year intervals; they all get severely sick at the end of the three-year "contracts" before being incinerated. It's apparent that the clones have a three-year lifespan - a fact which "Sick Sam" keeps from "New Sam", nicely enough.

SPiRAL
07-14-09, 12:56 AM
Been playing here for a long time. Finally going to see it tomorrow.

devilshalo
07-14-09, 01:49 AM
Really enjoyed it. Tho I would have liked a bit more prelude, to give a little more time towards Sam's desolation. And the ending was wonderful.. thinking how the Sam Bell Clone was living his 3 years by telling the world about him and the reactions of the public.

RD1973
07-14-09, 04:26 AM
I think they worked. I can easily see some corporate hardware using some insincere CG sprite to make the interface "friendlier", much like Microsoft Word's paper clip or Search Tool's puppy. And of course, there was always the annoying sure feeling that in the end, Gerty would get a "mad face". I was pleased that they declined to use such a cliche.


Well, everything we learn is through Sam's eyes, really. I like how the end could easily be interpreted to be Sam's expectation of his reception.

Well, Sam reviews the video messages, going back in three-year intervals; they all get severely sick at the end of the three-year "contracts" before being incinerated. It's apparent that the clones have a three-year lifespan - a fact which "Sick Sam" keeps from "New Sam", nicely enough.


I originally thought "limited life-span" but then it occured to me that maybe they don't last long due to the harsh conditions on the moon. The low gravity, the exposure to helium 3, not to mention 3 years of cosmic radiation. Maybe it was just wishful thinking, but I started to lean in this direction toward the end of the film. I guess I wanted "New Sam" to have a shot at a normal life.

As for the smileys, they annoyed me because I naturally wanted to look at Gerty's "eye" when it spoke. So, the smileys were a little distracting.

devilshalo
07-14-09, 05:55 AM
As for the smileys, they annoyed me because I naturally wanted to look at Gerty's "eye" when it spoke. So, the smileys were a little distracting.
I didn't find them distracting at all.. and thought it was a good representation of how we communicate thru the net now with the use of smilies. Gerty was like one big Instant Message up until he helped Sam clone #1 with the password and Sam clone #2 explained to Gerty that "we're not programs, we're people" and made an inference that Gerty was also a person.

SuckaMC
07-14-09, 11:27 AM
This was fantastic. I was happy that Sam figured out what was up about when we did instead of dragging out some forced mystery.
I also like that Gerty never did the standard sci-fi "computer flip out" and try to kill Sam or sabotage stuff.

Rockwell was great as well. It's definately a movie that sticks with you.

Trevor
07-15-09, 12:17 AM
Loved it.

Big shame on Jason Bailey and Brian Orndorf for a major spoiler reveal in their reviews, and props to Jamie Rich for showing how a situation like that should be handled.

SuckaMC
07-15-09, 11:53 AM
Loved it.

Big shame on Jason Bailey and Brian Orndorf for a major spoiler reveal in their reviews, and props to Jamie Rich for showing how a situation like that should be handled.

Wow, I just read those reviews. Glad I stayed away before seeing the movie. A clue would be that if the main character wakes up and ends up finding something shocking, then it probably be shocking for the audience too. Not given away in a review. Weird.

Giles
07-15-09, 12:12 PM
It's good. Probably not as memorable as Requiem for a Dream, but I imagine if you like his previous work, you'll like this. The sound in my theater was horrible, so I didn't really get a good sense of it. Too busy straining to hear the dialogue.

You were probably in a DTS equipped theater for a movie that had no DTS discs shipped with the prints (at least mine didn't).


but even in Dolby Digital the soundmix was pretty restained.

The O
07-15-09, 03:38 PM
Loved it.

Big shame on Jason Bailey and Brian Orndorf for a major spoiler reveal in their reviews, and props to Jamie Rich for showing how a situation like that should be handled.

From the director of MOON, Duncan Jones, on spoilers:

ďI donít consider it blowing it, because as you know, the fact that he is a clone comes out at the end of the first act,Ē Jones said. ďSo, you know, there is still a big chunk of film to go. And the other reason I donít mind it is, I really believe that itís one of Sam Rockwellís best performances that he has ever given. And itís because of what he does after the point he is playing multiple roles that I think it is so genius.Ē

Also:

"It is tricky--when I was writing it, I wasnít really thinking about how you guys were going to have to deal with it. There is a large change in the plot at the end of the first act, a revelation that changes the dynamics of everything. I have been willing to let people talk about the fact that Sam plays multiple parts because one of the things that I am so proud of about the film is that Samís performance is fantastic and one of the things that makes Samís performance so fantastic is what he is able to do with playing multiple parts when he had such an incredible technical challenge in how we had to do it. He was still able to create this incredibly nuanced and believable performance as many people. If that comes out, it isnít the most devastating thing in the world to me. It would be a shame for some people who like to see films with absolutely no idea about what they are about--I happen to be one of those people--but I donít think it spoils the film to know that Sam plays multiple versions of himself. It just means that you see things from a slightly different starting point, thatís all."

I can see your point of distress, but I can also see the benefits of allowing that first-act revelation to be known, or at least hinted at, to create a sense of mystery in the review -- a perhaps misguided, but earnest shot at getting someone who's never heard of the film into a seat.

