Discussion:
Soylent Green
(too old to reply)
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-25 20:53:01 UTC
Permalink
I liked it.
T987654321
2008-07-25 22:13:43 UTC
Permalink
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-25 23:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.

It held up better than I expected. I saw it in a theater when it
first came out in '74, and Heston's gargantuan emoting in the final
scene was more appreciated by a 15-year-old boy than a 49-year-old
man. Still, there's a lot there to like.
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-26 00:35:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Okierazorbacker
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
It held up better than I expected. I saw it in a theater when it
first came out in '74, and Heston's gargantuan emoting in the final
scene was more appreciated by a 15-year-old boy than a 49-year-old
man. Still, there's a lot there to like.
The premise of the film was perfectly fine.
Stone me
2008-07-26 04:58:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bluuuuue Rajah
Post by Okierazorbacker
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
It held up better than I expected. I saw it in a theater when it
first came out in '74, and Heston's gargantuan emoting in the final
scene was more appreciated by a 15-year-old boy than a 49-year-old
man. Still, there's a lot there to like.
The premise of the film was perfectly fine.
that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
When they want to be, human beings can be as stupid as can be.
No less acting as a group than as individuals.
Look at the corporate funded activity to deny the planet warming etc.
Look at the Kyoto protocol. Formulated as early as 1997, and as of
2008 182 countries have signed up, with significant omissions.
Even if all signed up and acted upon it, scientists suggest it may be too
late to avert planetary disaster.
Look at war.
Look at the drugs scene, where one country funds (on a huge scale) military
action in other countries to fight the drugs trade, yet it's people cant get
the
stuff up their noses fast enough.(as an example)

Soylent Green looks reasonable to me.

Stone me.
t***@yahoo.com
2008-07-27 18:36:15 UTC
Permalink
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2008-07-27 18:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Word is that the State of California will soon ban the use of soylent
green in all restaurants and food products.
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Anim8rFSK
2008-07-27 21:09:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Word is that the State of California will soon ban the use of soylent
green in all restaurants and food products.
Oppressive rat bastards.

Did you see they're banning new fast food restaurants in a huge section
of Los Angeles on the theory that all the cheap stuff is bad for you,
therefore fast food discriminates against the poor?
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
2008-07-27 23:08:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Word is that the State of California will soon ban the use of soylent
green in all restaurants and food products.
Oppressive rat bastards.
Did you see they're banning new fast food restaurants in a huge section
of Los Angeles on the theory that all the cheap stuff is bad for you,
therefore fast food discriminates against the poor?
More elitist than oppressive, I should say. They know best and only want
the best for the unenlightened children of the ghettos and barrios. I'm
not at all clear that replacing McDonald's with soul food restaurants or
taquerias cooking with lard would be that much of an improvement. Poor
people eat starches and fats because they're cheap and satisfying. Meat,
fresh veggies, and dairy are for people who can afford them.

That's why the culture sees slim as good (smart, rich, etc.) and fat as
bad (stupid, poor, etc.)

I'm fatter than the Hispanic family next door, smarter than my cat, rich
enough to worry about the stock market, and I never ever eat at a
McDonalds or Taco Bell or whatever.
--
Frank in Seattle
____

Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Richard Schultz
2008-07-28 05:01:01 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@posted.isomediainc>, Frank R.A.J. Maloney <***@blarg.net> wrote:

: Meat, fresh veggies, and dairy are for people who can afford them.

One advantage of living in Israel is that while meat is quite expensive,
fresh fruit and vegetables generally cost about 10%-25% of what they do
in the U.S. In fact, thanks to Mr. Subsidy, produce grown in the U.S.
is cheaper in Israel than it is in the U.S.!

