They don't do math anymore?
If she was celebrating 25th birthday for the 25th time that would make her 49 years old, and not 50 as he said in the movie
shareIf she was celebrating 25th birthday for the 25th time that would make her 49 years old, and not 50 as he said in the movie
shareThank you. I'm less than 3 minutes into this film and wanted to see if someone had also noticed that ridiculous error. Not a promising start.
shareIt's not ridicuous. Posters above and many educated people I have known made this simple mistake. Will Salas was a poor man, living in a poor ghetto, and poorly educated. If well educated people make this mistake, then Will Salas...?
shareI "noticed" it, but didn't concern myself over it. You and those who did may have been more perceptive than me in that you noticed this logic error early in the movie and foresaw the logical and logistical problems it presaged. At first viewing I regarded it as part of the "cultural language" of the film, that is, I think this instance of "rounding" of age was an example of the behavior of the culture "In Time" depicts.
In hindsight, it may have just been an error. Still, for me, I think the subsequent scenes were made a bit more poignant by Rachel's being 50.
Women always lie about their age.
shareIn much of the world it is customary to regard birth as "Year One." The reason most commonly accepted for this practice is that we (humans) are in the womb for almost a year. By this standard, upon the first anniversary of a person's birth, they are regarded as being two years-old.
Granted, "In Time" takes place in the U.S., but the "timekeeping" process is presumably global and so such acknowledgement of a cultural standard could be expected.
Its a stretch.
Considering the bigger logical and logistical problems in the narrative of "In Time," Rachel's age is the definition of trivia.
Props to you for starting a lively and lengthy thread.
In much of the world it is customary to regard birth as "Year One." The reason most commonly accepted for this practice is that we (humans) are in the womb for almost a year. By this standard, upon the first anniversary of a person's birth, they are regarded as being two years-old.That still doesn't solve it; it would mean that when they celebrate "Year 25" for the first time, they are actually turning 24 years old. So when they celebrate "Year 25" for the 25th time, they are actually turning 48 years old, which in those cultures you mention would be considered as "Year 49", and not as "Year 50".
Here's a thought:
Within the socio-cultural context of "In Time," is it possible people counted their age as (the pre-set) 25 years plus however many years they have lived since then?
Ah! I think I've got it!
In the context of the movie's narrative, their clock doesn't start until a person "turns" 25 years-old. At age 25, a person's biological (aging) processes stop on their 25th birthday (so many logical/logistical issues with that) but their clock starts, giving them one year in which they do not age biologically. So.....the first year after a person turns 25 is regarded as "free," a year that doesn't count. (This brings up one of my major concerns with the logic/logistics of the movie). When Rachel says she's 50 years-old, she's only counting the years "off the clock." That is, she's been alive for 25 years since her clock started and SHOULD HAVE "TIMED OUT" (that is, she's 25 years older than her clock should have allowed. Again, within the context of the socio-culture of "In Time," such an age-calculating formula could be both logically and culturally accepted.
As for why I'm trying to resolve such a minor issue in a movie in which I find much more significant narrative problems?
Uhm, I kind of like the movie. I actually am so intrigued by the ideas, philosophies and questions at the core of "In Time" that I want to discourage or resolve debate over minutiae and have a discussion about the beliefs and concerns that are expressed in "In Time."
I like your theory. It makes sense.
shareIn the context of the movie's narrative, their clock doesn't start until a person "turns" 25 years-old. At age 25, a person's biological (aging) processes stop on their 25th birthday (so many logical/logistical issues with that) but their clock starts, giving them one year in which they do not age biologically. So.....the first year after a person turns 25 is regarded as "free," a year that doesn't count. (This brings up one of my major concerns with the logic/logistics of the movie). When Rachel says she's 50 years-old, she's only counting the years "off the clock." That is, she's been alive for 25 years since her clock started and SHOULD HAVE "TIMED OUT" (that is, she's 25 years older than her clock should have allowed.Eh... that would mean that she has celebrated her 25th birthday 27 times. (The first 25th birthday is when she stops aging and her clock starts ticking, the second 25th birthday is when her free year runs out, and you say that after that she has lived another 25 years "off the clock", so that means another twenty-five 25th birthdays, bringing the total to twenty-seven 25th birthdays.)
[deleted]
[deleted]
When congratulating his mother with her 50th birthday Will says: "25 for the 25th time". However 25 for the 25th time would be her 49th birthday. On her 50th birthday she turns 25 for the 26th time.
Unless they don't count the day the clock starts. That could be 25th birthday number zero in their culture.
shareThat still doesn't make sense. The year is either counted, or not counted.
If they don't count the day the clock starts, then she wouldn't be turning 50 in the movie, but 49 (according to their own system of age reckoning) because that one year isn't counted.
Furthermore, if the day the clock starts is treated as '25th birthday, number 0" (which is a different thing than simply "not counting") and the movie has her celebrate her 50th birthday as "25th birthday, number 25", then it's still 26 times a 25th birthday. Because {0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25} is a set of 26 numbers, not 25.
______
Joe Satriani - "Always With Me, Always With You"
http://youtu.be/VI57QHL6ge0
ha ha yeah... reminds me of Common Core Math.
share