Supermallet
07-16-09, 06:00 PM
This, along with The Hurt Locker and Star Trek, is one of my favorite movies of the year to date. I want my own Gerty.

printerati
07-18-09, 07:38 PM
Awesome movie, my favorite of the year so far.

I enjoyed how there were a lot of unanswered questions that you could speculate on after the fact.


Did the Sam Bell on Earth know about his clones?

Did he even work for this company... ever?

Was he up there for a period of time, which is where the original Tess messages came from, or not? If he was there, did the corporation have the clone plan in place the whole time?

Why did the clone Sam see an image of his grown daughter a couple of times... some weird clone connection?


Your final unanswered question is my biggest nitpick with the film. It seemed like nothing more than a red herring, and really seemed out of place thematically as the film progressed. Overall, however, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

Trevor
07-18-09, 08:03 PM
Loved it.

Big shame on Jason Bailey and Brian Orndorf for a major spoiler reveal in their reviews, and props to Jamie Rich for showing how a situation like that should be handled.
For full disclosure, not that my opinion means squat, but I've communicated with both reviewers and can see their reasons for the "spoiler". I still lean towards thinking they could have phrased things slightly differently, but I could have contacted them directly first before posting the above. Probably didn't need to post this, but I'm often unnecessarily verbose and thorough. All three DVDTalk reviews are well-done btw.

Back to the movie, the more I reflect on it, the more I like it. Agree with the small nitpick in the last post, and love the fact that the film doesn't answer every question.

Will try to see it again on a bigger screen (saw it at a theater that has a few screens smaller than some of your home theaters), and hoping for lots of supplemental material on the home video release.

jacen
07-18-09, 08:19 PM
I was lucky enough to see this movie at a showing with Jones (director) there to answer some questions. This was many months ago, so I'm paraphrasing and hopefully will not get anything terribly wrong




Did the Sam Bell on Earth know about his clones? yes

Did he even work for this company... ever? yes, he got paid a lot to give them clones

Was he up there for a period of time, which is where the original Tess messages came from, or not? If he was there, did the corporation have the clone plan in place the whole time? I think Jones said no (very very not sure there) and I belive the answer is yes

Why did the clone Sam see an image of his grown daughter a couple of times... some weird clone connection? Yeah, something like that. Also, mention of something about connecting to the orgional when the clone is dying. Sorry I dont remember this better. But he did say the three year life span was programmed in.
He also mentioned the design of Gerty was very deliberatly reminicent of other famous robots- mostly to throw off viewers.

printerati
07-19-09, 01:14 PM
Regarding part of jacen's last spoiled point...

Once the phone call to Eve revealed that the "real" Sam was alive and well on Earth 12+ years after the fact, a predetermined clone lifespan was the only explanation for Sam's sickness that made sense to me, not radiation or some other space "effect". The old surveillance videos with the other sick clones being incinerated at the end of the three year contract pretty much cement it. The ashes next to the "escape pod" were a nice touch.

mdc3000
07-19-09, 08:35 PM
Thought this was OK. Great performance from Rockwell but I felt all the revelations were extremely telegraphed and I felt like I was always a step ahead of the film, when it should be the other way around. I think the idea was good but it easily could have been a short film - it felt bloated and drawn out at 90 minutes. I didn't know much about the plot going in but had heard some of the rave reviews and was pretty disappointed. (It probably didn't help that I saw this after seeing both The Hurt Locker and (500) Days of Summer today, the two best movies of 2009 IMO). It's not a bad movie by any stretch just not as smart/engaging as I had hoped for.

Jazzbutcher
07-27-09, 01:29 PM
I loved it. Rockwell was awesome.
I saw the clone thing a mile away (trouble walking, disorientation, etc...) but I thought it added to, rather than took away from the flow. Sam is a clone---we should know before he does. My fave so far this year.

minature effects were great, and pleasing to see in world awash with CG.

calhoun07
07-27-09, 07:42 PM
I wish more sci-fi movies were made like this.

Solid Snake
07-27-09, 07:47 PM
I wish more sci-fi movies were made like this.

:toast:

ivelostr2
07-28-09, 05:17 PM
Your final unanswered question is my biggest nitpick with the film. It seemed like nothing more than a red herring, and really seemed out of place thematically as the film progressed. Overall, however, I enjoyed it quite a bit.

remember, we also saw the sleeping/dreaming Sam with the hurt Sam grabbing at his legs under the covers as welll...so I think maybe there is some connection between the Sams, both real and clone...and maybe they are more likely to sense at the beginning and ends of their lives...I don't know



Edit to add: sorry, hadn't finished the thread before posting this, but it looks like i was close...

RichC2
07-29-09, 10:11 AM
Thought this was OK. Great performance from Rockwell but I felt all the revelations were extremely telegraphed and I felt like I was always a step ahead of the film, when it should be the other way around.

I thought the flick was great and felt the same way about the plot being telegraphed. The character reactions and thought processes were the main selling point imo.

writer106
07-29-09, 05:55 PM
Looks good.

RagingBull80
07-29-09, 06:10 PM
I'm probably going to see this tomorrow sometime.

Jamers
08-07-09, 12:06 AM
Just saw this. It was the last night in the theater here. I loved it. One question though. Why in the world was this R rated. I don't remember any real nudity except for Sam's ass in a shower scene. A bloody nose resulting from a short scuffle. Some vomiting of blood. Only a few curse words except he may have mumbled the F word under his breath. Hardy enough for an R rating I think. Just seems odd to put R on this and put it out in limited release as well. So far it's barely grossed 4 million.

