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

191–200 of 388 posts

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#191

Post by cm2187 »

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.

Particularly when the supposedly futurist technology has already become obsolete since (CRT screens, rudimentary 3d animations, lack of portable communication, absence of networks, etc).

Also lots of sci-fi movies underestimate how much will not change, we live today with 200yo buildings, our cities won't look that different in 200 years.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#192

Post by hgsgm »

cm2187 wrote: post #179
flavius29663 wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a future where none of the kids are born with genetic diseases, predisposition to be obese, or simply stupid or ugly But we're all defective today, one way or another. It's incredibly rare for someone to be "perfect" genetically speaking, and a lot of those people will have a bad upbringing or something else to hold them back. It's true that being beautiful and above average smart will get you through life so much…

I have seen Gattaca (a while ago). But if anything it illustrates the point of view of the guy who has to live with a flawed genome (though in the movie a minor imperfection). Isn't it the point of view of the kid who has to live with his below average genome today?

And then the guy who had an accident gets his life ruined because only the dominant subjective "perfection" is tolerated.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#193

Post by sangnoir »

mixmastamyk wrote: post #41
bequanna wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does it make sense, in a world like the one in Gattaca, for a person that is part of a discriminated class, to go into space, instead of trying to change the society around him to be less discriminatory? I think this is a little naive. Why should every member of an underclass have to fight the good fight vs improve their own personal position? IMO, the latter is much more likely.

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.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#194

Post by yellow_postit »

Barrin92 wrote: post #103
GuB-42 wrote: post #92

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…

it's why I think the Farscape puppets were absolutely genius. They look so timeless compared to a lot of the heavy CGI use during that era of TV sci-fi.

No upres issues either like what happened with Babylon 5 when they did the hd transfers for dvd.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#195

Post by whatshisface »

InspiredIdiot wrote: post #125
curiousgal wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the reason is because I am an actual mintority who is doing the same thing. It's exactly why I relate to the movie despite being a woman.

I'm glad you relate to it because it is amazing but if there is one criticism I could level, it is that the only female character seems like she is ~drugged~ for most of the movie. Uma Thurman is a good actress so I have to assume it was the direction/script. Edit. Sorry, I was getting hyperbolic. There just isn't much development of her character so it is hard to see what the relationship between her and Ethan Hawke…

She was written that way to show what effects their cultural expectations would have on somebody's emotional expressiveness.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#196

Post by giantg2 »

cm2187 wrote: post #182
giantg2 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I am not sure why you would associate eugenics with genocide." Historically eugenics has included some mistreatment of those with undesired traits, upto and including genocide.

Historically chemistry has been used to produce Zyklon B. Doesn't mean chemistry is bad.

But it does show that it can br used in a bad way or or a bad cause. Someone asked why genocide was mentioned. History supports caution on that front, just as it does for chemistry.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#197

Post by sangnoir »

naasking wrote: post #100
college_physics wrote: post #84

There is a bit of survivorship bias. Sci-fi has imagined every possible universe, some of the predictions feel very close to what is transpiring. And if we focus entirely on the human stories behind technological facades or other cultural variability, some people claim that all possible stories have been written already.

I doubt that very much. People can always be wilder than fiction. I'm not aware of any sci-fi that predated gender fluidity, for instance.

> I'm not aware of any sci-fi that predated gender fluidity, for instance.

Ursula Le Guin's The Left Hand of Darkness (1964) had gender fluidity, before it was called that. It was central to the story.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#198

Post by anonymouskimmer »

cm2187 wrote: post #191
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.

Particularly when the supposedly futurist technology has already become obsolete since (CRT screens, rudimentary 3d animations, lack of portable communication, absence of networks, etc). Also lots of sci-fi movies underestimate how much will not change, we live today with 200yo buildings, our cities won't look that different in 200 years.

Not until improved concrete replaces current reinforced concrete: https://theconversation.com/the-problem-with-reinforced-conc...

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#199

Post by Swizec »

cm2187 wrote: post #191
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.

Particularly when the supposedly futurist technology has already become obsolete since (CRT screens, rudimentary 3d animations, lack of portable communication, absence of networks, etc). Also lots of sci-fi movies underestimate how much will not change, we live today with 200yo buildings, our cities won't look that different in 200 years.

> Also lots of sci-fi movies underestimate how much will not change

My favorite detail of the Battlestar Galactica reboot was how normal it all felt. For the most part your only clue that it’s The Future was that every rectangle had chopped off corners to become an octagon.

They even found a clever plot-driven reason for why that’s the case. Loved it.

Re: Gattaca is still pertinent 25 years later

#200

Post by [deleted] »

hgsgm wrote: post #192
cm2187 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen Gattaca (a while ago). But if anything it illustrates the point of view of the guy who has to live with a flawed genome (though in the movie a minor imperfection). Isn't it the point of view of the kid who has to live with his below average genome today?

And then the guy who had an accident gets his life ruined because only the dominant subjective "perfection" is tolerated.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN