MovieChat Forums > After the Dark (2013) Discussion > it is an eugenics experiment

it is an eugenics experiment


if you like this movie you should be shot ...

reply

No, it's not an eugenics experiment. They did the thought experiment three times and no matter what or how, the result was that they wouldn't be able to procreate and rebuild human civilization. The thing these kids (except one) learned was that no matter how smart, capable or superior you think you are, there's no guarantee that life will go the way you want/envision it to go, nor that you can fully control your environment (which is what mankind has tried to do ever since its existence, whether it by physical force, religion, science & techonology, or whatever). The only thing you can do is lean back, recognize your limitations, and enjoy the good things. Sometimes ignorance is bliss, and you may be pleasantly surprised with how life turns out.

And yes, I liked the movie.

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

i meant the movie not its contents :)

reply

But then so is every Hollywood movie that features young attractive actors in key roles. Even Starship Troopers.

This movie did raise important issues and does have a worthwile message to tell. Using appealing actors and scenery increases the chances that the movie reaches its target audience, who have the most to gain from it.

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

did you watch it until the end? the truth about the "experiments" gets revealed and it has nothing to do with what you wrote.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

I don't agree with the common interpretation of the movie and the movie's ending that I encounter so much here. I seriously doubt that the director wrote this whole thought experiment thing with three(!) iterations just so that he could achieve a love story plot twist in the end. This movie isn't The Usual Suspects, you know.

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

no ... unfortunatelly it's not usual suspects :( and a single iteration would be too short for the whole movie ...

what i meant before is that this movie is an eugenics experiment in real life ...
meaning if you liked it your not really that smart and most certainly not a philosopher ...

i'm sorry and i don't want to insult anyone but it's just so stupid :)

how stupid ? for example how did they brought the exit code from one iteration to another ? iterations assume a reset of all variables and no one would remember anything from previous iteration cause they have died in it ... iterations are like alternative universes ... they are even at a different bunker every time ...

reply

The iterations were so short because they wanted to pack three into the movie; not the other way around.

I don't see how this movie can be called an eugenics experiment in real life. How are "better people" (according to whatever criterium) going to procreate more and produce more "better people" by watching (or not watching) this movie? Moreover, smartness is not genetic, nor is being a philosopher.

The movie presented a microcosm of a real life society. Single characters represented a whole branch (or even branches) of real people. You have to read between the lines to get what the movie wants to say.

For example, the soldier with eidetic memory could be said to represent the military, a nation's department of defense, and/or intelligence agencies. Whatever secret information there might exist, an agency like the CIA might take note of it when it comes on their radar, and "remember" it (i.e. keep a record of it) for practically infinite time, in case the information might come in handy in the future. No matter how secret, there is always someone "who knows". And even if not, then most likely when necessary a soldier would know how to torture the secret information out of a "wildcard" who doesn't want to share it for the benefit of the group.

However, the movie didn't want to make Bonnie (or anyone of the students) into an unsympathetic character (especially not that late in the movie), I guess that's why we don't see her torture anyone. It's also not the focus of the movie; the more important point to Bonnie's character in that scene, which is a positive trait, was the selflesss act that she served her purpose to the group and to the survival of humanity while not being inside the bunker -- voluntarily. I mean, she could just have said: well, I know the code (because I have eidetic memory, or I know how to torture it out of Mr. Zimit, or whatever) but I will only tell if you guys grant me a slot in the bunker; but she didn't go that route.

And I guess a philosophy teacher would agree that that was a far more interesting message than whether information can cross over from one iteration to another or not.

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

what you are doing here is called selective viewing. you already have a conclusion lay out and then desperately try to find arguments to support that conclusion.

sorry, but i am with the other poster. no offense, but that's stupid. you can interpret everything into everything, if you want to. i could explain to you why e.g. home alone 3 is an analogy for our modern life. doesn't make it more true though.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

You can't say "if you liked this movie you should be shot," and then say, "I don't want to insult anyone;" that's practically an oxymoron.

Your statement made no sense: the movie is a eugenics experiment in real life...? I get what you were trying infer, but it was a dumb analogy. Do you even know what the term "eugenics" means?

Also, your definition of an iteration is untrue. A simple check using the internet- and even at the slightest, Wikipedia would have clarified that for you.

Each repetition of the process is also called an "iteration", and the results of one iteration are used as the starting point for the next iteration. Wikipedia
An iteration requires that you repeat the scenario, but information discovered during the iteration can be utilized for future iterations.

But please, if you are going to declare others stupid (for a vacuous reason I should add), maybe you should try practicing at least some form of an acceptable grammatical format. Comments such as yours, that insult and criticize others for having a different viewpoint towards a film, are incredibly immature; and contrary to the apparent opinion you likely hold for yourself,
not really that smart.

reply

in regard to the "oxymoron" i was just trying to be nice explaining my previous post ... otherwise i'd have to say "you should be shot" ...

your definition of iteration is true ... but you have mistaken variables for results ... also as i said before it was a different bunker every time so even if they could use the same code as in previous iteration why would it have the same code ? does every phone have the same pin code ?

results in this case are conclusions that they draw from previous iterations ... but as philosophers not as people in the thought experiment ... a conclusion can be to not exclude the man you don't know everything about next time ... not to know the exact exit code ... how could this be productive if you aquire knowledge you would never have access to in a real situation with only one iteration (as all real situations are) ?

english is not my native tongue so the "grammatical format" can be somewhat wrong ...

reply

If the results of one iteration are carried over to the next, then they become the new iterations variables. The students discovered the bunker code during the first iteration, so it isn't so far-fetched to think they'd have that information during later iterations. Similar to them finding out each others occupations. In the first iteration they did not know each others occupations, however, in the second iteration they began the scenario with the students already "knowing" the occupations of each other (the new information revealed during the second iteration were the skills and/or factors related to each student, independent of their occupations- which, would become a variable in the third iteration).

Iterations are generally meant to solve a problem, or provide an answer of some sort. The iterations in themselves act sort of like a piece of scratch paper to a math problem. The scenarios are contrived and as such, experimental in nature. In experiments, variables are manipulated in order to unearth, understand and examine conclusions. In the first iteration, that particular variable (bunker code) was hidden until the end of the experiment; in the second iteration that same variable was manipulated to test a different set of possible results.

Nonetheless, my former sentiment still remains- if you are going to call people stupid for a superficial reason, then at least have the means to back it up...in your message and delivery. It's arrogant and the argument is irrelevant. Your subjective attitude towards a film has absolutely nothing to do with the intelligence of another individual based on their experience of the same movie. Statements, which support that sort of thinking are childish, baseless and irrational.

in regard to the "oxymoron" i was just trying to be nice explaining my previous post ... otherwise i'd have to say "you should be shot" ...
The intent to demean others does not make you appear superior or more intelligent. In fact, it does the opposite- in addition to coming across as a bit insecure. Clearly, you have the right to like or dislike a film- but it's unnecessary to insult others because they disagree with your opinion of the movie.

reply

well, his skill to deconstruct what you think is a conclusive argument pattern, in just a couple of sentences makes him superior though.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

you won this battle. Be proud.

reply

It wasn't a different identical bunker; it was the very same bunker, with the same food, the same guns, the same air, and it was also the same cataclysmic event. It was just a different geographical setting.

The code to open the door was shown when the group was given a tour through the bunker for the first time. This can be considered one tour that is valid for every iteration, because at the beginning of every iteration the group knows, for example, that there are only ten beds in it etc. So before the start of each iteration, it can be assumed that the group had been given a tour in which the door was opened by Mr. Zimit entering the code, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get in. Since the soldier is now aware that she has an eidetic memory (which was not yet the case in the first iteration), she can and may argue that she saw and memorized the code when he entered it during the tour.

This is just one possible explanation in addition to the others that I already gave in this thread, which in my view shows that there are many viable ways in which the soldier could argue to know the code, hence making the crossing over of this piece of information across iterations a minor issue of no significance.

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

lol. yeah, "possible" explanations. stupid ones though.

look, as i said, good fopr your if ou liked it. don't try to convince people though, that it has some qualities, that it clearly has not.

yes, if i pee on a canvas, there are always a couple of nutters, that can interpret the heck outta it. every intelligent person though will come to the result "WTF? that's just a canvas, that someone peed on".

