A real plot hole



"How many other worlds are there?"

"Thousands."

Uh.. and .. all of them are UNFINISHED?

Why wouldn't they first make a WHOLE PLANET complete, before advancing to the next simulation?

It doesn't make any sense - that they have been able to create THOUSANDS of simulations, must mean that they could very well have finished at least one planet that doesn't have "the end of the world" that anyone could easily (TOO easily, if you ask me - in any computer game, you can completely block the edges in a way that doesn't reveal that it's a game and that there are polygons - why would they suddenly change into wireframes anyway, and such a tiny resolution, too - polygon-wise, I mean - you could never display as massive amount of data and detail with such low-poly models as was shown to be the 'end of the world' in the movie - think about each little twig on the ground, and their branches, and the bushes, trees, leaves - everything would have to have a super-high resolution in their modelling, and thus wireframes, and thus polygons, and so on - and yet, we are shown this unbelievably crude.. sigh.. never mind) get to!

Besides, you could just PROGRAM the units any way you want - they don't have free will, they want only what you program for them to want! There's no way any of what happens in this movie could ever happen, because it'd be all too easy to prevent with a little bit of programming, even retroactively! (Meaning, "whoops, a mistake - oh well, let's fix it" (time passes) "done, everything is again exactly the way it's supposed to be")

This movie, like the original book and the awful german 3,5 hour bore-fest that this movie is the prettier cousin of, have so many ridiculous premises that the audience must absolutely believe can be, for any of it to be even remotely plausible - but THIS really takes the cake.

I mean, WHY is the world unfinished? It can't be because of time, it can't be because of resources, it can't be because of funding or workforce problems or anything like that, BECAUSE they have had all those things for making THOUSANDS of such simulations!

The only reason I can come up with is to compare it to a computer or video game - even the flight simulators that try to model the whole Earth, are far from perfection, and not every little city is modelled, and even the bigger cities are not modelled with accuracy, and even those that are modelled extremely well (like Flytampa's Hong Kong package), can't even be compared to a crude photograph from the 1970s or a bad quality 1980s video show from a real airplane.

So if THAT is the explanation - that this particular simulation is just meant for a certain type of entertainment, like The Sims doesn't bother to model the avionics of airplanes, and flight simulators do not bother to model every little shack in the world, as long as the main features are relatively functional, so this simulation also only models a tiny area for a very specific purpose, then another thing suddenly stops making sense.

And the thing is - in THAT case, then why is every dang thing modelled with such a perfect accuracy with such high-quality textures, models, animation and super-high-FPS (presumably anyway - though it looks very jerky in the 'end of the world' scene compared to what it could be even in a 24FPS movie)?

I mean, if it's just very specific, then why make such immaculate detail? Well, ok, perhaps it's like "Take on Helicopters", which models the Seattle area very well, although the game itself is pretty limited from this point of view.

But even so, the NPCs are not going to care how well the world is modelled, or how realistic someone's behaviour or animation is - why would they even make a "drug history" possible, unless it's about drugs? Remember, this is supposed to be a limited world for a specific purpose (otherwise the whole planet would have been modelled, and there wouldn't BE any silly 'end of the world' polygon scene).

And if you really want the player(s) and NPCs to not be able to go beyond a certain limitation, just look at any 3D game with relatively free movement - you can easily see how it can be done cleverly with structures and such. To just put an easy-to-break "barricade" there, makes absolutely no sense.

As if the programmers are going to just TRUST that the simulated humans are so obedient (instead of MAKING them obedient) that such a simple measure will stop them from progressing/advancing!

There is just NO WAY around all this, it's STUPID, no matter how you turn it around. Because each time you turn away one stupidity, another one rears its ugly head from the other side.

If the programmer doesn't want a character outside a certain boundary, and the programmer is even half-competent, and his program is relatively bug and glitch-free, there is no way any character can just waltz outside that boundary!

(Why would they even let them WANT to do it? Besides, there would be SO many ways to stop them from doing it, and all of them could be used simultaneously! Like making it psychologically impossible for them, fear could be used, disorientation could be used, fainting, euphoria, any kind of looping, like the world just looping the desert ENDLESSLY, so eventually anyone going there would simply run out of gas, energy, and die of starvation/dehydration (though they would most likely turn back before that happens) -- JUST TO MENTION A FEW from the top of my head!)

This movie is proof that hollywood doesn't have a thinking brain inside ITS boundaries..

And this is just basically a handful of implausibilities that I have touched so far - this movie is so full of them that I could sit here until the polygons come home and still be writing more about them.

But.. I am sitting here.. near the end of the post. I know the truth. This movie isn't real! How many movies are there like this? Thousands?





reply

Your wrong

reply

It's "You're" (not: Your) you illiterate buffoon !!!

reply

Besides, you could just PROGRAM the units any way you want - they don't have free will, they want only what you program for them to want!

