I'm halfway through this movie, and I'm chanting 'Put Her Out' - 'Put Her Out' - 'Put Her Out'. This woman's character has more attitude that is ill placed for a stowaway... Would've made for a better, shorter movie. The extended blackouts between scenes were annoying also, I thought my TV turned off on the first one. The acting is above par for a B movie, but still struggled with this movie.
25 Reviews
The endless debate over the sacrifice of one to save the many.
hcs339922 February 2001
I thought this was a wonderful movie. Granted the effects are pretty bad and the cinematography was horrible, probably due to a very small budget. However, if you dig through all of that, you'll find a wonderful story line and amazing acting talent. Poppy Montgomery and Bill Campbell make the story come alive in this interesting tale of the human reaction to major life decisions when options run out(trapped in a spaceship). You just have to watch it to appreciate it. Onboard a mercy mission to a sick planet a pilot, played by Campbell, is forced to choose between a stowaway, Montgomery, and the medicine that will save the planet. I haven't read the book, but I will now to compare. But as far as the movie is concerned it rocked.
What the writers and directors did to this story is a crime!
gatebanger24 July 1999
This film is the third, and worst, adaptation of one of the best SF shorts I have ever read.
The original story had some very clear messages: People are responsible for their actions and there are consequences; Life isn't fair; Neither is death; Sometimes, one has to make tough choices.
Unfortunately, by the time Geiger and Burger got through with it, it had become an overly long, rambling true love in space soap opera.
The short story generated a good bit of controversy when it was published in 1954.
I can't recommend this film to anyone who has read Tom Godwin's story.
The original story had some very clear messages: People are responsible for their actions and there are consequences; Life isn't fair; Neither is death; Sometimes, one has to make tough choices.
Unfortunately, by the time Geiger and Burger got through with it, it had become an overly long, rambling true love in space soap opera.
The short story generated a good bit of controversy when it was published in 1954.
I can't recommend this film to anyone who has read Tom Godwin's story.
Good short story.
jelly30023 July 2003
great story destroyed by hack writers
JJS17 May 2000
This was a great story when it was written. Unfortunately, this movie is anything but great. A straight-forward chilling science-fiction story has been turned into yet another "all businesses are run by greedy b****rds with no morals" piece of trash that resembles science fiction only superficially. I recommend against watching it, unless you are bored out of your mind and nothing else is on.
a taut, nicely paced sci fi/suspense tale, with a few uneven moments
Algernon15 August 1999
I must admit that it took me a while to warm to this film, but as the story unfolded, I found myself drawn more and more into the dilemmas it posed. My only real objection to the piece were those moments when the characters seemed to take a break from events to talk about themselves and where they had come from. At times the characters almost seemed to step out of the story, and talk about themselves as though nothing out of the ordinary were happening around them.
The film seems on more sure footing when it's dealing with the primary elements of the story, less so when it attempts to branch out into character development, or "backstory".
The film seems on more sure footing when it's dealing with the primary elements of the story, less so when it attempts to branch out into character development, or "backstory".
Pass it...
waltp99993 March 2005
I tuned in a little late into the movie, and became excited when I recognized one of my favorite SF stories from the 50's! Then I started watching....
JJS said "I recommend against watching it, unless you are bored out of your mind and nothing else is on." I say if you are bored either
1) Read the original story by Tom Godwin
2) Watch the 1980's Twilight Zone version instead (followed by "Cold Reading" :-) )
3) Dig up the 50's radio version from X Minus One in that order.
All are light years better than this version. Two things made this movie less effective than any of the other version:
1) the attitude of the girl
2) the added bureaucratic BS just to stretch the story into a movie time-length
Both these points simply watered down the central point of the story.
For those that can't deal with print or audio, definitely watch the TZ version.
JJS said "I recommend against watching it, unless you are bored out of your mind and nothing else is on." I say if you are bored either
1) Read the original story by Tom Godwin
2) Watch the 1980's Twilight Zone version instead (followed by "Cold Reading" :-) )
3) Dig up the 50's radio version from X Minus One in that order.
All are light years better than this version. Two things made this movie less effective than any of the other version:
1) the attitude of the girl
2) the added bureaucratic BS just to stretch the story into a movie time-length
Both these points simply watered down the central point of the story.
