Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 388 posts

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#311

Post by BLKNSLVR »

jacquesm wrote: post #264
voytec wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A lot of great sci-fi is marred by cheap effects that look incredibly dated only a decade later. I, for one, enjoy low-budget scifi very much. Crappy CGI has it's charm but CGI aside, I have the feeling that actors in lower-budget shows were more involved than those in shows written to be ratings winners. It's kind of like with websites created with passion and websites created for SEO.

If you haven't seen it yet: Primer.

Great movie, needs a re-watch or three...

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#312

Post by jacquesm »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #311
jacquesm wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you haven't seen it yet: Primer.

Great movie, needs a re-watch or three...

Yes, no kidding on that front, the first time you see it is likely going to leave you with more questions than answers.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#313

Post by Eisenstein »

StillBored wrote: post #309
the_af wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally, 100% agree. Gattaca is amazing, and my all time favorite Blade Runner also has outstanding practical effects (flawed, sure, but you stop noticing soon enough). One of my favorites that, while very cool in general, suffers from some dodgy effects is Aliens. In general I wouldn't change a bit from it, but some of the dropship scenes are terrible and were pretty bad even back then. Then again, be careful what…

Its a case of "your holding it wrong". These movies (blade runner/etc) should come with screen calibrations to assure that people don't have the brightness on their TV's turned up too high. A problem that is far to prevalent, along with having the contrast set at cartoon levels to make them pop. These old movies were _DARK_. For long stretches you could barely see anything much less all the details of the ships. I re…

I am curious about this H.R. Giger interview. I am unaware of him making any movies though your wording could just be confusing. Did you mean 'created fear in the the elements of the movies he contributed to' or did you really mean 'created fear in his movies'?

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#314

Post by Eisenstein »

Tv9m wrote: post #307
giberson wrote: post #218

I though about this movie a lot going through IVF with my wife. Particularly when selecting the embryo to implant. For those that don’t know: With IVF, the doctor harvests as many eggs from the woman as possible. Then after taking the make sample and cleaning, selecting the semen with best modality , fertilize each embryo. Then let the embryo grow for a couple of days then freeze the embryo until it’s ready to be imp…

> And then the slippery slope, “we can also improve the odds of higher intellect, being taller , thinner, etc”. I would love to have been born in a world that had slid to the bottom of that particular slope.

Cross your fingers to be born rich!

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#315

Post by StillBored »

Eisenstein wrote: post #313
StillBored wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its a case of "your holding it wrong". These movies (blade runner/etc) should come with screen calibrations to assure that people don't have the brightness on their TV's turned up too high. A problem that is far to prevalent, along with having the contrast set at cartoon levels to make them pop. These old movies were _DARK_. For long stretches you could barely see anything much less all the details of the ships. I re…

I am curious about this H.R. Giger interview. I am unaware of him making any movies though your wording could just be confusing. Did you mean 'created fear in the the elements of the movies he contributed to' or did you really mean 'created fear in his movies'?

He was part of the special effects team for Alien.

I'm not sure where/what interview it was, may have been some commentary on the movie I remember it from many years ago.. But i'm 99% sure the interview was about the special effects in Alien, and how he intentionally kept the alien mostly hidden. Google yields a lot of results but I'm not going to watch all of them for you :)

Anyway, I so I guess he "contributed" the fear since he wasn't the director.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#317

Post by thelittleone »

anonporridge wrote: post #8

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.

I instantly loved this film the moment I saw vintage cars with futuristic engine sounds. Simple genius.

Compared this to an example such as Total Recall, where cars were designed to look futuristic. Looked great when the film was released, but terribly dated now. It affects the re-watchability for me.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#318

Post by jasmer »

It's odd that everyone talks about 'genetic enhancements' as a measure of success or opportunity because I never even thought about the film as being about that.

I thought the film was far more about eugenic fascism, and that kind of thing being wrong in the first place?

It's not a story about a kid who 'beat the system in which he wasn't supposed to belong'.

It's a story about a system of 'stupid requirements'.

It wasn't 'amazing' that he was able to keep up with the 'genetically perfect' rather the notion that 'genetic perfectionism' is a bit absurd.

It's like if society only handed jobs to those with 'perfect SAT scores', well yes, it's a measure of 'perfection' of some kind correlated with positive things, but it's not that big of a deal.

The Nazis were very big on genetic perfection, and this is a classically Hollywood dig at their ideology.

Now they should update it for 2023 and have it about students meeting 'genetic criteria' for Ivy League admissions, which is a weirder game than trying to get to space ...

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#319

Post by the_af »

StillBored wrote: post #309
the_af wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally, 100% agree. Gattaca is amazing, and my all time favorite Blade Runner also has outstanding practical effects (flawed, sure, but you stop noticing soon enough). One of my favorites that, while very cool in general, suffers from some dodgy effects is Aliens. In general I wouldn't change a bit from it, but some of the dropship scenes are terrible and were pretty bad even back then. Then again, be careful what…

Its a case of "your holding it wrong". These movies (blade runner/etc) should come with screen calibrations to assure that people don't have the brightness on their TV's turned up too high. A problem that is far to prevalent, along with having the contrast set at cartoon levels to make them pop. These old movies were _DARK_. For long stretches you could barely see anything much less all the details of the ships. I re…

Agreed in general but do note the dropship scene is not particularly dark. The dropship is going through the clouds and the "superimposed" image is pretty bad. I'm pretty sure Cameron cringes nowadays when he looks at it.

Do note most of the other Aliens SFX stood the test of time very well, and of course, it's a Well made movie with awesome pacing, making it easy to forgive those few effects that aren't very good.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#320

Post by chii »

lmm wrote: post #270
anonymouskimmer wrote: post #244

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…

i think eugenics has to have an external influence on the mating choice, rather than just pure self-selection (this external influence might be inorganic, like propaganda, or an actual director choosing the mates).

It's a spectrum as well - not a binary choice. Some cultures prefer their children to marry within culture, and this expectation is set by the parents/grandparents etc; i consider this a form of eugenics, albeit mild and likely not harmful.

Post reply on HN