I tried to watch a couple of times on cable TV, but couldnt get past the boredom factor. I like SF generally, but Gattaca was dull.
At the end, he reveals he has a son who was supposed to have been genetically altered, but “didn’t turn out as planned.” and that his son had been an admirer of Vincent for some time. The doctor knew, as he advised Vincent that right-handed men don’t hold “it” with their left hand when they piss.
Posting that diatribe twice didn’t make it any more accurate, I’m afraid.
Because there weren’t enough of them, apparently. I simply assumed that with real and measureable genetic advantages, Valids would simply outcompete Invalids. This, plus the fact that people have motivation to Validate their children, would give you obscene ratios of Valids to Invalids.
Because Vincent’s heart condition obviously wasn’t as bad as his genetic precursors indicated it was, as evinced by his strenuous physical activity throughout the movie.
Is this so surprising? We do equally silly drug tests today.
A: The point of the movie is that all genes are is potential. You can take out the genes liable to make one psychotic, but you can’t stop the resultant person from killing for non-psychotic reasons.
B: Vincent didn’t have a bad heart. He didn’t have a mega-super-genetically-enhanced heart like the swimmer guy he borrowed, but he didn’t need one. He had the genetic potential for heart trouble, but he obviously never had any.
Depends on if there’s a central database for this kind of stuff. And since DNA testing was extremely easy (remember the bit with the woman getting her kisser’s DNA analyzed, such a plan would be incomplete.
I think all of your bullet points have been adressed by now. Have we missed anything?
It’s pointless to try to argue into somebody liking a movie. Generally, in my experience, we enjoy it or we don’t, and trying to explain that either way it just post-hoc rationalization.
In my mind, Gattaca scores brownie points because it tries to do something a little different: It’s SF, but it’s true SF, which is to say it’s built around an idea instead of “futuristic production design” the way Hollywood SF typically is. The Adventures of Pluto Nash is flat-out awful because (until the ridiculous “twist” ending) it doesn’t even have to be SF. It’s a generic action movie with a few fancy trappings. Similar things can be said about movies like Independence Day that most people think of as SF but that miss the point of the genre at its best. Gattaca, by contrast, not only bases itself around an actual idea, but it doesn’t have aliens and ray guns and spaceship chases and robots and all that empty spectacle we normally associate with the genre.
Of course, some people call SF movies with almost no visual effects “boring,” so what are you going to do?
Just to nitpick on the “Valid” vs. “Invalid” thing, I don’t think he was “Invalid” because he wasn’t genetically altered. He was invalid because he didn’t work there. He washed windows (or did janitorial work) there without problems if being “invalid”. Although, it’s been a while since I’ve seen it, so correct me if I’m wrong.
Loved the movie. Couple quick responses without spending too much time on it:
Verification was required of everybody every day because it was a high-security installation.
Considering the focus of science in the Gattaga world, how hard is it to believe that major R&D went into dropping the cost of DNA identity checks?
The interview was short because, obviously, the paralyzed guy had the proper qualifications for the job. If he didn’t, they would have switched IDs with someone who did. I mean, kids don’t get fake IDs listing them as 20 in order to buy beer, right?
He had enough energy to swim back because he wasn’t exhausted yet. If you measure your endurance to the “half-way” point (whatever that is) as a method of survival, you err on the side of caution. Vincent never did. Make sense?
My major beef with the movie was that it fell into the tired cliche of trying to prove a point based on ONE, hand picked data point. Yes, Vincent was great and it all wound up for the better that he got picked.
But that doesn’t negate the point that genetic testing produces, ON AVERAGE, more competant people than without it. For every Vincent that would have happened, there would have been 1000 people who would have been far less capable that if there was genetic testing.
Its stupid because it trys to make a point which doesn’t stand.
This doesn’t strike me an unrealistic at all. I guess you could say most people don’t like “big evil corporations” but they still work for them and buy their products. They never actively rebel against them, and are careful to do their jobs and not give any reason for termination of their employment, but are still quite happy when someone “beats the system” and "shows them"and certainly don’t go out of their way to protect the system.
I quite enjoyed the film, even though it was a little too sickly sweet, with a “gotta keep chasing that rainbow” lesson at the end of it.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by RealityChuck *
[ul][li]If there is no law against being In-Valid, why don’t the In-Valids protest their condition?[/ul][/li][/quote]
They probably do protest, but the movement isn’t powerful enough.
[quote]
[ul][li]The Gattaca Corporation is right not to give Vincent a job. He has a heart condition. Not just a potential heart condition; something that will show up if checked (see the scene on the treadmill).[/ul][/li][/quote]
My interpretation was that, while his heart wasn’t perfect, it was perfectly adequate for the job. When they do genetic screening now, they would always discover a whole bunch of genes connected to various diseases. They are just risk factors, not death sentences.