Our own brains are programmed, not by a 'programmer' but by all our experiences since the day we were born. Yet we have consciousness and (we believe...) we have free will. How can you be so sure that simulated brains wouldn't have consciousness and free will?
I agree that it seemed strange that the simulated people in their simulated cities never had the urge to drive out into the countryside. My assumption while watching the movie was that any such urge was absent because the designers of the system wanted it that way - thus allowing them to have an 'edge of the world' with hardly any detail in it. (recall that the only two simulacra that did have the urge to explore had reason to suspect that their world was a simulation...)
The movie is a fantasy. The story is not based on what is possible. It is based on what is conceivable. A fantasy movie requires from the viewer a 'willing suspension of disbelief'. To enjoy fantasy movies one needs to watch them in a spirit of make-believe. They come from the world of imagination, not the so-called 'real' world.

I know the truth. This movie isn't real!

No movies are 'real'!

reply

I do so sympathise, avortac – while watching ‘The Thirteenth Floor’ I was able to plump up my ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ gland sufficiently to enjoy the film in the moment (while making several mental notes of the narrative’s implausibility problems); but after the final credits roll, when there’s time to turn those implausibilities around and examine them from multiple angles, then the whole narrative begins to crumble to dust.

FWIW, I pointed out something similar about the implausibility of ‘Limitless’ (2011) in…

• ‘Central premise = fatally flawed plot hole’
» http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1219289/board/nest/186018041?p=1

…which has (at the time of writing) provoked four pages of discussion/insults, so I can empathise with any negative emotions you’re experiencing as a result of replies to your well-argued OP.


Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?
Four years after this film was released, Swedish philosopher Nick Bostrom connected and developed our well-known fascination with exploring simulated realities (eg: as games such as ‘The Sims’ or the ‘Assassins Creed’ series; or as science exploration tools, such as ‘The Illustris Simulation’, recreating the structural evolution of our universe) and a foreseeable exponential expansion of computing resources available to a posthuman society. His conclusions, published in ‘Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?’ (2003), are quite startling (I’ll leave interested readers to discover them for themselves [1]), but the important one for this movie is the so-called ‘Simulation Hypothesis’: that we can perceive as how the possibility exists that, of all the self-aware entities with human-like experiences, nearly all of them (including perhaps us?) exist within computer-mediated ancestral history simulations. That is, we can postulate that a posthuman society will have access to such humongous computing power that it will most likely devote some small proportion of it to running simulations of its human ancestors, whereby each person within such a simulation would experience their state-of-being-in-the-world just as we do now, and act as an “independent” software agent alongside its contemporary human AI constructs, each imbued with “free will” by the simulation operating system (sim-OS), to act freely as its conscience dictates.

What’s different about ‘The Thirteenth Floor’ is that issues which an intelligent audience would flag as ‘narrative implausibility problems’ rather stand out like sore thumbs, as the OP above illustrates in depth. For instance, even if we accept the premise of a geographically bounded simulation (eg: LA in 1937; and LA in 1999) populated with ‘free-will’-imbued self-aware non-player characters (NPCs), then the boundary issue can be easily dealt with, as follows (for example).

Such an NPC’s simulated consciousness has access to “memories” consistent with a “natural” human life-history, even though those memories which pre-date the incept date of his encompassing simulation are necessarily made-up, rather than experienced and laid down through “living” in-simulation. If an NPC (such as 1937’s Jerry Ashton, or 1999’s Douglas Hall) develops a desire to visit a location outside of the sim’s geographical boundary, then the sim-OS…
(1) detects the NPC’s desire to travel, and the trip intention foresight to which it leads;
(2) takes the NPC out of the sim during his outward-bound journey towards the sim’s boundary (BEFORE he becomes aware of the boundary);
(3) creates and installs suitably realistic “memories” of the NPC’s beyond-the-boundary travels;
(4) after a suitable lapse of “travelling” time, reinserts the NPC back into the sim on his returning homeward-bound journey, back to the LA of his permanent residence, replete with “memories” of his recent trip.


Erm… SAFEGUARDS, Anybody?
IMHO, the biggest ‘narrative implausibility problem’ relates to the apparent absence of sim-OS safeguards to prevent the real-world death of sim users.

Let’s agree to concede that all the hundreds of video games I’ve played – from ’Space Invaders’ (1978) to ‘The Last of Us, Remastered’ (2014) – are lower-order analogues of ‘The Thirteenth Floor’s simulations; then I have ‘died’ on tens of thousands of separate occasions, over and over again, in every one of those games (with some few 'non-combat' exceptions, such as ‘Second Life’). But of course, my real-world life was never in any jeopardy – because we take it as axiomatic that our real-world health and safety is NOT dependent on our player characters surviving their simulated lives unscathed.

