Talk:The Black Hole (1979 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

References to use[edit]

Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
  • Rhodes, Gary D. (2006). "Entropy in B-flat; or, Disordered Thoughts on The Black Hole". In Hogan, David J (ed.). Science Fiction America: Essays on SF Cinema. McFarland. pp. 225–232. ISBN 0786421495.

Discussion 2005[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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

Classic?[edit]

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)[reply]

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[reply]
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)[reply]

The Star Trek designers designed the DS9 wormhole after the Disney Black Hole. I think that qualifies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 18:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an opinion, not a fact, and it still doesn't make it a "cult classic". 80.47.17.179 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know it's an opinion? Maybe ask for refs before stating that there are none. Also.. If the requirement to be a cult film are fan conventions and graphic novels, then the cult film status is extremely rarified... At least before graphic novels became popular with a certain subset. As for multiple websites... Once again, since the interwebs are relatively new, that's also an unfair exclusion. "Cult" following, by its very nature, means it's a small subset. 130.76.96.145 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a radical suggestion: How about if reliable sources call it a "cult classic", it's a cult classic. Without such sources, it isn't. - SummerPhD (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Noted American literary critic John Kenneth Muir calls it a "cult movie" in his 2009 review of the film, although he does not use the specific term "cult classic". It's an absolutely first rate piece of reviewing, by the way, and well worth the read. It has been screened on Turner Classic Movies, and their review affords it "minor cult status". The term cult film is the usual way of describing a "cult classic", but perhaps cult film would be a more appropriate label if sourcing is a concern. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Angel?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Here's the ending:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDj6XtZrxvw

It probably is meant to be an Angel of some sort given that Maximillian, Reinhardt and the crew of the Cygnus are all seen in Hell... The opposing journey, that taken by the surviving good guys, seem to be passing through some kind of Heaven... ThePeg (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kate's line "habitable life"[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Unless you're a tapeworm. 82.30.240.26 (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Meteors?[edit]

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).[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]


What you're both forgetting is that in the 60s and 70s we knew nothing about black holes. If you read the hard scifi of the time, you'll find similar mistakes. Simply chalk it up to knowing more NOW, than we knew THEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 18:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Special effects diary[edit]

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)[reply]

Robot design[edit]

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)[reply]

lack of technical analysis & boring assumptions[edit]

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)[reply]


Plagiarism is the DS9 wormhole which looks suspiciously like the Black Hole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.22.132 (talk) 17:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The end of the movie[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


Everything else regarding the analysis of the end of this movie is theory as well....

Breatheable atmosphere theory[edit]

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)[reply]

        • And of course there is an idea that we are currently living inside a black hole -- that the entire observable universe is the inside of a type of black hole, one that grows constantly (i.e. space expansion). chesspride 172.164.70.16 (talk) 05:44, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First Digital Film Soundtrack??[edit]

(I am finding much of this info in a long discussion/investigation at http://www.moviemusic.com/mb/Forum1/HTML/010582.html... I will summarize. Please correct if I am getting something technologically wrong, it is not my expertise, but I am convinced of this film's claim-to-fame of being the first digital film soundtrack)

I started looking into this to find a reference, and apparently there is some disagreement about this statement. Some people argue that "Star Trek - The Motion Picture" was the first because the liner notes for the soundtrack to "The Day Time Ended" written by Varese Sarabande (soundtrack recording company) makes this claim.

There are a few references that I found that say that "The Black Hole" is the first, while no others that confirm "ST-TMP". The clearest proof is personal communication with Dan Wallin, who mixed the musical score to "TBH", and information from conductor John Barry (in a dead link: http://www.ianflemingfoundation.org/mkkbb/magazine/barry2.shtml) who both confirm that "TBH" was the first. Wallin further explains that he mixed both "The Black Hole" and "Annie" on a 3M 48 track machine before "ST-TMP" was digitally mixed. It appears that "ST-TMP" was the first to be digitally recorded in the US.

Another point of contention is -- if TBH is the first digital soundtrack, why is it not available in CD format? This is mentioned in the article, but the technology was too basic to be transferred to CD with the necessary quality. More detail:

This is a quote from Randy Thornton, who was both an editor on "ST-TMP" and a Disney film score producer(ref: http://www.mania.com/itunes-into-black-hole_article_53343.html) "Now before someone cries foul, I will explain the status of “The Black Hole Soundtrack”. Though this was the first digitally recorded soundtrack, the digital technology of 1979 is not compatible with digital technology of today (or even 1982 when CDs were introduced). This soundtrack was recorded with 4bit resolution at 32kHz sampling, thus making a pure digital release not only impossible, but any attempt to upsample or convert them would result in a recording far worse than the analog conversion that was done at the time. The reason it has taken me so long to get this soundtrack re-released is that I wanted to make absolutely sure that there was no way I could use the original digital recordings. I also couldn’t include more of John Barry’s score than was originally released – as the album, as it stands, is all that was legally cleared for release. I did, however, hunt down the original analog transfer from 1979, digitally transferred and restored at 24/96 and re-created the album’s original content. I know some of you more ‘passionate’ will still be disappointed, but there is nothing more anyone could do. Still, even at the iTunes 128kbs compression, the album has never sounded better!"

DFS (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At a 32K sample rate the recording would be severely limited in bandwidth, especially in light of it being only 4 bit. Thornton is correct about the upsampling - or any other conversion - not gaining anything. That's why his digital transfer of the analog source was the better route to take. It is, in a way, a GIGO situation. The analog transfer to digital is going to be superior to the 4bit original due to the physics of the issue.THX1136 (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There would be at least two contenders as for the "first digitally-recorded soundtrack":
I've now asked about the issue at the reference desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment#First digitally-recorded soundtrack. The result so far: Some guy complaining that he doesn't know what a "film" is. When I replied to him that the original question contains definitions to that regard and repeated them, my reply was deleted as "vandalism". --2003:EF:170D:8A85:54E1:8F02:41CA:91DB (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Errors section should be removed or rewritten[edit]

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)[reply]

I'm not sure this deserves a new talk section, so I'm putting it here. The Production section currently claims, parenthetically, that the "mild swearing" in The Black Hole was "a first for a Disney film". In the 1976 Disney film Escape from the Dark (released in the US in 1977 as The Littlest Horse Thieves) a man addresses a group of disgruntled coal miners as "damn(ed?) fools." I only saw this movie once, back in 1977, and any Disney Channel showings may have edited the swearing (as was done with The Black Hole). Anyone have a video release to verify? Just1thing (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Remake?[edit]

Why has no one mentioned the fact that this is an obvious updated remake of Disney's own 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, a far superior film?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.187.216.228 (talk • contribs) 15:03, June 7, 2014‎

We can't say that unless we have a reliable source saying that. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty obvious, just as Lion King was based on Hamlet.
If someone were to ask one of the writers or the producer on Twitter, and they confirm this, would that be sufficient enough to add this to the article? Cousert (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:08, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Running time and Overture…?[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
The Overture can be heard on Disney +. -R.G. (talk) 03:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gross box office…[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Black Hole. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Home video release in March 1980??????[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Black_Hole_(1979_film)&oldid=1217233501"