Bad Movie Logo
"A website to the detriment of good film"
Custom Search
HOMEB-MOVIE REVIEWSREADER REVIEWSFORUMINTERVIEWSUPDATESABOUT
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
November 28, 2014, 03:50:12 PM
538297 Posts in 40756 Topics by 5134 Members
Latest Member: Trailboss208
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Another incredibly bad film - The Island - Possible Spoilers « previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Author Topic: Another incredibly bad film - The Island - Possible Spoilers  (Read 5106 times)
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 438
Posts: 3151


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 06, 2006, 02:53:37 PM »

Spoiler warnings are de rigeur anywhere.  It's just common courtesy.  I wouldn't spoil a movie I hate to my worst enemy.  (Well, maybe I would, but it would have to be under extreme circumstances.)

I think you are confused about the mechanisms of genetics.  Here is a quick rundown on cloning you may be interested in looking at.

Basically a clone of a person would indeed look more or less like original.  You can see this in identical twins, which you mentioned.  These twins share the same genetic structure, as would clones.  Barring any environmental surprises (such as feeding one well and undernourishing the other), the two would grow up to be more or less the same.

However, sexual reproduction is the chromosomes of two individuals recombined.  Half the chromosomes of one and half the chromosomes of the other.  Furthermore, the chromosomes of the individuals recombine amongst themselves to create further variety.  The mechanisms of meiosis.  In this case you would be right, there are literally millions of different combinations.  No two individuals (excluding identical twins), will ever share the same genome.

Cloning, in theory, takes the DNA from one cell and puts it inside an "empty" egg.  The new individual, in theory, has the same DNA and grows up to be roughly the same as the original individual.  There is no recombination, no random number generators.  That only happens during meiosis, and it's a bad metaphor anyway.

Think of it this way, your body is constantly making new cells, all of which contain the same DNA that started out in the original fertlized egg.  If your DNA scrambled itself every time it had to replicate itself, you would be well screwed.  In fact, there are elaborate mechanisms to ensure that DNA is copied with no errors billions and billions of times.  Errors in replication tend to lead to fun little things like cancer.

So you're wrong about the cloning.  If you wanted to argue fine points about the film, why not ask why they didn't just create brain-dead humans in jars if all they wanted was the organs?  Better yet, why argue fine points about THE ISLAND?  It's a Michael Bay film.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
LH-C
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 0
Posts: 497


« Reply #16 on: July 06, 2006, 04:03:12 PM »

My dad is actually a fan of the film, and says that 99% of the public completely misinterpret the movie as a whole. Of course I will never see it because I hate Michael Bay more than I think Ewan McGregor is cool.
Logged






BeyondTheGrave
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 69
Posts: 1386


Punks not Ded sez Rich


« Reply #17 on: July 06, 2006, 04:07:12 PM »

The worst thing about this flim I found was the product placment. Did anyone notice it? Like X-Box and various others. I thought it was a bit much.
Logged

Most of all I hate dancing then work,exercise,people,stupidpeople

WyreWizard
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: -24
Posts: 273



« Reply #18 on: July 06, 2006, 06:16:04 PM »

Mofo Rising Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I think you are confused about the mechanisms of
> genetics.  

Think again.

>Here is a quick rundown on cloning you
> may be interested in looking at.
> Basically a clone of a person would indeed look
> more or less like original.  You can see this in
> identical twins, which you mentioned.  These twins
> share the same genetic structure, as would clones.
>  Barring any environmental surprises (such as
> feeding one well and undernourishing the other),
> the two would grow up to be more or less the
> same.

Have you ever seen a real human clone as proof of this?  How do you explain the fact that couples have children who often look different from each other unless they are identitcal twins?  

> However, sexual reproduction is the chromosomes of
> two individuals recombined.  Half the chromosomes
> of one and half the chromosomes of the other.
> Furthermore, the chromosomes of the individuals
> recombine amongst themselves to create further
> variety.  The mechanisms of meiosis.  In this case
> you would be right, there are literally millions
> of different combinations.  No two individuals
> (excluding identical twins), will ever share the
> same genome.

Even identical twins have subtle variations in their genomes.

> Cloning, in theory, takes the DNA from one cell
> and puts it inside an "empty" egg.  The new
> individual, in theory, has the same DNA and grows
> up to be roughly the same as the original
> individual.  There is no recombination, no random
> number generators.  That only happens during
> meiosis, and it's a bad metaphor anyway.

Again I ask, have you ever seen a real human clone grown?  Its a little more than genetics that affect how we look.  I mean, what if you took identical twins and separated them for 40 years?  You have one live in the middle east and the other live in Canada for those 40 years.  After that time, they don't look identical anymore.

