It’s that time again — I have to put on my big boy pants and a clean shirt and stand up in front of a bunch of eager students and pretend to know everything. I’m teaching our introductory course, Fundamentals of Genetics, Evolution, and Development, and also our core Cell Biology course. So I prepared by going to the movies at the Morris Theater. This week, they were playing Guardians of the Galaxy and Lucy.
Guardians of the Galaxy was…OK. I enjoyed it, but it suffered from Heightened Expectations — I’ve been hearing so much enthusiasm about it that I walked in expecting the second coming of the love child of Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark, and there was just no way it could live up to that hype. What I did find was an amiable movie that didn’t take itself too seriously, with a good cast that fit some narrowly defined roles well, that rolled entertainingly to its conclusion with no dreary lulls in the action. I will go to the sequel (you know there will be at least one) with diminished expectations and probably enjoy it even more, if they don’t screw it up. It was well-crafted popcorn.
My major complaints are about the plot and the villain. It did a good job of breaking out of the rut of comic book movies — do I really want to see another Batman movie, ever again? No I do not — but the plot was lazy, hackneyed noise. There is a McGuffin, see, a kind of magic walnut, that can destroy entire worlds. The good guys have to keep the McGuffin away from the bad guy, who wants to destroy entire worlds. It’s an awfully thin and unbelievable thread on which to hang a whole new universe. Could we someday have an SF movie that isn’t about colossal events on which the fate of the entire universe depends, all managed by a handful of colorfully dressed humans?
And that villain — some shouty dude who put on his kabuki makeup while drunk. He was just some guy who wanted the magic walnut so he could blow up a planet he didn’t like. Why? We don’t know, he was just angry and megalomaniacal. Didn’t care about him. Didn’t find him at all interesting. Didn’t find his cause very compelling. Didn’t care when…OK, I won’t tell you what happens to him, but don’t worry, when it does, you won’t particularly care.
So enjoy it for the stage setting and the dramatis personae, but don’t walk in expecting a very good story. Maybe they’ll get some writers for Guardians of the Galaxy II who are able to think beyond a story centered on whether a very big explosion happens or not.
Now, Lucy: I’ve had one person tell me they enjoyed it, and I can sort of see that. It’s a Luc Besson movie. He can make shows that are good to look at, and a lot of the film is spent dwelling on Scarlett Johansson’s face, as he does. There are strange set-pieces where she uses her super powers, exotic technologies doing exotic things, and there are lovely French accents from angular men with interesting faces and manly stubble.
But I could not get past the desire to punch Morgan Freeman in the nose.
The premise of the movie is set up with a lecture by Distinguished Scientist Morgan Freeman, who tells a rapt and diverse audience that 1) life began on earth one billion years ago, 2) animals evolved several million years ago, 3) most animals use only 3-5% of their cerebral capacity, with two exceptions: 4) humans use 10% of their brain, and 5) dolphins use 15%, because sonar. He ‘hypothesizes’ about what would happen if 6) someone learned to use 20%, 40%, 60%, but he can’t even imagine what powers they’d have if they could use all of it. He’s been studying these phenomena for 20 years, and is so famous that he’s been invited to some prestigious Parisian institute to study it some more, or maybe to just stand around talking about it.
OK, Morgan Freeman and Luc Besson, how can you center your entire movie on a set of stupid claims that could be debunked with two minutes on Snopes and Wikipedia? How arrogant must you be to spend millions of dollars on a story built around your ignorant misconceptions without ever bothering to check whether your premises are valid? This thing had to have had multiple contributors in the planning stages, and not one spoke up to point out that Besson was wrong. Besson could have literally walked up to a nearby public school in France, asked to talk to a biology teacher, and spent 5 minutes in conversation and learned that everything he thought was a good point to make was totally daft.
But he didn’t. And now we’ve got the equivalent of The Core for biology. I really don’t believe what Besson said in an interview.
I worked on the scientific part for a couple of years first before I go to even think about the script.
Liar. Unless he thinks “worked on” is synonymous with “toking up and daydreaming.”