For those that can't deal with print or audio, definitely watch the TZ version.
if only Tarkovsky could have had a go at this
iloveandrei30 March 2008
Warning: Spoilers
It took a little while to warm to this film but once the real drama began to unfold I was hooked. The lead characters are believable and there is some good acting on show from the lead actors. Don't watch this expecting great effects or stunning cinematography but those things are not needed for most of the film's length. Its a play set in a spacecraft. A drama that engages the intellect as well as the emotions, as one would expect from a film based on classic 50s sci fi. ------SPOILERS below------
Although the main story is about the coldness of space and the physical laws that make it, the tone only hinted at this..if only Tarkovsky could have had a go at it.. The developing relationship between the two main characters is the films strength. But its weakness is that the bad corporation story feels tagged on- there either needed to be more of it or none of it. The cutaways to the courtroom and back to the drama work well. Unfortunately the final scene felt a little lame.
Although the main story is about the coldness of space and the physical laws that make it, the tone only hinted at this..if only Tarkovsky could have had a go at it.. The developing relationship between the two main characters is the films strength. But its weakness is that the bad corporation story feels tagged on- there either needed to be more of it or none of it. The cutaways to the courtroom and back to the drama work well. Unfortunately the final scene felt a little lame.
Will leave you cold; its flat and made on the cheap. I watched until the end, hoping it would get better but, it didn't
inkblot1120 April 2010
In the future, John (Billy Campbell) is a pilot who accepts a commission to carry a cache of medicine to a distant planet. He's hoping that this decision will translate into a promotion. On earth, he is part of the more elite group, for there is now a lower caste of humans who do drudge work, eat poorly and live in crowded, noisy conditions. John's mission has a tricky element. Amazingly, the plane that he will fly has been designed for this mission only and has only the basic components. It is termed a "disposable vehicle" and will be dismantled at the voyage's end. Just after takeoff, the ground command notifies John that the plane is carrying extra weight, for some unknown reason. As the vehicle only has fuel for the calculated weight, this is a major problem. Looking around, John sees that he has a pretty stowaway, Lee (Poppy Montgomery). She is of the drudge class and snuck onto the plane to visit her brother who lives on the planet of John's voyage. Uh oh. Mission control tells John he has to throw her "overboard" into space, where she will die; otherwise, they will both perish, for the plane will not make it. What to do? Lee puts up a fight for her life, first with words, then with muscle. John, naturally, doesn't want to end her life and they try desperately to find enough other things to throw out the chute, including insulation, the first aid kit and other items. But, alas, they can't find enough. What will John do? This was a pretty flat and cheaply made science fiction film. It has some good ideas but they are never developed enough and the writing is stiff. The actors, too, don't fair very well, although Campbell and Montgomery truly do try to give it a go. All in all, if you love sci fi, as I do, you will be very disappointed in this one. Unless you have a penchant to "see them all", you should skip it.
Appreciate it for what it is
cdurkin400526 March 2006
Warning: Spoilers
The comments of others who have read the story have disapproved of the movie and I understand that. But if you are a fan of science fiction, I think you have to be grateful for this movie. I saw the movie before I read the story and I was blown away. How rare is it for a movie to actually include math and physics--correct physics? This movie could even be used to teach things like acceleration, mass, and energy conservation. I also think the actors did a good job. Montgomery not only sold the terror of impending death in the vacuum of space, but she also sold me on her determination to sacrifice herself. Understanding that it is a low-budget (I believe made for the SciFi Channel) movie, I appreciate it. I hope more good science fiction stories are made into movies, as faithfully as possible.
Virtuallly unwatchable
martin-bullivant6 October 2010
I'm a real SF fan-have been for 40 years. I've read the short story, heard the 50's Radio adaptation-both of those by their very nature avoided the problem that made me give up on this movie-which is that it was filmed with such atrociously bad (non-existent?) lighting that you can't really tell what's happening. Maybe it was intended to convey the dark storyline.... but all it does is look... well... dark. I kept expecting the actors to trip over stuff or ask for a coin for the electricity meter. At first I wondered if it was just a bad print but no, the shots of the backlit displays in close up were clear.
