"Moon" - what was all the fuss about?

[Forbin]

How was it ANYthing like 2001?

Aside from a few obvious affectionate homages in set design, the stories are nothing alike.

 

[Canadave]

utter bullshit film, it ripped off 2001 shamelessly and its boring.

What? Forgive me, I must have missed the alien monoliths, Jupiter missions and psychotic computers in Moon.

Actually, I quite enjoyed how Moon very deliberately subverted the trope of a psychotic computer that 2001 really popularized. I thought that was quite clever and well-plotted.

 

[Kegg]

Actually, I quite enjoyed how Moon very deliberately subverted the trope of a psychotic computer that 2001 really popularized. I thought that was quite clever and well-plotted.

Precisely. Moon is knowingly homaging and slyly playing with the conventions of sci-fi films from that era.

What's the difference between a homage and a ripoff? Well, a ripoff would prefer that you didn't notice the connection, while for a homage that's the whole point. The use of GERTY is clearly the latter. A homage need not be good (was it Mission to Mars or Red Planet that also had a red-eyed computer/robot? Either way blecch) but it is sort of different.

 

[Canadave]

^ I think it was Red Planet, I don't remember that in Mission to Mars. Incidentally, I thought the latter had the potential to be an enjoyable movie, but it falls apart and gets all silly in the third act, alas.

But you're definitely right about what makes Moon work so well. It takes a lot of standard science-fiction conventions (cloning, AIs, people isolated in space, etc.) but uses them in a way that makes them feel fresh and interesting, rather than old and tired. Personally, I can't wait to see more from Duncan Jones because of this.

 

[Broccoli]

I like it quite a bit. Did Sam Rockwell play the 3rd Sam Bell as well? I keep seeing another actor who played "Young Sam" and I am not quite sure what they mean by that.

The same applies to originality, which is typically not a strong point of sci-fi films. 2001 and Blade Runner are the two films most frequently cited as the best sci-fi flicks ever, and both are based (loosely, it must be said) on literary sources.

While that is the case for Blade Runner, 2001 follows the book pretty closely (Jupiter instead of Saturn notwithstanding). That being said, it should be mentioned that 2001 the novel and 2001 the movie were made at the same time and neither were really based on one another in a traditional sense. The book just happened to be released earlier.

It's like complaining that someone revealed that Bruce Wayne becomes Batman in Batman Begins, or that Jesus dies in the Passion of the Christ, or that the aliens are hostile in Independence Day.

SPOLIERS!!!11!!!11

 

[Harvey]

It's true that the novel 2001 was written simultaneously with the film, but both were based on Clarke's earlier short story, The Sentinel. Rather loosely, as that only covers the bits on the moon, IIRC.

 

[lennier1]

As someone mentioned before it's about the story and not just about blowing stuff up. And to me that's what makes it so much better than most of modern science fiction.
"Moon" isn't about the "twist" but about how the character copes with the situation he suddenly finds himself in.

Although my absolute favorite from the last couple of years is "The Man From Earth". The concept of "12 Angry Men" but done with a good science fiction story. Pretty much sums up modern science fiction movies where a room full of character actors and a budget of only $200,000 turns out as a much better and "real" science fiction movie than productions with a double or triple million dollar budget.

If only there were more investors who'd appreciate good storytelling instead of huge explosions with practically nonexistant stories. But then again with today's audience there's just no profit in movies like that. Pearls before swine.

 

[Myasishchev]

^ I'm rather of the opinion he did, because the company would have wanted a baseline to make sure this was the correct person(s) for the job. If you've made all these clones and shipped them to the moon, you don't want to discover two years in that the clone can't handle the solitude, goes nuts and starts tearing shit up. Apart from everything else, you need to find a new model because the other clones, given the highly similar experiences, would be likely to do the same.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Hm, that's a good point.

I'll counter only that you could simulate the isolation pretty cheaply on a ground station, and perhaps the job itself.

Incidentally, I thought the latter had the potential to be an enjoyable movie, but it falls apart and gets all silly in the third act, alas.

I rather liked Mission to Mars. Probably give it three stars out of four. I've never fully understood why it was so widely hated when much worse movies exist, but maybe I'm remembering it wrongly. I do vividly recall the "Dance" scene as one of the best I've ever seen in a movie.

 

[Kegg]

It's true that the novel 2001 was written simultaneously with the film, but both were based on Clarke's earlier short story, The Sentinel. Rather loosely, as that only covers the bits on the moon, IIRC.

Precisely.

Incidentally, I thought the latter had the potential to be an enjoyable movie, but it falls apart and gets all silly in the third act, alas.

I rather liked Mission to Mars.

So you liked that but disliked Solaris and Silent Running? Clearly I have a mite or few of differences with you.

Truthfully, though, both Mission to Mars and Red Planet have run together in my mind. They came out at around the same time, and were both pretty bad. One of them had Carrie Ann Moss, one of them (the same one?) had goofy aliens at the end, and one or the other had algae on Mars or something, but anyway I recall the writing in either being fairly dismal, plodding and obvious.