TheDuke
08-12-09, 11:10 PM
I just saw this the other day, it was excellent, one of the best movies I have scene in a long time! I highly recommend it.

@Jamers: I think it should have been rated R. They definitely said "fuck" 20+ times, there was a short sex scene, although no nudity was seen, plus lots of elements in the movie I think were too much for some kids to handle.

Dr Mabuse
11-14-09, 05:51 PM
I'm watching this now and man I'm so impressed.

This is what science fiction should be.

What a great movie.

Edit: Great film. I couldn't have enjoyed it more.

Michael Corvin
12-29-09, 11:36 PM
Wow, how did I miss this movie? Pure awesome. First, Sam Rockwell was amazing. Performance of the year, IMO. Hopefully he gets some love during awards season. Second, this is probably the first movie since Memento that has totally blown me away. It may be a bit much on one viewing but I can easily see this making my top 10 of the decade.

Everyone needs to see this movie. :)

toddly6666
01-03-10, 02:56 AM
A well-done, very entertaining film, but nothing more. I've had it up to here with all the 2001 knock-offs and clone storylines. I would give it a B, just a good sci-fi film, but I think it's quite forgettable.

I was hoping that... he was just going crazy and had multiple-personality disorder. Thus, an intelligent scientist would rationize his multiple personalities as being "clones."

I don't get this though:
He was getting flashes of the teen Eve, so does that mean that each clone gets current memory-implant updates? How can he have memories of teen Eve if he never had memory-implants of teen Eve? I thought each clone only had updates only of baby Eve, not teen Eve?"

And why was the Kevin Spacey HAL robot so nice? Was he supposed to be "lonely too?"

Michael Corvin
01-03-10, 06:59 AM
I don't get this though:
He was getting flashes of the teen Eve, so does that mean that each clone gets current memory-implant updates? How can he have memories of teen Eve if he never had memory-implants of teen Eve? I thought each clone only had updates only of baby Eve, not teen Eve?"


Jones explained it in one of the special features. IIRC it was along the lines of an intentional red herring. Something akin to the viewer seeing Brad Pitt and Ed Norton on screen at the same time in Fight Club.

Jack Straw
01-04-10, 08:28 PM
I thought this movie was going to be a bio-pic about the life of Keith Moon. Oh well, perhaps at some point...

dek
01-06-10, 04:44 PM
Great film, loved every second of it. Rockwell deserves an Oscar nod for his role.

riotinmyskull
01-06-10, 04:50 PM
Great film, loved every second of it. Rockwell deserves an Oscar nod for his roles.

nice spoiler.

dek
01-06-10, 04:54 PM
nice spoiler.


Oops

devilshalo
01-06-10, 06:28 PM
It's really a shame that this is not getting more attention from entertainment awards.

I thought Sam's performance was a lot more meaty and weighty than Clooney's.

Solid Snake
01-06-10, 06:45 PM
Very much so.

Dr Mabuse
01-06-10, 07:24 PM
It's really a shame that this is not getting more attention from entertainment awards.

I agree.

I thought Sam's performance was a lot more meaty and weighty than Clooney's.

I don't feel the need to compare it to any other performance. Rockwell's performance should be in contention for every award. It was one of the best of the year, and a rare case where one person literally carried an entire film single-handedly. It's a very short list of films where any actor pulled that off... even something like 'Cast Away' doesn't come close to what Rockwell did in 'Moon'

sp00kie
01-13-10, 03:31 PM
Was a bit disappointed after the hype.


Fundamental issue, they never justify his existence. It seems the corporation are a bunch of idiots who spend millions of dollars to keep a pet on the moon building hobby models:P Everything is automated. Hell, his helper robot seems smarter than him at times, wouldn't seem hard to automate the rest. The sheer effort/expense of keeping up the sham is never justified. and the film drags for quite a while once the viewer gets ahead of the film.

Numanoid
01-17-10, 10:15 AM
Loved the 2001 homage on the display screen of the rover.

Hated the enormously oversized and detailed view of the Earth from the Moon (the Earth is quite small and quite blurry when seen from the surface of the Moon).

OldBoy
01-17-10, 10:26 AM
what a great movie and incredible performance by Rockwell. truly a unique vision Jones had and i think it worked splendidly. truly original and was transfixed throughout.

if you see some of the extras, specifically the Sundance Q&A you will see that 2001 was not a major inspiration and that in fact Blade Runner, Silent Running, and the original Alien were. Jones almost denounced that 2001 was a major, though i am not sure how that is possible with the look and feel and of course the talking robot.

also, interesting to note that Jones' next project he is working on/thinking about is a "spiritual sequel to Blade Runner".

riotinmyskull
01-17-10, 10:27 AM
Loved the 2001 homage on the display screen of the rover.

Hated the enormously oversized and detailed view of the Earth from the Moon (the Earth is quite small and quite blurry when seen from the surface of the Moon).

looks fairly accurate to me...

actual:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7384/070421moonearth02u.jpg

from film:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3600/225919d.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/225919d.jpg/)

RyoHazuki
01-17-10, 01:34 PM
Fundamental issue, they never justify his existence. It seems the corporation are a bunch of idiots who spend millions of dollars to keep a pet on the moon building hobby models:P Everything is automated. Hell, his helper robot seems smarter than him at times, wouldn't seem hard to automate the rest. The sheer effort/expense of keeping up the sham is never justified. and the film drags for quite a while once the viewer gets ahead of the film.