It really was shockingly awful-which is a shame as what I endured visually was not matched by a similarly poorly delivered dialogue. But after a while of squinting and screwing my eyes up to see it (on a 43 inch flat screen TV!) I felt a headache brewing.
After 20 minutes I gave up.
It really was shockingly awful-which is a shame as what I endured visually was not matched by a similarly poorly delivered dialogue. But after a while of squinting and screwing my eyes up to see it (on a 43 inch flat screen TV!) I felt a headache brewing.
After 20 minutes I gave up.
Disappointing to say the least...
writingy25 January 2000
As I watched this film of one of my favorite stories, I couldn't help but feel disappointed... particularly because I saw it dramatized so much more faithfully as an episode of the New Twilight Zone. In an attempt to make this story a full-length feature, they added elements that were not present in the original, and it has tainted an otherwise tight plot. If you really want to see this story on film, look for the New Twilight Zone... it is many times better and much closer to the themes and ideas of the original story.
Sci-fi bore
Leofwine_draca6 September 2017
Warning: Spoilers
THE COLD EQUATIONS is a low rent science fiction B-movie of the 1990s. It's also a TV movie, so don't go in expecting anything original or out of the ordinary here. The story is about a space crew who discover a female stowaway on board, whose presence means that they won't have enough fuel to complete their mission. The guys at base order the captain to jettison her, and the story goes from there. This is more of a morality play than a thriller, and very little happens other than having two characters in a single enclosed location arguing throughout. It's quite interminable, in fact, cheap and tacky with actors who fail to impress. Even the late-stage appearance of PERRY MASON star William R. Moses can't lift things from the doldrums.
A terrible adaptation of a classic SF short story
innocuous13 October 2017
This movie truly dishonors the short story on which it is based. Some reviewers have tried to excuse this on the basis that any short story must be padded out by screenwriters. I don't buy it. If a short story is not suitable for a feature-length movie, then it isn't. Just deal with it and make a short, or use it as an episode in an anthology. (This same short story has received much better treatment as just such an episode.) All the love story and social justice elements in the movie do nothing but detract from the fundamental themes of the original story. In particular, the main female character has been transformed from a sympathetic young woman to some sort of manic-depressive "anti-heroine" with whom we are unlikely to empathize. This movie is just sad, and not in a good way.
Excellent adaptation
donald-gregory27 June 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I read the short story, "The Cold Equations," decades ago -- but I just saw this movie for the first time today. And I thought it was outstanding.
While I understand many of the negative reviews here, I think some are missing a few key points.
When a screenwriter begins with a short story, s/he can't just make adjustments for the screen and be done with it--oops, a 30-minute movie, not what the investors had in mind. A bad screenwriter addresses this with padding; a good one adds foundation, details originally omitted for brevity, motivation, characterization, all that good stuff -- and maybe a subplot. If he's *really* good, he may explain or fix some things that really need explanation or repairs.
In any case, the result is a new story inspired by the original, and possibly incorporating most or all of the original. Complaining that it is longer is sort of silly; of course it is. It has to be. And complaining that it doesn't have the punch of the original ... is unfair. Short stories *are* for punch; longer formats by their very nature have to be at least somewhat more leisurely. And this is a very intellectual and psychological story to begin with.
** SPOILERS FOLLOW **
As one or two mentioned, the primary point of the original story is that sometimes, there is no way out of a dilemma; physics is not forgiving. Hence the title. The movie retained that in spades, and in my opinion provided just the right level of explanation as to why. And it's not simple, either, except to someone who really already understands the underlying physics. They even factored in the effects of time on deceleration; how often do we see that in popular media -- and done right? When I put this on my list to rent, I had misremembered the author as being Heinlein -- and it is worthy of him.
But the movie added some justification as to *why* the situation happened in the first place. Engineers of our day would not, I believe, launch a spaceship with so little margin for error as was provided here. But our motivation is exploration and research -- and we really want our people back whole.
Pursuit of the almighty dollar (credit/peso/what have you) on the other hand has often motivated stinginess and corner-cutting. Many excellent science fiction novels have advanced the possibility that the way we'll ultimately get outside our solar system is via mostly autonomous mega-corporations pursuing resources and the devil take the hindmost. And recall, if everything had gone according to the company's *original* plan, no-one would have died or even been hurt at all; it was being cheap, but not initially evil.
