I didn't find that the movie was very conceptually interesting. All the movie's best ideas were the scientific hypotheticals it played with. Great sci-fi does much more than that--it uses the circumstances of new technology to make a point about the human soul.
This movie makes a point about the human soul--but it is a decidedly atheistic point.
The film works diligently to dignify and ennoble an alien rock-spider--such the the audience will sympathize with it as a person. The protagonist builds a powerful friendship with this faceless being. Each sacrifices his own interests for the other. Dr. Grace even finishes the movie by living among the aliens and building a life with them.
The message of PHM is clear. The movie wishes to convince its audience that human life is not special--that men are interchangeable material beings whose existence is an accident of fate. In the world of PHM, the universe is portrayed as a vast abyss indifferent to the survival of the human race. In fact, the film regards the survival of space aliens as equally important.
It's Neil deGrasse Tyson philosophy. Gay and cringe.
I think you have some great points here, Grafton. However I don't think this was the filmmakers' intent here, really more just to have a fun space buddy comedy. I think those points actually speak larger to modern sci-fi at large, I also haven't read the book although from what I understand the ending is similar. Curious if you think something like Interstellar succeeds better in its championing of humanity?
I'm not Grafton, but I have the same analysis. Interstellar provides a much better message. Another weird thing about PHM is the treatment of Armando also as a sort of robotic life form, a very common (and dangerous) idea of AI.
Cooper finds his daughter, who's on her deathbed and tells him to find Brand, who's setting up a human colony in another planet. The androids are always either not doing much or just in the background. It's completely human centered and it's very positive on family values and the expansion of humanity in the universe. The androids are clearly regarded as tools in this shot.
I think it was a great ending to a properly fantastic movie. PHM is entertaining, but Interstellar is excellent.
Don't get me wrong, I love Interstellar. But to say Armando is a concerning character but not address TARS and CASE (who I love in the film) is to say two different things. Coop revives TARS to be his friend, saving him (or, rather, it) and brings him with him to start a new colony. I don't think the message of either film is anti-human. Ryland's humanization of Armando is not pro-AI, rather Ryland is stranded with no friends so it makes sense that he would talk to it like a human.
I didn't find that the movie was very conceptually interesting. All the movie's best ideas were the scientific hypotheticals it played with. Great sci-fi does much more than that--it uses the circumstances of new technology to make a point about the human soul.
This movie makes a point about the human soul--but it is a decidedly atheistic point.
The film works diligently to dignify and ennoble an alien rock-spider--such the the audience will sympathize with it as a person. The protagonist builds a powerful friendship with this faceless being. Each sacrifices his own interests for the other. Dr. Grace even finishes the movie by living among the aliens and building a life with them.
The message of PHM is clear. The movie wishes to convince its audience that human life is not special--that men are interchangeable material beings whose existence is an accident of fate. In the world of PHM, the universe is portrayed as a vast abyss indifferent to the survival of the human race. In fact, the film regards the survival of space aliens as equally important.
It's Neil deGrasse Tyson philosophy. Gay and cringe.
I think you have some great points here, Grafton. However I don't think this was the filmmakers' intent here, really more just to have a fun space buddy comedy. I think those points actually speak larger to modern sci-fi at large, I also haven't read the book although from what I understand the ending is similar. Curious if you think something like Interstellar succeeds better in its championing of humanity?
I'm not Grafton, but I have the same analysis. Interstellar provides a much better message. Another weird thing about PHM is the treatment of Armando also as a sort of robotic life form, a very common (and dangerous) idea of AI.
Doesn’t Interstellar end with Coop sipping a beer with a robotic life form?
Here's the ending of Interstellar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECjYsWLgy3I
Cooper finds his daughter, who's on her deathbed and tells him to find Brand, who's setting up a human colony in another planet. The androids are always either not doing much or just in the background. It's completely human centered and it's very positive on family values and the expansion of humanity in the universe. The androids are clearly regarded as tools in this shot.
I think it was a great ending to a properly fantastic movie. PHM is entertaining, but Interstellar is excellent.
Don't get me wrong, I love Interstellar. But to say Armando is a concerning character but not address TARS and CASE (who I love in the film) is to say two different things. Coop revives TARS to be his friend, saving him (or, rather, it) and brings him with him to start a new colony. I don't think the message of either film is anti-human. Ryland's humanization of Armando is not pro-AI, rather Ryland is stranded with no friends so it makes sense that he would talk to it like a human.