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Anim8rFSK
2008-07-28 13:19:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Word is that the State of California will soon ban the use of soylent
green in all restaurants and food products.
Oppressive rat bastards.
Did you see they're banning new fast food restaurants in a huge section
of Los Angeles on the theory that all the cheap stuff is bad for you,
therefore fast food discriminates against the poor?
More elitist than oppressive, I should say. They know best and only want
the best for the unenlightened children of the ghettos and barrios. I'm
Yes. Incredibly condescending as well.
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
not at all clear that replacing McDonald's with soul food restaurants or
taquerias cooking with lard would be that much of an improvement. Poor
people eat starches and fats because they're cheap and satisfying. Meat,
fresh veggies, and dairy are for people who can afford them.
I gather the thinking (and it's a stretch to call it that) is "If we
only got rid of the 99¢ fast food alternatives then grocery stores will
spring up and everyone will eat a light a lovely salad for lunch"

Of course, a homemade salad isn't significantly cheaper than a salad
from a fast food joint anyway.
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
That's why the culture sees slim as good (smart, rich, etc.) and fat as
bad (stupid, poor, etc.)
I'm fatter than the Hispanic family next door, smarter than my cat, rich
enough to worry about the stock market, and I never ever eat at a
McDonalds or Taco Bell or whatever.
I don't 'cause the food is no damn good (especially McDonald's).
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Voltronicus
2008-07-28 13:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
I don't 'cause the food is no damn good (especially McDonald's).
The french fries taste good at Mickey D's.
Of course, Nathan's has the best fries.
Halmyre
2008-07-28 20:17:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy. Look at the drink called Sunny Delite. It's
an orange drink with vegetable oil in it, but the kids in the
commercials want more. Even Kraft Singles aren't real cheese.
Soylent Green may come true!
Word is that the State of California will soon ban the use of soylent
green in all restaurants and food products.
Oppressive rat bastards.
Did you see they're banning new fast food restaurants in a huge section
of Los Angeles on the theory that all the cheap stuff is bad for you,
therefore fast food discriminates against the poor?
More elitist than oppressive, I should say. They know best and only want
the best for the unenlightened children of the ghettos and barrios. I'm
Yes. Incredibly condescending as well.
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
not at all clear that replacing McDonald's with soul food restaurants or
taquerias cooking with lard would be that much of an improvement. Poor
people eat starches and fats because they're cheap and satisfying. Meat,
fresh veggies, and dairy are for people who can afford them.
I gather the thinking (and it's a stretch to call it that) is "If we
only got rid of the 99¢ fast food alternatives then grocery stores will
spring up and everyone will eat a light a lovely salad for lunch"
Of course, a homemade salad isn't significantly cheaper than a salad
from a fast food joint anyway.
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
That's why the culture sees slim as good (smart, rich, etc.) and fat as
bad (stupid, poor, etc.)
I'm fatter than the Hispanic family next door, smarter than my cat, rich
enough to worry about the stock market, and I never ever eat at a
McDonalds or Taco Bell or whatever.
I don't 'cause the food is no damn good (especially McDonald's).
McD's salads were found to be even unhealthier than their burgers, IIRC.
--
Halmyre

That's you that is.
Howard Brazee
2008-07-29 00:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Of course, a homemade salad isn't significantly cheaper than a salad
from a fast food joint anyway.
Post by Frank R.A.J. Maloney
That's why the culture sees slim as good (smart, rich, etc.) and fat as
bad (stupid, poor, etc.)
I'm fatter than the Hispanic family next door, smarter than my cat, rich
enough to worry about the stock market, and I never ever eat at a
McDonalds or Taco Bell or whatever.
I don't 'cause the food is no damn good (especially McDonald's).
It isn't just the various political Rights that are full of smug
Righteous bastards who demand that the world become like them and are
willing to force the world to conform.

Anim8rFSK
2008-07-27 21:07:48 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy.
Nor is any food healthy. Food is dead, or it wouldn't be food.
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Forge
2008-07-28 03:25:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy.
Nor is any food healthy. Food is dead, or it wouldn't be food.
That's patently silly. Food that's really just freshly dead, and hasn't
been boiled or broiled into oblivion, is pretty good for you, generally
speaking.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2008-07-28 04:18:23 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:25:12 -0400, Forge
Post by Forge
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy.
Nor is any food healthy. Food is dead, or it wouldn't be food.
That's patently silly. Food that's really just freshly dead, and hasn't
been boiled or broiled into oblivion, is pretty good for you, generally
speaking.
errr.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichonosis

There's a damn good reason we've evolved to be able to enjoy the
complex flavors brought out by cooking. Those guys who didn't evolve
those taste buds died off.
Anim8rFSK
2008-07-28 13:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
On Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:25:12 -0400, Forge
Post by Forge
Post by Anim8rFSK
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy.
Nor is any food healthy. Food is dead, or it wouldn't be food.
That's patently silly. Food that's really just freshly dead, and hasn't
been boiled or broiled into oblivion, is pretty good for you, generally
speaking.
Food that's freshly dead is just as dead as food that's long dead.
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
errr.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trichonosis
There's a damn good reason we've evolved to be able to enjoy the
complex flavors brought out by cooking. Those guys who didn't evolve
those taste buds died off.
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-28 12:24:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
Post by t***@yahoo.com
Well, Hot Pockets and those packaged lunches from Oscar Meyer are
definitely not healthy.
Nor is any food healthy. Food is dead, or it wouldn't be food.
If food isn't healthy, why do you die if you stop eating it?
Voltronicus
2008-07-26 01:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Okierazorbacker
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
Based on the last 8 years of the Bush administration, that premise
doesn't seem to farfetched.
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-26 02:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Voltronicus
Based on the last 8 years of the Bush administration, that premise
doesn't seem to farfetched.
Voltronicus, is it time for you to go home?
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-26 11:55:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Okierazorbacker
Post by Voltronicus
Based on the last 8 years of the Bush administration, that premise
doesn't seem to farfetched.
Voltronicus, is it time for you to go home?
He's completely right.
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-26 16:17:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bluuuuue Rajah
He's completely right.
In the early to mid '70s there were several movies like this that took
the kneejerk reaction to environmental issues. One of the other most
prominent ones was "Silent Running," and yet another was "Logan's
Run." In both cases the writers/directors seemed to think "Gosh, it
will be bad if we ruin nature," and at that point the thought process
stopped, at least as far as prediction of future reality is concerned
and they kicked into creative/cautionary morality tale mode.

In both stories things have gotten so out of control and out of
balance as to be laughably unreasonable. They just can't be taken
seriously. There are simply too many people who love nature, and
always have been, for humanity to allow things to reach the point
forecast in SG or SR, and too many elderly & middle aged (and those
who love them) for things to reach the LR stage. They are creative
cautionary tales intended to make us think, and 30+ years ago there
was much more of a perceived need to tell these tales. In the 21st
century they smack of immature thinking.

Or maybe that's just me.
Richard Schultz
2008-07-27 05:04:31 UTC
Permalink
In article <3186b3cd-dd73-48e6-a54f-***@d45g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
: conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
: beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
: sighted corporate greed gone mad.

You mean human beings *aren't* too stupid to anticipate the obvious results
of short-sighted corporate greed gone mad?

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-27 06:09:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
You mean human beings *aren't* too stupid to anticipate the obvious results
of short-sighted corporate greed gone mad?
Are you? I mean, assuming that you are a human being.
Richard Schultz
2008-07-27 07:26:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <9a8951d0-b955-4a8c-a9ec-***@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: On Jul 27, 12:04?am, ***@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:

:> You mean human beings *aren't* too stupid to anticipate the obvious results
:> of short-sighted corporate greed gone mad?

: Are you? I mean, assuming that you are a human being.

If you were to take my words out of context, that would be one thing. But
how could you possibly take your *own* words out of context? I'm beginning
to suspect that my suggestion that you are the product of several generations
of marriages between people who *thought* they were first cousins is
less far-fetched than I thought at the time.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"You don't even have a clue about which clue you're missing."
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-27 13:36:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
:> You mean human beings *aren't* too stupid to anticipate the obvious results
:> of short-sighted corporate greed gone mad?
: Are you?  I mean, assuming that you are a human being.
If you were to take my words out of context, that would be one thing.  But
how could you possibly take your *own* words out of context?  I'm beginning
to suspect that my suggestion that you are the product of several generations
of marriages between people who *thought* they were first cousins is
less far-fetched than I thought at the time.
I thought you could pick up on humor without emoticons.
Richard Schultz
2008-07-27 14:19:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <678b79ba-ae7f-42a6-b4ab-***@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Okierazorbacker <***@yahoo.com> wrote:

: I thought you could pick up on humor without emoticons.

