Talk:The Black Hole

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Film Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start
This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
???
This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article. Feel free to add your name to the participants list and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet been assigned a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Discussion 2005

I wasn't sure how to reword this in the article itself, but it bears pointing out that, in the film, the Cygnus does not lose its gravitational control because the battle between the Palimino crew and the Cygnus robots. It loses control because of a huge meteor storm that strikes the ship.

Well, why don't you write that down in the article? By the way, is the black hole, in this film, and actual hole in space or is it a concentration of mass like it is in real life? I suspect it's probably a portal to another dimension. "A new reality of existence"? Scorpionman 01:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, a black hole is a mass compressed to a single point in space. Its gravity is so strong that light cannot escape it, which explains the moniker. As for what happens to space inside a black hole, ask Stephen Hawking. -- Popefelix 13:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Disney Ending

I didn't think this was appropriate to the article so I thought I'd put it here. It seems that despite its PG rating, the ending of the movie is still quite "disneyfied", with the cast members placed into some sort of heaven/hell scenario, rather than crushed into a single point in space due to catastrophic gravitational collapse. Or perhaps the entire ending is a hallucination caused during a period of unconsciousness prior to death due to being crushed to a single point in space?

We may never know the definitive truth about black holes (unless we can find some sort of energy capable of escaping back over their event horizon), but I'm at least 99.99% confident that what happens to you when you enter one has nothing to do with whether you were a good or bad person, any more than what happens to you after you leap out of a skyscraper window has to do with your moral qualities. Gravity is gravity. RudolfRadna 20:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The idea that a black hole is a gateway to another place in space/time or another space/time entirely is an old one in science fiction. That Disney used this is not a particular slight against them or an indictment of the film in any way, it's simply one of the ideas present in the genre. Iceberg3k 04:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

And science fiction is science FICTION. Wanna pick a fight with Kubrick for the Star Child?--RicardoC 20:33, 12 September 2005 (UTC)


I readed the book of the movie "The black hole". In the book the three people die when they voyage in the inner of black hole, and their bodies compremied into atoms. But their minds live.

Philipp Mevius, Germany 15 December 2005

[edit] Classic?

In this article the film was referred to as "a science fiction classic." I took that line out, because so far as I know it's mostly considered a bad film by those who remember it at all. Some critical reviews backing this notion of TBH being a newly appreciated classic might justify the line, if anyone could find any. Sleeper99999 13:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It's a cult film, really. Certainly not like Monty Python and the Holy Grail, but there's enough of a following to it to get a small DVD re-release I've seen tucked away in Wal-Mart in the past few months. Some people are still watching (including myself). Also, I have to dispute the "answer to Star Wars" theory, since it was so long in preproduction, though certainly progress might have been sped up because of it. I don't have any evidence to back this up aside from a promo booklet in a limited-edition VHS re-release tin, which could very well be biased, so for now I leave that as it is.
I agree with the assertion the this is a cult film. I've always loved it, but it's not to everyone's taste.194.75.129.2 02:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)Robovski
I think the term "cult film" is banded around far too liberally to the point where it now just refers to "any film that did not do very well at the box office". Just because it got released on DVD does not in any way make it a cult film or a classic of any kind (all manner of rubbish gets released on DVD). Personally, I like The Black Hole for nostalgic reasons...but I must also confess that I dont know a single other person who does, save the people on this message forum. I think for something to achieve cult status, it has to have a very visible fan following. Star Trek in the 1970s could be said to have had a cult following. Buffy The Vampire Slayer, now some years after it ended, could still be said to have a cult following (because there are graphic novels, various websites, etc). Even Firefly (a TV series that never even completed a first season) could be said to have a cult following, because it lives on in various multimedia formats. But are there Black Hole fan conventions? Are there recent Black Hole graphic novels? Are there dozens of Black Hole websites out there? Nope. A few people professing to like it on a message board (myself included) does not make it a "cult following". MassassiUK 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel?

Been a while since I watched this movie, but I remember as a kid watching it over and over until the VHS tape wore out. But anyway, I don't recall the crew ever encountering an angel. I remember Reinhart merging with Maximillian "in hell", but the crew are then seen entering the black hole in the escape ship and they get all the flashback voices and flashing lights as they pass down a wormhole or whatever it was. I don't recall ever seeing an angel. Cyberia23 18:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just watched it about a month ago, and there is indeed an angel in the part where they fly through heaven or the ice castle or whatever it is. --Quasipalm 18:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, okay, it must have been something they see in the tunnel then. They didn't stop and talk to it. I think I remember the castle thing and recall some "ghostly" images or something drifting past them for a moment. Cyberia23 19:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Good point -- I may just have been a ghost, I don't remeber any wings or anything else angley. --Quasipalm 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centaurus & The Black Hole

I was in the Student Union building at the University of Arizona in 1977, when Robert McCall showed us a slideshow during Desertcon 77 a Sci Fi Convention.

Bob showed us the new Disney movie called "Centaurus" and showed us the artwork he was doing for Disney studios.

He showed us the Cygnus which was then called Centaurus.

He said the movie would be about the 1st manned trip to Alpha Centauri.

He showed us a robot holding a childs hand on the deck of the starship.

I yelled out, "A boy and his robot on their was to Alpha Centauri! This is "Lost In Space" and it is plaglarism! You cant do this, you'll get sued!"! And then I told him that you may have to buy the rights to LIS from Irwin Allen. Bob was dejected.

When the studio found out, they changed the story from a trip to Alpha Centauri to a Black Hole. They got rid of the children and had a robot and his sidekick, instead. They kept the starship and artwork and renamed it the Cygnus and renamed the effort "The Black Hole".