I liked the film a lot, but I too had a little trouble reconciling that issue in my head. How was this fancy clone replacement plan less expensive than training multiple people at the same time to do the job?

tylergfoster
01-17-10, 02:30 PM
I liked the film a lot, but I too had a little trouble reconciling that issue in my head. How was this fancy clone replacement plan less expensive than training multiple people at the same time to do the job?The primary reason for this is that the cost of space travel, at this point, basically trumps any other cost imaginable. Sure, it's the future, but it's likely that cloning will be perfected sooner than space travel, even now, in the real world. If you took the scenario in the movie and applied it to today, and said that the moon was filled with a renewable super-resource that would solve the world's energy problems, it basically wouldn't be cost effective to send people up there and get it vs. just ignoring it. This is why we generally don't send people into space.

There's also the fact that these guys probably get paid a lot. I mean, if you WERE hiring astronauts, they'd want a pretty penny to be completely isolated for 3 years; in some senses it's no better than jail. Then there's the fact that you would literally have to train every single one -- I can't imagine anyone wanting to make a second trip if hallucination and psychological problems are common among the astronauts. That training in and of itself has gotta be remarkably expansive: from the movie, it seems clear that Rockwell really knows a massive amount about the mechanics of the station, the rovers, the mining machines, etc. etc., so training someone how to operate, maintain and repair all of that stuff is probably years in and of itself. Some of these astronauts would have second thoughts or other issues that would cause them to drop out, as well, so you'd have to be training at least three to five people in case you lose some of them along the way.

Ultimately, the biggest bonus for the company, though, is that Sam is controllable and replaceable. If Sam loses his shit, is injured or has some sort of problem, the company can no doubt just neutralize that clone and pop open a new one, something they could never afford to do with a newly-trained astronaut. There's nobody to answer to if Sam is killed, no liability, no nothing. In essence, he's a better, more effective robot than the company is capable of building.

RyoHazuki
01-17-10, 03:16 PM
The primary reason for this is that the cost of space travel, at this point, basically trumps any other cost imaginable. Sure, it's the future, but it's likely that cloning will be perfected sooner than space travel, even now, in the real world. If you took the scenario in the movie and applied it to today, and said that the moon was filled with a renewable super-resource that would solve the world's energy problems, it basically wouldn't be cost effective to send people up there and get it vs. just ignoring it. This is why we generally don't send people into space.

There's also the fact that these guys probably get paid a lot. I mean, if you WERE hiring astronauts, they'd want a pretty penny to be completely isolated for 3 years; in some senses it's no better than jail. Then there's the fact that you would literally have to train every single one -- I can't imagine anyone wanting to make a second trip if hallucination and psychological problems are common among the astronauts. That training in and of itself has gotta be remarkably expansive: from the movie, it seems clear that Rockwell really knows a massive amount about the mechanics of the station, the rovers, the mining machines, etc. etc., so training someone how to operate, maintain and repair all of that stuff is probably years in and of itself. Some of these astronauts would have second thoughts or other issues that would cause them to drop out, as well, so you'd have to be training at least three to five people in case you lose some of them along the way.

Ultimately, the biggest bonus for the company, though, is that Sam is controllable and replaceable. If Sam loses his shit, is injured or has some sort of problem, the company can no doubt just neutralize that clone and pop open a new one, something they could never afford to do with a newly-trained astronaut. There's nobody to answer to if Sam is killed, no liability, no nothing. In essence, he's a better, more effective robot than the company is capable of building.

I'm not a cloning expert but keeping (possibly) hundreds of clones aboard the ship just seems more expensive than sending a human(s) to the moon once every three years. They still would have had to space travel all those clones there in the first place. They would also need some way to keep the clones maintained and alive the whole time. Using one person to run this station would be essentially "putting all their eggs in one basket". If Sam had psychological problems during his trip, it would make sense that his clones might also experience similar issues. Also you could never improve their training. New astronauts means you could learn from past missions and provide better training. Sam's clones wouldn't have learned anything new. Having multiple astronauts would also probably make it safer and less difficult psychologically. It wasn't a total deal killer for the movie but using clones just seemed unnecessary.

OldBoy
01-17-10, 04:08 PM
or couldn't they have made clones that lasted more than 3 years? it would seem that Sam 1's deterioration was due to lasting longer than 3 and his body shutting down.

Jay G.
01-17-10, 11:06 PM
I'm not a cloning expert but keeping (possibly) hundreds of clones aboard the ship just seems more expensive than sending a human(s) to the moon once every three years.
We don't know where the clones were made. If they were made off-Earth, there may have been significant savings over transporting hundreds of humans from Earth.

