Thanks!

Alright guys, this one really really REALLLY started to piss me off after a while, and I seriously wish I could have been there to say something...not that you would have answered anyways.

Anyways, here's my beef. For the ENTIRETY of the commentary you are consistently underestimating the stupidity of the human race as tech hungry morons. Literally every other second one of you brings up "Well why isn't this like this??" or "Why don't they just be a (Insert random thing here)", or "Why is he drinking coffee as a surrogate?" etc etc. The entire thing felt like you weren't even trying to do the 'ol Dif "How do we fix this?" and instead simply resorted to mocking every conceivable thing your imaginations could come up with without any thought behind the concept or truthful analysis of anything. (Explanation follows)

Partially you are doing the exact same joke over and over  and over, and I expect better from you guys. But more so I definitely disagree with the entire argument you are trying to prove.

I'll use the specific example of the coffee thing. Surrogates were created as a cool toy for rich people, it has all this really cool technology behind it, but essentially it's just a toy. As someone brought up, The Sims for real life. A way for people to be themselves without having to be themselves, a way to transplant themselves wholly and fully into a separate body. So just because you don't HAVE to drink or eat or what have you when you are a surrogate, that doesn't mean that you are just going to give it up entirely. If you did that you would be ruining the experience. Consider the concept of role players, (lets go civil war reenanctors to stay on the more pg side of things), just stopping of the normal ever day life things that you do as a person, would be akin to reenactor suddenly busting out with some ACDC in camp. It completely ruins the mood of the game everyone is playing. Because literally that's what this entire world has devolved into, a giant game, and all the people are playing the game of humanity through their surrogates.

On a more techy level (I'm going to be reading into my interpretation of how the Surrogate tech works a little bit, but I think I'm on the right track), you guys keep bringing up this concept of turning into a pterodactyl or car or whatever the fuck or even the concept of why they still need video screens, etc etc. But the thing I always keep coming back to is, we are still fucking human, we have two arms, two legs, two eyes and we see/touch/experience life in that very very singular manner, that is the way our brains have developed to work from birth.  I'm sure you could probably throw my consciousness into a car, but my brain would freak the fuck out, I don't know how to do shit, every single visual/audial/sensory input I have is working in a completely different way then I am used to, I'm sure I would be in there, but I couldn't do anything. Avatar brought up the concept a touch where Jake doesn't know how to control his tail. Why? Because he's never had a tail before, his brain isn't wired to know how to control a tail. Of course he does eventually sort of learn, and I'm sure I could eventually learn to be a car. But in a world where everyone would rather lay at home only experiencing the world through a robot, do you think ANYONE will be willing to put in the time to learn how to be?

Or hell, even on a strictly business level, what business is going to manufacture a car surrogate, do all the R&D, manufacture testing, and spend all that cash, on a product that isn't going to sell. It's simple math.

Alright, I needed to get that out of my system. If this entire commentary was just another continuation of the joke and not a legitimate analysis of the movie, I apologize for that, but otherwise, what the fuck guys? Seriously.

(Please note, I am not defending the movie in any way, I am simply trying to point out, that just because it is a bad movie, does not instantly mean that every single thing in it is wrong and should be assumed so at face value.)
And if I'm the only one that felt this way, this is the last you'll hear of it, but it got to me, and it got to me bad.

EDIT: I should clarify, I'm only an hour and 20 into the commentary, so if anything is explained from this point I apologize. I just had a massive build up of hate towards DiF that needed to be expelled, which I have only ever experienced once before...   I don't enjoy it.

Last edited by BigDamnArtist (2010-09-01 05:30:33)

No, you know what, I can do this.

Yes, you missed the point.

It's a piece of complicated electronics that he's pouring liquid into, and the implication is that he puts food in there, too. Not only is there no reason for this, though you seem to think there is, there's also a lot of problems with this. Give it a second. It'll come to you.

We were kidding. Do you really think the experience of being a diner, as was suggested, is something we would plausibly consider?

Surrogates, were they a considered, real invention, would have no need for monitors or input devices because they provide both of those services to the user, because the user is looking through HUD goggles and clearly able to operate an impossibly complicated robot with thought alone - thinking some search terms into the configuration is not gonna be a big deal.

