In Time

[FireIceTalon]

Anyone seen this yet? I recommend you do so if you haven't yet. Easily one of the best movies to come out in a long while....

[DeeBye]

A link to a trailer or an IMDB page might have been helpful. I did your work for you.

Trailer

IMDB page

I have not seen this yet, but it really does look interesting and unique. I like the cast (Justin Timberlake is a very underrated actor and Cillian Murphy can do no wrong).

The writer/director was responsible for Lord of War which has the most amazing movie intro ever and Gattaca, which really does have poignant and precise social commentary whether you agree with it or not. It made me re-consider things I used to take for granted.

Thank you for bringing this movie to my attention, but your huge political text signature is obnoxious as hell and makes you look a bit preachy. That might be why everyone has avoided this topic.

[eppie]

Thank you for bringing this movie to my attention, but your huge political text signature is obnoxious as hell and makes you look a bit preachy. That might be why everyone has avoided this topic.

No, I only start joining a thread after deebye has posted something in it.
My POADS (post only after deebye standard).

Anyway is this movie idea not a bit like logans run?

[yangman]

A friend of mine dug this up; I was amused: 4 Unintentionally Revealing Things About “In Time”

[FireIceTalon]

^^Some interesting points made there, but I dont necessarily agree with them. The first point is about everyone being named after watches could be coincidental, but I get the feeling it is a metaphor that represents how influential our capitalistic society is: people are being named after name brands now. Just another form of idealism if you ask me, that is designed to keep the poor pacified. I very much disagree with point #2. We do NOT get the system we want. We get the system that the BOURGEOIS wants, and then we are manipulated by various forms of idealism to believe that is what we want. Point #3, exception - not rule. And point number 4 is over analysis and really not accurate. The point is not to have everyone die by age 40, the point is that no should live forever while others have only a day.

[Jester]

The first point is about everyone being named after watches could be coincidental, but I get the feeling it is a metaphor that represents how influential our capitalistic society is: people are being named after name brands now.

Never have I seen a better demonstration of the "To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail" principle. This is a movie about time. Called "In Time." Where the plot revolves around buying and selling time. Where everyone is named after watches. You think this is about... how influential capitalism is in branding? Really?

-Jester

Out of curiosity, why are the results reported for the political compass test in your sig different from the ones you reported in the thread?

[kandrathe]

^^Some interesting points made there, but I dont necessarily agree with them. The first point is about everyone being named after watches could be coincidental, but I get the feeling it is a metaphor that represents how influential our capitalistic society is: people are being named after name brands now.

No, I don't think it is a coincidence. Bulova and Timex would be dead giveaways.

I very much disagree with point #2. We do NOT get the system we want. We get the system that the BOURGEOIS wants, and then we are manipulated by various forms of idealism to believe that is what we want.

Or, better rephrased, we don't get the system YOU want, we get the system WE want. Our system is predicated on the idea that everyone becomes an owner. You start out at zero with youthful energy, and no experience, as a worker. Over time, you accumulate wealth, buying a home, saving for retirement, sending your children to college, and perhaps investing in companies you like. If you embrace a property-less system, and you are not an owner, then all you become is a renter, and you are one who can get kicked around by their landlord Uncle Sam. So, for me, property rights are a fundamental pillar of freedom.

You keep describing it like a zero sum equation. The occupy movement's disagreement is that yes, the pie(GDP) over the past 60 years is ten times larger, but for most people, their visible slice is about the same relative proportion, and a few lucky ones (the 1%), like Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, have slices that are much larger than they can ever use. What never changes over time (in time), is that those who take advantage of (or cheat) the system are the ones who benefit most. I don't mind most of the people who took risks, and then earn their rewards. I do mind it when lobbyists, inside traders, and other gamesmen rig the system in their favor. So, it's not the Bankers, it's the evil Bankers. It's not the corporations, it's the evil corporations. The evil acts are what define them. Now, we can haggle over what "evil" means to us, and how we'd like to remove that "evil" from our system.

Point #3, exception - not rule.

Well, no. I think this one is the real crux of the movie. Philosophically, "Time is money", and what if that were true. If I gave you alone immortality without the ravages of aging, in our current system, you'd eventually be a very wise and rich person. You might struggle for your first 50 to 100 years, but after that, baring swindle, theft, societal collapse or war, your investments and holdings would keep growing. In our society, the majority of poor people are under 30.

[attachment=96]

I reflected this in an older post... in the story of Adam and Eve, they were faced with the temptation of immortality, and knowledge. Given infinite time, you can attain all knowledge. Given infinite knowledge, you can attain immortality.

And point number 4 is over analysis and really not accurate. The point is not to have everyone die by age 40, the point is that no should live forever while others have only a day.

