"somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:

> "Neeum Zawan" <fee### [at] festercom> wrote in message
> news:87w### [at] festercom...
>> "somebody" <x### [at] ycom> writes:
>
>> > Are you suggesting that a company supplying clean, practically limitless
>> > energy to the whole world cannot afford a couple of manned moon launches
> per
>> > year? I did not realize the energy business was so hard to make a buck
> in.
>> > Maybe we should start a donation fund to help our poor oil companies...
>
>> Who said they can't afford it?
>
> If it's not a monetary decision, what then?

I didn't say I knew. Nor do I see the relevance. It's not really a major
aspect of the plot. 

Sure, if you make unneeded assumptions, the movie will indeed seem
stupid.

>> Well, let's see. You start off a thread complaining about a science
>> fiction movie, and then you insist on rules that follow a subset of
>> today's businesses.
>>
>> Who's being uncreative here?
>
> Today's business rules, human and corporate behaviour evolved for a reason.

Yes, because business rules the world over are uniform, right?

> They will surely keep evolving. However, fundamentals don't change.
> Operating with utmost safety in mission critical applications is not ever
> going to go out of fashion. Sci-fi is not to be a genre where anything goes,

Eh? It's rarely been /in/ fashion. Both in recent history and long term
history. People have been disposable in the past. I fail to see any
fundamental reason for that not happening again.

>> >> Why assume that it is unethical?
>
>> > Because to assume otherwise (ie. clones engineered to die after 3 years
> is
>> > perfectly acceptable) goes against everything we know and believe. Plus,
> to
>
>> "We"?
>
> Yes. I posit that 99.9% of surveyed would say that that's not ethical, and
> that warrants the generalization of "we".

I'm sure 99.9% of people surveyed will say lots of things are
unethical. Yet, when the opportunity arises, that number drops. Or
rather, they claim an exception. 

Torture, any one?

After all, are clones really people? 

>> > assume otherwise invalidates the point of the movie: If it's perfectly
>> > acceptable to do that, the movie becomes pointless and devoid of
> conflict
>> > for the audience.
>
>> So, there's little that goes on that is "unacceptable" in our world?
>
> No. But I'm pretty certain that, say, MS does not kill off its programmers
> who are past their prime productivity to avoid costs. In fact, give me one

1. MS not doing so is fairly irrelevant.

2. Killing the clones may in fact be quite humane, given that they're in
poor health at that point. 

> example of a company that actually did that at any point. If it's not

Lots of enterprises in history have cut off people when they're no
longer useful. Perhaps you should read up on Spanish history.

>> > If anything, the clones would function better if "HAL"
>> > stuck to the official company line. Also, it can be argued that even an
>
>> I take it you're an expert on clones?
>
> At least as much as the makers of that movie.

Let's see. You're positing a theory on what's good for clones. They are
not. Your theory is inconsistent with how the clones behave. Who shall I
ignore?

>> > Asimovian robot would lie in that situation to maximize the happiness of
> the
>> > poor soul before his inevitable death.
>
>> I don't recall: Did they say anywhere in the movie that it has to follow
>> the three laws of robotics?
>
> You were the one who suggested clones might function better with such caring
> robots.

Yes. I fail to see what's so Asimovian about my statement.

>> > Huh?
>
>> Your assumption that they were trying to rip off much from other
>> movies.
>
> It's an observation, and a very trivial one. I know you like being contrary,
> but surely even you are not going to argue that the robot (among many other
> things) is not a direct rip off from 2001? And I am sure opening the scene
> with an astronaut on a threadmill was also a coincidence.... etc

Frankly, I'm beginning to doubt that you've read much SF.

>> Yes, and it takes a wise person to know when not to analyze if there
>> isn't sufficient information.
>
> It's a movie. It's self contained. And it's sufficient information. If I'm

Movies are self contained? 

I'm beginning to understand why we're not seeing eye to eye. You view a
movie as a fundamentally different concept than I. The same is also true
for your views on SF, and perhaps stories in general.

>> > I am not under obligation to *imagine* that he has additional, more
>> > important jobs. If the moviemakers wanted me to believe that, they would
>> > have to have *shown* me. Since they did not, it's their failing either
> way,
>
>> If the moviemakers had deemed your knowing that as relevant, yes.
>
> Exactly. We can conclude that the director though out guy doesn't do
> anything else relevant. We see him sleeping, working out (several times),
> building models (several scenes), banging an alarm clock (couple of
> different times)... etc. Obviously, it's not as if the director ran out of
> celluloid before he could show us the really "important" jobs he does on the
> base. We thus conclude that he has shown all that is relevant, and he
> doesn't really do anything more demanding than carrying canisters back and
> forth.

Well, not relevant to the *story*. If I made a movie about a company
that mistreats its workers, you're suggesting it's my duty to point out
the details of what the workers actually /do/? 

And I just can't see Earth-like gravity and faster than light
communication as being relevant to the plot of the story. Along with a
lot of your other complaints. Sure, with some of them, one /could/ have
come up with an interesting story, but it would likely be a different
one.

You know, it's OK to simply say you didn't like it. You don't have to
construct a whole theory of story-telling and SF to defend it.

Post a reply to this message