Moon

Eric Solo

Member
This got a good review on TV the other day. It sounds like a rip-off of 2001 , but the reviewer says it is NOT a rip-off. Sam Rockwell is one of my favorite actors. He was great in GalaxyQuest and Green Mile.
 

Bjorn Heimdall

Active member
More trailer options (HD) and a clip at Apple trailers

http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony/moon/

I'm really looking forward to this, have for some time but it doesn't even have a release date for my country(n) so I'll probably have to wait for it on DVD.

I had no idea Duncan Jones was David Bowies son. That's cool, David Bowie is one of my favourite artists(y)
 

Gear

New member
Ali G speaks about da moon.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/hTKedyQQkZQ&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/hTKedyQQkZQ&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>​



Rezpekt.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Just got back from seeing "Moon".

It was VERY good I must say. But I was expecting that.

I advise everyone to go see it because I'm sure this will go unnoticed.

Lastly, it's very different from Kubrick's 2001. Not even close to a rip-off.
 

bennihana123

New member
Is it rated R for cursing, or is there nudity/violence? My younger brother wants to see it, and my dad is wondering whether or not to take him.

I heard there is another twist that isn't shown in the trailers. Is it good?

Thanks :whip:
 

Bjorn Heimdall

Active member
bennihana123 said:
Is it rated R for cursing, or is there nudity/violence? My younger brother wants to see it, and my dad is wondering whether or not to take him.

I heard there is another twist that isn't shown in the trailers. Is it good?

Thanks :whip:

There probably is. But why would you want to know that before seeing it?
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
bennihana123 said:
Is it rated R for cursing, or is there nudity/violence? My younger brother wants to see it, and my dad is wondering whether or not to take him.

I heard there is another twist that isn't shown in the trailers. Is it good?

Thanks :whip:

There's some F bombs dropped. You see Rockwell's bare ass briefly while he's taking a shower. The violence is really nothing. Imagine a fight that you'd see in the hallways back in High School. Nothing bad at all.

And, yeah, there's a few great twists. I'd say if you're lil brother is mature enough he'd like it. But it won't scar him or anything.
 

the lost ark

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Looks like a few have. I merged your thread with the prior one on the subject...welcome to the forum, and be sure to take advantage of the fact that it's been around awhile when exploring.

Thank you and sorry about that it didn't come into my mind when I posted this. But anyway, this was amazing Sam Rockwell is so underrated.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Saw this last night. Thought it was a very enjoyable film, from the moment we're treated to the isolation of the lunar mining station, to the unexpected twist, and the satisfying ending.

The director Duncan Jones said he made this for a tenth of the budget of Danny Boyle's Sunshine. It hardly seems possible as it looked so slick, even down to the miniature work, which Jones explained was both for budget and as an allusion to the films he grew up with.

Three major allusions came to mind as I was watching. First there was Silent Running (the lone astronaut tending to his duties, including talking to his plants!); 2001 (Gerty); and Tarkovsky's Solaris (Sam's vision of his daughter aboard the station).

Jones also cited Alien and Outland as influences, while refuting 2001 as a direct influence, saying that it was an inspiration for his parents' generation, and that the films he had in mind were those in turn harking back to 2001.

Most of those aforementioned films seem to be landmarks in science-fiction, and Moon fits very respectably into that tradition.

Sam Rockwell's multiple performances were entirely engrossing.

This tiny film puts many a 'blockbuster' to shame.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Pale Horse said:
I had a big problem with GERTY. Spoiled an otherwise original film.


In one of the post-screening Q&A sessions Duncan Jones said that he had written a paper on morality and artificial intelligence.

Gerty sprang from that idea. I found this page in which he expands on the subject:


Duncan Jones on the Moon

Duncan Jones discusses his movie Moon.

Published on July 13, 2009 by Matthew Hutson in Psyched!


...

MH: You studied philosophy in college?

