@ Nanrod,

As the poster above said, I think you are over-simplifying it and assuming a lot. The "bomb" they are bringing to the sun isn't just an atomic bomb, it is billed as something much more powerful and not necessarily explosive, but pushing the borders of the physical universe. The captain of the first ship goes nuts not because of a previously known instability, but because of a strange sickness which seems to affect people exposed to too much of the sun's radiation as they get closer. The psychiatrist they bring on the second mission starts to show signs of the same instability, though he seems to cope with it better because of his professional training.

Is the premise pure science fiction? Yes. Was it a great movie in the spirit of 2001, Alien (the first one), and Solaris? Absolutely. If people went expecting Star Wars, or Star Trek, or something else shiny, happy, and easy to digest, they were definitely going to be disappointed.

Leveling criticism against a movie which you clearly haven't seen really isn't fair nor useful.

This movie lost money and got exactly the fanfare it deserved. I read about it when it was in production and immediately realized that there was nobody associated with the movie that had any concept of what science fiction should be. The sun is going out and a space ship is sent to reignite it with a giant atomic bomb?? Seriously?? As if the sun is a big ball of propane that can be lit with a Zippo lighter. And its not the first attempt. The first ship goes missing because the captain is highly religious but mentally unstable. Kind of like NASA putting Charles Manson in charge of the first manned mission to Mars. Just watching this clip confirms my opinion of this movie. In 35 seconds they watch Mercury transit half the face of the Sun, something that should have taken 20 days. Somebody's doing about 80% of the speed of light, is it them or is it Mercury?

Tags for this video have been changed from 'Laurie Spiegel, electronic, ambient, minimal, nuclear, atomic bomb, 70s, infographics' to 'Laurie Spiegel, electronic, ambient, minimal, nuclear, bomb, fallout, 70s, infographics' - edited by calvados

No one is watching you. Go ahead. Make love to it.

In reply to this comment by deputydog:
if i could somehow make love to text, that comment of yours would be covered in my juices right now.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
weapon of gas destruction

>> ^NetRunner:
Don't us yanks usually use regular explosives at the surface to put out the flame? Or does that only work with oil?


Check out an old John Wayne movie called Hellfighters.

>> ^mxxcon:
>> From video archivist CineGraphic, this USSR propaganda footage documents a very curious method of putting out an oil fire.
This guy's accent is not Russian.
He's either faking some made up accent or it's real..but definitely not russian.


Maybe not russian, but definitely some sort of slavic.

if i could somehow make love to text, that comment of yours would be covered in my juices right now.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
weapon of gas destruction

>> ^blankfist:
weapon of gas destruction


can we promote comments yet?

Your video, Why use dynamite when you can use an atomic bomb!?, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^calculadoru:
If this saved vast amounts of gas, by preventing it from burning, then how will they be able to pump it out again, after the nuclear explosion?
Just saying.


The underground natural-gas deposit here is probably massive and covers a wide area. Just drill another shaft somewhere in the vicinity and plunk another well on it once you hit gas again.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
^That's how Danial Day Lewis does it, in the movies.


I drink your milkshake.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dynamite, atomic bomb, nuclear, atomic, bomb, oil well, fire, explosion, ussr, russia' to 'atomic, bomb, gas well, fire, peaceful, nuclear, explosion, ussr, russia, cold war' - edited by calvados

>> ^EDD:
There are 8 stars hidden carefully throughout the game - odds are at least 99.99% of players don't find one on the first play-through. Also, collecting them is at least five times as difficult as doing all the 'normal' puzzles - but the reward is a 'true game ending' - a more thorough explanation of the storyline metaphor. That's where the atom bomb comes in. Because of this, the ending you're going to see in the epilogue when you finish the game the first time might make little sense.


Found 1 star during regular play and said "wtf is that?" so I looked up location of all 8 stars on gamefaqs, and even knowing where they were, it was quite the challenge to get all 8. The new ending wasn't really worth it, but it was worth it just knowing I could get them.

Side note, since this game is so popular on xbox live, I don't think the video needs the "obscure" tag...

There are 8 stars hidden carefully throughout the game - odds are at least 99.99% of players don't find one on the first play-through. Also, collecting them is at least five times as difficult as doing all the 'normal' puzzles - but the reward is a 'true game ending' - a more thorough explanation of the storyline metaphor. That's where the atom bomb comes in. Because of this, the ending you're going to see in the epilogue when you finish the game the first time might make little sense.

I just started playing yesterday and now I'm done but there were definitely some mind-boggling puzzles in there. I had to put it down for a little while and come back refreshed before I could continue at some points. Beautiful game, excellent length.

There are some speculations that this game's story is about the building of the atomic bomb? I don't understand the reference but it's still interesting nonetheless.