Mr. Zimit was very adamant in explaining that the oxygen supply didn't allot for more than 10 people. However, they were all very concerned with procreating while in the bunker. Babies breath. Just saying.
And why was it so important to have a child immediately during/after the apocalypse. Why couldn't they wait the year out and start making babies after the 12 months were up?
Fair point.
Perhaps they were assuming the bunker would be open before the first child was born? If they waited four/five months before procreating, the first child would be born (again assuming no complications) after 12 months.
Another aspect I thought was odd was how when they were choosing for the second time who would go in the bunker, many told things about themselves they couldn't know. For example, how one girl was going to get cancer in 3 years, or the girl who may have contracted the ebola virus wouldn't have known either (as it was only days before the apocalypse scenario). But even if she had known...why say anything? Or at least use that as a topic of discussion.
The film had a nice premise, but not very well thought out...at all. Great locations though.
...and don't point your fooking tentacles at me!
In the second scenario, after ten weeks of trying for a pregnancy without results (and take into account it take a while for it to be possible to test for it), they are so stressed that things turn violent.
Another plot hole which bothered me is how can you carry the code from the second scenario to the third. If we're talking their inside-the-scenario knowledge, it's impossible. If you assume they're using their outside-the-scenario knowledge, that's just weird. After all, the student who memorizes the code is using an inside-the-scenario characteristic in order to be able to use outside-the-scenario knowledge. Either well, this premise fails.
"He shall be an adder on the path, to bite a horse's heel"share
[deleted]
actually no. as it was revealed at the end, all he wanted was to terrorize his (ex) girlfriend and her new lover.
there was no real "experiment" element to it. he wanted to let them fail all over again, until the female protagonist had enough of his bs.
aprt from that, no classroom in the world would go with the hypothetical scenario as portrayed even once. especially if those are philosophy students.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
aprt from that, no classroom in the world would go with the hypothetical scenario as portrayed even once. especially if those are philosophy students.
and did the teacher make up stuff at will to lead any scenario to a disastrous end? my guess: no.
shareYes but what the OP is asking is if there is just enough oxygen to hold ten people for one year...how can they have children? The oxygen levels would be depleted faster. Granted the little baby dudes would only have tiny lungs, but if all four girls had a child that could equate to perhaps having, say...a midget in their midst.
Even one of the vertically challenged could throw a spanner in the works....maybe.
...and don't point your fooking tentacles at me!
[deleted]
true. as far as i understand he did manage to get into the female protagonists pants prior to this scenario anyhow and she left him for that other dude. as she said: main goal of the game was to mentally punish that dude, which is completely absurd, just as absurd as said guys reaction within the "game".
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
I thought that too until I saw the end sequence where the teacher walks up to stair to his desk, that's when I considered the following.
Perhaps he was a lone survivor in a cataclysmic event and was conducting the 'experiment' in his own mind to see if the struggle of living was worth taking.
Ergo, the entire classroom and the final days test was all in his head, perhaps the students were based on real people and what they'd do to survive.
When the iterations paint a bleak picture of accepting fate and ultimate death he commits suicide.
Of course I could be completely wrong, but there was something about the classroom that made it even more claustrophobic than the actual bunker.
dude, the chick confronted him with the fact that he just wanted to punish her and her new lover and the teacher agreed eventually.
as for the rest: there is nothing in this film that points towards that.
it is easy: the basic concept of the "only 10 out of the twenty can enter the bunker" experiment is a pretty well known mindplay/philosophical experiment, just as the other ones that were named by the students, the teacher just modified it for his own morally corrupt reasons.
sorry man, he was a douchebag, nothing more nothing less. he adored one of his female students like a goddess, most likely even slept with her and to make things worse a teenager and even was infernally jealous on her new boyfriend, btw also a teenager.
if he wants to commit suicide, because his teenage student choses another teenager over him, he should really go ahead with his suicide attempt.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Yes, Right!!!
shareI think carrying the code over from one scenario to another was done intentionally - in part, to make the viewers think, and in part as the students rebelling against the obviously rigged scenario their teacher was presenting them.
Similar to Mr. Zimit's set-up that revealed the future of several characters (in a real-life situation, those futures would not be known), I think his students turned it around on him by insisting that they had knowledge that rendered him unnecessary to their survival.
He in turn rebels against their solutions by revealing that the bombs never dropped and he's been living in a cave waiting for them.
Rather than finding that this weakened the plot, I found it intriguing from a pure observational stand-point - meaning that we saw that adherence to "logic" and "rules of the game" morphed into "turnabout is fair play" and "might makes right".
It was like watching children play chess and make new rules as it suited them: "Well, I've decided that the king can jump over the knight right now, so I can kill your pawn if I want to." It still looks like chess, but it isn't, anymore.
When we, as viewers, accept Mr. Zimit's premise at the beginning, and insist that the movie has plot-holes or isn't up to standard because all the characters deviate from that premise, I feel like we are losing some of the richness of the psychology that comes into play. For me, it is less about whether they riddled their way out of a doomsday scenario. It's more about their choices, which are subjective and beautifully human, as illustrated in the third iteration. The blond female lead decides that survival isn't worth it, but life is. She chooses accordingly, and pronounces the premise a false one, rigged, and she rigs the game right back to get what she wants. Interesting!!
