Is Zero Theorem
a high brow prequel to Idiocracy?
Massive commercialization of absolutely everything. Meaningless job with no apparent point. Intelligent people having fear of human connections and sex/pro-creation.
Discuss.
Idiocracy is not a low brow sequel to The Zero Theorem.
Massive commercialization of absolutely everything. Meaningless job with no apparent point. Intelligent people having fear of human connections and sex/pro-creation.
What a nice description of every day life.
[edit] I didn't read right. There was a paradox in your paragraph:
Intelligent people having fear of human connections and sex/pro-creation.front my point of view that would make them unintelligent.
share
Hehehehe,
I wasn't being literal of course.
It was just the feeling I got watching ZT.
All the crass, in your face advertising. Yep, that is happening. The people, like Qohen working in a job that seemed pointless and produced nothing of any real value. Yeah, that is definitely happening. Intelligent people living in isolation and not making families. Happening. The general quality of TV programming we have today. While it's not as bad as 'Ow my Balls' it's pretty depressing. The dumbening is happening whether we chose to admit it or not.
Ok, so what I said about intelligent people in Idiocracy having fear of sex/pro-creation was a bit of a misstatement. In the case of that movie the smart people are waiting to have kids until their lives are perfect and they are ready. They end up waiting too long till they cant have kids. Meanwhile the stupid people keep breeding without such concerns.
At the party Q goes to in ZT, again it is the okay, maybe not stupid but you get what I mean, people who are socializing and getting it on. I assume at least they were. While the one 'smart' person in the room was alone and not having offspring to stem the tide of the dumbening of society.
I also got the sense that it was the few smart people left in ZT's world that were building what would be a largely automated and self-sustaining infrastructure. Necessary for the dumb people in Idiocracy to continue living.
I don't know though. Maybe my brain is wired oddly. Lol.
[deleted]
I love how you completely ignored OP question, and added 3 random movies Chazz. One of them is the movie, that we are discussing about. I wonder why people do this, but hey lets get back to the topic. Yes this is more boring version of Idiocracy, i completely agree, the only difference is, that Zero theorem is less entertaining, funny and has much less to offer. Terry Gilliam has nothing to prove anymore, out of ideas theories and out of new concepts, he realizes although hes rich, his whole life means nothing, maybe random sex with hookers (like in Zero theorem) and the rest is a hollow shell.
shareDear ChazzJazz, why? WHY do people like you do this??? Ive seen this so many times now on this board and others...NObody asked you for a movie recommendation, NOONE. but you post 3 random movies as an answer, i dont get it. The original topic has nothing to do with these movies, but people like you live in their own world i guess, no matter what topic or question you come up with something completely different off topic. Btw all those 3 movies suck, cheers.
share1. The City of Lost Children (1995)
2. Zero Theorem 2013
3. Snowpiercer 2013
4.
These three movies, plus a fourth, are very similarly themed and the screenplays are very similar.
I would call those three a Trilogy, lost youth, lost middle age, and lost humanity.
the fourth i cannot think at this stage
http://myimpressionz.tk share
1. The City of Lost Children (1995)
2. Zero Theorem 2013
3. 2046 (2004)
4. Snowpiercer 2013
The first 3 in this series are wonderfully filmed (NB. have seen ZT yet)
Snowpiercer if you seen the freaking school teacher sequence would fit in with any Gilliam movie.
http://myimpressionz.tk share
but people like you live in their own world i guess, no matter what topic or question you come up with something completely different off topic. Btw all those 3 movies suck, cheers.
Its a good thing everyone has opinions, because if everyone thought like you this world would be a very very boring place.
http://myimpressionz.tk share
Dear Chazz, again you havent replied to any of the topics in this thread isntead you talking about a trilogy that only exists in your mind that confuses me.
shareActually he explained himself quite adequately the second time around and was quite polite about it as well.
You on the other hand were being obtuse which turned into downright trolling very quickly.
Real classy.
listing 3 movies is a reply which explains nothing, i was polite, you are wrong.
share[deleted]
There's no such word as dumbening.
