291–300 of 388 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did he get away with Idiocracy? I thought it was a good movie and somewhat prescient, but if you peel back the layers it is basically advocating some kind of population control or eugenics policy. Or it is just a comedy, but I hear it frequently cited as a dramatized version of a plausible future.
It isn't advocating for anything rather it is akin to the band playing as the Titanic is sinking.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How did he get away with Idiocracy? I thought it was a good movie and somewhat prescient, but if you peel back the layers it is basically advocating some kind of population control or eugenics policy. Or it is just a comedy, but I hear it frequently cited as a dramatized version of a plausible future.
It isn't advocating for anything rather it is akin to the band playing as the Titanic is sinking.
this line lives so deep in my brain: "You want to know how I did it? I never saved anything for the swim back"
He was more than just his DNS/genetics - his soul, and strength weren't measurable by his genetics, and having a challenge in life, being "less", was actually a blessing, as he tired harder and did more with what he had than what those who were given so much with did - nothing
I'm perhaps in the minority of people here, but I didn't like Gattaca, because I thought it actually didn't approach any of the nuance of the genetics discussion, instead opting for a pretty inane oversimplification. Perhaps it makes for an entertaining movie, but it's not a deep philosophical piece. In the movie, the "bad guys" believed that your potential is limited by your genetics. Which is trivially true . But,…
It’s also annoying that so many people use the film to shut down any discussion of eugenics as if the film said anything interesting about that.
IMO the only thing the movie showed was authoritarianism is bad, genetic determinism is bad, and anti-meritocracy is bad.
But none of that need to conflict with a desire to improve ourselves through gene selection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I never understood that. I don't think the movie is clear exactly what happens, but he... does swim back, right? Or does he just flounder and rely on his brother bringing him back?
The one I didn't really understand was "It's too late for that. We're closer to the other side."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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".
That's the whole point though, right? Anton's top priority was to not drown. Vincent's top priority was to win (Even if it resulted in his death).
Gattaca is one of my favorite movies, mainly because of how believable the concept is. Lets say tomorrow they create a commercially available means of ensuring a child is physically and intellectually superior. Once people start availing themselves of this service anyone with the means almost has to do it as well simply as a kindness to their unborn child to ensure they don't end up as a subspecies to the new genetic…
For example, if you are prone to heart disease and have been hired as a airline pilot, would your company be negligent if they could have required a simple test to find this out? Although this is a contrived example, the list of such situations could be endless and doubtless over time you will be asked again and again to submit to a genetic screen in the future. (in the same way that as an American you don't have to give out your social security number, but if you want to access to a credit card or a bank account you sort of have to).
Will this lead to people be denied access to certain activities due to their genetics - absolutely. I'm not laying out a moral judgement here, just that this future is almost a certainty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and also: imagine Alien in the hands of a director with access to today's budget and CGI: it would completely ditch any ambience, pace and characterizations in favor of showing one -- nay, thousands -- of monsters and chase scenes.
Well you don't need to look far, that's one of the problems with films from the exact same director such as Alien: Covenant.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main reason director's cut is recommended for first-time viewers is theatrical version having an intro that reveals many elements. That said the list of all the differences is quite extensive: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118929/alternateversions/ .
A general rule of thumb that I've adopted is to intentionally skip the first 10 minutes of any movie. This happened accidentally with Memento [0], it it became an incredible film. Without all that setup in the first scene, you exist with the protagonist as he discovers his world. I've tried it with other films and they give away too much information, you the viewer are practically handed the whole script. Give it a s…
In general, I disagree with your rule of thumb. My favorite movies have cool beginnings, and it'd be a shame to miss them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A general rule of thumb that I've adopted is to intentionally skip the first 10 minutes of any movie. This happened accidentally with Memento [0], it it became an incredible film. Without all that setup in the first scene, you exist with the protagonist as he discovers his world. I've tried it with other films and they give away too much information, you the viewer are practically handed the whole script. Give it a s…
I really don’t see how that changes Memento. Part of the tension is knowing Leonard is going to kill Teddy, we just don’t know why.
Skipping the first 10 minutes is like skipping the last 10, "I just know where this is going anyway". Nope. So much can happen in 10 minutes! Plus, you know, they filmed that part for a reason.
It's also like skipping the first chapter of a book: sure, some books would be improved by trimming their clumsy beginnings, but good books aren't.