271–280 of 388 posts
this line lives so deep in my brain: "You want to know how I did it? I never saved anything for the swim back"
"You want to know how I did it? I never saved anything for the swim back" Sure, it hits deep. But even as a kid, I remember thinking "That's how people drown in real life".
Anton's top priority was to not drown. Vincent's top priority was to win (Even if it resulted in his death).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Evolution naturally tends in that direction. A lot of what people find attractive about each other are personalities (and only some traits are heritable, not entire types), and artifacts of how people were raised or adapted to how they were raised. > Up to a point. There's still a pretty strong correlation between what different people find attractive, and there are certainly things that almost everyone agrees are…
> Eugenics, as a term, to have meaning, is an extreme of breeding behavior. It isn't just regular assortative mating among local populations. That's circular logic. The whole point of the argument is that eugenics (as it is normally understood) is of a piece with regular assortive mating; people look for good aspects in a partner all the time, and there's no clear sharp line between that and what we normally call eug…
> The term eugenics was coined in 1883 by British explorer and natural scientist Francis Galton, who, influenced by Charles Darwin’s theory of natural selection, advocated a system that would allow “the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable.”
Eugenics is a societal phenomenon. Which is why arranged marriages belong in the eugenics camp. Assortative mating from free choice is not eugenics, regardless of the outcome over many generations.
Eugenism is inevitable. You can't stop parents trying to get the best life for their children, that's pretty much their top priority. We don't like to frame it that way but we are already there with pre-natal tests. Even the selection of mating partner is a form of eugenics. College graduates only marrying college graduates, repeat that for many generations and it is bound to have an effect.
The great thing about Gattaca is that the cinematography ages incredibly well on top of the amazing plot. A lot of great sci-fi is marred by cheap effects that look incredibly dated only a decade later. Gattaca chose to focus on the story and create a minimalist future environment that still looks beautiful 25 years later.
> a minimalist future environment that still looks beautiful 25 years later. Designed by Frank Lloyd Wright a few decades ago, building started in 1960, so "~60 years later" /g https://franklloydwright.org/site/marin-county-civic-center/ https://secretsanfrancisco.com/marin-county-civic-center-san... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marin_County_Civic_Center
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Despite Gattaca being one of my favorite movies for years I only recently learned, right here on HN, that the cinematographer is Sławomir Idziak, frequent collaborator of Krzysztof Kieślowski, which explains why Gattaca looks so much like one of my other favorites, The Double Life of Veronique . > create a minimalist future environment that still looks beautiful 25 years later. See also: Dark City
I had no idea about the Kieslowski connection, wow. I follow his other great collaborator, composer Zbigniew Preisner, where if you take anyone involved with Kieslowski chances are it's going to be a good film. I have his tri coleurs and decalogue on dvd, and double vie on vhs in a box somewhere. Strange to think when these things were artifacts now that nothing is, and that they could even be somewhat rare. I have t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Generally, movies that focus on set design age much better than movies that focus on effects. If you make a good set, it will look good no matter how technically advanced your setup is. It may look better when filmed using the latest cameras, but it will never look wrong when it isn't, because it is the real thing. Effects are not the real thing, and as technology improved people have gotten better at noticing and ar…
You mean they dont still use 1980s computer screens in 22nd century Star Trek?
The best episode of Star Trek, City on the Edge of Forever, holds up today because of its story and its period sets and costumes, not its sci-fi stuff.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the plot is good, then dated effects don't matter. Both the 1916 and 1954 versions of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea hold up today. I guess some people just can't cope with anything but the most cutting edge effects. If they notice something is fake the movie experience is ruined for them or something. I'm glad I'm not afflicted with this.
It’s not a problem as long as the experience is consistent. If you have an otherwise beautiful movie that suddenly comes out with a terrible effect they would have been better off without it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem it raises is: only idiots are having kids so in the future everyone is an idiot. The opening scene is literally a generic portrayal of trailer trash having 8 kids and you didn’t get that implication at all? Wow your a real saint. What did you think the implications of the film were?
That is indeed the "problem" that forms the premise of the film. It doesn't however go on to either propose or advocate a solution, instead exploring one projection to absurdity from it's premise. If you watched it and came away with a feeling it was pro-eugenics, you are absolutely projecting your own details onto the film.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And when the news gets out a underclass achieved something great it may change things.
History is filled with counterexamples. Discriminated people who do great things are discounted as once-offs, ceremonially inducted into the in-group or ignored entirely.