The other significant part of the original story dealt with the psychological aspects of the situation. Here, the director and actors have their chances to shine -- and I think they did. One of the keys to good drama is that your characters change. And here they do, a *lot* -- but just gradually enough to retain believability. The high-pressure situation adds to that believability, of course.
Initially, Barton (Campbell) appears a cold fish, and Cross (Montgomery) brash and ignorant -- annoying, in fact, as at least one other reviewer observed. Maybe they overdid those initial impressions a trifle -- but over the course of (their) hours, their interactions and the situation cause major changes (in his case, life changes). Unlike one reviewer who was happy to see her out the airlock, I was in tears -- and I both rarely do that, and also *knew the outcome before I began the movie*. It was well-acted and well-directed.
One other thing -- fie on the IMDb summarizer for indicating that the cargo was a "vaccine" -- rather than just "medicine." He's correct, but that's a plot point, and you shouldn't know it until very late in the movie. The difference is used effectively, another correct but subtle incorporation of good science.
Yes, the special effects are mediocre -- but it doesn't really matter; they're good enough. The story isn't about that at all.
While I understand many of the negative reviews here, I think some are missing a few key points.
When a screenwriter begins with a short story, s/he can't just make adjustments for the screen and be done with it--oops, a 30-minute movie, not what the investors had in mind. A bad screenwriter addresses this with padding; a good one adds foundation, details originally omitted for brevity, motivation, characterization, all that good stuff -- and maybe a subplot. If he's *really* good, he may explain or fix some things that really need explanation or repairs.
In any case, the result is a new story inspired by the original, and possibly incorporating most or all of the original. Complaining that it is longer is sort of silly; of course it is. It has to be. And complaining that it doesn't have the punch of the original ... is unfair. Short stories *are* for punch; longer formats by their very nature have to be at least somewhat more leisurely. And this is a very intellectual and psychological story to begin with.
** SPOILERS FOLLOW **
As one or two mentioned, the primary point of the original story is that sometimes, there is no way out of a dilemma; physics is not forgiving. Hence the title. The movie retained that in spades, and in my opinion provided just the right level of explanation as to why. And it's not simple, either, except to someone who really already understands the underlying physics. They even factored in the effects of time on deceleration; how often do we see that in popular media -- and done right? When I put this on my list to rent, I had misremembered the author as being Heinlein -- and it is worthy of him.
But the movie added some justification as to *why* the situation happened in the first place. Engineers of our day would not, I believe, launch a spaceship with so little margin for error as was provided here. But our motivation is exploration and research -- and we really want our people back whole.
Pursuit of the almighty dollar (credit/peso/what have you) on the other hand has often motivated stinginess and corner-cutting. Many excellent science fiction novels have advanced the possibility that the way we'll ultimately get outside our solar system is via mostly autonomous mega-corporations pursuing resources and the devil take the hindmost. And recall, if everything had gone according to the company's *original* plan, no-one would have died or even been hurt at all; it was being cheap, but not initially evil.
The other significant part of the original story dealt with the psychological aspects of the situation. Here, the director and actors have their chances to shine -- and I think they did. One of the keys to good drama is that your characters change. And here they do, a *lot* -- but just gradually enough to retain believability. The high-pressure situation adds to that believability, of course.
Initially, Barton (Campbell) appears a cold fish, and Cross (Montgomery) brash and ignorant -- annoying, in fact, as at least one other reviewer observed. Maybe they overdid those initial impressions a trifle -- but over the course of (their) hours, their interactions and the situation cause major changes (in his case, life changes). Unlike one reviewer who was happy to see her out the airlock, I was in tears -- and I both rarely do that, and also *knew the outcome before I began the movie*. It was well-acted and well-directed.
One other thing -- fie on the IMDb summarizer for indicating that the cargo was a "vaccine" -- rather than just "medicine." He's correct, but that's a plot point, and you shouldn't know it until very late in the movie. The difference is used effectively, another correct but subtle incorporation of good science.
