Michael Ash wrote:
> I've read The Locusts, although I hadn't thought of it in this context.
It
> does pretty much have the same end result, although getting there is
> different. It would be interesting to compare Earth of The Locusts with
> Children of Men.
If I recall correctly, not much detail about Earth is given in "The
Locusts," outside of a few transmissions. The story actually takes
place on a planet of Tau Ceti, humanity's first colony. (And that fact
is actually tied into why these things start happening.)
> As far as head scratching, it didn't affect my enjoyment of the movie at
> all. It helped that they never even tried to explain it. Also that the
> world was mostly familiar. It was basically not an SF movie at all aside
> from the McGuffin and slightly more intelligent cars than we're used to.
Well there was a big fat unexplained McGuffin, of course, but more
im****tantly, there was a big fat exception to it, and neither were
explained. Not explaining both is fine, but it seems like the
prominence of the McGuffin _and_ the exception to it, explaining one or
the other might have been in order. I actually don't in principle mind
prominent non-explanations of things, as it sidesteps the issue of
scientific accuracy or plausibility entirely; it's just that they piled
up a bit here.
Still, it's an objection that only really sunk in after fini****ng the
movie; the movie itself was sufficiently engrossing on its own. And, I
suppose, the explanation wasn't _all_ that relevant, since none of the
characters would have changed their behavior even if they had known
precisely what was going on -- they still felt needed to do what they
needed to do. But, eh.
--
Erik Max Francis && max@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
&& http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Physics, as we know it, will be over in six months.
-- Max Born, 1928
|