DJ: I did, I was at college in Ohio doing philosophy and then I went on to graduate school at Vanderbilt in Nashville. It was general moral philosophy, but also I was trying to make some arguments for how you might possibly apply ethics to sentient machines when we get to that stage. It was a little premature.

MH: The title of your undergrad thesis was "How to Kill Your Computer Friend: An Investigation of the Mind/Body Problem and How It Relates to the Hypothetical Creation of a Thinking Machine."

DJ: That was pretentious bull****, really. The paper itself was pretty good. It had some good ideas in it but it had a stupid title, sorry. When you're in college everything seems much more important than it really is.

MH: When you mix the mind/body problem with thinking machines something's gotta come of that.

DJ: Absolutely. I was looking into Daniel Dennett's work with the Cog project at MIT trying to create machines that were self-aware and just expanding on that from a moral philosophy point of view, where would we stand if and when Cog ever got to the point where it was self-aware and what are our duties to it? Can we turn it off? Just things like that. Daniel Dennett describes "functional equivalence:" If something always as far as you're able to sense it is doing what you expect a sentient being to do, even if it's completely artificial, it's your duty to treat it as a sentient thing. That's it in a nutshell. I didn't need to write a paper, I could have just told you in a couple sentences.

MH: It seemed like that also played a role in the plot of the movie.

DJ: In a way. Gerty [the computer in Moon, voiced by Kevin Spacey] was my antithesis to Cog. The idea was, Gerty isn't sentient. Gerty is actually very, very simple in some ways. He has one through line which is I'm going to make sure that Sam is safe and looked after and returns home at the end of three years. That's his job, and it starts when Sam wakes up and it ends when Sam is in the return vehicle going home. After having three years of not having anyone around. as far as Sam's concerned, Gerty is his best buddy, someone he can rely on and treat like a human being. For Sam 2, he's just a machine and for the audience he's possibly Hal 9000. Everyone brings their own baggage to Gerty. But Gerty's actually very simple. So I think that's quite interesting from a psychological point of view, that Gerty is the sum of what people bring to him.

MH: I think that goes with the general trend of anthropomorphizing things. People do that with their iPods.

DJ: Absolutely. That's absolutely the case. I do it with my laptop. You hate me, you hate me!

MH: To me the limitations of Gerty came to the fore when I realized how easily he could be deceived. Sam said, "I'm just going outside to check on the thing, I swear." And Gerty's like, "Okay I believe you." In any human, the bull**** detector would go off.

DJ: I think with Gerty, as infinetesimal as the chances were that Sam is telling the truth, he had to give him the benefit of the doubt. Because Sam is the guy that he is there to look after. And if there were micrometeorites or if there were some kind of damage to the base, Sam should go outside to check it. So even if it's incredibly unlikely, he has to let him do it.

MH: Do you think much about what aspects of social interaction are important to simulate in artificial intelligence?

DJ: It's important that a computer system which is going to be able to interact with human beings be more than just like Eliza, you know that old computer program where you would type in things and it would give you crappy answers back. It would not pass the Turing test. Basically if you want to have a computer system that could pass the Turing test, it as a machine is going to have to be able to self-reference and use its own experience and the sense data that it's taking in to basically create its own understanding of the world and use that as a reference point for all new sense data that's coming in to it. That to me is really interesting. My old girlfriend a long time ago who I went to Vanderbilt with, she ended up on a psychology track at graduate school and one of the things I was always asking her is how much evidence is there that a human being is a purely physical system and that what we consider the mind is actually just a manifestation of a physical system, of a self-referencing system where you have sense data coming in and some kind of system in the brain which is referencing that and comparing it to experience and a little feedback loop. It seemed that there was at least some evidence that that might be the way things work. I'm certainly not a dualist, I believe that everything is a physical system, so to me that makes sense and the only way you are going to replicate a sentient being in a machine is to create that same system. I went off on a really big tangent there. To answer your question, yes.
 
Top