However, if I knew that, in this new-fangled sim-game to which my participation is invited, the one-and-only in-sim copy of my consciousness was in ever-present mortal jeopardy – ie: the death of my player character in-sim means the non-resurrectable, oblivion-for-all-time, death of my consciousness, due to the lack of any sim-OS safeguards to prevent such a death occurring – then of course I would just choose not to participate. While the lack of such anti-death sim-OS safeguards is just about excusable in Hannon Fuller’s pre-alpha, in-development, 1937 LA sim, their absence in the ‘off-the-shelf’ 1999 LA sim (into which Jane and David readily download their consciousnesses) is – to me at least – utterly implausible.

IIRC, similar sim-OS ‘health and safety’ automatic safeguarding subroutine issues formed the basis of more than a few plot lines on the ST:TNG (1987-1994) holodeck. So it seems to me that the the film-makers of ‘The Thirteenth Floor’ choose to ignore the obvious necessity and implementation of such sim-OS safeguards for the sake of their film's plot, thereby rendering the whole narrative well beyond plausible, even to the most generous possible plumping up of the audience’s ‘willing suspension of disbelief’ glands.


BTW, for a much finer film which also explores the simulation hypothesis, I highly recommend:

• ‘The Nines’, by John August
» http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810988/
– ‘A ‘Simulation Hypothesis’ Interpretation (inc. spoilers)’, by me
» http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0810988/board/nest/232734750


Footnote

[1] Philosopher Nick Bostrom’s ‘Simulation Argument’:
• Original paper: ‘Are You Living In A Computer Simulation?’
» http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
• Video interview: Nick Bostrom on the Simulation Argument, at the Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University
» http://youtu.be/nnl6nY8YKHs
• Website: ‘The Simulation Argument’
» http://www.simulation-argument.com

reply

I agree that it's implausible though I would categorize that under dramatic license. It is movie intended for popular consumption, after all. I doubt that more than 1 in 100 who have seen it have even heard of the simulation hypothesis.


Leave the gun, take the cannoli...

reply

"I doubt that more than 1 in 100 who have seen it have even heard of the simulation hypothesis."
~ roell29
Good point and too true – I guess this a poignant example of how mainstream genre entertainment, made for a general film consuming audience, can often seem lacklustre and implausible to those few of us (such as avortac, you and I) whose interests, (self-)education, and experiences allow us to perceive weaknesses in plot development which otherwise go unnoticed by the great majority of the film's audience.

Still, such critiques do help distinguish the merely mediocre (eg: 'The Thirteenth Floor', Metascore: 36/100) from the more rare and more cherished high quality, plot-coherent sci-fi films (eg: 'The Nines', Metascore: 52/100; 'Videodrome', Metascore: 60/100; and 'eXistenZ', Metascore: 68/100).

reply

The implication of the Jerry Ashton end-of-world experience was that it was motivated through the letter from Fuller to Hall. The information in the letter was from outside the 1937 program, which otherwise would have only allowed sims to "want" to go to limited places.

The programming bug would be in allowing such unfiltered input to reach the sims. There is a fundamental vulnerability in computer systems of our present, real world, called a "buffer overflow", which allows nefarious data and rogue instructions to be injected into an otherwise closed and sacrosanct program. It's a somewhat intractable problem.

Buffer overflows are a persistent problem, but that doesn't mean that it's implausible that such a pervasive risk would be allowed. We can't just not have computers because of it, just as we cannot not have automobiles because of the slaughter on our highways.

But why was Douglas Hall in the 1999 simulation able to break out of his world's limitations, and think thoughts he should have been programmed not to think, namely, that he was a sim? The implication I got was that his experience was so unique as a simulation programmer, and also one who had lapses from David's visits, like he explained to Grierson about Fuller, so there was just too much of a certain kind of data in Hall's consciousness, and it exceeded some threshold of logic the sims operated with.

Anyway, fatal flaws in a product or technology do not always cause it to be abandoned or fixed, and that goes for both computer programs and movies.
____________________
The story is king.

reply

Why would you make a whole planet? The purpose of these simulations is probably to allow people to have fun in VR worlds. Lets say that you want to do a simulation of 1930s Lost Angeles, all the Hollywood glamor, all the seedy noir sensibilities. Why would you create a whole world for it and waste time on, for example, creating a virtual 1930s Winnipeg when the only thing you care about is LA?

Unless Alpert's covered in bacon grease, I don't think Hugo can track anything.

reply

Nothing never mind

reply

A real plot hole
posted 11 years ago by avortac
9 replies | jump to latest

avortac4?

reply

This must be before his "{insert thing} doesent make sense" programming

reply

Indeed. We got 4th generation avortac at MC :)

reply

his stupid posts dont even make any sense.

THOUSANDS.... so he immeidately assumes so many dubm, wrong things.... why not just make up whole new plot points while he's at it....

he doesn't know if they did or didn't make whole worlds because the movie says nothing about it, so it DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE to him/it.

stupidest BOT ever

reply