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

lol. yeah, "possible" explanations. stupid ones though.

look, as i said, good fopr your if ou liked it. don't try to convince people though, that it has some qualities, that it clearly has not.

yes, if i pee on a canvas, there are always a couple of nutters, that can interpret the heck outta it. every intelligent person though will come to the result "WTF? that's just a canvas, that someone peed on".

Does it matter to the validity of the content if Shakespeare had written his stories with ink or with pee? I don't think so.


______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

so, he was a painter?

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

Is John Huddles a painter?

______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

unfortunately not. couldn't be worse at painting when compared to his scriptwriting, though.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

i am not sure if you are the right person to criticize others in regard to their grammar.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

Totally agree with you yurenchu!!

reply

You're a fool

reply

I'm glad there are users on IMDb like yurenchu who not only spend their time to bring real and logical arguments in a conversation, but also do it in a polite and adequate manner.
"Clearly" enzyme42 doesn't fully read the comments to this thread, because in his answers he doesn't even talk on the matter of the comment, but goes on to insult people. Is it that important for you to feel a victor in an argument rather than to open up and except new ideas?

Judging by all the comments in this thread, yurenchu "wins", and you "lose" this argument, but I don't think you will take a note of my opinion :)

Peace!

reply

i don't think he does. neither do i. thanks for playing though.

"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh

reply

Thanks for the kudos and for backing me up, justelf.

I just re-read this thread to see what had been going on. To be fair, it seems to me that enzyme42 never insulted me personally (at least not in reply to my posts). As far as I can see, he started a thread to vent his disappointment with this movie (which was expressed in rather coarse language in his OP, I'll give you that) but later replied just to clarify to me what he exactly meant with his first post. In his explanation he revoked the bulk of the offense, as he replaced "should be shot" with "is not smart nor a philosopher"; but it wasn't aimed at me personally.

The fact that he didn't go into my arguments and even didn't dispute them means either (a) that he didn't start this thread to discuss the movie's content (which I should have seen coming from the beginning if I had known that by "eugenics" he was clumsily referring to the movie itself instead of Mr. Zimit's thought experiment) but merely to express his disapproval of the movie, or (b) that my arguments were so tight that he was convinced by them and had nothing to add to them. Or maybe it's a little bit of both.

Enzyme42 didn't like the movie, and that's his good right. Although I hope my posts changed his stance a bit.


______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY

reply

NICE MOVIE..THE BEST I SEE IN 2014 FOR ME....6/10

reply

i got bored of this thread halfway through reading it.

did i like the movie? somewhat. it had moments and it has some decent messages but overall the way it plays out is very unsatisfying. i enjoyed the acting, the scenes and some of the philosophy but like everyone, i wanted much more depth. they could have gone so much further.

it was nice to look at, it makes you analyze ideas from outside yourself (a little at least) and in that, i enjoyed it. but yes it was very unfulfilling ultimately.

reply

Well that's stupid.

There's several "eugenic experiments" going on in the real world right now. You probably wouldn't want to go to Cyprus who have had a eugenics programming going since the 70's which has effectively eliminated the incidence of thalassemia in their population (it was previously very high). Dor Yeshorim in Israel another eugenics program designed to reduce (and potentially remove) certain genetic disorders from the population, etc.

reply

Oh really?...

Judging from the very first post in this thread, one could only pose this legitimate question to the OP:

"Are you retarded?"

After all, who opens a discussion thread in such a manner and expects any degree of credibility, at least to fire up a long enough conversation to give the OP the chance to elaborate on a Q&A basis? Why not explain everything from head start? There's no shortage of cyberspace.

Guess what: YOU should be shot. Why? Because I said so, and also because YOU said so. (eugenics, oh the irony!)

reply

No it's not a eugenics experiment. Anyone who likes this film needs to get a few years older, read a few books, and develop the resources to see what a horrible film this is.

reply

Anyone who likes this film needs to get a few years older, read a few books, and develop the resources to see what a horrible film this is.


Elitist, arrogant nonsense. Who do you think you are to judge someone else's personal opinions/tastes?

I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!

reply