[quote]
[ul][li]Everyone spends time and effort supporting a system they don’t believe in. The most obvious csee is the doctor, who knows Vincent is an In-Valid, but keeps his secret.[/ul][/li][/quote]
There was nothing in the film to suggest the doctor’s attitude was common. Uma Thurman’s character certainly believed in the system, at least at first.
[quote]
[ul][li]The constant genetic testing is pointless and expensive.[/ul][/li][/quote]
The premise of the movie is that genetic testing is no longer expensive, and most of the population believe it is meaningful. I think they are reasonable premises for a SF story.
[quote]
[ul][li]Genetics can only do so much. Everyone seems surprised that the head of Gattaca could commit murder. But there is no “murder” gene.[/ul][/li][/quote]
The whole point is that it’s a baseless discrimination. Is it so hard to believe that people can look at a cruel crime and say “only the <race or other category> people can do that!”? It’s happened over and over throughout history.
[quote]
[ul][li]Why go through all that rigmarole to make yourself a Valid?.. Couldn’t someone hack into the database and change Vincent’s records? Better yet, pay someone who works in the records department to make the change (you can bet there would be people who’d do it).[/ul][/li][/quote]
Haven’t you heard of identity theft? It’s happening already. Apparently those people find it easier to steal other people’s identities than to hack into the government and corporate databases to change their entries.
It was stated in the movie that Jerome’s accident happened overseas. Presumably he hid the fact from his own government, possibly in order to sell his identity.
The biggest problem, in my opinion, is that the premise of the movie is just plain inaccurate. Nature reported early last year that the gene for the human spirit had been isolated on chromosome 17.
Which I think of practically every time I take my right-handed self to the toilet and use my left hand to piss.
Maybe I’m a genetic freak.
I saw this movie when it came out. Awoman in the next row snored through half of it. A woman behind us said to her husband on the way out, “Well, that was awful”. I agree with both sentiments. I thought the movie was beautiful to look at and I thought the world the lived in looked fantastic, I just thought the story was stupid and the ending was beyond dumb. Jude law kills himself (burns up even!) after helping his obviously superior invalid friend make his dream come true. <retch>
Maybe I don’t think enough to find the deep question worth pondering in this movei, but the cliches and silliness of the ending made me want my money back. And all the critics loved it.I don’t Etahn hawke has done a good movie since “Dead Poets”.
So there.
I found it very slow-moving. It might have worked well as an Outer Limits episode, but padding it out to feature-length made it dull.
The spaceship with no controls, no displays, no proper acceleration chairs, and no airlock irritated me. Just what were these people supposed to DO once they got into space?
I half agree with Daddy Times Two.
I liked the movie, but any movie with beautiful cinematography will get me.
I didn’t remember most of it, plot wise… but it certainly was beautiful.
Like Vlad Dracul, I’m wondering what the point of them going to that moon.( the moon’s name escapes me.) Since hat moon is supposed to be gaseous, they couldn’t land on it. Were they just going to hang around the moon in orbit?
I think the trip to the moon is merely a McGuffin to get the story going. Obviously, the character needed a dream to live up to, and the generic “going into space” is one dream I think many people can relate to.
That said, I do believe some people made some valid points for not liking the movie (which is not to say I’m not dismissing them off-hand 
). It still strikes me as odd, though, that a critic can confidently call it a “famously bad movie”, seeing as how so many people (and critics) seem to like it a lot. After all, it’s no Battlefield Earth.
Me again. 
I wanted to point out something I missed the first time. Gattaca is loosely based on Brave New World by Aldous Huxley. While it’s not a total adaption from the book, it’s somewhat loosely based on it. At one point, someone says “Cleaniness is next to godliness.” which relfects the phrase in the book “Cleaniness is next to fordliness.” I watched the movie when I was really young, and didn’t understand it. Then, in grade 10, we were required to read Brave New World and our teacher told us the tidbit about Gattaca relfecting the book, so I rewatched it, and while it wasn’t the best Sci-fi movie I have ever seen, I understand the motivation behind it.
Shouldn’t there be a “snide” tag with that one?
BTW, my first and greatest interest in SF has always been novels – my fave authors include Iain Banks, Tim Powers, Vernor Vinge and William Gibson, to name a few. There’s no amount of superiority you can feel over me that matches the feelings I have about “media” SF fans. If you know what I mean.
I think Gattaca was a brilliant film. This, of course, is only my opinion and is therefore debatable. What is not debatable is that the reviewer linked-to in the OP is wrong. “Famously bad stuff”? Where is Gattaca “famous” for being a bad film?
“Showgirls”, “Gigli” and “Ishtar” are FAMOUSLY bad (whether you like the films or not). Gattaca is NOT.