data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/64fdb/64fdb49e1deef7e76d4fda3cd25b9e0d41da71d2" alt=""
"I'll never go back into space - it kills you. The standards set by the classics - 2001, Aliens, Solaris - are so high you have to at least match them and it's bloody hard work" says Boyle. He even revealed a little more about one aborted subplot for "Sunshine" in the interview - "There are things that just don’t work in space, like romance. We tried it for Sunshine and it just didn’t work. If you don’t get everything absolutely right it just punctures the film."
5 comments:
SOLARIS? Is he fucking kidding?
You don't like movies that move at a glacial pace?
Oh, you mean YOU couldn't make it work, right, Danny? That's okay. We all know that you and Alex Garland can't help but boggle things in the last reel. Better luck next time, kid.
"If you don’t get everything absolutely right it just punctures the film."
Which is particularly bad with a space film, because all the air will rush out.
Jordan, why are you harping on about Solaris when he named Aliens and not Alien? Your newfound respect for Aliens has made you soft.
Because Aliens is only bad when you compare it to Alien. (I even think that's reasonably consistent with my position in my long "I hate Aliens" phase.)
Anyway, talking about "sci-fi classics" isn't the same as talking about "what we all like, individually or in groups." Unfortunately it's not up to me to decide what constitutes a "sci-fi classic." But you can't bring up a completely failed experiment (e.g. a flop) like Solaris and expect everyone to agree that it's a "classic" just because you personally like it.
Here's octopunk: "La la la la! I don't care! I'm just being silly! La la la!"
Post a Comment