He’s also running about now claiming that the magic drug, CPH4, is real, and that it is produced in tiny amounts during pregnancy, in which it goes off like an “atomic bomb” to trigger amazing things in the brain. CPH4 is real, all right — it’s an enzyme that catalyzes one step in tetrahydropterin synthesis. One small step. It’s produced in small quantities because an excess wouldn’t do much of anything. I suspect he got a tiny nugget of information somewhere that was relevant to his thesis: tetrahydropterin plays a role in phenylalanine metabolism. Deficiencies in phenylalanine processing lead to a terrible genetic disease: phenylketonuria, PKU, which untreated, can lead to severe mental retardation and death. So I suspect he naively flipped that around, and figured that if you have more of this enzyme, rather than less, you get the opposite of brain damage, which is ESP and telekinesis and the ability to control other people’s minds.
It also didn’t help that Scarlett Johansson’s role was to go from terrified woman kidnapped by gangsters in the first five minutes, to super-intelligent automaton once the magic drugs kick in, and her acting instructions seem to be to be totally expressionless, talk very fast, and show no emotions at all, because as we all know, the more intelligent you are, the more like a robot you become.
I’ll let Luc Besson have the final word.
Some people are complaining about the fact that the science behind your film — the whole idea that humans only use 10 percent of their brains — is not true. What’s your response to that?
It’s totally not true. Do they think that I don’t know this? I work on this thing for nine years and they think that I don’t know it’s not true? Of course I know it’s not true! But, you know, there are lots of facts in the film that are totally right. The CPH4, even if it’s not the real name — because I want to hide the real name — this molecule exists and is carried by the woman at six weeks of pregnancy. Yes, it’s true that every cell in our body is sending 1,000 messages per second, per cell. And in fact, the theory of the 10 percent is an old theory from the ’60s. It’s never been proven. Some people worked on it, and it sounds like it’s not the truth. What is true is that we’re using only 15 percent of our neurons at one time. We never use 100 [percent]. We use 15 percent on [the] left, and then after, we use 15 percent on the right. But we never use more than 15 percent at one time.
The 10 percent is a metaphor in a way. So that’s why I was not bothered by that. I’m always amazed by these people who become scientists at the last minute and go, “This is wrong!” Of course; it’s a film. [Laughs.] What’s more interesting — more than the 10 percent or the 15 percent — is that if we get the capacity of full intelligence, in the film, we say that the first step is the control of the cell, the second step is the control of others, the third is the control of matter, and the fourth is the control of time. And I talked to a lot of scientists, and they believe that at least the first three are possible. They don’t say it’s true, but it’s at least logical. The good thing is when you take a lot of things that are totally right and mix them very well with a few things that are wrong, at the end of the film, you think everything is real. And that’s the magic of film.
Just an offer, Luc: next time you want to make a science fiction movie, come talk to me. I won’t suck up to you and pretend the big name director’s wacky ideas about science are “logical” — I’ll tell you they’re bullshit. You really need that right now, because Lucy was fucking embarrassing.
Oh, well, I’m giving a lecture on the scientific method to 50 students today. I now know not to try to sound like Morgan Freeman.
“Could we someday have an SF movie that isn’t about colossal events on which the fate of the entire universe depends”
I think your next post pretty-well answers that: Yay Firefly!!
>Could we someday have an SF movie that isn’t about colossal events on which the fate of the entire universe depends, all managed by a handful of colorfully dressed humans?
StarMan
Enemy Mine
You mean like in that movie where they killed off James T. Kirk? :P
Wait, is ‘Lucy’ a 1950’s sci-fi monster flick? It sure sounds like one!
(Deliberately not checking IMDB, I know I will be disappointed.)
You can’t use real science in a science fiction movie because real science doesn’t give you super powers except maybe x-ray vision for bullshit obscuro-screens.
I think your criticism of Guardians is a little off. It’s not a sci-fi movie, it’s a comic book one.
