ZOWIE seemed more inclined to war than Galaxy. Did Flint actually hurt the world he tried to save? Recall the scientists spoke of using the weather machine to turn wastelands into gardens of eden and only used violence as a last resort. Anybody think this was an unintentional case of the bad guys actually being unintentional heroes?
shareI think so, and Flint seemed more arrogant than James Bond.
shareThe one problem is they wanted people without free will, slaves
http://worldofvbphoto.blogspot.com/
http://vbphoto.webs.com/models.htm
The one problem is they wanted people without free will, slaves >>> Exactly. In their perfect world...a man's world...the women were relegated to pleasure units. The scientists did have an idea for world peace, but as Flint says, it's their vision, not his. Besides, we all know that it would ultimately become a dictatorship of sorts. No matter how good the intentions, there are always insidious minds that will distort it and turn it into something bad. Flint was right to do what he did, as this was an attack on free will. Besides, Flint did not destroy the machine. The scientists agreed to surrender so that their work would be preserved, and stupid Rodney is the one in his attempt to kill Flint who inadvertently destroyed their creation.
- - - - - - -
Whose idea was it for the word "Lisp" to have an "S" in it?
a man's world...the women were relegated to pleasure units.
Seen by today's standards, the intentions of these scientists could most certainly be seen as pretty well-meaning in that they tried to free the world from nuclear weapons. Then there is the problem with them using rather evil methods in acheiving this... such as murder, employing nazi's, annihalation of those that won't share their views, drugs to keep the workers happy, branding people to maintain control over them, brain-washing women into sex slaves to be used by the aforementioned drugged male workers...
That makes for two options:
1) We have a movie with incredible subtlety, presenting an interresting moral dilemma. A world free of nuclear weapons... is that worth a few broken eggs? It has happened in other instances that silly action movies have presented a few brain-joggers... such as miss Lorelei in Superman III turning out to *not* be a stupid bleach-blonde bimbo but was instead a actually quite intellectually gifted woman that was only acting real dumb in the presense of others. Could that be the case here... that we are looking at a pretty deep movie that is trying to make the viewer think a bit about this dilemma and criticizing the leaders of the world for their reliance on nuclear weapons for keeping the peace while demonizing those that tried to rid the world of them?
2) This cheesy action packed over-the-top parody of the James Bond-franschise was made in a time where nuclear weapons were not concidered the ultimate evil but instead "only" the most powerful weapons avilable to the military to defend the country against baddies and where the M.A.D doctrine was seen as something keeping the world at peace. Seen in that light the scientists were trying to take away something that kept the country safe and that prevented another world war, thus making them fully evil, both in intent and method.
/J
Well meaning? With women as hypnotized sex toys? I guess that's utopia for some. Certainly for anyone on top of the social order. But that's true for any "system" isn't it.
Flint was an individualist. He didn't see a stiltified pigenholed society as any sort of utopia. There would be no room for him, even if he was one of the ruling elite.
Flint was an individualist. He didn't see a stiltified pigenholed society as any sort of utopia. There would be no room for him, even if he was one of the ruling elite.
At the same time as the "Flint" movies, Patrick McGoohan was making "The Prisoner." Similar themes in both, so they must have seemed quite relevant to various artists and critics of popular culture.
Well like I asked above: is a nuclear weapon free world worth a few broken eggs? If keeping some male workes happy through drugs and a few women hypnotized into blissfull sex dolls, would it be worth it to be rid of the nukes and getting complete control of the climate?
In today's world we bomb the crap out of people for a little bit of national security, causing death, injury and despair for the supposed greater good, while the results are doubtful at best.
I don't know... but using drugs and sex and getting a very tangiable outcome at least seems like a less harmful way to go.
/J
You should have been born a bee- as a part of a society where choices do not exist. Take your Utopian fantasy and go to Hell with it.
"It ain't dying I'm talking about, it's living!!!"
Augustus McCrae
Well I never said it was my Utopia. The scientists in the movie obviously thinks it could be... and all the workers / pleasure units seem pretty content (although drugged and brain-bleached).
If all the rest of the world got rid of nukes and nothing else happened beyond that... if the scientists just said "Oh... well done y'all... carry on... kkthxbai"... then it still begs the question: would it be worth it?