However, to add to your point, and to admit that I wasn't satisfied with everything, I have to include that in the first iteration, I would have spent my extra weeks of air (from only having 9 occupants) absolutely glued to that front-door keypad, trying every code in sequence. If they worked in teams of two, around the clock, one trying codes and one writing down what had been tried, I think they would have had enough air to find the right code in time. 01, 02, 03, 04, 05...
IF that was the only plot hole i'd be happy with this movie :)
shareYeah, your right. I didn't take the time (nor do I care to, ) to pick the movie apart, piece by piece- but for a film to have only one plot hole (if that is the only one) is a great feat in itself. I guess it simply stood out to me. This film was intensely about "logic," so that particular subplot just threw me off a bit.
sharewell, that proves once again, that low expectations can play out positively for some people.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Would you like a pat on the back, for what you probably think, are clever remarks? Honestly, I couldn't entirely understand one of your comments, as it didn't appear to make any sense; but all the same, I presume it was supposed to insult me. Seriously, I'll never understand those who find a thrill in debasing others. Since you are following and making attacks everywhere that I post on this board, I assume I've offended you in the it is an eugenics experiment thread. The OP made self-righteous comments, and I responded to them. For whatever reasons, it seems you may have taken "refuge" with those comments and are as I take it, offended that I dared to question his/her arrogance. So you come after me, as if I've done something wrong in expressing disappointment with another individuals attempt to be mean. I guess in your world, it is acceptable to behave as a jerk, and unacceptable for someone to speak out against it. If that is your issue with me; the idea that you agree with someone whom I've called out as being pompous, then I don't know what to tell you other than, grow the heck up.
You've probably heard the expression, birds of a similar feather, flock together- so by all means, I hope you enjoy each others conceitedness. I'm sure those sort of shallow critical thinking skills are very rewarding for you.
wow, you take yourself pretty seriously, don't you? that's pretty ironic.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Ugh, no, but what is ironic is your sense of wit. Something tells me that you make it a habit to create controversy…quite the piece of work. Good luck with life, although, I’m sure your inflated ego provides you with enough illusions of grandeur and fulfillment.
Again, grow up. Instigating and engaging in senseless insolence is extremely immature and unflattering. You can keep trying to provoke a conflict all you want, but you will be doing it alone.
hahaha. point proven. thank you very much. angry much?
wait, let me guess your the start of your response:
"no, not angry, but blah blah blah .... self entitlement ... blah blah ... me me me me so great .... everybody else crap .... but YOU YOU YOU ... (insert lame attempt at irony, just coming off as passive-aggressiveness) ... "
looking forward to hearing from you.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
I have participated in similar experiments during philo classes back in highschool, and this movie reminded me a lot of those days. Plot holes or intention, this is pretty much how the debates took place between me and my colleagues. The debates were always won by the men, 6 in number, against 24 women. Because women always cast logic aside and stick to mushy feelings. The only illogical thing in the movie, related to the experiment, was the whole code issue. Doesn't matter if you have an eidetic memory, you can't "re-visualize" something that never happened, so you can't use an important feature of an event, in another event. For this particular example, it was like successfully using the cheat codes of "Age of Empires" in "StarCraft".
shareIt's just another variable to influence the decisionmaking process that they start with, nothing more. By that logic, people don't always breathe at the same rate - exercise, sex, various emotive states (e.g. anger) cause them to breathe faster and therefore exhausts more air. But in the context of the film, Zimit's insistence is just to frame the reason for cutting off half the class in a slightly believable way, it doesn't have a basis in reality.
Also to add, just sort of put it out there, the "experiment" is rigged. Zimit's intent, as Petra sees right through, is not to have a classical philosophy discussion/roleplay based on an apocalyptic premise. It is two-fold: first, to punish John and, by extension, get back at Petra for being with him. Second, he also wants to show her that her emotional decisions are (to him) simply wrong, and that (his) intellect will triumph over emotion easily (with the perk of demonstrating that he's smarter than the boy, as well.) Zimit always influences the way things go (like the exit code thing) up until Petra, by popular vote, gains control of the experiment and lets it run its own course.
They only survive in the third iteration, which Zimit again attempts to change by constantly banging on the idea that Petra's decisionmaking was wrong, and it has doomed them all, because her reasoning is different than his, and his is the only kind of reasoning worth going with.
One more for the road: think of the second iteration. Zimit leaps to the point of attacking the other inhabitants because they are not complying with his idea of multiple partners for girls. Instead of respecting their reservations about it, he pressures them, at gunpoint when that doesn't work, insisting that his logic is more important than their thoughts and feelings on the subject. When he can't get what he wants, or rather, when the student strikes back, he just straight up kills them all.
The man who went on and on about the survival of the species, the importance of procreation not five minutes ago decides he'd rather exterminate what he implies is one of the last groups of ten humans in existence, because they don't bow to his superior brain and reasoning. Because they, perhaps reflecting Petra, can't discard their feelings on something and accept that his logic is irrefutable (which it actually isn't and is the subject of another debate), and therefore must absolutely be accepted without question.
So really, oxygen? The whole thing is Mr. Zimit being a faux-egotist (with a very fragile ego) with a superiority complex. It's meant to flex his brainmeats and somehow sway Petra into abandoning her plans for going to college, because Mr. Zimit. So I don't think there should be any actually sound logic in Mr. Zimit's bunker.
And why was it so important to have a child immediately during/after the apocalypse. Why couldn't they wait the year out and start making babies after the 12 months were up?