> Think of it this way, your body is constantly
> making new cells, all of which contain the same
> DNA that started out in the original fertlized
> egg.  If your DNA scrambled itself every time it
> had to replicate itself, you would be well
> screwed.  In fact, there are elaborate mechanisms
> to ensure that DNA is copied with no errors
> billions and billions of times.  Errors in
> replication tend to lead to fun little things like
> cancer.

Don't forget that the gentic replication process becomes flawed as we age.  Your statement implies the genetic replication process is perfect and free of flaws.  In reality, its far from it.

> So you're wrong about the cloning.  If you wanted
> to argue fine points about the film, why not ask
> why they didn't just create brain-dead humans in
> jars if all they wanted was the organs?  Better
> yet, why argue fine points about THE ISLAND?  It's
> a Michael Bay film.

A word of warning, don't read any further if you don't want a spoiler.




If you had watched the movie and listened to that which the CEO of the Company and genetecists
they said that clones would have better quality organs if they actually lived a life and were fully conscious.  They broke the law in secret to cater to high-paying clientele.

Thanks for the argument.
Logged

Babe, I'm leaving.  I must be on my way.  The time is drawing near.  The train is going.  I see it in your eyes.  The love beneath your tears.  And I'll be lonely without you.  And I'll need your love to see me through.  So please me.  My heart is your hands.  And I'll be missing you...
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #19 on: July 06, 2006, 06:28:57 PM »

I couldn't have said it better. The story is really about the implications of the technology, not the technology itself.

A lot of great SF has been based on some really implausible technologies. A lot of classic SF has been rendered technically unsound by advances in real technology. But the stories still have merit if you take them in their proper context.

Isaac Asimov is a great example. Asimov's future, as written in the 40s and 50s, ran on atomic fission and didn't have computers, but those stories are much better than his later works. By the 80s, he was so obsessed with getting the details right and making everything plausible that he was writing longwinded stories with explanations worthy of a lawyer in their intricacy. Old Isaac made sure you couldn't pick holes in his stories, but they could be tough to slog through at times.

Good storytelling is about more than technical accuracy. The Island is not the greatest example, since it isn't a particularly great or original story, but if you're obsessing over the way the cloning works, you've kind of missed the point.

And, since it's all purely speculative, who's to say it couldn't work that way?
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Andrew
Administrator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 8439


I know where my towel is.


WWW
« Reply #20 on: July 06, 2006, 07:44:39 PM »

I could give a rat's behind about the grade you give myself and the rest of the board.  What I care about is that the board is a true community, not a place where people just insult the opinion of others or think nothing of being casually rude.  I will often keep an eye on newcomers, but I also try to ensure that anyone new also is given a fair shake and not just disregarded for being the FNG.

The conversion seems to have taken off and is interesting.  I apologize if I stepped in too quickly, but I get far too many emails from people who are trying to be rude and, "Hello, it is such and such, stupid." is a hallmark.
Logged

Andrew Borntreger
Badmovies.org
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 438
Posts: 3151


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2006, 03:50:33 PM »

I repeat, I believe you have the mechanisms of genetics mixed up in your head.  Specifically the difference between regular sexual reproduction and the cloning process.

> Have you ever seen a real human clone as proof of
> this?  How do you explain the fact that couples
> have children who often look different from each
> other unless they are identitcal twins?  
>

Of course nobody has seen a real human clone, any arguments continuing on this tack are going to be specious.

I've already addressed your second question.  Please re-read the article on meiosis.  Here it is again.  This should explain why couples have kids who look different.  Compare this to mitosis.  If you are unwilling to look at this very, very basic rundown, there's no reason for me to continue "debating" you.

> Even identical twins have subtle variations in
> their genomes.
>
> Again I ask, have you ever seen a real human clone
> grown?  Its a little more than genetics that
> affect how we look.  I mean, what if you took
> identical twins and separated them for 40 years?
> You have one live in the middle east and the other
> live in Canada for those 40 years.  After that
> time, they don't look identical anymore.

Yup, and I addressed that point in my original post as well.  However, unless the environments are drastically different, the two twins will look extremely similar.  You can see this at work in real world examples of identical twins who have grown up thousands of miles apart from each other.  This is the development that these THEORETICAL clones would follow.

> Don't forget that the gentic replication process
> becomes flawed as we age.  Your statement implies
> the genetic replication process is perfect and
> free of flaws.  In reality, its far from it.

Addressed again.  See "errors in replication cause cancer".

Your original assumption about clones looking different than the original individual due to random genetic reproduction is wrong.  The difference is that the cloning process takes a person's DNA from one of their cells and introduces it to an "empty" egg where development proceeds mitotically.  The article again.  This is a completely different process than meiotic division and sexual reproduction.

If you're not willing to read and understand those articles, I am not willing to debate you.

> Thanks for the argument.

No problem.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2006, 05:23:30 PM »

Of course, there is the most important reason the clones look exactly like their originals: because it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor play both parts. It also offers more dramatic possibilities if there is difficulty in telling them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 220
Posts: 3232



« Reply #23 on: July 08, 2006, 01:30:14 AM »

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, there is the most important reason the
> clones look exactly like their originals: because
> it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor
> play both parts. It also offers more dramatic
> possibilities if there is difficulty in telling
> them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.


That and it's cost effective: you don't have to pay for another actor...
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 438
Posts: 3151


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #24 on: July 08, 2006, 12:45:37 PM »

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Of course, there is the most important reason the
> clones look exactly like their originals: because
> it makes sense dramatically to have the same actor
> play both parts. It also offers more dramatic
> possibilities if there is difficulty in telling
> them apart. Again, storytelling comes first.

How then do you explain the movie TWINS?  The twins in that movie were played by Danny DeVito and Arnold Schwarzenegger; actors who are, in fact, two very different people.

Of course storytelling comes first.  As long as the scientific mumbo-jumbo isn't egregiously insulting.  Still, bad science talk has always been one of the more entertaining aspects of bad movies.  My favorite example comes from this terrible movie DR. JEKYL AND MS. HYDE, where the main character proudly announces he's isolated the gene that causes all human evil.  Me and my little brother still use that as a milepost to this day.

My advice to filmmakers on using the same actor for different roles?  Stop.  For every DEAD RINGERS there are twenty films like DOUBLE IMPACT.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
trekgeezer
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 0
Posts: 4969


We're all just victims of circumstance


« Reply #25 on: July 08, 2006, 12:47:10 PM »

The most realistic view of cloning happened in what some consider a dreadful movie (pardon the pun), Judge Dredd. Armand Assante was a clone of Sly Stallone.
Logged




And you thought Trek isn't cool.
AndyC
Global Moderator
B-Movie Kraken
****

Karma: 1398
Posts: 11161



« Reply #26 on: July 08, 2006, 03:11:08 PM »

Mofo Rising Wrote:

> How then do you explain the movie TWINS?  The
> twins in that movie were played by Danny DeVito
> and Arnold Schwarzenegger; actors who are, in
> fact, two very different people.

Well, first of all, they were fraternal twins, not clones or even identical twins. The scientific theory offered even stated that the genetic traits went in two different directions, strengths to one and flaws to the other (speaking of hokey science). Besides which, the whole joke behind the movie is that these two unlikely actors are playing twins.

But that really has nothing to do with anything. I was talking about The Island specifically, not stating a general principle. For this particular story, it works better to have the same actor in both parts. In fact, The Island probably wouldn't work without that arrangement. Different stories have different requirements. A more comparable Arnie film would be The Sixth Day -- a story that would not have worked if Arnie's clone were not an exact copy. Sure, it wasn't one of his better films, but there are plenty of reasons for that without suggesting that it was because they had one actor play identical people.

And I did not mean to imply that anything goes in the name of storytelling. However, there's nothing wrong with bending the laws of nature to enhance a good story. A good storyteller knows just how far he can go.
Logged

---------------------
"Join me in the abyss of savings."
Mofo Rising
Global Moderator
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 438
Posts: 3151


My cat can eat a whole watermelon!


WWW
« Reply #27 on: July 08, 2006, 09:02:27 PM »

AndyC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But that really has nothing to do with anything. I
> was talking about The Island specifically, not
> stating a general principle.
>
> And I did not mean to imply that anything goes in
> the name of storytelling. However, there's nothing
> wrong with bending the laws of nature to enhance a
> good story. A good storyteller knows just how far
> he can go.

Don't worry, I understood the intent of your post.  I was trying to make a joke with that TWINS remark.  It's really difficult to pull off deadpan sarcasm in text, and I reject the use of emoticons out of hand.

One thing to look for in movies, which I always enjoy, is when the filmmaker embraces the ridiculousness of trying to explain the impossible.  Take SHAUN OF THE DEAD.  There's really no need to explain why the dead are coming back to life, they just are.  So the movie provides quite a few possible reasons in the background.

Lost track of my point here.  Oh well.
Logged

Every dead body that is not exterminated becomes one of them. It gets up and kills. The people it kills, get up and kill.
Scottie
Bad Movie Lover
***

Karma: 8
Posts: 433



WWW
« Reply #28 on: July 09, 2006, 02:30:34 AM »

Mofo Rising wrote:

"I wouldn't spoil a movie I hate to my worst enemy. (Well, maybe I would, but it would have to be under extreme circumstances)."

>
>
>

Hmm. This brings up an interesting scenario I'm going to explore to relieve some of the tension I see in this thread. Exactly how devastating would spoiling a movie be to someone who hasn't seen it? And how could the spoil be used in the most mean hearted way? What movie would you spoil for somebody? Is there one film out there that is so good and has such a good twist at the end, the person's head would literally explode from the spoil, or are you going to have to do some research on the person to find out what film they haven't seen, want to see really bad, and of which they don't yet know the ending?

Here are a few films that would probably devastate someone if they fell under this criteria:

a.) They really really liked the idea of the film
b.) They had been following a film series since the beginning
c.) They only saw half the film a while ago and never got around to finishing it
d.) Their head was rigged with neurons linked to the knowledge center of the brain so that it responds with explosion when a movie is spoiled

Spoilers below (hehe)



1. Star Wars. Vader is Luke's father. Remember when you first saw that film after watching the first film three years earlier and highly anticipating the second one? Well, I didn't, I wasn't born yet. But watching it at home brough about the same level of shock and amazement to me. Now, let's say it's 1979 and while at the comic book store trying to buy the last copy of the Star Wars Comic some overweight fanboy cuts you off in line and purchases that last copy. Of course you bite your tongue because his fate will come soon. Later that night you go to his home and, with a team of three of your friends, you haul his ass out of bed and into your van where you drive him to an abandoned warehouse and strap him into a chair. You then proceed to show him a pristine 35mm print of Star Wars episode IV all day and all night for three days, keeping him awake with intermittent injections of caffeine and slaps in the face. Then as he's about to break from the stress of being awake for three days straight, watching the film he once loved and still loves dearly, and having lost thirty fanboy pounds, you step in front of him and, with knowledge of the new Episode V from a friend of yours living out in LA  working on the project, you say defiantly and with a smirk "Vader is Luke's father."

I can't think of anything else right now. I just thought this topic would be funny. I hope you laught along in my delirious-ness
Logged

___<br />Spongebob: What could be better than serving up smiles? <br />Squidward: Being Dead.
dean
Frightening Fanatic of Horrible Cinema
****

Karma: 220
Posts: 3232



« Reply #29 on: July 09, 2006, 02:53:10 AM »

The most frustrating spoiler I've ever had was in class back in school, a teacher and a couple of students were discussing loudly the entire plot of Sixth Sense before I saw it.  I was pretty annoyed since I was seeing it that night, and was looking foward to it.  Not that it was a particularly groundbreaking movie, but I do sometimes wonder how different I would have reacted if I didn't know the twist.
Logged

------------The password will be: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch
Pages: 1 [2] 3
Badmovies.org Forum  |  Movies  |  Bad Movies  |  Another incredibly bad film - The Island - Possible Spoilers « previous next »
    Jump to:  


    RSS Feed Subscribe Subscribe by RSS
    Email Subscribe Subscribe by Email


    Popular Articles
    How To Find A Bad Movie

    The Champions of Justice

    Plan 9 from Outer Space

    Manos, The Hands of Fate

    Podcast: Todd the Convenience Store Clerk

    Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!

    Dragonball: The Magic Begins

    Cool As Ice

    The Educational Archives: Driver's Ed

    Godzilla vs. Monster Zero

    Do you have a zombie plan?

    FROM THE BADMOVIES.ORG ARCHIVES
    ImageThe Giant Claw - Slime drop

    Earth is visited by a GIANT ANTIMATTER SPACE BUZZARD! Gawk at the amazingly bad bird puppet, or chuckle over the silly dialog. This is one of the greatest b-movies ever made.

    Lesson Learned:
    • Osmosis: os·mo·sis (oz-mo'sis, os-) n., 1. When a bird eats something.

    Subscribe to Badmovies.org and get updates by email:

    HOME B-Movie Reviews Reader Reviews Forum Interviews TV Shows Advertising Information Sideshows Links Contact

    Badmovies.org is owned and operated by Andrew Borntreger. All original content is © 1998 - 2014 by its respective author(s). Image, video, and audio files are used in accordance with the Fair Use Law, and are property of the film copyright holders. You may freely link to any page (.html or .php) on this website, but reproduction in any other form must be authorized by the copyright holder.