on-set photos Oct.28, 2010 Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried Spotted On The Set Of Sci-Fi Thriller imdb.com listing: I'm.Mortal (2012) storyline:
title change 3 new on-set behind the scenes photos also here. http://www.beyondhollywood.com/new-...a-seyfried-in-andrew-niccols-new-sci-fi-film/
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Meh, I liked this better.. ...34 years ago, when it was called Logan's Run.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Yeah it's basically Logan's Run but the obsession with youth and age is endlessly good fodder for Hollywood films mostly because for Holllywood it's entirely true. This really is the sort of concept that lends itself to repetition given he industry. That said: How is it appropriate for a world were people don't age that everyone is attractive? Did they cure ugliness too? Oh right, Hollywood.
'Now' script plot spoilers http://io9.com/5695909/first-inside-look-at-the-latest-dystopian-world-from-gattacas-andrew-niccol
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Hell, I liked it better thirteen years ago, when it was called Gattaca and made by the same guy. That said, of course I'll watch this. Between the Truman Show and Gattaca, Andrew Niccol is probably the best science fiction screenwriter in the world, and Gattaca and Lord of War (and, to a lesser degree, S1m0ne), showed that he's a hell of a director.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel The movie, now called "In Time", has an "extended" trailer now: http://www.slashfilm.com/in-time-extended-trailer-starring-justin-timberlake-amanda-seyfried/ I like it! How fitting that this would come out on my 26th birthday!
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel I think you may've slung the wrong web, kemosabe.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel ^ Whoops - wrong link. Changed it.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Well, you changed the text, but not the link itself... But close enough. Okay, it looks super fucking cool, as I would expect an Andrew Niccol movie to look, and has a classic Niccol premise--totally preposterous as an exercise in world building, but a potent combination of propagandist scaremongering, expressionist science fiction, and social allegory. I don't mean that as bad thing. It looks like I'll react to it much as I did Gattaca, where I can adore the craft, and adore the movie, and hate everything it stands for.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Damn. The forum software does weird things sometimes... Anyway, I changed it again & it should work now. Also, here's a direct link to the video: http://uk.ign.com/videos/2011/07/21/in-time-sdcc-panel-footage
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Don't sweat it, I've done it like fifty times.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Do you mean this about Gattaca? And what do you mean by "propagandist scaremongering"? It's not like these are campaign commercials or press conferences. Just wondering what you meant. I think "In Time" looks really interesting. Hopefully the trailer reflects the actual quality of the movie.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Gattaca, while a very fine film, is an alarmist reaction to the likelihood of genetic technology applied to reproduction. What the film wants you to believe is that this is a terrible or at least a very frightening thing, and it warps any sense that the world of Gattaca may have otherwise made around its ideological conviction that genetic technologies are harmful to the social fabric. Firstly, it posits an economic system that only accepts Valids--those with genes highly aligned toward intelligence, discipline, etc--which is built upon a sophisticated, easy-to-use DNA-reading system. I'm pretty sure Vincent Freeman's brain, body, and ambition didn't come out of nowhere, despite the protests of the film to the contrary, and given the method by which the genetic supermen are actually born (simple embryo selection), they cannot actually tell and could not be expected to care whether your parents paid to have you selected from a group of competitive embryos, or if you, naturally, by pure luck, developed cognitive abilities and discipline like Vincent Freeman. Secondly, the entitlement complex of the main character (he's us!) is beyond all measure. He has a major heart condition and is defrauding his way into a position where people are relying on his good health for the safety of their own lives. We do not let people with serious heart conditions be astronauts now, and we have a good reason for this. Interestingly, the film (possibly accidentally) lets it known that a heart condition is not a bar to employment at Gattaca itself (because Irene has a heart condition too!), it's just a bar to being a Gattaca astronaut! What is this guy's deal? Why am I supposed to like him? Thirdly, the movie is a huge "fuck you" to janitors and the world's other Borgnines, basically calling them losers, while Freeman is just a disenfranchised winner. I don't blame Niccol for this, we're so deep in classism as a culture that this is actually forgiveable, as I'm certain it wasn't really intentional. And finally, I'd be willing to accept the film as a lot more ambiguous than a propaganda piece, were it not for some of the cut material where its bias is completely naked--specifically, the little montage of famous awesome people who had major genetic disorders (which usually caused them a great deal of pain, natch) is so blunt-force trauma that it's easy to see why it was cut from the major release. Anyway, the real protagonist of Gattaca? Eugene Morrow. Shit, that guy is sad. Now, In Time is gonna be another story about how when humans exceed the limits of human biology, humans become humongous assholes by default. But despite this, it will be great.