Author Topic: EP Review: Children of Men  (Read 25472 times)

Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #25 on: November 22, 2010, 02:25:06 PM

- People adapt to new situations far quicker than the movie assumed. If, indeed, all human reproduction would suddenly cease, people would be deeply disturbed for a few days and return to life as usual within a few months.

I must disagree at least with this point. Would not be so easy to "get over" this event,  not with this particular level of catastrophe.

« Last Edit: November 22, 2010, 07:26:41 PM by Talia »



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #26 on: November 22, 2010, 07:00:19 PM

- People adapt to new situations far quicker than the movie assumed. If, indeed, all human reproduction would suddenly cease, people would be deeply disturbed for a few days and return to life as usual within a few months.

I must disagree at last with this point. Would not be so easy to "get over" this event,  not with this particular level of catastrophe.



I agree with Talia.  Also, the youngest person on Earth is at the point of the movie, like 18, right?  So, even if it wasn't a big deal back when it originally started, I don't think anyone is going to just behave like nothing is happening.  It doesn't take much reasoning to wonder what will happen when the youngest people are 30, or 40, or 60.



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #27 on: November 22, 2010, 07:29:21 PM

- People adapt to new situations far quicker than the movie assumed. If, indeed, all human reproduction would suddenly cease, people would be deeply disturbed for a few days and return to life as usual within a few months.

I must disagree at last with this point. Would not be so easy to "get over" this event,  not with this particular level of catastrophe.



People have gotten over much worse. I'm not saying that people would be unaffected. They would be. But the effects will be dulled over the years, as people get used to the idea that they will not have children themselves.

The thing about humans is that it is very difficult for us to grasp big events emotionally. Throughout history, the events we attach the most emotional significance to are sudden, violent, and confined to a specific geographic localle (e.g., the attacks on Pearl Harbour or 9/11, the storming of the Bastille, etc.). It is very difficult to grasp the horror of something that is slow, subtle, and takes place over the entire world.

There will be all sort of reactions, sure, but most people will keep it on the personal level - they will be upset that they cannot have children. But society will survive, and mostly unchanged.

Plus - and this is where the movie truly fails - humanity isn't nearly as homogenous as depicted within it. The movie detailed only one emotional reaction - despair - that manifested differently in different people mostly according to their politics. But in the real world there would be plenty of other reactions. There would be conspiracy theorists arguing that this was all done by the Russians or Chinese or Australians and that they really are giving birth in secret on their side of the world. There would be plenty of people - especially the last generaton of kids, growing up - who will take an atittude of "this is great! we're the last people to be using this world! We can do whatever we want with no consequences!" and there will be the people deeply depressed. But things will go on, mostly as they do now.



I agree with Talia.  Also, the youngest person on Earth is at the point of the movie, like 18, right?  So, even if it wasn't a big deal back when it originally started, I don't think anyone is going to just behave like nothing is happening.  It doesn't take much reasoning to wonder what will happen when the youngest people are 30, or 40, or 60.


Sure, some people will wonder. Most people won't care, until it hits them home.

As the grandson of holocaust survivers, knowing what my grandparents went through, I have a lot of faith in humanity's resilience. Knowing how little humanity has learnt from that and from other horrors of history, I have very little faith in humanity's capacity for growth. This movie, as I said above, is both too pessimistic in its depiction of society's collapse, and too optimistic, because it assumes that the collapse is because humanity has the capacity to understand the horror of its own situation.



Talia

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2682
  • Muahahahaha
Reply #28 on: November 22, 2010, 07:35:56 PM


People have gotten over much worse. .

Um... heh. Since when has something worse than the entire planet going infertile thus guaranteeing the end of the species happened? :P

Maybe I was asleep that day and and missed it? :P



eytanz

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 6109
Reply #29 on: November 22, 2010, 07:44:59 PM


People have gotten over much worse. .

Um... heh. Since when has something worse than the entire planet going infertile thus guaranteeing the end of the species happened? :P

Maybe I was asleep that day and and missed it? :P

The end of the species is already guarunteed. Everything dies. It's just a question of when.

But as I said, if it's not immediate and visible, humans don't react to it very strongly. Lack of babies is exactly that - a lack. And it's a species death that does not offer any immediate discomfort for anyone alive. People will react to it as they do to a stockmarket crash - "Does it affect me? not really, it just affects the society I live in. That's horrible. I'll have to give that serious thought, but right now there's a Cops marathon on TV".




DKT

  • Friendly Neighborhood
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 4980
  • PodCastle is my Co-Pilot
    • Psalms & Hymns & Spiritual Noir
Reply #30 on: November 22, 2010, 08:25:04 PM
Hahaha. Eytan, I'm pretty sure you and me talked about this in some other thread. I remember being really impressed with the movie - in particular the scene that you loathed.

