I know what Soylent Green is, but how about this query [Spoilers beyond the obvious]

Yes yes we all know what Soylent Green is… but I just watched the DVD and became curious about teh book it was based on Make room, Make room. I was looking for the opinion of the film by its author Harry Harrison and came across this article

There are quite a few little differences such as teh fact in the book the green crackers are made of… Soy beans and Lentils. That’s it. The Film’s ending was tacked on by MGM. Fine. But then there was this quote:

Well first thing the only Mircle plankton food was Soylent Green the other Soylent products remained Soy and Lentil… so they got that wrong, sort of. They are correct it is a dumb idea to make food stuff out of plankton to feed the teeming millions.

But the idea Sol went home because the ocean was dead really doesn’t sit right with me.

I was sure it was because he knew the big secret. Am I wrong on this? Was Harry Harrison just trying to up his position as a slighted writer when the interviewer dropped that question or is he correct?

I thought they cut the sound in that memorable scene to keep it from the audience longer… after all why would Thorn take his little trip at the end?

I think you’re right about the movie, but it’s been so long since I read the book that I can’t tell you if HH is right about the motivation in the book. In any case, if HH is wrong, I’d be willing to bet memory lapse, not a need to compensate.

Incidentally, Cemtral American indians – Aztec or Maya or both – used to make “cakes” out of algae. I read it in one of anthropologist Marvin Harris’ books.

Why would it be a dumb idea to make processed plankton foodstuffs for the proles?

It would mean cutting a step or two out of the foodchain, and thus be a more efficient use of photosynthesis. It takes ten pounds of plankton to support one pound of herring, ten pounds of herring to support one pound of tuna, and ten pounds of tuna to support one pound of human. Why not use that half ton of plankton to support a hundred pounds of humanity rather than just one?

Perhaps because of the effort involved in getting that much plankton. If it takes half a ton to feed one person (who is on the small side), you’d need a lot of plankton in that overcrowded future. I mean, there IS a lot of it in the oceans, but you’d need to devote a lot of resources…

No, no; that’s just the point. The half a ton of plankton is represented by ten pounds of tuna (supported by 100 pounds of herring, supported by 1,000 pounds of plankton). So if you go down the food chain and take plankton directly out of the ocean, that 1,000 pounds could feed many people instead of just one. In economic terms, you’re cutting out two layers of middlemen.

But in that future the population is so great that it would be impossible to keep up the harvesting (Which is probably why the ocean was dying) to sustain the people. Remember Manhattan’s population in the film was 40 million people.

As another thought I never saw the cannibalism thing as a cop out… I saw it as a sad statement that the only solution left to a society that had ruined ever resource it had was to feed on itself.

Yes, but what’s easier and more cost-effective: catching ten pounds of tuna (one fish), or 1,000 pounds of plankton?

I can’t think of any way to actually harvest plankton except for filtering a hell of a lot of seawater. As for algae, I believe that’s already being farmed and processed into food in Japan.

According to a number of UN studies, people are taking fish out of the ocean faster than they can be replaced, so we may end up having to go a step down the food chain. Pisses me off when I read a column by somebody claiming that overpopulation is a myth.

It’s interesting to me that Charlton Heston did both Soylent Green and The Omega Man. In the former, there were too many people; in the latter, almost none. Both those movies are just now coming out on DVD; I might get Soylent Green just for Edward G. Robinson’s last performance.

I think it’d be nice to see a remake (but done RIGHT, damnit!) of Soylent Green, considering how tacky the original was. The problem with that, though, is when it starts to come out all the media outlets are going to be telling everyone what the big secret is so then it’ll be lost on all those stupid early twentysomethings that never heard of the original movie.

Don’t blame media outlets. Even people who haven’t seen the movie know the ‘secret.’ It’s been spoofed 80 bajillion times. People who don’t know Soylent Green is a movie know “soylent green is people!”

Yep that’s why I mentioned other spoilers… Like Sol going home. Which, was a powerful scene made even more sad due to the fact it was Edward G Robinsons last filmed scene from his last movie. He only got to see rushes because he passed away before the release of the film.

I get a little misty in that scene for that reason and the fact that the images are indeed so beautiful (Such as the undewater image, and the image of the wild horses drinking in a stream) and it reminds me that I keep forgeting what a beautiful world this really is and how much we keep screwing it up just being here.

:confused:

Long ago, this planet was a ball of moltent lava, and someday it will return to that state. In the meantime, drive your SUV to the mall, get some cavier, put it in a plastic bag, come home and light a coal fire and relax. Its all going to be okay. The Earth can take care of herself. Shes a big girl. Don’t worry.


Actual headline: “Church ends probe of Gay Bishop”

Well, just imagine you wanted to do all those things, but the guy in front of you in line took the last gallon of gas, the last ounce of caviar, and the last plastic bag.

But not just the last one where you’re at. The last one. Ever.

The feelings you would have towards that guy is how future generations will feel about you.

Instead of remaking the movie Soylent Green, just do a good version of Harry Harrison’s novel. (So far, with Planet of the Apes and Rollerball, remakes have just made me appreciate the movies of my youth.)

As George Carlin said, “The planet is fine. The PEOPLE are fucked.” To “the people,” I’d add 'and the plants, animals, and many of the other organisms."

Anyway, I haven’t read the novel, but I think Baldwin is onto something. Remakes are usually a waste of time in my opinion.

I remember seeing the trailer for the movie when it first came out. It had the repeated statement, “What is the secret of Soylent Green?” before each scenelet. Well, having read a distopia science fiction novel or two in my time it took, oh, three or four seconds’ cogitation before I came up with the secret. I saw the movie anyway.

And no, I hadn’t read Make Room. Make Room at the time.

DD

Make Room doesn’t have any secret of soylent green. But The DVD does have the trailer and boy does it ever give it away. You actually watch the body bags pass Heston on a conveyor belt… What is Soylent Green, Indeed.

How misanthropic of you. Live in a shack, do we? Perhaps a manifesto will follow.

Hasn’t anyone noticed that birthrates are declining in Europe and the USA? I loved the movie but I don’t think we’ll be eating each other anytime soon.

Uhhh a little myopic aren’t we? Notice the birthrate outside of those two continents growing? Notice the famines and shortages in those parts of the world?

Notice that our consumption in a declining population has grown?

Ignore the setting of New York in the film and prentend the City represents the Planet as a whole. Taking that metephor I guess we are living in the nice condos getting all the nice food, air conditioning and soap while everone else sleeps in the stairs.

The West uses up most of the resources while the unwashed masses outside live with deprivations.

This is the problem with taking a metaphor too far. The movie is instructive of the dangers we face if we don’t change. That’s the beauty of mankind; we can change. Birthrates decline as prosperity increases. Have a little hope. The impoverished places of the earth won’t stay that way forever.