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel The actual visual of the film is pretty drab, I thought. I know that's not what you mean, but aesthetically it's not as interesting as - to make hopefully a fair comparsion - Gattaca. This looks more like 'generic present day thriller WITH TWIST' than any kind of near future. I liked Gattaca and The Truman Show well enough, and this looks alright. Cillian Murphy is of course an excellent actor, and I've been liking Amanda Seyfried in Big Love as I've trawled through that program; of the lead actor I know very little, aber, but he has that generic leading man look down pat. I'm not so sure. The genetic modification gives seemingly concrete scientific basis for believing some people are basically superior. There's no way that wouldn't permeate society in unsettling ways, although how exactly that'd work is perhaps more contentious. I mean, the capacity for people to go to great lengths to hire people not based strictly on aptitude but whether or not they fit certain tribal requirements - race, religion, gender, ethnicity, politics - is kind of obvious and persistent and, in its variegated permutations, a wonderfully, nastily widespread example of human clannishness. And here's the ultimate clique. The elite. The superior by the writ of Objective Truth. They can get to be bigots and they can do it with wonderful dispassionate reason and higher learning. The kids of those who can afford genetic modification - i.e., not your jaintor's children - can be made superior, and then the rich kids for whom science has made the class divide a meritocratic 'fact' can recruit exclusively among their own. Not that I'm defending the plausibility of the film overall, though. I mean, a space program? Who the hell thinks that's in our near future anymore? Indeed, but in fairness to that film - and In Time, it looks like - the science fiction conceit - be it genetics or time - is a pretty obvious stand in for a real arbitary dividing line among human beings: Money. Some people are loaded, and they get to have the big houses and the fancy soirees and the sling of female relatives who all have exactly the same hair for some reason. Of course, the answer in Gattaca - and apparently In Time - is not to criticize the state of those who are the underclass, but to try and become the upper class. It is I suppose a very American take, but this is just an uneducated guess on my part.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel It looks great, really looking forward to it
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel I can agree that it doesn't really compare to the aesthetic Niccol established with Gattaca. I watched the short making-of documentary that came with the anniversary BD release, and it is really amazing to watch the results, then be told about the shoestring they operated on. But I dunno. I guess I like guns and people chasing each other and stuff. His most famous work involved his dick in a box. That can't be argued with; at the same time, if the point is to present a dystopia based purely on economic rationalism, you undermine it when the dystopia turns out just to be racists by any other name. Thing is, and this is a really tiny, pedantic point, I don't think the method they use to do "genetic modification" (it's not genetic modification, it's embryo selection) could even be traced, short of the documents supporting it. The difference in the method of producing Vincent Freeman and Eugene Morrow is indistinguishable. Also, unless Gattaca has a mad in-house training program and throws cash away on completely unqualified candidates, I'm pretty sure "Olympic swimmer" is not the baseline you'd want for "spaceship navigator." This movie specifically? I took that as totally intentional. I thought that was the coolest image in the trailer. Well, this is the crux of it. With Gattaca, they made it too concrete--it can still be read as metaphor, but it's about biotechnology's impact on humans, and I don't think metaphor was Niccol's intent, unlike with, say, The Truman Show (which is entirely metaphor, a metaphor I think not too many people picked up on, given how 99% of the reviews I've read about that movie think it's about reality TV--and not to get too tangential, but this is weird, since they tell you, explicitly, that it's a metaphor in the denouement: "I am the Creator"). If metaphor was his intent, he kinda messed up. There's a problem with using emerging issues as a metaphor. When you take embryo selection, or telomere repair or however they justify immortality in In Time, you're talking about technologies which are either already in use, or technologies which are widely believed to be plausible and which we may see in our lifetimes, if not considerably sooner. We're not talking about mutants sworn to protect a world that hates and fears them anymore; we're talking about people that are being born now. We're talking about a real contemporary issue--and real human beings. So, when Gattaca tells us these "Valids" are going to conquer and oppress us, what you've got is indeed a piece of propaganda--a neo-Luddite political film that says preimplantation genetic diagnosis leads to this kind of society. It's far better for your brother to be born with leukemia than for Vincent Freeman to not get to see the other side of the sky. I think In Time may suffer a lot less from this problem, because immortality is a far more distant technology, and also because the film is far more clearly a sharply-drawn allegory than what, at first blush, would appear to be a thought-through, functional fictional world. But I don't think the problem is absent: when you have lines like, "No one should live forever unless everyone can live forever," then you are at least pushing a hard-line approach to biotechnological improvement of humanity that I can't sanction, and if the film goes into "No one should live forever at all" territory, it veers into monstrousness. I want to live forever (and be happier, and stronger, and healthier all around); and only purest, unworthiest envy would have me deny these advances to my descendants. Don't tell me it sucks to to live forever, Andrew Niccol. I'm pretty sure you don't know. Sorry to spend this many words on it. TLDR is a rational response. Edit: also, this Seyfried has a really cool haircut, and women with cool hair makes me like anything better.