The movie was panned by critics and made little money. Later the Disney Board of investors voted to remove Disneys president and replace him with Michael Eisner. He started Touchstone Pictures to market Disney made movies to PG rated audiences. The whole thing is documented in Time magazine under the name "Rumblings On Dopey Drive". around 1979-80.

Supercool Dude 14:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kate's line "habitable life"

What is wrong with Kate's line "to discover habitable life in outer space"? Doesn't this mean the same thing as this article, Habitability? Basicly they were out there looking for planets or moons that could sustain life. I don't think it's a dialogue mistake at all. --Ricky540 23:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a dialogue goof. They probably meant to say "to search for life and habitable planets in outer space". But to say "habitable life" doesn't make any sense. 79.65.66.38 06:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Unless you're a tapeworm. 82.30.240.26 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plaglarism

Yes, it was true. This movie began as an accidental plaglarism case and evolved into even more.

You see, the ending of this movie was almost identical to an episode of Space 1999 "The Black Sun" where they accidentally fall into a black hole and rendezvous with some sort of a spirit and then somehow miraculously survive G-Forces, strong enough to rip apart your body into molecules.

Even though Disney Studios went out of their way to avoid plaglarising Irwin Allen's Lost In Space, they wound up copying a TV series and got away with it.

Supercool Dude 00:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Red Meteors?

Far be it for me to argue for the accuracy of a family-oriented science-fiction film, but I'm not sure if the glowing-red-meteors bit counts as a factual error. The _Cygnus_ *is* hovering just outside the vanishing point of a black hole, after all. Matter swirling around a black hole does start to heat up and emit radiation. X-ray radiation from matter being sucked into a black hole is the only way we can currently "observe" something as (ordinarily) dark as a black hole. Is there a particular source for the "red-meteors-are-unscientific" claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.50.138.48 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Well if the black hole itself is making the meteors so incredibly hot, why isn't it making the ship hot too? After all, the ship is just made out of metal and glass. Bear in mind that the meteors are hot before they even reach the ship, let alone enter the black hole. 79.65.18.9 02:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Remember, the Cygnus had an artificial gravity field that stabilized the ship, but the meteors had no such protection. But then a meteor strike disabled the Cygnus' field generator, which left the ship vulnerable. Sadly, this is where the film departed from the physical conventions it had established earlier...in other words, suddenly the human characters could survive in the vacuum of space. This article presents the first explanation for this gaffe that I have ever seen -- which is that the actors hated the space suit costumes, so they just shot the EVA scenes without them! Very interesting. Sterling Gillette 23:34, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Special effects diary

The person who was the main builder of the Cygnus models used to have a sort of diary online (before the whole blog thing started) with part of it about his work on "The Black Hole". There were three models built. One was very large and highly detailed for closeups. Some shots used a motion control camera, which at times had the lens within 1/8" of the model. Then there was a smaller model for long distance shots. The third model was the biggest but wasn't the entire ship- just part of the main corridor. That one was used for the scene where giant meteor plows through the middle of the ship, smashing everything.

The shot was all set to go when the Disney bigwigs showed up to see how things were progressing. Murphy's Law kicked in, the giant meteor came off its tracks and the shot was ruined, along with the $100,000 model that was intended to be used just the one time. So they had to rebuild the model and destroy it properly. Fortunately it worked the 2nd time!

The large, super detailed model was the one seen getting twisted up as it entered the black hole. It was attached to some hydraulic rams for that. The only studio model of the Cygnus that may still exist is the smaller, long shot one.

I wish I had saved a copy of that guy's website, it's been gone for a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bizzybody (talk • contribs) 10:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robot design

Could someone figure out who came up with the designs for the robots and robot costumes and explain a bit about how they worked on these? There are some movies which are almost unrelievedly bad, but are rescued from obscurity by one tiny detail - in this case the uniquely "friendly" and "creepy" appearances of the key robots. 70.15.116.59 (talk) 19:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lack of technical analysis & boring assumptions

I am not a filmmaker. Yet i think i can tell if a film is technically well shot. i think this movie has some very good camera shots (often complicated in terms of setup and hence a big effort). One does not make big efforts just to hit a box office and ride on the wave of another movie(star wars). In addition the soundtrack by john barry is i think one of his best works. This whole project looks like someone really put something at risk. A career for example. Plaglarism - are you sure? what is wrong about getting some inspiration and adapting ideas to create something new. Besides human ideas appear to be reduntant regardless of its source & time. I think (plaglarism) this is an assumption and needs some serious differentiation - not to mention reference and proof. However this article could need some clear technical analysis of the camera, plot and music by an 'expert': The concept & design of the movie so to speak. Here Art design is a crucial element of camera due to the fact that it defines the photographical 'shot' of a stage with all its subelements as angle, light and movement. I think this movie deserves proper analysis rather than pointless arguments about mere interpretation, i.e. wether this or that is too fictive or not. (not to mention the sissy boy discussion about 'habitable life' - man - get a life!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.97.178 (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a fanboy are we?79.66.46.232 (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The end of the movie

I always understood the end of the movie to imply that Frank McRae (Kate's Father) had not been killed by Reinhardt, but that his brain was inside Maximilian. That is why Reinhardt asked Kate to protect him from Maximilian after he killed Durant. This is why I thought it made sense that Maximilian wanted to kill Reinhardt and why he left him alone to die, and why he came after him in the 'acid trip' sequence. I also thought that Kate is aware of this by the end of the film, and this is why she sees Reinhardt imprisoned in Maximilian in hell at the end of the movie, as revenge for what he did to her father. I also thought that the 'Angel' was actually Frank McRae escaping from Maximilian at the end of the sequence. I could be wrong, but I think this theory is as good as any and I would like to add it to the article in some fashion. 24.83.90.35 (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)