The movie Transcendence is ahead of its time

I loved some parts of the movie and many I didn't.

The concept is excellent. These things are being worked out as we speak. The concept may not feel legitimate enough for the general audience not interested in science and transhumanism. So the ideas may come off as science fiction. I didn't think the concept was explained thoroughly enough. You can look into Ray Kurzweil's videos on youtube or check out the "year in science 2013" on Wikipedia. Science has cured blindness in mice. The first organs are being printed on 3D printers. Batteries on the nanometer scale is a reality, aimed to be a driving force in nano-robots similar to those depicted in the movie. A Swedish team has made a breakthrough by finding the mechanism behind all cancers.

Artisanally, I see some studio interference in this picture. It's a directorial debut and a hundred million dollar project; that may make them shaky. But you can't stir the soup so much towards the general rules of blockbusters that you lose grasp of the concept. This is a unique idea and I don't think that you need the technology to be antagonistic because that's not the general opinion about uploading or singularity among scientists. The movie would feel outdated (as pointed out by several reviewers on RT). That computers will take over the world after the singularity is an irrational claim similar to the ignorance of the greenhouse effect or saying that same sex marriage will cause earthquakes that will end the world. Uploading is far and away still but as in "Her", computer personalities will be indistinguishable from humans in 2029 as stated in The law of accelerating returns based on Moore's law.

I would have made three significant changes to this movie. First, I would explain more what happens and why it's possible to happen. The concept of this movie is so far out there, that most of the audience is unable to grasp its legitimacy or let alone invest in it emotionally. The other thing that went terribly wrong was the marketing. Investors sure are anxious about their 100 millions in spending, but to make a trailer that looks like a fast-paced action filled blockbuster? When it's really complex, intelligent and at most times slow? When there's no apparent foe? No epic battle at the end and Will just decides to surrender to the will of his wife? That's bound for disappointment. Third, I would cut out the antagonist. The movie can't decide whether it has one or not anyway, which I suspect was due in part because of studio interference. It's a unique ballsy concept, why not have a unique daring plot structure?

Imagine that the events in the movie just gets better and better. That the technology gets more awe-inspiring as the movie continues, so that audience just gets out of the theatre awestruck with ideas of the future in their minds and hope awoken in them. The concepts should be bridged carefully so that the audience understands how science can really create what is shown, without the picture being a long talk. As Jim Cameron said; "The more fantastic the subject the more realistic the situation needs to be for it to work" (The Making of T2, 1991). Otherwise you alienate the audience, which Transcendence did. That would have fixed the slow and irregular pacing also.

If you'd still want an antagonist or something similar, you could show the difficulties of implementing this fantastic technology in the society. In the U.S or elsewhere there's generally strong opposition from those who don't understand it or are afraid because of other reasons. Those people can be violent to. It would be a political show as well as a drastic change in societies where there are still extremists. That could be very engaging and thrilling with a good writer and director.

In 25 years, we may regard this movie as one with a stand out concept that was way ahead of its time.

Here's an article that appoints to the singularity and uploading being technologies to count on: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2344398/Google-futurist -claims-uploading-entire-MINDS-computers-2045-bodies-replaced-machines -90-years.html

Kurzweil said: 'Based on conservative estimates of the amount of computation you need to functionally simulate a human brain, we'll be able to expand the scope of our intelligence a billion-fold.'
He referred to Moore's Law that states the power of computing doubles, on average, every two years quoting the developments from genetic sequencing and 3D printing.