/J-Star
De gustibus non est disputandum
You want to be utilitarian and choose the more beneficial outcome. The problem is that in using coercion, even nonviolent coercion, there are other unintended consequences that could cause other, greater problems. Is a loss of personal freedom worth having a nuclear weapon-free world? You'd have to go a long way to convince me.
However, I agree that U.S. foreign policy is riddled with flaws of its own, not the least is the idea, similar to yours, that coercion can be used to maintain peace. Again, there are unintended consequences.
You'd have to go a long way to convince me.
they could have gone SPECTRE and extorted everyone for billions of dollars,They could also have ensured better climate or more rain over Africa.
... they said "We want you to junk the nukes". What's their gain in that? None that I can think of.If all nukes and other weapons of mass destruction were to be junked, it would mean they were the only power holding weapons of mass destruction. In other words, they would gain full control by fear, castrating all true attempts to revolt. Sure, perhaps their intentions were utopian and potentially kind, but I am sure Hitler would have said the same. He too wanted what he thought was best for the world. On the contrary SPECTRA or even Hussein wanted what was best for them or him - that is a difference between them and the scientists... except, all neglect to accept diverse opinions. Or said differently, they oppose, on one level or another, freedom. And that don't fly with Flint.
Sure, perhaps their intentions were utopian and potentially kind, but I am sure Hitler would have said the same.
PS: Let us not forget they trained a bird to hate Americans, and forced cuties to become mindless pleasure units.
What happens next?
My wife would be less troublesome, and global warming would be a myth ;-)
Blame Rodney! Rather than destroy their weather machine the scientists offer to surrender and appeal to Flint not to destroy the machine by promoting its potential to benefit mankind. Flint appears to be considering that choice. Rodney, however, in an attempt to eliminate Flint (which seems to be his primary motive) and perhaps, also, to save Galaxy from destruction inadvertantly kills the scientists and causes the ultimate demise of the machine, himself, and Galaxy.
Yes, the scientists were well-intentioned, but they chose to use force (or the threat of force, even if violence is avoided) in order to have a peaceful world. Naturally, this doesn't work. It was their means that made them the bad guys, not their intentions.
I'm not sure this has been thought through. If the threat of force doesn't work to keep the peace, then why are there police? Why does almost every nation-state have a military? If I'm not willing to use force, how do I deter people who are?
Frankly, I'm not clear what the intentions of the bad guys were. They wanted to control the world, in some sense. This would have involved violating certain elements of national sovereignty, but I don't think this would have affected the average person one bit.
Well, let me be clear. It is not the use of force itself that is wrong, but the *initiation* of force that's the problem. The police aren't threatening to use force if you don't give them donuts, but are there to respond to those who would initiate or threaten to initiate force. A military is *supposed* to be used to defend the nation, though obviously, it's not always used that way.
So being willing to use force is okay if it's for defensive or justified retaliation, just not when you initiate force to get your way. The scientists were willing to initiate force or the threat of force to get what they wanted.
However, given the way governments tend to act, it may be right to say that the average person may not have been worse off if the scientists had gotten their way.
"Well, let me be clear. It is not the use of force itself that is wrong, but the *initiation* of force that's the problem."
Of course this is an important distinction, but reality tends to be fuzzy. Just in the context of the movie, what if the Weather Control Cabal (WCC) believed that the US and USSR were about to engage in an all-out nuclear war, resulting in hundreds of millions of deaths? Would they be morally justified in trying to stop that catastrophe by any means necessary? What if, say, Iraq or Iran were trying to build nuclear weapons? Would it be proper to use force to stop them?
One interpretation is that the WCC saw a world with a lot of unnecessary suffering and thought that they had both the ability to help and a weapon that could give them the power to implement their ideas. On the other hand, any course of action that just coincidentally happens to lead to one's own benefit should act as a warning sign to encourage healthy skepticism as to motives.
One moral problem in the present instance is that weather control is a blunt instrument (as, for that matter, are economic sanctions). The goal of military strategy, in general, is to get the leaders of the other side to change policies. Causing a drought, or a hurricane, or snow, on the other hand, would mainly affect a large number of people who would have little or no effect on policy. Still, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything sort of looks like a nail.
In an interview, James Coburn said that the writers got the motivations of the scientists wrong. Instead of demonstrating weather control in a beneficial way, they should've shown the potential to destroy the earth by using weather control as a weapon if they didn't get their way.
What!!! No Gravy???
Check out the FAQ. http://tinyurl.com/82aea