Talk:The Black Hole (1979 film)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Discussion 2005 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Angel?

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  Unless you're a tapeworm. 82.30.240.26 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kate's line "habitable life" 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Just so you know, much more than nothing was known about black holes in the '60s and '70s.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.146.203 (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Red Meteors?

message: 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)
thread_title: Special effects diary

message: 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)
thread_title:  Robot design 

message: 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)
thread_title:  lack of technical analysis & boring assumptions 

message: 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)
replies: text: It's an interesting theory, but that's all it is - a theory. It's just your own interpretation of the film and would therefore come under "personal research" or be seen as uncited opinion, neither of which are admissible on Wiki. Interesting as it is, I don't think it's what the filmmakers intended.79.66.91.241 (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the movie 

message: Currently, real science knows very little about black holes/hypermasses. Several hard sceince scifi writers have considered everything possible about black holes. Larry Niven and Azimov have written stories that include black holes and are inconsistent in-universe. While it seems highly unlikey given current 2008 knowledge of black holes, to writers in the 1960s & 70s, who knew far less, an atmosphere was possible. Currently only the black holes at the centers of galaxies can be observed, and those will not have atmospheres, but rather be crowded with full sized stars collapsing constantly. A single "small" black hole similar to the ones in early Niven stories could capture enough mass to hold a small biosphere. However, such a hole would be too small to display the effects in the movie. Call it artistic license.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Breatheable atmosphere theory 

message: I hardly ever think that sections should be removed from wikipedia articles, but this whole section reads like fan banter.  It's pretty much a comic book guy rant.  This is an encyclopedia, not a fan site.  There is very little 'fact' in that section.  It's not a hard science fiction movie.  Get over it.
I think the section should just be removed.  But I don't want to do something so drastic without some agreement from others.  24.6.118.13 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors section should be removed or rewritten 

message: The DVD of this film currently available in the UK does not include the Overture, and has a running time of 91 minutes, rather than the 98 given in the article. The frame rates of PAL TV and cinema projection are different, meaning a film plays slightly quicker on TV here, reducing the running time, so even if the Overture were included the running time of the DVD would be under 98 minutes; however what I don’t know are if any other cuts have been made, how long is the missing Overture, and what appears on screen when it plays? Could these be added by someone who has a version with the Overture, please? Jock123 (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: No other cuts have been made, the overture is 2:28, and the screen simply says "The Black Hole Overture" in static text, nothing else appears. --2.96.11.38 (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Just for future reference, I recall when screening this film on its first release that the overture had no text explaining its purpose. It was a black screen. I have reason to suspect that the overture was spliced onto the release prints at the last moment. Star Trek the Motion picture was released on December 7; The Black Hole 14 days later on the 21st. Star Trek opened with an overture, black screen and no text. At that time I worked as a theater projection operator, and I was especially cognizant of the characteristic noises which projectors make when running film through the gates. As the overture played on The Black Hole it occurred to me that Disney may have decided that their space epic needed its own overture to make it as classy as the competition. I then listened carefully for the sound of a film splice passing through the gates at the overture's conclusion. I heard that sound quite clearly just as I expected.     — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.102.146.203 (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

text: The Overture can be heard on Disney +. -R.G. (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running time and Overture…? 

message: The article says “The movie earned nearly $36 million at the North American box office, making it the 21st highest-grossing film of 1979.” However, the Box Office Mojo site gives the *total lifetime* earnings as $35,841,901; the article here reads as if it made c. $36m in 1979. This is unlikely anyway, as the film was released on the 21st of December 1979, and would have had to be phenomenally successful to recoup so much in a two week window - most of its gross would have been in 1980, surely? Jock123 (talk) 09:51, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gross box office… 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on The Black Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071219051011/http://buzzcine.com:80/content/view/531/43/ to http://buzzcine.com/content/view/531/43/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The article reads "Disney partnered with Fotomat Corporation on a trial distribution deal, in which The Black Hole was released on VHS and Betamax on March 4, 1980..." But this would be while the film was still rolling out to theaters, which seems highly unlikely in 1980. The source given is an issue of Orange Coast Magazine from February 1981, but all it says in the magazine article is that Disney were releasing some of their films on video (including The Black Hole) following a trial run with Fotomat in four cities, but no date was given - or the titles which Fotomat had previously distributed for them. This needs clarification. Is there a source which specifically says TBH was released on home video in March 1980? 78.145.152.203 (talk) 15:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. The information was wrong. It was actually released for the first time on videocassette in September 1980. Disney did release some titles with Fotomat earlier in March, but The Black Hole was not among the titles. It's been corrected now. PrinceArchelaus (talk) 21:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home video release in March 1980?????? 

message: The article states that the story occurs in 2130, but there is no reference to the year in the movie. VINCENT's opening line "2130, day 547" makes reference to the ship's time expressed in military style; it's 9:30pm. This is confirmed a moment later when he says "Unscheduled course correction due at 2200" -- 30 minutes later. Is there a source for the year being 2130 other than this line of dialogue? 174.80.9.199 (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Year