The McGuffin is part of a series of them, they’ve already mentioned two in other marvel movies.
what sqlrob said. pay attention to the other movies. and darn, “too many” big stories about the fate of the universe. welcome to human stories that are grand and fun. I am on the other side of the spectrum. I have no use for stories that are about how someone’s breakfast turned out, how a date turned out, and other tedious mush.
but if you want SF that deals with small stories,, how about Star Trek, the original one? Twilight Zone?
Spot on about the Morgan Freeman character! Drove me up the twist and round the bend. Other than that, I had quite a good time with Lucy and not just because Johansson does great tabula-sort-of-rasa. Having chucked logic and proportion out the window in the opening scene or two, I enjoyed the vaguely psychedelic aura and what is actually a personal vision, however cuckoo. The wildlife scenes were fun, too.
It’s weird, I had no problem with a talking space raccoons, talking space trees, and talking Earth-bound chimpanzees in the movies this year, but that whole 10% of the brain crap really annoyed the hell out of me. If it wasn’t that so many still believe that crap, I probably could have relaxed and enjoyed the movie more, but then Morgan Freeman had to go and talk again and I’d get sucked right back out of the film with a big “WHAT THE HELL?!?!!?” going through my head.
Guardians of the Galaxy delivered pretty much what I was expecting, which was a good popcorn flick with some pretty pictures.
Didn’t like Lucy much. I could even have accepted the stupid “10% of the brain” crap, if it hadn’t been for all the other stuff it gets wrong. I mean, I’m generally willing to suspend my disbelief a little if it allows for an interesting “what if” story, but there are limits. I also would have thought that Morgan Freeman, as the host of Through the Wormhole, should have known that his character was getting the timeline of life on Earth all wrong. Repeatedly.
But what was worse from a story-telling perspective, is that pretty much from the moment that Lucy gets her special powers, she’s already so powerful that nobody’s really a threat to her anymore. Which just takes away all the suspense.
I liked Lucy. I’m not saying it didn’t have problems. But it offered something we rarely see in movies today: a positive view of science. Too often science is seen as the Bad Guy and scientists doing ungodly experiments in areas Man Was Not Meant to Go and other such crap. Lucy didn’t do that. She sought ethical advice from a logical thinker, not a religious figure, and got it. She made it her mission to pass on what she was learning with her enhanced abilities before she transended. The movie explicitly stated, “Knowledge does not bring chaos, only ignorance.”
If you can look past the scientific mistakes and the art style and how it switches between being an action movie and an intellectual one (some big hurdles I admit), it has a good Humanist message.
Lucy qualifies as one and you ripped it apart.
Most definitely agree with you on the Lucy premise, it’s why I’ll wait til I can rent it from redbox.
But Guardians of the Galaxy is not really meant to be sci-fi, nor are the Infinity Stones just a foil. It’s part of the whole buildup that Marvel is working on, it’s an important piece of the story.
However, I can see that if you’re not really that big into comics, the movie on it’s own does seem lacking. It’s aimed at people who already know the story or who have been following the Marvel Project all along.
Every single villainous character in the movie, save one, was Asian. Every single Asian character in the movie was either a villain or terrified, devoid of character development, and doing a job with a gun pointed at them.
…really, Luc?
Hey, I’m doing a study on kids with phenylketonuria right now! Totally cool example of how science can sometimes do purely unmitigated good. Until the 50’s or 60’s or something like that, anyone with it had microcephaly, massive mental retardation, and a very early death. Now, they just don’t eat protein (I suppose “just” is the wrong word – it’s insanely difficult not to eat protein, for obvious reasons, and they have to supplement themselves with an artificial enzyme) and they’re perfectly normal kids, aside from their weird diet. Last week I was talking with one about her plans to go cross-border shopping that weekend, and simultaneously realizing how 100 years ago she wouldn’t have made it out of toddlerhood (and would never have toddled). I wanted to hug her and tell her how amazing it was, but obviously didn’t.