As for the rest of the issues about clones, you either have to accept the film's premise that clones are cheaper, or not. There's hardly a "definitive" argument that can be made today about how a fictional future's economy works.

or couldn't they have made clones that lasted more than 3 years? it would seem that Sam 1's deterioration was due to lasting longer than 3 and his body shutting down.
Isn't 3 years long enough? My take has been that the original Sam did spend a 3 year rotation on the moon, after which they cloned him. So they had 3 years of video messages from his girlfriend, and the Sam clones have the memory of signing up for a 3 year run. So 3 years was as long as they could reasonable expect to "dupe" a Sam clone.

taa455
01-18-10, 01:21 PM
Superb film. 5 out of 5 stars in my book.

tylergfoster
01-18-10, 03:46 PM
or couldn't they have made clones that lasted more than 3 years?This is apparently a problem with real-life clones. It's very complicated and I'm probably explaining it wrong, but cells are basically alive and healthy because they've been around for however long they've been around. To cheat and clone someone at a certain age is unstable and eventually collapses. As of right now the only theoretical way someone could genuinely be cloned is way back at the fertilization stage, and then of course, it's barely a clone; more like a twin. I'm not a cloning expert but keeping (possibly) hundreds of clones aboard the ship just seems more expensive than sending a human(s) to the moon once every three years.What Jay G. said is really the bottom line, but this is exactly what I was getting at when it comes to space travel -- it's just ridiculous how astronomically (no pun intended) the price will trump anything and everything else. I imagine to send someone to the moon every three years costing close to a billion, while each clone costs close to a million. Or even the travel costs $100 million vs. $1 million for the clone. As for the price of sending the clones up there, the clones are all sealed in those lockers; the cost of space travel includes things like food, atmosphere, all of the stuff a human person would need to travel through space. Much easier to send a cargo rocket with a crate full of hibernating clones than to send actual people.

fumanstan
01-18-10, 04:32 PM
Just rented this from Redbox. Great flick. and Rockwell really deserves an award for his performance. That said, having not read any reviews prior or this thread and just having seen a trailer and the movie mentioned by a lot of people, I didn't realize that the reveal of what's happening was made so early. I actually thought it was going to be a big mystery about his hallucination and what's going on, so that was a bit of a surprise. I'm glad that wasn't what the movie ended up being about though, which was pleasant to see. Loved Gerty too, and Kevin Spacey's voice was perfect for it.

As for the discussion above... Is there any reason to assume that cost of space travel is the reason for massive clones? Nothing in the movie seems to indicate that being a reason, so it seems like an odd angle to take, any more then assuming a company would be ok with hundreds of clones to reboot over and over again for a hundred years then sending another shuttle eventually. Or just sending a small team rather then a single individual Regardless, the actual reasoning behind it doesn't really bother me anyway.

Numanoid
01-18-10, 04:58 PM
looks fairly accurate to me...

actual:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/7384/070421moonearth02u.jpg

from film:
http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/3600/225919d.jpg (http://img442.imageshack.us/i/225919d.jpg/)Well, no it doesn't, now does it?

And then there's this shot:

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/numanoid/CI91791049630054549.jpg?t=1263857140

Nitpicky, I know, but I don't see why it's necessary to change the facts in this case. I like my pure sci-fi to be pure.

Numanoid
01-18-10, 05:06 PM
Did anyone else get the little in-joke in that each clone is pre-packaged with a "Wake me when it's quitting time" t-shirt? :lol:

I also liked the very subtle touch of how you can see the previous smiley faces that had been erased on Sam's "calendar" wall.

PopcornTreeCt
01-18-10, 05:36 PM
Okay, I recently watched this and I have a question:

Where are we the audience in the timeline? I assume we are not seeing the original Sam, correct? When Sam clone, gets into contact with his daughter who is 15 years old, she calls for her dad. We never see him but I assume it would have been the original Sam?

Numanoid
01-18-10, 05:43 PM
Okay, I recently watched this and I have a question:

Where are we the audience in the timeline? I assume we are not seeing the original Sam, correct? When Sam clone, gets into contact with his daughter who is 15 years old, she calls for her dad. We never see him but I assume it would have been the original Sam?That's the way I interpret it.

Numanoid
01-18-10, 07:04 PM
As well, it seems like some thought was put into naming the characters, robots, even the moon base (Sarang - too cool).OK, I give up. The only thing I can find is that it means "spotted deer" in Indian and "love" in Korean.

tylergfoster
01-18-10, 09:15 PM
Is there any reason to assume that cost of space travel is the reason for massive clones? Nothing in the movie seems to indicate that being a reason, so it seems like an odd angle to take, any more then assuming a company would be ok with hundreds of clones to reboot over and over again for a hundred years then sending another shuttle eventually. Or just sending a small team rather then a single individual Regardless, the actual reasoning behind it doesn't really bother me anyway. Basically, I think the process is:
"Why clones?"
"Why not clones?"
"Why not people?"
"Clones must be more beneficial."
"How would they be more beneficial?"
"Well, it's a company, and the company is trying to hide it from the clones, it must be a corner-cutting measure."
"Aren't clones expensive?"
"What's more expensive than clones?"

My answer being space travel.

Mr. Salty
01-18-10, 11:22 PM
Hated the enormously oversized and detailed view of the Earth from the Moon (the Earth is quite small and quite blurry when seen from the surface of the Moon).
What makes you think the Earth looks blurry from the moon? You would be seeing it with no atmosphere in the way. It should look quite sharp, and photos taken from the moon bear this out.
Well, no it doesn't, now does it?
I think it does.