Re: 'I'm.Mortal' by dir. Andrew Niccol - rumors, stills,until 2012 rel Ah, you're criticizing the science of it. I don't understand much about science (beyond the vague sense that fire was, all things considered, a good idea at the time), so I'd have no idea whether or not tests for genetic modification could work. On the other hand having papers indicating so-and-so has better genes and this other fellow does not - and discriminating accordingly - does strike me as plausible. Well, I think it's both. I mean Gattaca is kind of suggesting - simply put - that biotechnology will be a new way for the children of the rich to screw over less advantaged children. It is a new way, sure, but the general impulse isn't anything unique to a futurist society. The manner of the implementation is important, though. If genetic modification is simply something you have to be obscenely wealthy to afford, and it makes 'better' kids, what then? On the other hand, I'm reading a novel where a statist society offers to modify the children of all of their citizens, as a new breakthrough. The consequence? People in countries all around the world are very, very jealous towards that state. It's hard to imagine genetic modification of some children and not all being accepted with the placid indifference one might treat an early morning shower, to put it that way. Well the lines actually are: Vincent Kartheiser: "For you to be immortal many must die." Justin Timberlake: "No one should be immortal if even one person must die." Which I thought suggested a correlation - the price of immortality is literally taking other people's lives. The rich live longer than the poor because they're taking away the poor's time to live. I really doubt that's even remotely scientific, but as far as the flow of wealth goes, it's an apt enough pattern. And that's also something I'm comfortable with objecting to.
"In Time" review DVD In keeping with the start consolidating threads request I decided not to make a new thread. Tonight I just saw this film "In Time" on DVD from Netflix. It felt like Gattaca to me with part of The Matrix with Agent Smith. Since it is the same writer/director Andrew Niccol as Gattaca his style shows. It also felt like the production designer/art dept. was trying to hard to be stylized. 1970s cars painted black. The cinematography reminded me of the last act of Se7en with the heavy yellow filter saturation. I was surprised now to see the Director of Photography was Roger Deakins who is well known for Coen Brothers films. I felt the Art Direction/Production Design was pretty good. The exteriors felt very Los Angeles, CA to me. Amanda Seyfried played the part as ActI she sure looked doe eyed and young. A quick turnaround and she was running all over the place and shooting a gun. Haven't really seen her in much since Mean Girls. At first I thought it was a bad choice in actor but I guess it was the direction that made it not very believable to see that she was so innocent and then could just kill. Like a similar plot in Natural Born Killers I guess. I didn't even bother with the trailer. no special features at all. Justin Timberlake was good and did a good job. Nothing very memorable though. I did like Cillian Murphy's character. I did enjoy seeing the actor from Mad Men Vincent Kartheiser playing the powerful corporate man in this film. While still in a suit at least it was different. The CGI clock on their arms was a plot point that probably is more believable in a book rather than in a movie but hey it is a sci-fi movie set in the future. At least they tried to do this story as a $40 million Hollywood film. Considering it made over $100. it was successful. After the first 20 minutes of In Time I was not loving it but figured I'd finish it. It got better in the middle and then a blah ending for me. I wouldn't recommend it. Much of the time it felt like Johnny Mnemonic to me which was based on a short story and they had to pad it out with chase scenes. In Time has many running, chasing, car driving scenes that felt too much like filler. The Future world was nothing new for me. The 1970s cars had gas engines but also augmented with electric motor sounds in the sound design. Not exactly a hybrid but both sounds together. Kind of dumb that way. related thread: In Time trailer