I’m not sure dragging science into the basement, butchering it, and then wearing its mangled face like a mask is an improvement over stabbing it and leaving it to die.
quote: “It’s an awfully thin and unbelievable thread on which to hang a whole new universe. ”
Just an fyi, it’s not a new universe. The infinity stones are a part of the marvel universe. Loki’s staff probably has one in it, and the Aether (swirly red stuff) in Thor 2 was also an infinity stone. The collector bought the infinity stone in the post credit scene in Thor 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbtJZx-ShOE . The collector was also trying to buy the gem in Guardians of the Galaxy as well. It’s all part of the same universe. Also, the “lazy” plot was true to the comic books of those characters (as far as I recall).
I’m not trying to change your opinion, just letting you know that the nerdy comic book fans had more to appreciate than you might realize.
I liked Howard Taylor’s comment on Lucy:
Lucy – I’m so tired of movies where a white person becomes empowered by going to a Foreign Country and murdering the shit out of the locals, you know? It bugs me that this action flick about a woman saving herself from a kidnapping had to come with a bunch of East Asian cannon fodder.
@kevinalexander #5 – You are confusing science fiction and fantasy. The difference is whether or not the story tries to make the science plausible. Dr. Who, for example, is pure fantasy despite it being about a time-traveling alien. Most comic book movies are fantasy (seriously, what genetic mutation would give you control over the weather?) Guardians of the Galaxy is mostly science fiction, although there are some fantasy elements (a magic walnut capable of destroying planets? Really?)
Some tropes in science fiction — faster than light travel and communication, a galaxy full of humanoid aliens that we can talk to, planets where we can breath the air and eat the indigenous species — are established enough that they don’t need to be explained. Lucy, though, used a non-standard plot device and then desperately tried to tell the audience, “This is all true!” If it were being promoted as a fantasy movie, or even just as a non-genred drama, I would be interested in seeing it. It’s desperation to be taken as science fiction, though, means I’ll never go: I have better things to do than spend an hour and a half screaming “That’s fucking ridiculous!” at a movie screen.
Why are so many people arguing that comic book movies deserve an exemption from basic rules of good storytelling because they are based on comic books? Do comic books suck that badly?
The premises you require to be gilded in truth are kind of arbitrary, aren’t they? What movie in which lead character(s) have supernatural powers doesn’t require some suspension of disbelief?
I think the irksome thing isn’t that a film played on the trope that we only used 10% of our brains, so much as the fact that lots of otherwise educated people believe that without really thinking much about it.
I suppose if there were a Wikipedia or Snopes page debunking the possibility of talking trees and raccoons, your take on GotG might have been different.
An auteur named Luc produces a movie about a Mary Sue named Lucy – hmmm.
Somewhere in one of the later “Don Juan” books, Carlos Casteñada has his “CC” character recite the “10% of the brain” schtick and his “DJ” character replies that means only that scientists haven’t detected what’s going on in the other 90%. When your sf can’t even keep up with a decades-old doper fantasy story, you really need to get a better supply of weed.
@PZ Myers #20 –
It’s a comic book story: if the bad guy was well-dressed and well-spoken, had a sane reason for wanting to destroy planets and a scientifically valid way of destroying said planets, it would not be a comic book story. That is not an exemption, it’s an expectation of the genre. People do not read comics — or go to see movies based on comics — because they expect plausible plots and constrictions based on reality.
This is sort of a backhanded insult to comic books. Comic books are a medium that’s been around for at least 100 years, waxing and waning during that time, but in the early part of the 20th century encompassed a wide range of (typically pulp) literature: true crime, romance, sci-fi, horror, westerns, etc. The explosion of superhero comics in the middle of the 20th century seems to have cast everything else going on in the medium into a deep dark shadow, but Marvel and DC are not the whole comics industry, and superhero comics are not representative of the medium as a whole. Read Love and Rockets, particularly the Palomar stories, which stand easily alongside Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Laura Esquival and Mario Vargas Llosa in the annals of Latin American literature. Read Ed Brubaker or Brian Azzarello or Jason Aaron, who all give Elmore Leonard and Dennis Lehane and James Ellroy a run for their money in crime fiction. The Walking Dead has no superheroes, and issue 100 of that comic was the best-selling comic issue of the current decade. (And was, quite possibly, the most terrifying, heart-pounding experience I’ve ever had while reading.) Brian K Vaughan and Fiona Staples are currently writing Saga, which is the best light-sci-fi epic since the original Star Wars (and probably the best currently published series in comics.) Read Jeff Lemire and Craig Thomson and Gene Luen Yang and Derek Kirk Kim for deep, interesting comics about being human and growing up and history and religion and being different. And none of that even begins to plumb the infinite depths of the independent, self-published, web-comics, or foreign comics scenes.
I’ve been holding off seeing this movie for two reasons: the “humans use 10% of their brains” premise, and the fact that it’s a sci-fi movie with Scarlett Johansson (I suffered enough watching Under the Skin).
I generally enjoy sci-fi/fantasy movies, and they’re all loaded with falsehood and half-truths. But for some reason, some get on my nerves more than others. I hated Prometheus for several reasons, one of which being the silly “DNA soup” in the very beginning.
Out of curiosity, PZ, how did you enjoy Gattaca? I personally consider it one of the most brilliant sci-fi movies of all time – visually beautiful and with a meaningful story about the human condition. Did you see it, and if so did you have any issues with the “your whole biology is 100% determined by your genetic code” premise?
Now c’mon. To be fair, Under the Skin was masterful at punctuating long stretches of unbearable boredom with sharp moments of utter incomprehensibility.
On the plus side, it could be useful in class. I taught a nonmajors geology course once and I made the entire final exam “Watch The Core and list everything that’s scientifically wrong with it and why”.
Professor Myers:
“It’s an awfully thin and unbelievable thread on which to hang a whole new universe.”
This criticism is completely hallow as GotG is not the first film in the universe, it’s the tenth. The other films in the series, but especially the Avengers and Captain American 1, set up the Infinity Stones and their importance. The Infinity Stones plot is almost certainly leading to Thanos going on a rampage to please Death, as Thanos is in love with her. Ronan, on the other hand, was primarily motivated by his hatred of Xandarians, as he religiously perceives them as weak and holding the universe back.
Yes it’s simple, and archetypal but hardly “thin” given what the film is trying to do.
Brother from Another Planet
Carlie:
Oh, the cruelty!
What Besson doesn’t realize is the the upper limit for humans really is 10%, which can never be exceeded because the other 90% is Operating System.
PZ: “Why are so many people arguing that comic book movies deserve an exemption from basic rules of good storytelling because they are based on comic books? Do comic books suck that badly?”
Yes, comic book storytelling really is that bad :P (ie, the joker being able to get an entire hospital full of explosives for a perfect demolition, without being noticed.)
Also, part of the point is that comic book movies are usually part of a bigger story, which can’t all be explained in the movie itself.
– I never read comic books, though I sometimes liked drawing the characters. Still don’t; no interest. But, similar to what John Stewart has said, perhaps movie making has developed to a point at which people who would NEVER have bothered – and much less paid – to partake of anything related (ahem) now find something alluring. Similar to the way I could never read any of the Dune past page 20 or so due to the aaagggghhhhhstyle, even after multiple attempts… but loved the stories when a brilliant geek friend of my recited them from the tattoos inside his head. Some things, some people, some vectors.
&Nbsp;
– Loved Guardians of the galaxy. Loved it. Had to see it twice, because two daughters on different days. Loved it both times. Was it stupid? It was stupid. Was it fantastical? It was fantastical. Was the bad guy one dimensional. (etc).
– Neither of my under-fifteen daughters thought it was “intelligent,” but they loved it. I went in holding my breath for massive irritation and twitchiness, because I’d seen the previews, which clearly screamed “goofy as all hell” and “not based on plot.” Neither bother me in themselves, though I have people close to me who live in worlds of pure plot. Lazy, bad and inept bother me, specifically with regard to whatever a writer (&etc) have chosen as a focus. Character, atmosphere, emotion, whatever; just don’t fall asleep on the focus.
– I know that the classical measure of swellness is the ability to hit all the points, but then, I grew up on rocknroll, punk, blues, Jackson Pollock, Jasper Johns, Steve Martin, Steven Wright, E. E. Cummings… what you hit, you hit, it’s meaningful or it’s not, and a great part of the beauty is the intention and devotion and sweat regarding whatever particle of some universal whole is your focus. (And yes, that’s a bunch of uneducated opinions, but I pretentious otherwise.)
– But. I was mostly concerned going in because I knew that there were 5000 ways to get 3 (minimum) obvious foci of this thing wrong: raccoon, tree, and huge blueish warrior, and very few ways to get them right.
– And I think they got them right. Loved and accepted all 3, without even intending to. They were funny, and consistent, and warm, for my gullible value of warm.
– And plot? Stuff happens, and characters react. That’s it. Acceptable or not. (In this regard, as a stripped-down model, I tend to think of the phrase “I’m Batman.” X, Y and Z occur, and then: “I’m Batman.” Oooooh. Appreciation of this stuff is probably pure childishness, like peek-a-boo from someone dear, again. But I don’t find “putting away childish things” necessary, or even useful in all cases.)
– And Lucy. Stupid redux. …(drumroll)… Loved it. (With the exception of pure asian villainry.) If stupid is unacceptable, Luc Besson may not be your uncle. Went in already hugely pissed about the 10%, and then bought in to the BS the movie actually presented, which seemed not to be “disuse” of 90% of the brain, but lack of conscious access and control of 90%, and being a person that has trouble with conscious control of what appears to be 5%, it was a concept. And obviously the effect were ridiculous, but they were fantastical, and SCARLETT JOHANSSON.
– And this is not an excuse, but this is a fairy tale. (Whether Besson says it out loud or not. I’m pretty sure he knows. Try to see Holy Motors, another French movie, for some abbreviated cultural backstory on this.)
– In fairy tales all the ten thousand known, concrete things in the universe go spatula-melting inasane. Real things that people rely on bug out completely. Wagons fly, humans sprout wings, lizards pontificate, castles float on water vapor, baby carriages are stolen by dust bunnies, grandmothers are immune to acid, etc. So… given our all too human tendency to not change our basic desires, drives and comforts, can science really expect to be given a pass? Even if our lives depend on it?
Damn. I really must have needed a diversion.
Both re these movies and writing this nonsense.
@31…and MS-DOS, at that.
I was willing to suspend disbelief about the 10% crap to see Lucy. If only they could have kept the internal logic straight. A few of my complaints (spoilers):
– surely when you test a designer drug, you want to determine the optimum dosage and LD50. So surely they would have noticed that an ‘overdose’ produced superhumans, unless there was some kind of crazy parabola on the LD50 where below a certain dose lethality increased, then decreased above that dose
– Lucy becomes the most intelligent person on the planet, and wonders what do to. Obviously call Morgan Freeman and get his advice.
– when threatened by police, she waves her hand, they all fall unconscious and don’t bother her for the rest of the film
– when threatened by drug dealers, she levitates them, and they are after her a few minutes later with more men and guns
– despite killing numerous people, including a hospital patient, Lucy is content sticking knives in the drug lords hands and leaving him alive to pursue her later
I totally agree with the earlier review of ‘Under the Skin’. What was the point of that movie, other than seeing Scarlett naked, and why did she agree to do it (lose a bet?)?
I went in with too many expectations too, but I nevertheless liked Guardians of the Galaxy. Story was so-so, but the characters were great.
I do have to say this. Because diversion.
– Not being a comic fan, and finding “deep” conversation regarding comics almost universally cloying, there’s one thing that I really do appreciate in the way they’re approaching the movies overall: The massively toung-in-cheek filling of a supposedly unified universe with conpletely discrete charcters.
– Seriously. Try to imagine Loci (viking god), as presented to date, on a rampage with Rocket (raccoon).