It...it was a joke, remember?

Oh my god, dude.

We're guilty of assuming an awful lot here (as is the very nature of the original Surrogates joke) but it turns out, yeah, most of this movie is wrong.

Terribly sorry. We don't either.

No. The MOVIE underestimates this.

So first you say "You guys bring up too many examples of different directions you think they could have taken," and then you say "I feel like you guys weren't putting in any thought to different directions the movie could have taken."

Uhhhhh....huh. That's constructive.

They were created as an advanced form of prosthesis for people with physical handicaps. They were co-opted over time by rich people, and then eventually became used by everybody (another missed story/thematic opportunity, BTW: a new form of class warfare where only poor people actually have to go about their lives as vulnerable humans). When you use something occasionally, it's a toy. When you use something all the time, it's a fundamental aspect of your life. Automobiles started as rich people toys, too.

I'm sorry, but no. I reject this argument, because it's stupid.

You're telling me that you think if people -- who, we've agreed, are largely stupid -- could jump into a completely different body, one in which they can do anything, with no long-term physical consequences or repercussions, that they're going to go work in a fucking cubicle and drink fucking coffee out of a fucking World's Greatest Dad mug? That is total horseshit. Arguably the only reason our society holds together is a sense of empathy, a sense of "we agree that I won't hurt you and you won't hurt me and that way we'll both get to not be hurt as much as possible." But if you live in a world where you can neither be hurt nor hurt others, "civilization" fucking collapses.

Or maybe I'm just cynical. Maybe you disagree with me WRT human nature. But at least a story in that world considers and involves the repercussions of the technology. Imagine someone taking the basic concept of SURROGATES and going in the direction of CHILDREN OF MEN. Tell me just that juxtaposition alone isn't INFINITELY more interesting than this fucking dreck.

SURROGATES doesn't explore the human cost of technology AT ALL. It has nothing to say about human nature, aside from the vague xenophobia of the Dreads, and the idea that the ONLY thing having Surrogates would change in our world is some of the slang is absurd. The fucking iPhone created bigger ripples in the fabric of society than the Surrogate revolution apparently did. It's a failure of fucking imagination, a lazy and superficial reading of the premise, and I don't think we went wrong to point out the missed opportunities at every turn because the film is nothing BUT a series of missed opportunities.

Not only is this not how it would go down, as I pointed out, but this isn't even what the movie was about. If the movie wanted to make some kind of a statement about the way technology isolates us from each other or whatever, okay. At least it would have something to say. But it didn't even try. It was just an action movie that happened to take place in a world where no one is human without ever really bothering to wrestle with the implications.

Augmented reality, fella. Bionic implants that take some getting used to. Stuff like that would happen (is, in fact, in the process of happening in the real world) WAY before Surrogates did.

And the concept of Surrogates is that it remotely sends sensory signals to your brain. So a feed from your Surrogate's eyes, and the feed from a security camera, registers as exactly the same kind of visual data in your neural pathways. So why the fuck would they still have screens instead of just plugging in and sending the visual signal directly? The filmmakers didn't think of it, but someone actually in that world certainly would have.

I quote this part only, because the rest is the joke just sailing merrily over your head. But to this question my answer is: HELL FUCKING YES.

The only reason people are humans is because they don't currently have a choice. You mention (because we do) The Sims, but that ain't the only MMORPG out there. You're telling me there's not a single hardcore WOW player who would pay out the ass to actually BECOME an Orc instead of just mouseclicking one around the screen? Not a single Trekkie that wants to be a Klingon? Nobody who would suffer through the cognitive restructuring of their brain in order to live their lives as Smaug the Dragon? That's bullshit and you know it.

It's not like they'd be able to run a normal human Surrogate perfectly the first time, either. The brain would have to make new connections in order to effectively communicate "Okay, I'm not moving THIS right arm, I'm moving THAT right arm." That's a real thing that people today have to do when they get prosthetic limbs -- retrain their brain. So fuck it. Might as well throw some wings on there while you're at it.