Yes, the special effects are mediocre -- but it doesn't really matter; they're good enough. The story isn't about that at all.
Low key, but very moving
mcgregorandrew3 February 2003
Definitely a B movie, but I was pleasantly surprised at how effectively it was done. I had read the short story and I thought this was better than the story. Nice spirit at the end without giving in and making everybody happy.
Good central theme marred by unnecessary variations.
Michael-114 November 2000
I haven't read the story of which other users are bemoaning the destruction so I didn't go into this feature with any preconceptions. I still didn't like it.
The central -- and undoubtedly short -- story in this movie is good: How do you cope with an inevitable death? How do you cope if you're the agent of that death? The recipient? When this movie followed that small, tight core it was good. When it strayed from that core, delving into "corporations (and/or bureaucracies) are evil" territory (with a smidgeon of a Messiah complex thrown in for no good reason), it was bad.
In the end I found the time I spent watching this movie to be wasted.
The central -- and undoubtedly short -- story in this movie is good: How do you cope with an inevitable death? How do you cope if you're the agent of that death? The recipient? When this movie followed that small, tight core it was good. When it strayed from that core, delving into "corporations (and/or bureaucracies) are evil" territory (with a smidgeon of a Messiah complex thrown in for no good reason), it was bad.
In the end I found the time I spent watching this movie to be wasted.
Intense and Satisfying
couchfrenchfry17 January 2014
Warning: Spoilers
That other guy needs to see an eye doctor or adjust his set. This film is thrilling, intense, exciting, realistic, a love story, scientifically accurate science fiction. Now you do have to commit to watching this. It is not a casual experience. When you're in the mood and have the time, buckle yourself onto the couch and join this thrill ride. These two young actors put on such a performance as is rarely seen. The whole show takes place in two rooms, it's like a stage play but it outplays all those shallow science fiction films where the special effects are the real stars of the show. This is literature translated onto the screen.
Dragged out, slow, poor take on a great story. SPOILER
johnbuckville-march0418 May 2006
Warning: Spoilers
This should have been a short 1/2 hour show. They tried to stretch a great sci-fi short story to movie length - and they failed. WARNING: SPOILERS Basically; highly efficient space ships are used to deliver emergency medical supplies to stop a deadly plague. To save costs, fuel is calculated precisely. All things are considered; weight of craft, weight of cargo, distance of trip, landing fuel needs etc.etc. A girl stow away is found on the ship. The only solution is to jettison her into space (there are no emergency space-suits, and no other spacecraft that may save her) Unfortunately, for the show to work you have to like the actress - but The girl (Poppy Montgomery) is completely unlikeable, and you will cheer when she is finally blasted into cold space and finally shut-up.
Under-appreciated Gem
steelbeard1 August 2016
From the patterns of other reviewers here, it seems that if one has read the short story upon which this film is based, one thinks the film bad.
On the other hand, if you have never read the short story, you will probably enjoy this film.
It is a sci-fi film, yes, but the real content of the film could have transpired in any setting.
Gripping, and well-acted, intellectual and philosophical, with many great reflective questions about life and being. Not an action film. If that sounds like your cup of tea, enjoy. It's great.
On the other hand, if you have never read the short story, you will probably enjoy this film.
It is a sci-fi film, yes, but the real content of the film could have transpired in any setting.
Gripping, and well-acted, intellectual and philosophical, with many great reflective questions about life and being. Not an action film. If that sounds like your cup of tea, enjoy. It's great.
I liked it!
olveg17 May 2001
I was a fan of the original short story, having read it many years ago. This 'movie version' does go a little further with the story, however I think it stayed true to the original intent. I liked the acting and thought it was a worthwhile watch.
Ignore the tedious fundamentalists
paulg-947-33094125 April 2021
Every artistic work should be judged on its own merits not whether it sticks to the original base work. Anyone who gives something a 1 out of 10 is not giving their true opinion, but trying to manipulate the ratings. 1 out of 10 is for when the makers leave the lens cap on.
It's low budget, there's some irrationalities, but the acting from Poppy and Bill in. Particular is terrific.
It's low budget, there's some irrationalities, but the acting from Poppy and Bill in. Particular is terrific.
