"Moon" - what was all the fuss about?

[T'Baio]

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

That was my only question at the end of the film.

What's with the girl he hallucinated?

 

[Starkers]

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

That was my only question at the end of the film.

What's with the girl he hallucinated?

Yeah when we first saw her, and before the clone issue became obvious, I wondered if it was an alien communication, or even an honest to God ghost. She wasn't Sam's wife was she?

 

[T'Baio]

No, if I recall correctly, it was a younger girl. I might be wrong, though.

I know for sure it wasn't his wife, though. I considered that during the film.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

^The girl was Sam's daughter. I believe they said something along the lines of it was a play on twins having a "psychic" connection, and because Sam and the clone are the same person it was a stronger connection, the clone was perceiving real Sam's interaction with his daughter.

 

[Starkers]

^ Ah, that would make sense.

 

[Avalon]

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 haven't had a chance to listen to the commentary track myself yet, but apparently Jones says the three year expiration date is something built into the clones.


I wondered about the hallucinations (or, I guess, more properly bleed-through from SamPrime's life), too, but something someone at IMDb pointed out made a lot of sense to me: When Sam opens his eyes after the crash, we're now seeing things from Sam2's point of view. He's not hallucinating, so we don't see the hallucinations any more. It's probably a safe bet that the first Sam is still having hallucinations in his weakened state; we're just not privy to what he's seeing now. (Either that or having Sam2 to talk to is keeping the hallucinations at bay...)

 

[Lapis Exilis]

I must agree with the poster who pegged Moon as a tragedy. Which speaks to the issue of originality - the tragedy is a fairly constrained genre, and originality simply isn't part of the equation when you're dealing with the futility of existence.

And Moon poses interesting questions about the fundamental nature of humanity. There is rather an assumption that the clones are human in some essential way (thus the tragedy of their existence). The appearance of Sam-6 (young Sam) who is grappling with anger issues that it is implied comes directly from things Sam-Prime was dealing with when he was cloned, contrasted with Sam-5, who has achieved some self-control and peace (as well as an intense appreciation of his own loneliness) indicates the clones are capable of emotional growth. However, the continuing building of the miniature city implies that each of the clones has gone through this same process, begging questions of free will. So, are they human? Are they, shall we say, "authentic" copies of Sam Bell? Is the movie in effect posing the question - if you do not vary either the biology or the environment of a being, will even multiple copies of that being do the exact same things? If they do the exact same things, are they still human when we define human as makign unique choices? Even if they aren't truly human should we still feel the horror, loneliness and fear of Sam-5 realizing that he has no place in the universe except the desolate wasteland of the Moon?

See, for me, an intelligent film is one that poses questions like that. Have other stories posed simliar questions? Sure. But I don't see how that makes this story any less smart for grappling with philosophical issues in the midst of a poignant performance.

 

[Myasishchev]

The problem is the unobtainium (sorry) they're digging for is all on the Moon.

I did like this bit, since He-3 is pretty much the best commercial fusion fuel on account of it being anuetronic. They should really switch in Trek to He-3. I bet they have to refurbish their impulse engines, like, constantly. Bunch of deuterium-fusing dorks.

And Moon poses interesting questions about the fundamental nature of humanity. There is rather an assumption that the clones are human in some essential way (thus the tragedy of their existence). The appearance of Sam-6 (young Sam) who is grappling with anger issues that it is implied comes directly from things Sam-Prime was dealing with when he was cloned, contrasted with Sam-5, who has achieved some self-control and peace (as well as an intense appreciation of his own loneliness) indicates the clones are capable of emotional growth. However, the continuing building of the miniature city implies that each of the clones has gone through this same process, begging questions of free will. So, are they human? Are they, shall we say, "authentic" copies of Sam Bell? Is the movie in effect posing the question - if you do not vary either the biology or the environment of a being, will even multiple copies of that being do the exact same things? If they do the exact same things, are they still human when we define human as makign unique choices? Even if they aren't truly human should we still feel the horror, loneliness and fear of Sam-5 realizing that he has no place in the universe except the desolate wasteland of the Moon?

This is what I would have wanted to say, if I were smarter.

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

Yes.

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.

Another thought--Sam is, after a fashion, the most powerful man in the world. He could actually hold hostage the entire Earth. Sam has the capability of destroying or halting the energy infrastructure that feeds the entire human economy. It's like the entire world's oil supply came from a single well, operated by a single man. You'd want to be pretty sure the guy you sent was trustworthy. Granted, apparently you can easily send up gunmen to kill him, but in the time between Sam deciding Earth doesn't deserve fusion anymore and Eliza showing up, he could do more damage than any single human being in history.

Although in light of this inference it makes choosing a hotheaded Sam Bell questionable. Though maybe they made him perfect for the job, since he had something to prove to his wife (and maybe, in the putative simulation, he really was the only one who kept his shit).

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.

Never saw Red Planet. It did look like it sucked. MtM isn't perfect, or even great, by any stretch--but it's some really, really good parts. Whatever happened to Gary Sinise, anyway?

 

[T'Baio]

Gary Sinise is the star of CSI: New York, in its sixth season.

 

[Myasishchev]

Oh. That explains why he dropped off my radar.

 

[plynch]

I couldn't watch this movie without thinking of all the older, better movies it was ripping o...err, homaging. I was sitting there thinking "Man, the sets look awfully like 2001, they've even got an octagonal corridor and a computer with a creepy child molester voice, the plot is awfully similar to Solaris, the three-year lifespan thing is from Blade Runner, hey, weren't those Purina dog chow logos all over the place in Alien too?"

It wasn't a bad movie, but I felt like I'd seen it all before.

It was clearly homage to 2001; some people speculate it is meant to be set in the same "universe" a bit later.