News Ticker

TRAILER: Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia

As end of the world premises go, this one’s a little shaky: a planet long-hidden behind the sun, finally threatens to collide with the Earth. This looks more like a drama than an action flick, so maybe sf audiences will be a little more forgiving with the science. As if.

[via Obsessed With Film]

About John DeNardo (13013 Articles)
John DeNardo is the Managing Editor at SF Signal and a columnist at Kirkus Reviews. He also likes bagels. So there.

8 Comments on TRAILER: Lars Von Trier’s Melancholia

  1. After seeing Dogville, I’ve decided my life will be happier if I never watch another Van Trier movie again

  2. To criticise a Lars Von Trier film for a lack of scientific plausability is to miss the point. So just what sf audiences do when approaching films/books like this.

  3. I suspect the “science” in it will be no worse than the “science” in Sunshine or Source Code, but it will be a much more memorable and original film.

  4. “a planet long-hidden behind the sun”

    but we revolve around the sun…

    “a planet long-hidden behind the sun”

    not only do we revolve around the sun… but all our galaxy’s planets at some time are “behind the sun”

    “a planet long-hidden behind the sun”

    Yes, you are right John… I can’t get past the science.

     

     

    Why do they do this to us? Just start with “a planet long-hidden behind the Kuiper belt” and we’re good! Commence your story authors while remaining plausible for our galaxy still.

  5. joshua corning // April 12, 2011 at 1:19 am //

    From Wikipedia:

     

    “Trier has said that he considers all of his previous films to end happily, and that this will be the first with an unhappy ending.”

     

    WTF!?!?!?!

  6. It’s a sequel to this thematically-rich, scientifically accurate classic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhEh1WyKWJ8

     

     

  7. Mark Stephenson // April 12, 2011 at 9:12 pm //

    No thanks. Count me out. Chick flick with bad science. Worst of both worlds.

  8. Jason MacDonald // May 18, 2011 at 2:57 am //

    No, we are not going to forgive the bad science, because 1)  Even a cursory internet search would have revealed both that its impossible, and why in ways even lay people can understand, and 2) It would have been just as easy for him to substitute the “hiding planet”  with something just as cataclysmic but plausible- like a rougue planet from the outer solar system, or a large asteroid or comet.  He just didn’t want to be seen as derivative, and be compared to Armageddon or Sudden Impact.  But bud, if you’re going to borrow from science, you should realize that you shouldn’t sacrifice accuracy unnecessarily, when it would make no difference to the central plot, just because you want to be “original”.  That arrogance just made it impossible for anyone with a decent high school education to suspend disbelief. You might as well have just had a legion of screaming valkyries throwing mountain sized bolders to crush civilization, because now its just fantasy.  So, sure I’ll watch it- but just for Kirsten Dunst’s breasts, and I’ll wait for it to come out on DVD so I can enjoy it in the privacy of my own home.     

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: