how not to transcend
Sep. 27th, 2014 10:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
twoeleveni expected very little from transcendence, but the movie couldn't even deliver that. i watched the whole thing, but i fast-forwarded through some of wally pfister's lingering camera shots. pfister is famously known as chris nolan's cinematographer, but apparently he needs a firm directoral hand on his shoulder to avoid self-indulgence. he also doesn't seem to have much idea how to direct. i've seen most of the leads (johnny flopp, morgan freeman, cilian murphy) in other movies, so i know they can act... but there's only so much they can do with dodgy lines and dubious direction. none of this is new; the initial reviews pointed this out.
what fascinates me about this movie -- in the "horrible accident, can't take my eyes off it" sense -- that it missed every trick about transcending the limits of human biology via, for example, computing. i mean, it's one thing not to be up on the current science-fiction extrapolations, but the movie seemed entirely unaware of any of the actual vingean singularity or transhumanist fiction. it was just weird that neither pfister nor whatsizname who wrote this turkey was unaware of even popular media, such as watchmen (graphic novel; dr. manhattan specifically), sneakers (movie; computers and fun with electronic records), robocop (movie, especially the remake, which hit some of the tricks), or alpha centauri (video game; specifically human reactions to god-like beings).
ok, so johnny depp's character, will caster, is supposed to be a scientist and not a cunning hacker type up on hip SF, but the robocop remake's officer murphy, a random cop with normal human intelligence and creativity, showed what a random guy can do with the ability wade through databases like we'd skim magazines and the ability to access electronic communications (cell phone calls) like we'd channel-surf. caster is a genius with a shocking amount of computing power -- far more than robocop was using -- and he seemed to grasp the basics (need for lots of money, secure vat to keep his electronic brain in, etc), but the guys behind the movie couldn't figure out what to do with that, much less the nanotech pixie-dust caster invents along the way. nor could Our Antagonists (who are more or less the good guys) figure out what to do about that without accidentally-on-purpose breaking human civilization. (their "good" solution probably would have killed, oh, 99.99% of humanity directly or indirectly. adrian veidt, eat your heart out.)
the sad thing about the movie is that there were a few places where it could have gone in more interesting directions.
1) when our supporting characters are uploading caster's mind to a computer, The Voice of Reason says to The Love Interest, "how do we know it's actually him in the computer? if we miss one thought, one memory, we'll have no idea who we're dealing with." now, beyond this being one of the central points of cj cherryh's cyteen, it's an interesting idea to expand on. but the rejoinder to the point was "but I Love Him, so I Just Know!", which is banal beyond words. had this been mulled over, i think the movie could have gone in less wretched directions.
2) near end of the movie, Ohe Antagonists face this little problem: they can destroy they now-godlike caster by a stupid, stupid deus ex machina that was a century old when it was used in independence day and accidentally-on-purpose wipe out civilization with said trite excuse for an solution, or accept caster's divine overlordship.
problem: actually, caster is a benevolent god. he really does want to help humanity; he won't even use lethal violence in his own defense, and he's rather restrained about using force, period. he offers well-nigh immortality, limitless energy, a clean environment, and apparently boundless food... and Our Antagonists know this, and believe most of it. ok, so the great god caster is setting up the borg collective, but he's willing to listen to The Love Interest and back off when she insists.
so, there's this minor plot choice: OT1H, utopia, apparently at least equal to le guin's omelas; and OTOH, the destruction of human civilization and nearly all of humanity. one might think that at least one of the characters in the movie might ask "at what price, um... freedom? the ability to destroy ourselves, either now or later? what exactly are we fighting for here?" i don't think there's an easy answer.
3) there's the related issue: why are those the only choices? sure, under time pressure, people might not think of better ideas, but, um, pfister and whatizname can give them as much time as they want. if faced with the horrible choice of dealing with a dubiously-nice god and killing nearly everybody, couldn't somebody have said, "wait... can't we find some convenient rock to chain prometheus to? i mean, we can get the eagle later if we need to, right? wouldn't that be better than throwing away what might be a golden opportunity in exchange for a new neolithic?" alas... not possible. *le sigh*
when transcendence came out earlier this year, it was relegated to the late-winter graveyard. i think it's the first movie i can say it would have been better if the studio had destroyed every copy of it, burned all copies of the screenplay, and swore everybody involved to silence.
what fascinates me about this movie -- in the "horrible accident, can't take my eyes off it" sense -- that it missed every trick about transcending the limits of human biology via, for example, computing. i mean, it's one thing not to be up on the current science-fiction extrapolations, but the movie seemed entirely unaware of any of the actual vingean singularity or transhumanist fiction. it was just weird that neither pfister nor whatsizname who wrote this turkey was unaware of even popular media, such as watchmen (graphic novel; dr. manhattan specifically), sneakers (movie; computers and fun with electronic records), robocop (movie, especially the remake, which hit some of the tricks), or alpha centauri (video game; specifically human reactions to god-like beings).
ok, so johnny depp's character, will caster, is supposed to be a scientist and not a cunning hacker type up on hip SF, but the robocop remake's officer murphy, a random cop with normal human intelligence and creativity, showed what a random guy can do with the ability wade through databases like we'd skim magazines and the ability to access electronic communications (cell phone calls) like we'd channel-surf. caster is a genius with a shocking amount of computing power -- far more than robocop was using -- and he seemed to grasp the basics (need for lots of money, secure vat to keep his electronic brain in, etc), but the guys behind the movie couldn't figure out what to do with that, much less the nanotech pixie-dust caster invents along the way. nor could Our Antagonists (who are more or less the good guys) figure out what to do about that without accidentally-on-purpose breaking human civilization. (their "good" solution probably would have killed, oh, 99.99% of humanity directly or indirectly. adrian veidt, eat your heart out.)
the sad thing about the movie is that there were a few places where it could have gone in more interesting directions.
1) when our supporting characters are uploading caster's mind to a computer, The Voice of Reason says to The Love Interest, "how do we know it's actually him in the computer? if we miss one thought, one memory, we'll have no idea who we're dealing with." now, beyond this being one of the central points of cj cherryh's cyteen, it's an interesting idea to expand on. but the rejoinder to the point was "but I Love Him, so I Just Know!", which is banal beyond words. had this been mulled over, i think the movie could have gone in less wretched directions.
2) near end of the movie, Ohe Antagonists face this little problem: they can destroy they now-godlike caster by a stupid, stupid deus ex machina that was a century old when it was used in independence day and accidentally-on-purpose wipe out civilization with said trite excuse for an solution, or accept caster's divine overlordship.
problem: actually, caster is a benevolent god. he really does want to help humanity; he won't even use lethal violence in his own defense, and he's rather restrained about using force, period. he offers well-nigh immortality, limitless energy, a clean environment, and apparently boundless food... and Our Antagonists know this, and believe most of it. ok, so the great god caster is setting up the borg collective, but he's willing to listen to The Love Interest and back off when she insists.
so, there's this minor plot choice: OT1H, utopia, apparently at least equal to le guin's omelas; and OTOH, the destruction of human civilization and nearly all of humanity. one might think that at least one of the characters in the movie might ask "at what price, um... freedom? the ability to destroy ourselves, either now or later? what exactly are we fighting for here?" i don't think there's an easy answer.
3) there's the related issue: why are those the only choices? sure, under time pressure, people might not think of better ideas, but, um, pfister and whatizname can give them as much time as they want. if faced with the horrible choice of dealing with a dubiously-nice god and killing nearly everybody, couldn't somebody have said, "wait... can't we find some convenient rock to chain prometheus to? i mean, we can get the eagle later if we need to, right? wouldn't that be better than throwing away what might be a golden opportunity in exchange for a new neolithic?" alas... not possible. *le sigh*
when transcendence came out earlier this year, it was relegated to the late-winter graveyard. i think it's the first movie i can say it would have been better if the studio had destroyed every copy of it, burned all copies of the screenplay, and swore everybody involved to silence.