SPOILERS AHEAD ........
In the first iteration, the reason they all died was the lack the the exit code.
In the end we find the code is only 5 digits.
Why didn't they just work in shifts sequentially entering numbers until they hit the right number.
At a possible 9,999 combinations, that is only about 13 hours if it takes 5 seconds per number.
They already said they lasted an extra 2 weeks, so they'd have been OK.
??????????
not only that, but according to the teacher, alls of them were extreme smart, plus they had at least one technically able person in the bunker, so they could just open the digital lock and find the right two cables which open the door mechanism when connected.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Most actual security systems are designed such that after you've entered a wrong code three times you'll have to wait at least an hour to be able to try again (in order to prevent tampering and/or unauthorized access). By the way, there were 100,000 possible combinations (not 9,999 nor 10,000), as it was a five digit code. Apart from that, the kids didn't know how long the exit code was; it could just as well have been a ten-digits number. Not that they couldn't have tried, but it wouldn't be a surprise to me that they would have dismissed this approach as futile (especially in their psychological state).
However, what's more important: it's a thought experiment that was designed to raise ethical, moral and behavioral issues, not to test the kids' resourcefulness in technology and math problem solving. In my view, the lesson in the first iteration was one of the (global) distribution of wealth and resources. The privileged kids lived a carefree life away from the misery outside, thanks to a person who provided the bunker and its resources to them, but whom they excluded from the same resources because they didn't like him. Eventually, this choice was inevitably going to bite them in the behind, simply because resources won't last forever. Compare this to what's happening in the real world and how the average consumer in Western society is using Earth's resources and enjoying a life in wealth and luxury while being oblivious to (and being pretty much fenced off from) the huge problems that exist in areas like Africa, Asia and South-America -- the very places that actually provide for all that Western wealth.
______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY
well,
- most security systems don't have a digital lock ON THE INSIDE.
- the system is supposed to lock people out of a bunker , not in. they had technical people who could easily open the lock and shortcut the opening mechanism. it is not like it would have been secured with explosives that would go up if you tried to do that, because that would immediately kill everyone on the inside and again, such a lock is supposed to get people out, not in. while we are at it. since it is inside, every lock of such kind would have an emergency mechanism to get out.
- actually it is not. the first three scenarios by the students were. this was not. this was a game, dictated and rigged by the teacher. it is not more philosophical than a game of AD & D, where the gamemaster oddly also plays a character.
- you are interpreting way to much into a story that is just hollow.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
- A security system is a security system is a security system. It doesn't matter if it was placed on the outside or the inside, or if it was meant to keep people out or in.
- The (metal, I think?) lining of the walls and floor of the hallway of the bunker were designed in such a way that the kids couldn't and wouldn't easily remove it to get at what's behind/underneath. This was shown explicitly in the movie.
- It is a thought experiment. In real life, a speeding trolley wouldn't be swerved off the rails by a fat man. And if it would, then it wouldn't be able to kill all of five people tied to the rails. However, this irrealistic detail is insignificant to the issue that the trolley problem tries to address.
- The point was that the kids chose to spend a year in blissful denial instead of thinking ahead to solve the problem that they were about to face (and maybe develop a laser cutter or something in the meantime; or prepare themselves mentally for the finiteness of life), and as a result, when the threat became undeniably clear and concrete, spent their last days in horror and despair.
- The fact that the experiment was presented as a game and that some parts of the experiment were rigged doesn't mean that it wasn't a thought experiment. The bunker and its security system didn't exist in real life. (And regardless of that, in any case the "game" was not meant to test the technological or math solving skills of the students.)
- You say that this movie is hollow because that's all you choose to see.
______
Something Happens - "Parachute"
http://y2u.be/cuLcCmj4vMY
- lol. a security system has a purpose. that's why it is not a gadget, but a security system. you wanna tell me that anybody puts a code locked digital lock into the INSIDE of a bunker? hahaha.
- lol. now you are just reaching for straws. and even if i take you seriously, they had a full year to figure it out.
- lol. again, no, it is not. i already explained to you why not. the same way that magic the gathering and AD & D games are not thought experiments, they are fantasy adventures.
- the teacher did not even give them the chance to name any theories as to how to get out. also, they could just as easily said that the developed superpowers and just broke through the stone walls. just as easy as the teacher could make up what he wanted.
- that is not a fact. the teacher uses a rouse to fack with them, as the PROTAGONIST points out at the end and the ANTAGONIST agrees to.
- lol. no, because it was hollow. if you want to see more into it, then fine. the facts though speak differently. look, i could also interpret that it was martha stewart in one of the predator costumes in AvP. doesn't make it set in reality though.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
Yeah, I want to do a list of dashes with comments as well now.
