The future makes the rules.
The future makes the rules, so there’s no point in being mad when the future wins. In fact, the easiest way for any cutthroat person to succeed is to instinctively (and relentlessly) side with the technology of tomorrow, even if that technology is distasteful. Time will eventually validate that position. The only downside is that — until that validation occurs — less competitive people will find you annoying and unlikable.
The future will retire undefeated, but it always makes a terrible argument for its own success. The argument is inevitably some version of this: “You might not like where we’re going, and tomorrow might be worse than yesterday. But it’s still going to happen, whether you like it or not. It’s inevitable.” And this is what people hate. They hate being dragged into the future, and they hate the technocrats who remind them that this is always, always, always happening. We tend to dislike cultural architects who seem excited that the world is changing, particularly when those architects don’t seem particularly concerned whether those changes make things worse. They know they will end up on the right side of history, because the future always wins. These are people who have the clearest understanding of what technology can do, but no emotional stake in how its application will change the lives of people who aren’t exactly like them. [They know the most and care the least . . . and they kind of think that’s funny.] Certainly, this brand of technophobia has always existed. As early as 1899, people like H. G. Wells were expressing apprehension about a future “ruled by an aristocracy of organizers, men who manage railroads and similar vast enterprises.” But this is different. This is about the kind of person who will decide what that future is.
This is one of my favorite quotations, ever. (It’s from Chuck Klosterman’s I Wear the Black Hat) I waited for an opportunity to use this on my blog and what better chance to use it on a review of an anti-technology film? Transcendence is a knock-off of a Christopher Nolan film. His Director of Photography directed it. That’s why we’re bombed with symbolic (even if it’s kinda pretentious and lame) photography. It has an all-Nolan cast but it crucially lacks the genius of Nolan.The script is slow moving and missing an ultimate payoff (District 9 is the god of payoff). You can’t shake off the fact that the cast is underused, (Kate Mara and Rebecca Hall are in my top 5 Hollywood gals list), Johnny Depp is only there to draw more attention, Morgan Freeman is against an ALL SEEING BIG BROTHER EYE just like the one Batman used in The Dark Knight. Granted, the story is actually interesting but it is incredibly low scaled. You seriously want to ask Pfister to collaborate with Micheal motherfucking Bay to reshoot the third act.
Then again, I actually liked the story, because I want technology to take over. You have a new technological device? I’m in the line. The film flaunts what Siri, ScarJo from Her or S1m0ne couldn’t ever imagine to do. You feel excited to see what technology will bring but you are let down when the third act is completed with 50 people tops. SKYNET wouldn’t work like that. Plus, because this isn’t actually a Nolan film, our misogyny is limited. Yeah, girls shouldn’t do science because their emotions will compromise their decision making. But we also have a blonde Kate Mara with tattoos, so fuck her more talented but less beautiful sister again. Eh, nothing much to say. You can’t make a Nolan film without Nolan. Can we just see Interstellar?
Not really recommended.