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

351–360 of 388 posts

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#351

Post by imtringued »

kanzure wrote: post #11

Gattaca set the field of biotech back by decades. Countless hours have been wasted pointing to the movie for why we should not go down the slippery slope of genetic choice. Cool movie though, that's part of the problem. "If the audience is supposed to accept that genetic determinism is true in Gattaca, then no amount of Vincent's hard work should make Vincent a hero. He's just a fraud. If the audience is not supposed…

Is this a joke? It is just some science fiction movie and not a particularly good one. It is just that it was the first movie for many people that involved genetic engineering. The actual impacts of the engineering was to pass a gene scanner test. In no way did the depicted society actually depend on this genetic engineering.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#352

Post by wonderwonder »

ihatepython wrote: post #338
roflyear wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah because unvaxxed people are treated differently.

To be fair, the unvaxxed are superior to the vaxxed in many ways.

Starting to think the unvaxxed are like the old vegetarian joke. "How can you tell if someone is unvaccinated? Don't worry they'll tell you."

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#353

Post by chongli »

midoridensha wrote: post #342
chongli wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also check out the one for Bladerunner.

Arguably, the theatrical version of Blade Runner is better for first-time viewers, because the voiceover explains a lot of stuff they don't understand. Fans almost always say they prefer the DC (or actually the "Final Cut"), but my theory is that their opinion isn't really valid because they all saw the theatrical version first, so upon viewing the later cuts, they had the benefit of already knowing the story and bac…

I'm not one of those who saw the theatrical version. I didn't see the movie until much later in my life. I think actually read an article about how the "Final Cut" is Ridley Scott's "true vision" for the film before I actually saw it. That prompted me to go track it down and watch it for the first time with that version.

So, I've never actually seen the theatrical version with the voiceover. However, I don't believe there's anything in the film that I don't understand. I understood the symbolism and the message that was being conveyed. I'm being deliberately vague here because I don't want to spoil it for any random reader who might see this.

I don't think there's anything particularly difficult to understand about the film. Perhaps you think I am giving people too much credit? I don't think I am. There are lots of films out there with deeper meanings and hidden ideas/messages. There are lots of very critical viewers out there who pay attention and don't need everything spelled out for them. These are also the people most likely to get annoyed when a voiceover spoils it for them.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#354

Post by JoeAltmaier »

chii wrote: post #324
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #304

I don't share the prevailing opinion of Gattaca. I recall the main character as lying and cheating to to hide their genetic predisposition to heart failure. So they can take a place on a space mission, endangering a billion-dollar craft and the lives of the other crewman, all for hubris.

> endangering a billion-dollar craft and the lives of the other crewman which is the an outcome that was produced by the societal bias towards imperfect people. For example, instead of denying the role to him purely based on genetics tests, they could measure the actual performance against a standard (a standard which you'd need to perform at to do the job). Then, if he is predisposed to heart failure, there could be…

'Imperfect people' cannot become Astronauts today. For good reason.

You can't wish that away - heart failure. It's like I said, asking others to risk their lives for an avoidable risk, so that one guy can have 'their dream'.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#355

Post by kanzure »

imtringued wrote: post #351
kanzure wrote: post #11

Gattaca set the field of biotech back by decades. Countless hours have been wasted pointing to the movie for why we should not go down the slippery slope of genetic choice. Cool movie though, that's part of the problem. "If the audience is supposed to accept that genetic determinism is true in Gattaca, then no amount of Vincent's hard work should make Vincent a hero. He's just a fraud. If the audience is not supposed…

Is this a joke? It is just some science fiction movie and not a particularly good one. It is just that it was the first movie for many people that involved genetic engineering. The actual impacts of the engineering was to pass a gene scanner test. In no way did the depicted society actually depend on this genetic engineering.

I wish it was a joke:

"Biomedical ethicist Ronald Michael Green reports that Gattaca 'lives on in bioethics classrooms around the country as the epitome of what is bad about human gene interventions' [...] Like Brave New World before it, Gattaca has become a rhetorical resource for public debates about biotechnological futures (Lynch, 2019, p. 34; Von Burg, 2010, p. 4), with allusions to it frequently deployed as a commonplace for the unethical consequences of human genetic manipulation. But what if this is wrong?"

from https://www.redalyc.org/journal/5117/511769287029/html/

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#356

Post by AstralStorm »

anonymouskimmer wrote: post #284
cm2187 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's the opposite. In an arranged marriage the spouses are selected by their family irrespective of the merits of the kids involved. Free choice means you will select the spouse based on the merit of the spouse. I think it's much more likely to lead to gene selection. If beautiful people marry beautiful people and ugly people marry ugly people, you effectively get a sort of breeding (I know we don't like to u…

Everything you say makes sense, but none of it has to do with eugenics. It has to do with assortative mating. Eugenics is about socially driven desirable trait selection (where a trait can be what kind of family you come from). The social is the most important part. Not the trait selection. Individual trait selection allows a multitude of traits to thrive. Social trait selection tends not to.

Assortative in biological terms pertains to some biological traits. However, people more often assortative mate within thier social group. So you get an intersection of both but with the social factor vastly enhanced compared to biological.

You cannot easily have children with someone you never met, after all, barring IVF with an unknown donor.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#357

Post by hi41 »

forgotpwd16 wrote: post #151
the_af wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I watched the cinema version and found it outstanding. What are the changes in the director's cut?

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/ .

In the past, I used to rent DVDs for director’s cut where the director explains the scenes. Do we still have rental services where we can get director’s cut DVDs?

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#359

Post by stewx »

Interesting tidbit about the movie: Andrew Niccol, the director, wanted to make The Truman Show, but he couldn't get funding for it without enough of a track record. So instead, he made Gattaca which had a low budget. Its success allowed him to fund The Truman Show.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#360

Post by the_af »

midoridensha wrote: post #344
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…

>Then again, be careful what you (um, I) wish for: if they were to touch up Aliens they wouldn't stop at the dropship and they would ruin it with unnecessary CGI. I don't think this is fair. Not every director is George Lucas or wants to be like him.

True. George Lucas is the worst offender.

Though Cameron hasn't shown a lot of restraint lately, and Ridley Scott has turned into the biggest cinematic disappointment in my life!

Post reply on HN