- This wasn't really a security system, it was a timed mechanism to keep the bunker closed. Nobody was outside to come in and it was set up so they couldn't inadvertently go outside. From this perspective, the security code is outside the area it was supposed to keep people out of, like most security keypads. Personally I thought this whole thing was a little weak anyway, since according to the story there were several bunkers and it is extremely unlikely for each of them to have one of the designers in it at the moment things go wonky, so even if this is your set-up, the code would also be somewhere in the bunker, because you could'nt get out otherwise.
-I think that his point isn't so much that they could have figured it out, but that they didn't. If this experiment is a "what would you do" and what you would do is only start thinking about a solution when you are faced with the consequences of your actions in stead of considering the consequences before the actions (They had the time to figure something out, they didn't untill the year was up) you might not have the time to fix things when *beep* hits the fan.
-To a certain extent, a game like D&D *is* a thought experiment. It sets you up in a situation where you are supposed to work out specific options to achieve a goal, and it allows for both directly logical as lateral thinking solutions for issues. The big difference here is a) the setting, whch is not fantastical, and b) the fact that in a normal thought experiment your parameters would be set specifically for that experiment, whereas in a RPG the story continuously develops. But even in D&D (or at least the two times I played it) your character isn't suddenly allowed to go directly against the set rules.
-Nope. Because they concept clearly sets this up for a "as you are now, only as an organic farmer" and since none of these kids had the ability to develop super powers, their iterative counterparts could not do this. The teacher making up what he wants is a fair point, and it annoyed me as well, but even his made-up actions don't go directly against the rules as set up.
-That is a fact. It was presented as a game. Just because the intentions of the teacher were iffy at best, it doesn't mean the whole thing wasn't presented as the type of experiments they had been working through up to this point.
-I personally thought this movie could've really, really worked if the last ten minutes hadn't *beep* it up royally. I was rooting for a lateral solution as might have been presented in the last iteration, but the argument for it was just incredibly dumb, and the whole teacher/student thing was not needed and served no purpose other than shock the type of person that isn't really likely to go see a movie like this anyway. Had the teacher disliked the student for any other reason, I would've been more inclined to see the way he handled it. But that doesn't make it a hollow movie per se. I still think it was well acted, by a good crop of young actors, the way the experiments were presented was ok(ish) and it is, apparently, thought-provoking enough to discuss. Did I go out thinking it lacked something, sure, but ultimately whether a movie does anything for you and has the bones to stand up for itself is entirely subjective. It had a well thought out 3/4 and a, for me, tacked on last few scenes that felt like they were re-shot and focus grouped, doesn't mean the premise and most of the execution are flawed enough to be hollow.
- ad & d is not a philosophical experiment and that is what is claimed here by the teacher. as a rouse i might add. plus, as you said, ad & d got rules. in this case the teacher only wants to punish and makes up his own rules to get the outcome he wants.
- nope. by that logic the guy that was supposedly gay in the game, could not actually be gay in the game. by that logic also, the teacher could not be a bunker builder ... etc.
- well, that's the thing. there was nothing clear about the scenario, because it wasn't supposed to be.
- nope. it is presented as a philosophical dilemma, which it wasn't.
- i agree that i could have been a fantastic movie, but it is the script that ruins it. the rest is ok, i also agree top that. nevertheless storywise i liked the first 15 minutes, already hated it by the middle and when the twist came i was completely over this crap. there was nothing deep to this story, even though it pretends to be. that pretty hollow.
i gotta say though: maybe i am a bit spoiled when it comes to "meaning". i watch a lot lynch, gilliam, haneke, park .. etc, so if something is supposed to be "deep" it has to live up to that level.
on the other hand i found chronicles and repeaters kinda deep, so i guess the philosophers is still pretty hollow, even by "regular" standards.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
It was explained: someone could get crazy over the year and kill the entire the group by opening the gate before the end of the year as shown in the second experiment => Mr. Limit.
The system lacked a fail save...the gate could be openned without code after one year, for example. Or there should have been a way to obtain the code in some other way.
The function of this security system (of the entire Bunker) was to protect the group, not to kill it. If it does, the constructor has fail completely - Mr. Zimit.
A key system like used at nuclear weapons is far superior.
Group A (let's say the females) gets the code to key A, group B to key B, the gate can only be opened when both keys are turned at the same time by two different people.
Access to each group-key is limited to the group-members of the particlar groups.
Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer
I don't see how "dismissing the approach as futile" would ever be a reasonable decision. Given that the alternative is certain death, ANY chance of a lucky guess, no matter how minute, would clearly be the most logical choice. Working in 2 man shifts, one keying in all possible code combinations and another to observe/record for "several weeks" should give some measurable chance of escaping the bunker.
Not only that, but they knew for an entire year that there would be a possibility a code would be needed to escape. Why wait until exactly 365 days to even begin trying? If you started early and correctly input the keycode it seemed like you could immediately close the door with only minor exposure to any radiation, especially as the 1 year mark drew closer.
Since there was a keypad inside the bunker I think it's reasonable to assume a code might be needed to escape. With an entire year to plan they could have worked out their strategy. Starting 6 months out should be enough time to input all possible 1-6 digit codes and some percentage of the 7 digit ones. To not even address this seems like an oversight in a film about a group of logic driven students.
not only that. they could have rewired the security system. as you said, they had a year.
"laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone." - Dae-su Oh
promblem with the scenario. Is if your were picking people woudlnt you DEMAND to know what the teacher secret Skills is
I mean really if the world ending, would you put up with a guy that says "Not going to tell you what I do...I am THE WILDCARD" then proceed to shoot people. Would you let that guy in knowing nothing else.
You might be
"Listen man dont have time for this, tell me what you bring to the table or your not going in, otherwise going to assume you dont offer anything"
Of course it ended up he DID bring something to the table..but only because the Teacher Set it up that way. But really the logical choice would be to let him burn if it was a real life situation.
Anyway: this idea of a code is rather bad executed because a designer has to take into account that the "code-bearer" might died (accident, illness etc.) and there had to be a fail save.
Over all: Mr. Zimit was always a destructive element in these "games".
The second eperiment: The girl refusing sex with several partner (=> freedom, personal choice, when is rape acceptable etc. pp.) but when he fails (and after he tried to murder the girl), he kills them all what makes his first action toatlly absurd since his argument was the survival of the human spcies at all cost.
I don't get _My_ way, hence all have to die.
And that in the context that he claims everything he does, he does for the survival of the group/mankind.
From A to Z a selfish prick.
Ich bin kein ausgeklügelt Buch, ich bin ein Mensch mit seinem Widerspruch.
Conrad Ferdinand Meyer
the teacher wasn't good and they all should have failed for not being able to argue against an obvious fascist/dictator - other than the "smartest" student choosing suicide. lol
like in the second experiment they could have taken the solider in and had her torture him for a year for the code.
they could have argued that leaving the "best" people outside gives them better chances of saving themselves.
or the "twist" it'd would've been more likely that the teacher would stalk her at college considering if he had any real motivation he wouldn't be teaching these dumb high school kids. or he'd pick a younger student to perv out on.
Anyway: this idea of a code is rather bad executed because a designer has to take into account that the "code-bearer" might died (accident, illness etc.) and there had to be a fail save.It's a thought experiment. The idea of an out-of-control trolley that lacks the designed failsafes of 'braking by itself', can be considered "badly executed" too. However, that doesn't make the trolley problem less significant as a philosophy thought experiment.
Over all: Mr. Zimit was always a destructive element in these "games".Yup. He designed it that way; he is there to stir things up, by bringing in viewpoints from the extreme end. That's why he calls his role in the experiment the "Wild Card". That doesn't mean that the teacher himself is a destructive element in the classroom. Likewise, people wouldn't actually believe that Kevin Spacey is evil personified in real life, would they?
The second eperiment: The girl refusing sex with several partner (=> freedom, personal choice, when is rape acceptable etc. pp.)There was no issue of rape in the thought experiment (at least not literally). Mr. Wild Card was trying to make everyone consent to the proposed "pregnancy plan". His plan more or less came down to "the first purpose of women is being babyfactories, to produce offspring; that's what their focus should be". In my view, this second iteration was about oppression; mostly oppression of women, but also of other minorities (e.g. Chips who couldn't procreate because he's sterile, hence he's excluded from "participation" in the group). So yes, indeed about freedom and personal choice, to be different and to do things differently from what the majority/the mainstream/'the established power structure' values and decides.
but when he fails (and after he tried to murder the girl), he kills them all what makes his first action toatlly absurd since his argument was the survival of the human spcies at all cost.Mr. Wild Card takes pride in being the most "educated" and most "rational" of the group, that's what he's extremely good at and where his strengths lie, and hence where he gets his self-esteem from. So it's only logical that he wants to contribute to the group in the bunker with these strengths of his; he strongly believes that he sees the truth and the answers, and so he thinks it's only straightforward that others would see the same "truth" or at least acknowledge/accept his way of thinking.
"I don't get _My_ way, hence all have to die."
And that in the context that he claims everything he does, he does for the survival of the group/mankind.
From A to Z a selfish prick.
It doesn't matter... the "game" was rigged. Anything the students could have suggested as a way to get out, the professor would have made up some reason why it wouldn't work.
It's a thought experiment and not real life, so the rules are often rigged to produce exactly one outcome, even if those rules seem entirely bizarre.
Take any of the other small scale examples... the train for instance. A clever person might come up with all manner of ideas to save the people on the track. In a thought experiment, what's to say the person doesn't have an incredible skill at knife throwing, and managed to throw knives so expertly that it cut all their ropes. But then the person making up the rules says "no, they're too far away" or "the wind blows all your knives off course and you kill all of them". It's rigged to make you focus on the actual decision you're *supposed* to think about.
But in real life, not a philosophy class, those are what you'd call a false dichotomy... there are rarely only 2 possible courses of action, both unpleasant, in which you get to decide which is the least unpleasant. Well, besides at the ballot box. :)