Both views are wrong. The enemy is us. When we are young, we are poor and want to attain what the older people have without the struggle. We are both the rich, the middle, and the poor. This is why, baring feudalism, the class war goes nowhere. When you are 18 and living at home, your dad is your land lord. Love it or hate it, he's your dad.

[Jester]

Both views are wrong. The enemy is us. When we are young, we are poor and want to attain what the older people have without the struggle. We are both the rich, the middle, and the poor. This is why, baring feudalism, the class war goes nowhere. When you are 18 and living at home, your dad is your land lord. Love it or hate it, he's your dad.

Strangely, I just left a very interesting seminar with a French economic historian, who was trying to calculate for 1870-1930 in Paris, the proportion of wealth (and the wealthy) that was earned/saved rather than the residue of inherited wealth at time of death. His conclusion was that the vast majority of the wealthy, and the overwhelming majority of the wealth, were inherited, not earned.

Different time, different place, but I think you're dreaming in technicolour if you think that this is just a question of the young envying the old, or that inequality is just some illusory phenomenon. "We" are not all born into the same situation. Not even close.

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Different time, different place, but I think you're dreaming in technicolour if you think that this is just a question of the young envying the old, or that inequality is just some illusory phenomenon. "We" are not all born into the same situation. Not even close.

I do agree that there is inequity in circumstances... some in spite of, and some due to government intervention.

So, putting on my Occupy "My House" hat;

The inequality (that matters) I'm thinking about are those needed to have a level playing field at adulthood (age 18) and a better life. It begins with access to prenatal care, extends into access to sufficient childhood nutrition and health care, access to an equal education, and a clean, safe neighborhood to make friends and play. After that, we can talk about access to college and then career, but I think there is plenty to mull over in figuring out the first 18 years. The bottom line is that we cannot force bad parents to be good parents, but we can help good parents to do all they can to help their children have a "minimum" of access to a better life.

I think we can agree that getting it done is important, but we may disagree on methods. I'm not opposed to government organizing the efforts, but I'd prefer to see the solution exist without the need to tax and spend. I'm much more inclined to allow localities to manage it on their own. In some places, like Detroit, where you have vast economic wastelands, you may need to import State, or Federal money to help out (until refurbished) an entirely destitute locality.

[FireIceTalon]

The first point is about everyone being named after watches could be coincidental, but I get the feeling it is a metaphor that represents how influential our capitalistic society is: people are being named after name brands now.

Never have I seen a better demonstration of the "To a man with a hammer, everything is a nail" principle. This is a movie about time. Called "In Time." Where the plot revolves around buying and selling time. Where everyone is named after watches. You think this is about... how influential capitalism is in branding? Really?

-Jester

Out of curiosity, why are the results reported for the political compass test in your sig different from the ones you reported in the thread?

I learned a thing or two since taking it the first time, thus the differences.

[FireIceTalon]

^^Some interesting points made there, but I dont necessarily agree with them. The first point is about everyone being named after watches could be coincidental, but I get the feeling it is a metaphor that represents how influential our capitalistic society is: people are being named after name brands now.

No, I don't think it is a coincidence. Bulova and Timex would be dead giveaways.

I very much disagree with point #2. We do NOT get the system we want. We get the system that the BOURGEOIS wants, and then we are manipulated by various forms of idealism to believe that is what we want.

Or, better rephrased, we don't get the system YOU want, we get the system WE want. Our system is predicated on the idea that everyone becomes an owner. You start out at zero with youthful energy, and no experience, as a worker. Over time, you accumulate wealth, buying a home, saving for retirement, sending your children to college, and perhaps investing in companies you like. If you embrace a property-less system, and you are not an owner, then all you become is a renter, and you are one who can get kicked around by their landlord Uncle Sam. So, for me, property rights are a fundamental pillar of freedom.

You keep describing it like a zero sum equation. The occupy movement's disagreement is that yes, the pie(GDP) over the past 60 years is ten times larger, but for most people, their visible slice is about the same relative proportion, and a few lucky ones (the 1%), like Warren Buffet, or Bill Gates, have slices that are much larger than they can ever use. What never changes over time (in time), is that those who take advantage of (or cheat) the system are the ones who benefit most. I don't mind most of the people who took risks, and then earn their rewards. I do mind it when lobbyists, inside traders, and other gamesmen rig the system in their favor. So, it's not the Bankers, it's the evil Bankers. It's not the corporations, it's the evil corporations. The evil acts are what define them. Now, we can haggle over what "evil" means to us, and how we'd like to remove that "evil" from our system.

Point #3, exception - not rule.

Well, no. I think this one is the real crux of the movie. Philosophically, "Time is money", and what if that were true. If I gave you alone immortality without the ravages of aging, in our current system, you'd eventually be a very wise and rich person. You might struggle for your first 50 to 100 years, but after that, baring swindle, theft, societal collapse or war, your investments and holdings would keep growing. In our society, the majority of poor people are under 30.