Not bad, but a spurious subplot detracts...
tonyhig4 November 2000
Nice to see a show that sticks pretty closely to the original story -- one of Ben Bova's discoveries when he took over at Analog from John Campbell, if I remember rightly.
However, I recall that the original story did not have the odd subplot about the corporation and the fungus quite the way the movie showed it. This seems to be a by-product of the times in which the film was made, when there had to be a "bad guy" to blame. (Other comments here are more harsh about the story treatment, perhaps with cause, but it's very difficult to turn most short stories into films -- take a look at "Enemy Mine" for example.)
The printed story in this case had more pathos, because of the implacability of the Cold Equations -- simple laws of physics and nature that none of the characters could overcome. No corporation needs to be blamed; the story tells clearly of the danger of innocence and naivety in the face of a universe which neither knows of nor heeds the actions of puny individual human beings.
When I first read the story, it was very reminiscent of Robert Heinlein (two of his lunar stories) and Arthur C. Clarke. Worth looking up -- I don't know if it's been anthologized, but the original was published in the early 70s in Analog.
However, I recall that the original story did not have the odd subplot about the corporation and the fungus quite the way the movie showed it. This seems to be a by-product of the times in which the film was made, when there had to be a "bad guy" to blame. (Other comments here are more harsh about the story treatment, perhaps with cause, but it's very difficult to turn most short stories into films -- take a look at "Enemy Mine" for example.)
The printed story in this case had more pathos, because of the implacability of the Cold Equations -- simple laws of physics and nature that none of the characters could overcome. No corporation needs to be blamed; the story tells clearly of the danger of innocence and naivety in the face of a universe which neither knows of nor heeds the actions of puny individual human beings.
When I first read the story, it was very reminiscent of Robert Heinlein (two of his lunar stories) and Arthur C. Clarke. Worth looking up -- I don't know if it's been anthologized, but the original was published in the early 70s in Analog.
A surprisingly excellent gem of a movie
rlange-32 April 2010
Warning: Spoilers
People under pressure do foolish things at times, but nature is indifferent to intent.
I didn't expect much from this movie which I picked somewhat randomly out of a bargain bin, but it pretty much blew me away. The acting, which is 99% of the movie, was excellent. There were no cheesy special effects on what was obviously a low budget, and no hammed up characters. What surprised me most was how the story drew me in and forced me to re-examine my initial opinions of the characters.
It reminded me in an odd way of 12 Angry Men. Most of the focus was on human interaction, and initial impressions gradually evolved through the movie. I went from "jeez, chuck her out" to seeing the deeper implications of it all.
The one negative imo was the usual attempt to lecture us on 'evil corporations'. This is a really tiresome theme, but one that was at least not repetitiously intrusive.
I didn't expect much from this movie which I picked somewhat randomly out of a bargain bin, but it pretty much blew me away. The acting, which is 99% of the movie, was excellent. There were no cheesy special effects on what was obviously a low budget, and no hammed up characters. What surprised me most was how the story drew me in and forced me to re-examine my initial opinions of the characters.
It reminded me in an odd way of 12 Angry Men. Most of the focus was on human interaction, and initial impressions gradually evolved through the movie. I went from "jeez, chuck her out" to seeing the deeper implications of it all.
The one negative imo was the usual attempt to lecture us on 'evil corporations'. This is a really tiresome theme, but one that was at least not repetitiously intrusive.
Uggh!
davercrb22 June 2023
Warning: Spoilers
I'm going to go with those who think this is a bad movie.
In storytelling the first rule is to tel a good yarn. This wasn't which was too bad because It has always been one of my favorite stories. It's been done as a radio show in the 50's and as an episode (very well done) of the New Twilight Zone.