Nitpicky, I know, but I don't see why it's necessary to change the facts in this case. I like my pure sci-fi to be pure.
The Earth has a diameter four times that of the moon. From the moon, then, it should look larger than the moon does from Earth.

Also, in photographs, when it comes to how large a distant object appears relative to closer objects, the lens and perspective used to take the photo will affect things. In "Moon," the appearance of a relatively large Earth could be explained by the "photographer" being some distance away from the rover and using a longer focal-length lens. That would compress the apparent distance between the rover and exaggerate the size of the Earth.

So yes, you're being nitpicky.

PopcornTreeCt
01-18-10, 11:54 PM
OK, I give up. The only thing I can find is that it means "spotted deer" in Indian and "love" in Korean.

According to Wikipedia:

Sarang (Sanskrit: सारंग - Peacock) is the helicopter formation display team of the Indian Air Force. The team flies four HAL Dhruvs.

---

That's right, HAL. ;)

rabbit77
01-19-10, 07:26 AM
About the cost of cloning vs. cost of space travel - the argument is weakened for cloning when we the audience realizes that there are other people on the moon. If there were no signs of anyone else being on the moon I can buy that, but there were others there on the moon.

Jay G.
01-19-10, 08:39 AM
About the cost of cloning vs. cost of space travel - the argument is weakened for cloning when we the audience realizes that there are other people on the moon. If there were no signs of anyone else being on the moon I can buy that, but there were others there on the moon.
There was nobody else on the moon when the accident occurred. The "rescue team" had to be sent to the moon from Earth, which is why it took them so long to arrive. My guess is that, like most short-notice emergency missions, it was an extremely expensive endeavor.

rabbit77
01-19-10, 09:15 AM
There was nobody else on the moon when the accident occurred. The "rescue team" had to be sent to the moon from Earth, which is why it took them so long to arrive. My guess is that, like most short-notice emergency missions, it was an extremely expensive endeavor.

I guess I missed that detail. I thought they were on the other side. Hmmm, thinking about that and knowing that the company had the ability to send people out there in case of disaster regardless of where they come from weakens the film since Sam wasn't truly isolated. The idea that the rescue team is the motive for Sam to get out of dodge or else they'd be killed undermines the first two thirds of the film' atmosphere of Sam having to deal with his problems only by himselves.

If I were a business and had to look at the costs of implementing a clone program to do automaton work, it would be only carried out if it were the only option and because no one could regularly travel there feasibly.

This is a minor criticism of mine since I felt overall it was a superb thriller.

Jay G.
01-19-10, 09:32 AM
Here's some shots of Earth from the moon.

First, a B&W image from Lunar Orbiter 1, where the Earth looks massive:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/LOIRP/LOIRP_moon.html

Then, an image from Apollo 8 in orbit:
http://pvastro0527.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-is-picture-of-what-seems-to-be.html

Next, a larger version of the image riotinmyskull posted, where the earth looks clearer:
http://www.geography4kids.com/extras/dtop_space/moonearth_1024x768.jpg

Finally, this page has a clear shot of earth from 1994:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-earthmoon.html


It's hard to get a definitive sense of scale from these images, but the Earth looks quite large. Also, any appearance of the Earth being blurry is probably more a result of the tech used to take the picture, than how the Earth actually appears to the human eye on the Moon. As evidence, here's how the Lunar Orbiter 1 picture looked like before it was restored in 2008:
http://neverworld.net/lunar/lo1_h102_123.gif

Jay G.
01-19-10, 09:49 AM
I guess I missed that detail. I thought they were on the other side. Hmmm, thinking about that and knowing that the company had the ability to send people out there in case of disaster regardless of where they come from weakens the film since Sam wasn't truly isolated. The idea that the rescue team is the motive for Sam to get out of dodge or else they'd be killed undermines the first two thirds of the film' atmosphere of Sam having to deal with his problems only by himselves.
The rescue team takes a few days to arrive, so in an emergency Sam is more or less reliant on himself to survive. Remember that if Sam 2 hadn't been awoken, Sam 1 likely would've died inside the rover before the rescue team arrived (as he did anyway).

Keep in mind that the rescue team was likely sent at great expense. I think that the harvester that was broken from the beginning of the film is a clue. It is possible that this sort of accident happened before, but sending out a rescue team to repair just one of four harvesters wasn't worth the cost, so they left it out of commission. It's only after a second harvester goes down that the company decides they need to send a team to the moon.

If I were a business and had to look at the costs of implementing a clone program to do automaton work, it would be only carried out if it were the only option and because no one could regularly travel there feasibly.
I guess it depends on how you define "feasibly." In the context of the film, it seems the company defined "feasibly" as "economically," and decided that the clone program was cheaper than the alternative.

tylergfoster
01-19-10, 01:39 PM
If I were a business and had to look at the costs of implementing a clone program to do automaton work, it would be only carried out if it were the only option and because no one could regularly travel there feasibly.I guess it depends on how you define "feasibly." In the context of the film, it seems the company defined "feasibly" as "economically," and decided that the clone program was cheaper than the alternative.Yeah, I mean...clearly the company knows it's doing wrong. Otherwise they wouldn't go to such great lengths to hide it, and they wouldn't be so patronizing to each clone in the video messages. I mean, sure, you might consider it a last-ditch effort, but then you wouldn't be thinking like the company in the movie.