I haven't seen it since then, but I still have pretty fond memories of it. Probably should watch it again at some point...


wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #31 on: November 23, 2010, 06:49:15 AM
I'm with eytanz.  Maybe they explained it (it was a while ago that I saw the movie), but I never got why everyone was fighting.  Terrorists try to affect change.  What change were these guys hoping for?  I could see people going about their business as best they could.  I could also see people just not showing up for work if they felt they had enough money.  I could also see crime increasing, but the terrorists in the movie seemed organized and somehow politically motivated. 

I think when the baby started crying in the middle of the battle it seemed like people would have tried to take him instead of just watching him go by, but I'd be willing to accept that that was such an unusual situation that we have no idea what people would do.

I also thought it probably would have been a good idea to take the baby and the mother to the government.  The government were clearly oppressive douchebags, but they would not have killed the baby.  They probably would have subjected it and the mother to endless testing, but in this situation, that may not have been a bad thing.  It seemed pretty irresponsible to go out on a boat hoping to be picked up by nice people based entirely on a rumor.

The movie assumed that I would agree with it and not ask any stupid questions when it put forth that people would panic and blow things up and the government would mindlessly crush them, so it didn't bother to justify any of it. 



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #32 on: November 29, 2010, 05:34:58 PM
Sure, some people will wonder. Most people won't care, until it hits them home.

I disagree.  Lack of babies is one thing, but by the time of the movie, there are not even any minors.  Grade schools and high schools would have all shut down, as well as playgrounds and daycare, Chuck E. Cheese would be a thing of the past unless they managed to re-envision themselves as adult entertainment, big swaths of the movie and other entertainment industry would disappear when there are no parents of young kids to market to.  People can ignore what's happening in the world if it doesn't affect them, but this would have an obvious and everyday effect on everybody.  Unless someone literally lives as a hermit separated from all people and media, I don't see how this could go ignored.



wakela

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 779
    • Mr. Wake
Reply #33 on: November 30, 2010, 02:27:55 AM
Sure, some people will wonder. Most people won't care, until it hits them home.

I disagree.  Lack of babies is one thing, but by the time of the movie, there are not even any minors.  Grade schools and high schools would have all shut down, as well as playgrounds and daycare, Chuck E. Cheese would be a thing of the past unless they managed to re-envision themselves as adult entertainment, big swaths of the movie and other entertainment industry would disappear when there are no parents of young kids to market to.  People can ignore what's happening in the world if it doesn't affect them, but this would have an obvious and everyday effect on everybody.  Unless someone literally lives as a hermit separated from all people and media, I don't see how this could go ignored.

They'll notice, but what will they do about it?  Why would they blow up a coffee shop because they no longer live in a world with Chuck E. Cheese?
I think there are a lot of interesting ramifications to the premise, but I don't think the ones the movie takes on are logical.



deflective

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1171
Reply #34 on: November 30, 2010, 04:02:34 AM
the brits are always creating depressing, dystopian futures.  usually there isn't even a reason why society turned out that way.

there's an interesting theory that polygamous societies are more inclined towards radical elements because there is a large number of unattached men with no real hope of finding a mate.  this creates a desperate mindset susceptible to violence, suicide, or violent suicide.  similarly, a world population without a new generation to carry on their beliefs could easily react in any variety of ways.  i'm more likely to believe that a world in this position may react this way than believe it definitely would not.

and it's been a while since i saw the movie but, from what i remember, it was set in the near future when resources were scarce before children stopped being born.  in fact there were pseudo-scientific theories that population pressure triggered some sort of biological population control.  as well, immigration pressure came from people trying to escape general violence in europe.

this movie had its share of flaws, i just didn't see these as being part of them.



Unblinking

  • Sir Postsalot
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 8729
    • Diabolical Plots
Reply #35 on: November 30, 2010, 05:33:01 PM

They'll notice, but what will they do about it?  Why would they blow up a coffee shop because they no longer live in a world with Chuck E. Cheese?
I think there are a lot of interesting ramifications to the premise, but I don't think the ones the movie takes on are logical.


That's a fair point.  I was responding only to the statement that no one would care.  If you do care, it's not clear what CAN be done, since no one knew what caused it.

there's an interesting theory that polygamous societies are more inclined towards radical elements because there is a large number of unattached men with no real hope of finding a mate.  this creates a desperate mindset susceptible to violence, suicide, or violent suicide. 

Inversely, a society where males are likely to die at a young age (by violence or whatever other cause) may be more likely to be polygamous because there are way more women than men.