I reflected this in an older post... in the story of Adam and Eve, they were faced with the temptation of immortality, and knowledge. Given infinite time, you can attain all knowledge. Given infinite knowledge, you can attain immortality.

And point number 4 is over analysis and really not accurate. The point is not to have everyone die by age 40, the point is that no should live forever while others have only a day.

Both views are wrong. The enemy is us. When we are young, we are poor and want to attain what the older people have without the struggle. We are both the rich, the middle, and the poor. This is why, baring feudalism, the class war goes nowhere. When you are 18 and living at home, your dad is your land lord. Love it or hate it, he's your dad.

I have issues with the Occupy Movement anyway, for they merely want reform to a broken system. They are not, for the most part, revolutionaries in the least bit. Truth be told, reformists aren't that much better than reactionaries (Tea Party), in the view of people who truly want FUNDAMENTAL change.

The bankers arent necessarily evil, it is capitalism that is evil. The material conditions of any society dictate the nature of people and how they act. Capitalism is a system that promotes profits above humanity, thus the nature of people for the most part is greedy and selfish. We are NOT greedy or selfish by nature. There is no such thing as human nature, besides our will to survive and reproduce, nothing more. Everything else is determined by our environment, economic and material conditions, and culture. You dont change human nature (something that doesnt exist) to change society, you change SOCIETY to change the nature of people and their actions. Terms like good and evil are forms of idealism, and have no relevance to materialism. Idealism is a tool used by the ruling class and reactionaries to oppress the lower class by keeping them passive.

[vor_lord]

The bankers arent necessarily evil, it is capitalism that is evil. The material conditions of any society dictate the nature of people and how they act. Capitalism is a system that promotes profits above humanity, thus the nature of people for the most part is greedy and selfish. We are NOT greedy or selfish by nature. There is no such thing as human nature, besides our will to survive and reproduce, nothing more. Everything else is determined by our environment, economic and material conditions, and culture. You dont change human nature (something that doesnt exist) to change society, you change SOCIETY to change the nature of people and their actions. Terms like good and evil are forms of idealism, and have no relevance to materialism. Idealism is a tool used by the ruling class and reactionaries to oppress the lower class by keeping them passive.

I dare anyone to read the above paragraph without laughing. How many times can you contradict yourself?

[FireIceTalon]

The bankers arent necessarily evil, it is capitalism that is evil. The material conditions of any society dictate the nature of people and how they act. Capitalism is a system that promotes profits above humanity, thus the nature of people for the most part is greedy and selfish. We are NOT greedy or selfish by nature. There is no such thing as human nature, besides our will to survive and reproduce, nothing more. Everything else is determined by our environment, economic and material conditions, and culture. You dont change human nature (something that doesnt exist) to change society, you change SOCIETY to change the nature of people and their actions. Terms like good and evil are forms of idealism, and have no relevance to materialism. Idealism is a tool used by the ruling class and reactionaries to oppress the lower class by keeping them passive.

I dare anyone to read the above paragraph without laughing. How many times can you contradict yourself?

And where did I contradict myself? Why do I get the feeling you are just trolling for the sake of trolling because you dont like or agree with my views/politics? As the old saying goes, put up, or shut up. Yes, im calling you out.

[Treesh]

I dare anyone to read the above paragraph without laughing. How many times can you contradict yourself?

Curse you for quoting that! There's a reason for the ignore button (although it's rather hidden), and you just loopholed your way around mine!

I forgive you though since it did give me an opportunity for eye-rolling entertainment.

[FireIceTalon]

She has me on ignore. Woe is me, I'm going to lose a ton of sleep now

[vor_lord]

And where did I contradict myself?

You claim that words such as good and evil are creations of idealism -- yet you use the word evil to describe capitalism. Are you therefore an idealist?

You claim there is no such thing as human nature (except the desire to survive and reproduce, as if that is somehow insignificant and immaterial when describing human behavior...), yet you also talk about changing human nature.

Honestly, I was looking forward to having an honest-to-goodness Marxist. I'm quite apolitical myself, and have enjoyed kandrathe and Jester's discussions (though I admit I don't follow them to completion).

So far, you have disappointed. I am still waiting for your ideas on how to promote the revolution without authoritarianism. But this last post has my hopes waning that there is anything to see here.

[DeeBye]

No, I only start joining a thread after deebye has posted something in it.
My POADS (post only after deebye standard).

I'm regretful that I posted in this thread. I thought it might be a thread about a movie, but it once again turned into a political/socio-economic debate where everyone uses BIG WORDS and INTERNET RESEARCH in an attempt to prove how wrong the other party is, instead of actually talking about a movie.