Mr. Salty
01-19-10, 03:20 PM
The idea that the rescue team is the motive for Sam to get out of dodge or else they'd be killed undermines the first two thirds of the film' atmosphere of Sam having to deal with his problems only by himselves.
That's not the motive for going back to Earth. The motivation is to get back to Earth rather than die there alone in three years, and in the process blow the whistle on what the company is doing. Knowing that the rescue team would kill them was simply motive to get their asses in gear and cover their tracks.

Numanoid
01-19-10, 06:58 PM
When I said blurry, I meant that the continents are not so easily discernable, and nowhere near as crisply distinguished as they are in the film. It's pretty obvious from a comparison of the pics that the film has tripled the size of the Earth as seen from the Moon at least, obviously for artistic effect. That's fine, but it's one of those things that takes a nerd like me completely out of the film for a few moments (I even commented on it to my girlfriend while watching the movie).

Mr. Salty
01-19-10, 10:48 PM
When I said blurry, I meant that the continents are not so easily discernable, and nowhere near as crisply distinguished as they are in the film. It's pretty obvious from a comparison of the pics that the film has tripled the size of the Earth as seen from the Moon at least, obviously for artistic effect. That's fine, but it's one of those things that takes a nerd like me completely out of the film for a few moments (I even commented on it to my girlfriend while watching the movie).

Again, relative size also relies on the lens and perspective, like shooting a setting sun with a telephoto lens in order to exaggerate its size in comparison to foreground objects. This sort of thing is done in cinematography. I don't know why you're getting hung up on it here.

Numanoid
01-19-10, 11:52 PM
And I don't know why you guys just can't accept the fact that the view of the Earth from the Moon is exaggerated in this film. :lol: It's no big deal, it just stood out to me.

kms_md
01-20-10, 09:31 AM
since its initial screening was at sundance 2009, the movie was in theaters in july, and the BD has been available region free since november, is it necessary to use spoiler tags? just a question - clicking the spoilers for each post is a bit annoying. great discussion, btw.

RichC2
01-20-10, 09:43 AM
I think it's more important now than ever to use spoiler tags. People click on threads to get opinions of a movie (should I rent it, watch it, etc; ) and now it's actually available for people to see.

Jay G.
01-20-10, 09:43 AM
When I said blurry, I meant that the continents are not so easily discernable, and nowhere near as crisply distinguished as they are in the film.
In all the pics I posted, the continents are easily discernable, at least when they're not covered by clouds:

Here's some shots of Earth from the moon.

First, a B&W image from Lunar Orbiter 1, where the Earth looks massive:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/moonmars/features/LOIRP/LOIRP_moon.html

Then, an image from Apollo 8 in orbit:
http://pvastro0527.blogspot.com/2006/01/this-is-picture-of-what-seems-to-be.html

Next, a larger version of the image riotinmyskull posted, where the earth looks clearer:
http://www.geography4kids.com/extras/dtop_space/moonearth_1024x768.jpg

Finally, this page has a clear shot of earth from 1994:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-earthmoon.html

All of the color images show clear edges of continents, and the last shot from Clementine clearly shows all of Africa.


It's pretty obvious from a comparison of the pics that the film has tripled the size of the Earth as seen from the Moon at least, obviously for artistic effect.
It's really hard to compare pics, especially since the real ones I've found have no objects in it that give a clear sense of scale (e.g. whether a particular crater is 3m across, or 3km across).

Also, others have pointed out the effect different lenses and perspectives would have.

However, if the Earth is 4 times the size of the Moon, shouldn't the Earth from the Moon look 4 times larger to the naked eye than the Moon appears from the Earth?

Jay G.
01-20-10, 10:35 AM
since its initial screening was at sundance 2009, the movie was in theaters in july, and the BD has been available region free since november, is it necessary to use spoiler tags? just a question - clicking the spoilers for each post is a bit annoying. great discussion, btw.
There's no hard metric for measuring when it's okay to stop using spoiler tags. However, I'd never use a Sundance screening or an import BD as points of reference.

For a limited release film, I'd say probably 4-6 months after its US domestic video release it'd be okay to post spoilers without tags, to give ample time for people to watch it.

BravesMG
01-30-10, 01:27 AM
Watched this tonight on BD by myself out in my dark living room on my 68" TV and it may have very well been my most enjoyable home viewing experience I've ever had. The set designs, miniatures, sound mixing, every little piece of this was absolutely stunning. If it wasn't already 2am I probably would have just played it again. I really wish I had the chance to catch this in theaters, as much as I enjoyed it at home I feel it really would have felt even more special on the big screen.

I completely agree that anyone that hasn't seen Moon and knows little about it should go in as cold as possible, so I'll keep my thoughts spoiled as well:Rockwell was simply amazing. Only Jeremy Renner's performance falls into the same league for me in regards to Oscar contention, but what Rockwell managed to do by himself was epic. If it were possible, Rockwell should get a damn Best Actor nomination for Sam 1 and a Best Supporting Actor nod for Sam 2 ;).

Loved that you were right there with the plot. It felt like a clone as soon as Sam 2 woke up, but there was always something hanging over ominously that felt like there might have been another possibility. There was a nice red-herring that at times it seemed like Sam 2 was completely ignoring Sam 1 and Sam 1 asking Gerty if there was someone else in the room, without a definitive answer. Left juuuust enough wiggle room for me to not be certain it was a clone.