– Granted, Tom Hiddleston could find a way to twist the character out of its current context and make it work, but that’s Tom Hiddleston, and that’s a lot of twisting.
– Or maybe Iron man and Groot.
– I just really love the “woo hoo! we’re hydroplaning in jello!” approach to it all.
@mattwatkins #24 –
From their beginnings, superhero comics have been about going beyond the constraints of reality. The benevolent, indestructible alien who is stronger and faster than mere humans. The rich playboy who fights crime as a vigilante. The misunderstood outsider with inexplicable abilities. The result of a scientific experiment gone wrong, or gone right. A victim of some terrible natural or supernatural accident. Such heroes require an equivalent villain, someone who is evil or a megalomaniac or greedy beyond normal human avarice or is an incredibly capable psychopath. Studies have shown that this kind of exaggeration is a big part of what attracts fans to the genre. It is one of the defining characteristics of what makes superhero comics.
Dr. Myers seemed to be making the claim that adhering to the defining tropes of superhero comics meant bad writing. I disagree. My apologies for doing a poor job of making that point.
Michael @ 35:
Eh, I found Under the Skin to be enjoyably surreal. I had the wiki page on the novel open while watching though, which helped, because I then understood the basics, and could relax and enjoy the artistic aspects.
@38 Gregory, I’m not necessarily taking issue with your characterization of superhero comics (though I wouldn’t have to think too hard to come up with counter-examples, even though I rarely read superhero comics.) My issue was your equation: comic books = superhero stories. I suspect the accident that conflated the genre with the medium is that movies in the post-WWII era didn’t have the technology to portray superhuman feats. Who knows? But non-superhero comics are a deep and rich medium, perhaps more-so for living in the shadow of superhero stories for decades.
knowknot:
*blinkblink*
.
.
.
I’d pay money to see that.
And not just because of Tom Hiddleston—though that would be a Sufficient To Itself Reason.
–
seconding cicely
Tom Hiddleston…twisting…Jello.
Um. I think I got lost somewhere, but that’s okay.
I wish I could remember where I heard this to give a proper citation, but I think I did once see a neurologist comment that there are instances where a person has had their entire brain active at once, or at least the entire brain was attempting to fire all of it’s neurons at once. Those instances are called “epileptic fits” and have not been terribly productive, or pleasant for those who had the experience.
@daemonios #25, definitely agree about Gattaca’s brilliance, and for exactly those reasons. To an extent, the 100%-determined nonsense is the one thing for which you have to suspend your disbelief. But then the whole point of the story is that he overcomes his genetic destiny. And on the way it’s great to encounter some people who do respect the ‘in-valids’, defying social conventions.
MattWatkins @40:
That may have been part of it, but it’s probably more to do with the formation of the Comics Code Authority after the publication of Seduction of the Innocent in the 50’s. This effectively banned the publication of horror or crime stories, portrayals of seduction, positive portrayals of outlaws, and negative portrayals of authority figures and policemen. Prior to the Code, romance, crime, cowboy, horror and other types of stories were incredibly common. Adopting the Code basically meant those stories were all abandoned. It’s a very weird little piece of history.
@mattwatkins #40 – I thought that might have been the case, which is why I specified “superhero comics” in my response.
They were all “Yaaaaayyyy!!!” when I announced it, and by about 20 minutes into the movie they were all “Nooooooo!!!!”
:D
Carlie:
You enjoyed that, too, didn’t you? :D Honestly, my television got close to suffering death while The Core was playing. Gad, the awful was…Nooooooooooo!!!!
PZ said: “Could we someday have an SF movie that isn’t about colossal events on which the fate of the entire universe depends, all managed by a handful of colorfully dressed humans?”
I realize this is rhetorical, but there are a lot of excellent SF movies being made these days. Just off the top of my head, here are four goodies from the last five years:
Europa Report (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2051879/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Moon (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Oblivion (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1483013/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Section 9 (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1136608/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1)
Anyone looking for “harder” SF (rather than space opera) should check these out, if you haven’t seen them already.