The Lounge used to be a fun place to hang out in. It really isn't that way now. I'm not opposed to political debate, but it seeps into almost every single damn thread. At the end, it's just the same two or three people posting massive replies and rebuttals to each other and I all I can do is just picture their look of smugness when they hit the "post reply" button while the rest of us try and figure out why the hell we even visit this forum anymore.

I fully admit that I've fallen for some of the near-troll political posts and replied to them, but I really wish I would have just kept my mouth shut.

I've tried to inject a little levity here and there to lighten the mood, and even posted banal threads about stuff that most people can relate to in a NON POLITICAL WAY to try and get others (and I know you are out there) to once again participate in this amazing forum, but it never works.

I watched the remake of Conan the Barbarian the other day, and it was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Only the first 10 or 15 minutes were even worth watching (Ron Perlman plays Conan's dad and Ron Perlman rules something fierce!). The guy who plays Conan should never act again. The closest analogy I can muster is that he's like Dr. McCoy in the original Star Trek series. He hates everything and is all quiet and brooding in a nonchalant kind of way, but when he's supposed to get angry and go barbarian he just goes "Dammit Jim!" and swings his sword around until people die.

[FireIceTalon]

In terms of being greedy, selfish, altruistic, and so forth, no....there is no such thing as human nature. These are things we pick up as a result of the material conditions around us, we are not born with them. We ARE born with a will to survive and reproduce, and that is pretty much it. Everything else, we are a product of our environment. Which is why the whole "Communism can't work because of human nature" argument doesn't wash with me. The only reason I said human nature is because people seem to think you would have to change human nature for Communism to work, which is false. How can u change what does not exist? We are born into Capitalism, thus we learn to be selfish, greedy, and individualistic. If society were socialist, we'd be a lot more altruistic and have more of a collectivist culture rather than individual.

Im not an idealist by any stretch of the imagination, I'm a materialist. I guess a better way is to say good and evil are a matter of perspective. From the perspective of the ruling class, capitalism is not evil and is in fact quite desirable, thus the incredible measures they take to preserve the status quo. For the working class, it varies, because those who are manipulated by Idealism and Bourgeois talking points in mass media, may know something is wrong, but do not realize the material conditions around them to understand if it is capitalism. Thus some ignore the problem as they feel powerless, and they even resort to being reactionary in some cases (the Tea Party). Some, however, do know, and those are the ones who want revolution.

As far as the revolution taking place without authoritarianism, why not? In fact, this is the ONLY way it CAN take place (though Marxist-Leninsts will swear otherwise). Socialism can only work if it comes from the bottom up, by a dictatorship of the proletariat. A vanguard or centralized party will only result in a huge state bureaucracy (as seen in the USSR) which will then turn into state capitalism and create a new Bourgeois. Communism is for Marx, after all, the highest form of democracy. Authoritarianism undermines the very principles of socialism.

[Treesh]

I watched the remake of Conan the Barbarian the other day, and it was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Only the first 10 or 15 minutes were even worth watching (Ron Perlman plays Conan's dad and Ron Perlman rules something fierce!). The guy who plays Conan should never act again. The closest analogy I can muster is that he's like Dr. McCoy in the original Star Trek series. He hates everything and is all quiet and brooding in a nonchalant kind of way, but when he's supposed to get angry and go barbarian he just goes "Dammit Jim!" and swings his sword around until people die.

I heard they were remaking that and I thought to myself "Why?". Of course, I felt that way when I heard they were remaking Footloose too. The one that really makes me shake my head and worry is not a remake, but a supposed "reboot" of Doctor Who for the big screen. BBC did a fine job of rebooting the series, although folks like my mother completely disagree, but a large part of what makes it so great is the British sense of humor that's thrown in when it makes sense to. Well, the more subtle version of British humor in this case. =) I can't see Hollywood bringing that to the big screen. They aren't interested in a reboot so much as a piece of the pie and, I'm sure in the process, of Americanising it to the point of it being unrecognizable as Doctor Who. At least there's just been talk and no cast, director, producer, etc. has been announced for it.

Edit: Whoops, director is in place, just not the script, cast, production crew. http://www.guardian.co.uk/tv-and-radio/2...sfeed=true

[kandrathe]

I watched the remake of Conan the Barbarian the other day, and it was terrible. Easily one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I heard someone on the radio today say that remakes are not just Hollywood being lazy retreading an old plot, but it's also the consumer who is lazy in choosing to attend them. Since they know the story there is less likelihood of being disappointed in the story.

They don't do it with awesome old books, so I don't understand why they feel it's good to do to awesome old movies. I think I'll rewrite "The Great Gatsby", but in my version he survives Wilson's bullet, and faces criminal charges for Myrtles death. And, I'll modernize it by putting it on Moon Base Alpha.

And... Sorry about getting distracted by the political junk. I mostly tried to talk about the philosophy and plot of "In Time", and not get distracted by how it's being compared to current political circus in town.