I do enjoy the thread conversation about the cost of clones vs. space travel. Just seems like you would have to accept on faith that this was the most cost effective way to mine in the future :).

I got the vibe from the conversation Sam 1 had with Eve that from Original Sam's tone of voice he might have known something was up with those questions.Can't recommend this highly enough to anyone on the fence that's looking for a really terrific, well made and thought provoking movie.

Giantrobo
01-30-10, 02:13 AM
I finally saw this and somehow they managed to make a yet another clone film into something pretty cool and somehow original. I liked the sets, the way it was shot, and even the Film stock had a "shot in the 70's" feel to it.

I wasn't blown away like some others her, but I really felt like this Sci Fi flick was several cuts above some of the other stuff we've been getting lately.

NoirFan
07-27-10, 10:08 PM
Okay, I recently watched this and I have a question:

Where are we the audience in the timeline? I assume we are not seeing the original Sam, correct? When Sam clone, gets into contact with his daughter who is 15 years old, she calls for her dad. We never see him but I assume it would have been the original Sam?

Finally watched this tonight, and here's my question:Does Sam 3 turn off the recorded phone call from Sam 2 to Eve before she addresses the original Sam off-screen? We don't hear him play the entire phone call. Perhaps the emotion of the moment was too much for him, and he switched it off? Does that mean that Sam 3 isn't expecting the original Sam to be there when he returns? That could be a bit awkward.

Nick Danger
12-02-10, 11:42 PM
I've never heard of this movie before today. Someone gave me their Netflix disk and said I'd like it. We thought it was great.

I didn't notice that the Earth looked large in the shots. I did notice that after telling us that the base is on the far side of the moon, a short drive could reach a point where the Earth is 15 degrees above the horizon.

Traxan
06-19-11, 10:29 PM
I just saw this the other night. I noticed that the four surface miners were named after New Testament authors, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. I thought it would have been a nice touch if they were named Roger, David, Nick and Richard. :)

I do agree with others here that while it was a spectacular movie it had some serious illogic, not the least of which was the main discovery.

I do have a scientific question. The concept behind Helium3 as energy is that the lunar surface has been absorbing Helium from our sun for billions of years. So why were they farming the DARK side of the moon, which got no sunlight? They should be farming the side that faced us.

Oh, and did anyone notice the huge design flaw in the harvesters? They spewed rocks out the back, right in the face of the lunar rovers Sam drove. So as he was trying to dock with that thing he had a shower of rocks in his face. That made no sense at all.

Maxflier
06-19-11, 11:39 PM
What a coincidence that I just read through this thread earlier today after watching the movie this morning and it just happens to get bumped today after 7 months of dormancy.
Fantastic movie by the way.

Lt Ripley
06-20-11, 04:11 AM
I do have a scientific question. The concept behind Helium3 as energy is that the lunar surface has been absorbing Helium from our sun for billions of years. So why were they farming the DARK side of the moon, which got no sunlight? They should be farming the side that faced us.


The far side (the side we can't see from Earth) of the moon gets tons of sunlight. There is a reason the moon has phases.

Trevor
06-20-11, 08:32 AM
I do have a scientific question. The concept behind Helium3 as energy is that the lunar surface has been absorbing Helium from our sun for billions of years. So why were they farming the DARK side of the moon, which got no sunlight? They should be farming the side that faced us.
The far side (the side we can't see from Earth) of the moon gets tons of sunlight. There is a reason the moon has phases.

^ Just a mild mental lapse I'm sure, but this reminds me of some of my borderline stupidity.

I'm generally a mildly smart guy, full scholarship to college and the like, but have a huge mental block when it comes to orbital dynamics. Whenever I see the moon and the sun in the sky at the same time, I get all kinds of confused.

I'm sure I'd grasp it if I thought it out, but it's just one of those areas that I've chosen to competely ignore all of my life. Electricity and butterflies are others. It enables me to spend every day in childlike wonder.

B.A.
04-25-14, 01:44 PM
Finally watched this, and it was fantastic.

Solid Snake
04-25-14, 02:44 PM
I'm still amazed by its production.

RichC2
04-25-14, 03:05 PM
I'm more amused by his filmography:

Director (4 credits)
2016 Warcraft (filming)
2011 Source Code
2009 Moon
2002 Whistle

Dan
04-25-14, 03:07 PM
The son of Ziggy Stardust has connections, yo.

Kicker_of_Elves
04-25-14, 04:21 PM
I'm hoping he does one of the new Star Wars movies. Loved Moon and thought Source Code was really good too.

RocShemp
04-25-14, 06:27 PM
It's a shame he passed on Man of Steel (although I respect his reasons). I would have loved to see his approach to Superman.

B.A.
04-25-14, 08:15 PM
I'm still amazed by its production.
No kidding. It looked amazing, and the budget was only $5m.

Kicker_of_Elves
04-25-14, 08:20 PM
It's a shame he passed on Man of Steel (although I respect his reasons). I would have loved to see his approach to Superman.


Never knew he passed on that, that would've been great to see. I follow him on twitter and he seems like a cool dude. I've never played Warcraft at all but I'll be seeing the movie just cause of him.

Why So Blu?
04-25-14, 08:42 PM
Source Code is okay. Moon is a masterpiece.