I don't love her.. She kicked me in the face!!
"front my point of view that would make them unintelligent. "
It makes no sense to jump to that conclusion. Intelligence is a measure of how good you are at learning and understanding things. There's nothing in the definition that suggests that an intelligent person can't also be afraid to connect with people. As for sex, it's a known fact that intelligent people have far less sex on average than absolute idiots do. It's actually becoming a huge problem.
There's no paradox there. Intelligent people understand that it's foolish to raise a bunch of children when you might not be able to afford it or the cirsumstances aren't optimal for your hypothetical child, they also realise that we're overpopulated as we are.
Intelligent people understand that it's foolish to raise a bunch of children when you might not be able to afford it or the cirsumstances aren't optimal for your hypothetical child, they also realise that we're overpopulated as we are.
The problem does not lie in biology but in society. The question with intelligence is always a bit the same, it goes:
Which kind of intelligence are you referring to? There's an old saying: Intelligence doesn't render one immune to stupidity.
So the people with less education have more kids. Those who are well educated have less.
But you can't tell wether it will make this world a better or worse place. Idiocracy is not a vision of the future but one of the present - a typical satire.
Finally, I believe that nobody should have children with the intent to achieve any goals besides of - well - generating a new existence.
Try to look at it from a humanist point of view; what matters most is the well-being of every man, woman and child on the face of this earth. The decision of having a child [edit: and his/her upbringing] should not be based on any political or religious beliefs.
No more instrumentalization! share
No but the decision should be based on the well being of your child. That is closely related to the sociopolitical situation.
If you can't give your child a worthy existance it's better to not have a child in the first place. If I lived in for example a country riddled with war and disease I wouldn't ever contemplate having a child. I know this is a position I take because of my upbringing and it would probably have been different had I actually been born in such a country but then I wouldn't be ME. I don't want to have a child anyway but that's for entirely different reasons.
I could also argue the point you're trying to make by saying that we can't tell wether it will make this world a better or worse place. I agree we can't know for sure but with a little deduction I think you can reach what is probably a pretty accurate answer.
Don't misunderstand me though, I don't think we should force people not to have children or anything that drastic. It should be everyones own choice, I just wish people make different choices.
If you can't give your child a worthy existance it's better to not have a child in the first place.
Most people ofcourse do not have prior knowledge of the future, though. Most people cannot know realistically right now if they would be able to raise a kid in a worthy existence. And if everyone would think this way, make it a law, procreation would effectively become only available to the rich or compliant; a priviledge, rather than a Natural reality for every single living being.
Nature ofcourse does not pay much attention to human-centered interpretations of Her principles. Of human interpretations of good and bad.
The reference for knowing what should be, is NATURE ALONE and not the human, temporary, myopic worldview.
Nature cares about creating life in a dynamic balance; on a large timescale. Human lives do not matter as much as we might think. EVERY life is equal to Nature.
Human society creates life in a precarious disbalance, focused upon the short term; with hierarchies, wars, opportunism....
An artificially enforced "balance" in who does or does not get to make children would seriously disturb Nature's balance; we do not and never will know all the factors which lead to the balance as it is. Tiny flaws in calculations become huge errors in larger scaled systems. I think people's choices are always more from a Natural, personal cue, than from an intellectualized "summum bonum" viewpoint. Most people do not consciously decide to get pregnant.
I do not contemplate if it is better for "society" to procreate or not. We are living in a time where there is an abundance of everything, but in a very strongly disturbed balance; most of it is centered around a few excessively abundant nations and relatively few people. Everything in this balance is very susceptible to instant change; NOBODY knows if they can realistically be certain that society as we know it will continue for long; we are dangling over a chasm, as a society. Even relatively rich people have little certainty.
My kid could well be the most adapted to the coming time. I might become rich. Or poor.
I think we should not let wealth become the standard for being allowed to procreate. We see how inbred and soul-less the majority of rich become. That is our future "race" ?? :D
Consciousness turns moments into tangible components of the Unity that is (in) everything share