Here’s one hell of a controversial opinion: I liked Mission Impossible 7 better than Oppenheimer. I know, I know, Oppie will bring in more money at the box office, critics liked it better, it tells a much more important story, etc. But when it comes down to personal enjoyment – which is what truly matters at the end of the day, Mission Impossible wins easily.
It’s a totally subjective claim on my part. And I’m fine with that. I’m not a professional film critic, so there’s no need for post hoc rationalisations – searching for logical explanations, when you’ve already made up your mind in advance. Fact is, I’ve been a lifelong fan of spy flicks, so it should be no surprise that I love Mission Impossible. I mean, what’s not to like about spy movies? There’s the gadgets, the various exotic locations, the fancy cars, the all-important mission to save the world… and the secret agents, of course.
But when it comes to spy films, Bond remains king. Now, I was born in ’92, so when I think of Bond, I think of Pierce Brosnan. In fact, just a few days ago, one of his best films appeared on television: Goldeneye. A subscriber to this newsletter clued me in to something interesting: the satellite dish in the film is actual footage taken from the Arecibo telescope, over in Puerto Rico. It’s quite beautiful to see the colossal contraption suspended in mid-air, with nothing more than a mesh of steel cables to hold it in place. Or, should I say, it was beautiful. Because, in August 2020, after a solid 57 years of duty, the whole thing came crashing down. Believe it or not, scientists were still making use of this giant. They even gave it a revamp along the way, installing a massive globe made of solid steel, weighing in at several hundred tons, adding numerous capabilities – a prime suspect for those snapping cables by the way.
It’s a shame, because when they first installed the telescope, they were fully aware Puerto Rico’s humid climate, and what that meant for the steel cables. They went to the effort of frequently coating the cables with paint, to prevent corrosion from snapping the all too vital cables, holding everything up. But that was years ago, and the article I’ve read on the topic suggested that as the old guard retired, their knowledge went with them.
Thing is, apparently it didn’t need to end this way. According to the article, for a few million bucks in repairs, the telescope would’ve been fine. Now, it’s smashed to a thousand pieces, and they’d have to rebuild it from scratch, which would mean an investment worth billions of dollars (with a “B”). Isn’t it just amazing, how much smarter we feel than previous generations, just because we carry advanced gadgets in our pockets? In the meanwhile, we pull these kind of stunts: letting a multimillion dollar telescope go to waste for no good reason. And while I’m all in favour of getting fancy new gear, doesn’t this feel like a story we’ve been through one too many times? Once again, people had given plenty of warnings, they knew this was a risk years ago, and they could’ve fixed it way in advance. It just reeks of neglect and short-term thinking.
It shows the one lesson you ought to get out of watching Oppenheimer – a great film by the way, which is that we better start taking long-term consequences into consideration, or there might not be a long-term left to consider. Food for thought.
Kind regards
Vincent J. Dancet