 

[Trent Roman]

Hm, that's a good point.

I'll counter only that you could simulate the isolation pretty cheaply on a ground station, and perhaps the job itself.

Not a bad idea. That way if the original cracks under pressure, all he can damage is a simulation, not an expensive actual instalation all the way on the moon. For that matter, having sets and simulation would let you test out multiple candidates at the same time--three years is a long time to wait on a single investment--and clone whichever performed best.

EDIT: Plus, such a scenario would make more sense given the outpost's construction: an underground lab filled with rows upon rows of clones seems like the kind of thing you'd want to build first, then layer the rest on top, rather than having to do all the construction work beneath a pre-existing structure once Bell had proven himself.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Broccoli]

It's true that the novel 2001 was written simultaneously with the film, but both were based on Clarke's earlier short story, The Sentinel. Rather loosely, as that only covers the bits on the moon, IIRC.

The Sentinel in addition to other stories written by both Clark and Kubrick were used as starting points, and the end product was not a direct adaptation of anything specific.

Hm, that's a good point.

I'll counter only that you could simulate the isolation pretty cheaply on a ground station, and perhaps the job itself.

Not a bad idea. That way if the original cracks under pressure, all he can damage is a simulation, not an expensive actual instalation all the way on the moon. For that matter, having sets and simulation would let you test out multiple candidates at the same time--three years is a long time to wait on a single investment--and clone whichever performed best.

EDIT: Plus, such a scenario would make more sense given the outpost's construction: an underground lab filled with rows upon rows of clones seems like the kind of thing you'd want to build first, then layer the rest on top, rather than having to do all the construction work beneath a pre-existing structure once Bell had proven himself.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

Maybe they were going to do it anyway, but just didn't create the clones until after the first 3 year contract to see how their test subject did. If Sam-Prime failed, they'd send another person up there. And would do so until they had a success and cloned that person. And say all their test subjects cracked...then they can retrofit the basement for another function.

 

[Kegg]

The Sentinel in addition to other stories written by both Clark and Kubrick were used as starting points, and the end product was not a direct adaptation of anything specific.

I've read the other stories (there were five). The idea of the Discovery's design may have come from one of them, but it's mostly the Sentinel.

The point stands that they were loosely based on literary sources, though. There is stuff in 2001 which is not original to science fiction.

Hm, that's a good point.

I'll counter only that you could simulate the isolation pretty cheaply on a ground station, and perhaps the job itself.

Not a bad idea. That way if the original cracks under pressure, all he can damage is a simulation, not an expensive actual instalation all the way on the moon.

The problem is the unobtainium (sorry) they're digging for is all on the Moon. That's the whole point of the numerously cloned Sam Bells. There are probably more practical ways to do this, definitely, but the location is everything.

 

[Brutal Strudel]

As someone mentioned before it's about the story and not just about blowing stuff up. And to me that's what makes it so much better than most of modern science fiction.
"Moon" isn't about the "twist" but about how the character copes with the situation he suddenly finds himself in.

In a way, it was the movie Steven Soderbergh's Solaris was trying to be and didn't quite succeed.

 

[T'Baio]

I thought Soderbergh's Solaris was brilliant. *shrug*

 

[Harvey]

Me as well. I wish it was out on Blu-Ray. *Sigh*

 

[Trent Roman]

The problem is the unobtainium (sorry) they're digging for is all on the Moon. That's the whole point of the numerously cloned Sam Bells. There are probably more practical ways to do this, definitely, but the location is everything.

Sure, I'm just suggesting that they tested their personel closer to home before/while building the expensive lunar facility. The movie itself certainly took place on the moon; I don't think anybody is denying that.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Starkers]

I had one thing bugging me after I came out of the cinema. It's not major but I was curious and I'd be interested to see what others though.

Did the Sams start to die after three years because of the radiation they were exposed to on the moon, or was it simply built into them genetically because three years was the point when a Sam would start to question their situation? I assumed it was the former but it wasn't addressed.

Also (I know I said one thing) I was surprised they didn't make anything more of the hallucination that makes Sam crash.

 

[BigFoot]

I always thought that after 3 years the clone started to die. Most likely as a by-product of the cloning process.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

I had one thing bugging me after I came out of the cinema. It's not major but I was curious and I'd be interested to see what others though.

Did the Sams start to die after three years because of the radiation they were exposed to on the moon, or was it simply built into them genetically because three years was the point when a Sam would start to question their situation? I assumed it was the former but it wasn't addressed.

Also (I know I said one thing) I was surprised they didn't make anything more of the hallucination that makes Sam crash.

I assumed that was partly due to Sam thinking his term was three years and after 3 years alone a person would be going slightly nuts and partly a limitation of the cloning.

 

[Rii]

I wanted to like Moon. In the end all I can say is that I didn't hate it. Great score by Clint Mansell as usual, though.