In the original story a plague breaks out among a group of explorers. There are special emergency dispatch ships carried on starships for just this type of emergency. The nearest starship drops out of hyperspace and launches one with the required meds. But- the frontier is so large and ships are too few to disrupt schedules and so limited in capability that they are given just enough fuel to reach their destination. There is simply no margin for error. (For a real life equivalent think of the number of people who died in wagon trains during the western US expansion.) Then there will always be people who stow away -either to escape the law or just to start a new life anywhere. The laws necessarily are harsh. Such people get thrown overboard immediately and don't bother with a spacesuit. But in this case the stowaway was a young woman en route to a new planet and just wanted to see her brother - no nefarious intent. When the pilot discovers her aboard he is stunned. He knows what will have to happen to this naive innocent girl. He contacts the mother ship to see if anything can be done- knowing there is no solution. And this is where the pathos that made this a great story comes in. When the Starship Captain finds out he is absolutely horrified. So is the bored ship's clerk who starts to take down the information. They delay the inevitable for as long as possible but in the end the pilot will have to go through with it. She is able to write a final letter and to talk to her brother- who is also horrified at what she had done. But in the end- guess what happens? She can ether die herself or take 7 others with her. And this is the key to the story. There is no solution here to making a bad mistake. Absolutely no one wants to do what everyone knows must happen. The pilot will always have nightmares over it. There are no villains here. And there are no heroes either. Everyone is trapped by the cold equations. "A physical law had decreed: h amount of fuel will power an EDS with a mass of m safely to its destination; and a second physical law had decreed: h amount of fuel will not power an EDS with a mass of m plus x safely to its destination. In this story you feel and sympathize with everyone involved.
And this is where the similarities with the movie end. To start with the stowaway is a despicable little B that deserves what is going to happen. In fact long before the end I was saying "just kill her already."
Then there is the idiotic bad corporation meme. What did that have to do with anything? Yeah- I know. Earth has degenerated into castes and the pilot is hoping for a promotion .Um -not going to happen. These EDS pilots have to wait for the next freighter or liner. Hardly the stuff of promotions as once he reaches the destination he is dead weight and will have to assume non-pilot duties.
If you have not seen the movie consider yourself fortunate. Instead go watch the version from the twilight zone. Very well done.
In storytelling the first rule is to tel a good yarn. This wasn't which was too bad because It has always been one of my favorite stories. It's been done as a radio show in the 50's and as an episode (very well done) of the New Twilight Zone.
In the original story a plague breaks out among a group of explorers. There are special emergency dispatch ships carried on starships for just this type of emergency. The nearest starship drops out of hyperspace and launches one with the required meds. But- the frontier is so large and ships are too few to disrupt schedules and so limited in capability that they are given just enough fuel to reach their destination. There is simply no margin for error. (For a real life equivalent think of the number of people who died in wagon trains during the western US expansion.) Then there will always be people who stow away -either to escape the law or just to start a new life anywhere. The laws necessarily are harsh. Such people get thrown overboard immediately and don't bother with a spacesuit. But in this case the stowaway was a young woman en route to a new planet and just wanted to see her brother - no nefarious intent. When the pilot discovers her aboard he is stunned. He knows what will have to happen to this naive innocent girl. He contacts the mother ship to see if anything can be done- knowing there is no solution. And this is where the pathos that made this a great story comes in. When the Starship Captain finds out he is absolutely horrified. So is the bored ship's clerk who starts to take down the information. They delay the inevitable for as long as possible but in the end the pilot will have to go through with it. She is able to write a final letter and to talk to her brother- who is also horrified at what she had done. But in the end- guess what happens? She can ether die herself or take 7 others with her. And this is the key to the story. There is no solution here to making a bad mistake. Absolutely no one wants to do what everyone knows must happen. The pilot will always have nightmares over it. There are no villains here. And there are no heroes either. Everyone is trapped by the cold equations. "A physical law had decreed: h amount of fuel will power an EDS with a mass of m safely to its destination; and a second physical law had decreed: h amount of fuel will not power an EDS with a mass of m plus x safely to its destination. In this story you feel and sympathize with everyone involved.
And this is where the similarities with the movie end. To start with the stowaway is a despicable little B that deserves what is going to happen. In fact long before the end I was saying "just kill her already."
Then there is the idiotic bad corporation meme. What did that have to do with anything? Yeah- I know. Earth has degenerated into castes and the pilot is hoping for a promotion .Um -not going to happen. These EDS pilots have to wait for the next freighter or liner. Hardly the stuff of promotions as once he reaches the destination he is dead weight and will have to assume non-pilot duties.
If you have not seen the movie consider yourself fortunate. Instead go watch the version from the twilight zone. Very well done.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
