SubJeff on 15/8/2013 at 07:58
Saw that on io9. Those aren't 8 bit graphics, mow like 16 bit.
N'Al on 15/8/2013 at 08:32
OMG, you're right. I shall be writing a strongly-worded letter forthwith!
SubJeff on 15/8/2013 at 09:10
I ALREADY HAVE :mad:
N'Al on 15/8/2013 at 09:43
Damn. We should've coordinated for a CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT! :mad:
Sulphur on 16/8/2013 at 08:58
Quote Posted by Briareos H
The clones in Oblivion are all the same age, they are not grown biologically or else we would see them at different stages of growth inside the mothership. They also possess the same memories, which were then artificially repressed around the time of "hatching". This all suggests that those clones are exact duplicates of their originals on an atomic or sub-atomic level, and this in turn suggests that the foe is some kind of quantum-level universal replicator race (which is *also* a reused idea).
With that in mind, I instantly assumed all clones shared the same atomic structure, especially that their cerebral patterns were identical. As far as science and human knowledge goes, this is all you need to make two people <strike>virtually</strike>literally the same.
Now this has been said, I understand that you criticize the film's message on a philosophical, almost religious assumption. That's fine, but you shouldn't assume that everyone should be annoyed by it. I personally do not share your view on human identity. My beliefs are that the "soul", ie. what guarantees the uniqueness of a person, exists on an atomic level in the structure of the brain patterns and sensory I/O, a structure that was established by both years of biological growth and years of learning and memories. You say that love isn't so easily so transferable to different beings, I say that love can be equally shared among all instances of the same being.
Julia saw the original in Jack 49, she recognized all his little quirks, the way he talked, his behavioral patterns - I don't think we as humans need much more to establish/fool ourselves into believing (whichever term you prefer as they are indistinguishable and only a problem on a rhetoric level) that they are the same person. Think of it as the QBRM 'resurrection machines' in System Shock 2 - Would you say that it was not the main character who destroyed SHODAN at the end but a different person?
As for the time spent during the movie with 49 and the shared experience that 52 will never have, I agree with you. However, considering how little time they spent together, I'm more than willing to assume that her thinking went along the lines of "okay, baby needs a father, the last clone I accepted as a husband *was* my husband, this one might go a little awkward, but we'll take some time to get reacquainted, he's still my husband after all". I'm of course putting an intent behind the screenwriter, but this reasoning felt quite natural to me. In my opinion, the point of the movie *was* that those instances are disposable as long as you don't run out of them because they're indeed the same guy (perfect for Tom Cruise's ego). Slight differences exist, one might find a book and be triggered to do something while others don't, one might share some sexy time more than the others before murdering a huge AI but ultimately these are details which don't matter much to his persona. This is how I interpreted the film, in my opinion an interesting idea which might just be the only original element it had. That's why I'm defending it.
Man, you guys are right, spoilers and quotes are getting to be a pain.
I am criticising the movie for not taking into account - or ignoring - an integral part of the human condition. Perhaps using cloning as a plot mechanic, merely taking it at face value, works in a dumb action movie, but that's not what Oblivion wants to be.
Let's be clear - this isn't an almost religious assumption, I don't really care about religious subtext for this topic. But it is philosophical, and not least because while sci-fi is about ideas, good sci-fi is really about how characters treat those ideas within the fiction itself. And the movie doesn't drop a hint about that because it's too busy pulling ideas from movies that explored them more coherently and fully.
So let's go to the clones: all of these copies of Cruise are an idea that would be a scary thing to deal with for anyone, but most of all for Julia, who just woke up. Sure, they're perfect clones, but none of them are her original husband, who might have been still alive in the Tet, and she doesn't seem to give a shit about that.
This is bad character writing, for one. I'd find it hard to believe that anybody would simply just accept, 'you're a copy of my original husband but that's okay, since you're a perfect copy'. For another, the cloning process might be on an atomic level, but this levels the question of identity, a question which the movie does not address at all through either the narrative or any of the characters in it. How does Tech 49 feel about the fact that he's a clone? Tech 52? Was the original Harper just borderline sociopathic and didn't give a shit about most things? Is this the same for Julia, too?
Omitting the issue does not mean - again, this is my opinion, this is what it means to me - the movie's taking a refreshing tack and saying, 'yanno, that's clichéd so let's just present this as it is'. By not talking about it, the movie is admitting it doesn't know what to say, or has nothing to say about it except for giving you an empty special effects ride, or maybe in the end, it's saying that it doesn't matter if you're a disposable clone or the actual person from whence the clones came: you're all the same, there's nothing special about you, live or die. This much is clear by how muddled all its themes are. Maybe that's what the title signifies? (cheap shot, but it's appropriate)
Keep in mind I'm not asking you guys to share in my annoyance of the movie's themes. I'm presenting my opinion of it from my viewpoint, same as you are. I just find it empty and bereft of value, which is a negative thing, so that might translate in your head to, 'HOW CAN YOU GUYS LIKE THIS', but I haven't said that.
Also, about the QBRM machines in SS2 - interesting question. You know why the machines exist - they're an in-universe explanation for being able to respawn after you die. It's the cloning idea taken at face value for convenience, sort of like in Oblivion. faetal - sure, clones of her would be great initially, but while we're having fun with the idea, let's take the speculation further along for a second. After you bonk all of them six ways to Sunday, do you really think all of them are going to accept that you love them equally? Would
you accept that?
faetal on 16/8/2013 at 09:55
Actually, I'd say it could be argued that all of the clones are her original husband. Do you have any idea how fast the turnover is on most of the matter which makes us what we are? She woke on a derelict planet after knowing she'd been asleep for 60 years and thus the man she was looking at couldn't be her husband. She has two options, get suicidal or embrace the surreal. Also, that cartoon above, while very funny is BS - because the trigger for the other Tom looking for the house was knowing that there was another Tom. As far as the rest of them are concerned, Sally just stopped calling. Ask yourself this - can Julia just rationalise that she'd accept another clone by rationalising that it's the same as having the same husband who has suffered some minor memory loss. I like the idea that it's the essence of who they are that makes them love one another, hence that essence being identical in all Toms, leads to her being to love any of them. I'd say it only gets weird if they live together 20 years, Tom chokes on a chicken bone and then Julia fucks off to the next zone and re-ups.
I agree that having clones of my gf would be bad after we were done with the various carnal permutations. "Me time" would cease to exist.
SubJeff on 16/8/2013 at 10:02
Quote Posted by Sulphur
For another, the cloning process might be on an atomic level, but this levels the question of identity, a question which the movie does not address at all through either the narrative or any of the characters in it.faetal - sure, clones of her would be great initially, but while we're having fun with the idea, let's take the speculation further along for a second. After you bonk all of them six ways to Sunday, do you really think all of them are going to accept that you love them equally? Would
you accept that?
The fact that we are discussing the film in such detail tells me one thing - it is actually as layered/deep/complex as I found it. A lot of people dismissed it as sci-fi pop whereas I felt it had a lot to say.
Reminds me a little of the guy (not my friend btw!) who said of the Matrix - "Yeah, I liked it. But why were they always trying to get to phones?"
And I don't think faetal was thinking further than 6 in the bed \o/. I wasn't.
demagogue on 16/8/2013 at 11:49
Sort of an aside, but the end of Oblivion reminded me of the end of The Last Samurai, and I was wondering if there's something about Tom Cruise, or in his personality, where it's a thing that a woman is left at the end for the hero to surprisingly reunite with in the end, and that'd be characteristic for him. It's not something you'd take away from his romantic history anyway, but maybe it says something about the way he thinks of himself or his persona...
faetal on 16/8/2013 at 11:56
Likely just a probability clash between Hollywood liking those styles of ending and Tom Cruise being a prolific Hollywood actor.
SubjEff - I agree on the depth, I think it was dismissed because despite its depth, it included far too many popcorn sci-fi tropes and it's easy to throw out the baby then there are that many turds in the bathwater.