Even if it STARTS as pure human analogs, sooner or later someone is going to have the idea that hey, I don't HAVE to be a carbon copy of myself. I can have rockets in my fucking feet if I want to. And it'll take some getting used to, but I'm totally willing to do it because then I can fucking fly. And once that domino falls, all bets are off. And a decade after the technology became widely available? You'd better believe that the dominos started to fall a long time ago.

You want me to believe that nobody in the world has an ounce of goddamn imagination or the gumption to follow their dreams? That the innovation of being able to inhabit ANY body remotely has no ripple effect on ANYTHING else in civilization?

That's a second piece of magic, as far as I'm concerned.

EDIT:

See, this is what you appear not to understand. We're not dismissing the universe. We're the ones who are actually EXPLORING the universe, actually bothering to ponder the logical extensions and repercussions of the concepts that the film presents, none of which the filmmakers bothered to do.

They are the ones who summarily dismissed the universe with little more than a cursory glance. We're pointing out -- as we often do in such situations -- all the places that they could have done so much more. I don't know how you can possibly characterize this as a "dismissal."

My idea for a SIMS movie would involve someone getting sucked into the game, as in Tron. He wakes up in a world where for most of the time you can do what you want, but at times a fucking green diamond shows up over your head and an unknown agency controls your actions against your will. It also takes over those around you. Our hero tries to fight back and/or escape.

And maybe yellow moons and blue clovers if I can work a sponsorship deal with Lucky Charms.

Oh hey yeah, I remember really enjoying that movie. It's fairly humble, as I recall, but entertaining. Plus, for reasons I can't begin to explain or even comprehend, I like Ryan Reynolds.

BOMB under the TABLE

or

GUN on the MANTLE

Pick one plz.

> TAKE BOMB

Which bomb do you mean, the bomb under the table, or the bomb hidden in the jewel thief's steamer trunk?

> TABLE BOMB

Motion carries.

> SIGH

Whaddya gonna do, huh?

> TAKE BOMB FROM UNDER TABLE

You take the bomb. Holy cow, it's ticking loudly!

> TAKE GUN

Which gun do you mean, the marshall's left-handed six-shooter, the marshall's right-handed six-shooter, the Deringer tucked into Lady Viola Hammersmith's garter, or the gun displayed conspicuously on the mantle?

> TAKE GUN FROM MANTLE

Your load is too heavy.

> INVENTORY

You have:
a toothbrush
a pile of junk mail
a screwdriver
a ticking time bomb
a tuxedo (being worn)
a lantern (providing light)
a chilled martini glass
It looks like the chilled martini glass contains:
a half-drunk martini
a thoroughly drunk olive

> DROP SCREWDRIVER

The screwdriver rolls into a corner, just out of reach.

> TAKE GUN FROM MANTLE

Your load is too heavy.

> DROP TOOTHBRUSH

Four out of five dentists weep softly as the toothbrush clatters to the floor.

> TAKE GUN FROM MANTLE

Your load is too heavy.

> DROP LANTERN

The lantern goes out as it hits the floor.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

> TAKE GUN FROM MANTLE

You see no gun here.

> QUIT

Are you sure you want to quit? [Y/N]

> HELL EFFING Y

Your score is 37¾ out of a possible 9,000,006. This give you the rank of Auteur.

Game over.

Um, Goldeneye...?  That or Fallout 3.

Wow. 1001 huh? Interesting.

You may very well be right because I recall adjusting this # with teague a few times. I do know, tohugh, that I tested it out specifically on a PAL version of "The Thing", and for *that* one, it was exactly the 4.16% that worked. I know this for sure since they were so very specific at events at the very end, and with the 4.27% (more theoretically correct) it was actually off, with 4.16% it was spot on.

But then I tried the same number on the next release, and *bzzt, wrong*. Didn't work.

So there seems to be some give in these numbers.

Although for the record, the one that WORKED was
a) listened to on my computer
b) played on my computer

The one that didn't work was
a) listened to on my iPad
b) Played on my actual DVD player

So maybe it was clock drift (in the latter case) that caused it? I don't think a decent quartz clock should have any measureable drift over such miniscule time as 2 hours.

/Z