"I was joking". . . yeah, that's the ticket. . .

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"It would have been like discussing sundials with a bat."
Okierazorbacker
2008-07-27 14:59:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: I thought you could pick up on humor without emoticons.
"I was joking". . . yeah, that's the ticket. . .
OK, let's review.

1) I commented that a certain point of view presupposes that human
beings "are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad."

2) You questioned that comment by questioning "You mean human beings
*aren't* too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-sighted
corporate greed gone mad?"

3) Your response would include yourself, assuming that you are a
human being. Therefore I tried to point this out to you in a less
than didactic way.

4) You failed to pick up on the inherent humor in that, and insulted
me pointlessly.

You see, that's the problem with the point of view discussed above.
Those who hold it tend to look down on most of humanity and consider
themselves to have the better point of view. Elitism of the worst
kind.

Perhaps you city people should spend more time in Wyoming and Idaho.
Most of the world is still wilderness, you know. It's only the city
that makes you think otherwise.
a***@yahoo.com
2008-07-27 14:54:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Okierazorbacker
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
It held up better than I expected. I saw it in a theater when it
first came out in '74, and Heston's gargantuan emoting in the final
scene was more appreciated by a 15-year-old boy than a 49-year-old
man. Still, there's a lot there to like.
I didn't think it held up too well at all. Future New York City will
have 40 million people in it all wearing bad 70's hair styles and
clothes?
Mark
2008-07-27 20:35:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Okierazorbacker
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
Actually the premise was pretty typical postapocalyptic doom-and-gloom
conservationist enviro-wacko propaganda, which presupposes that human
beings are too stupid to anticipate the obvious results of short-
sighted corporate greed gone mad.
It held up better than I expected. I saw it in a theater when it
first came out in '74, and Heston's gargantuan emoting in the final
scene was more appreciated by a 15-year-old boy than a 49-year-old
man. Still, there's a lot there to like.
I didn't think it held up too well at all. Future New York City will
have 40 million people in it all wearing bad 70's hair styles and
clothes?
Get a life. Or a sense or humor. Or both.
Mark
2008-07-27 12:02:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films. The rest of the world
can go to hell.

I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-27 13:20:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films. The rest of the world
can go to hell.
I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
He's just a radical nutjob who thinks that there's no such thing as
pollution, even though there are regular news stories about people dying
of smog-triggered asthma and piles of garbage washing up on beaches. He
thinks that, as long as he has a hefty paycheck and a little patch of
green to live on, the rest of the world can go fuck itself. He hates
people, and thinks that it would be fine to push the underclasses into a
food-making machine. He's probably even doing it already.
Flasherly
2008-07-27 15:45:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films. The rest of the world
can go to hell.
Sappy, perhaps, but Charlie also *does* have Edward G. Robinson for
added weight. Actual billboard appeal that could have been closer to
a Huxley in paralleling Brave New World's issues, tangibly for at
least a closer and realistic impact of consequences practiced today
for future intent. But then an Huxley take (who actually was living
in an ashram in the surrounding hills of Beverly near to the
timeframe) isn't actually any worthier of mention past an overall
scope sci-fi often wouldn't eclipse. Except for what good ol' Lucas
effectively may have well-squashed that during college when putting
together THX1138, of course. Yeppers, closest Soylent Green by way of
worthier mention is A Handmaid's Tail.
Anim8rFSK
2008-07-27 17:15:49 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films.
Ooo, ooo, me, me!
Post by Mark
I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
rowwr
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Magnus, Robot Fighter
2008-07-28 04:44:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films.
Ooo, ooo, me, me!
Post by Mark
I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
rowwr
And she's into video games!
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-28 12:23:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Magnus, Robot Fighter
Post by Richard Schultz
In article
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd
prefer only to deal with people who like both films.
Ooo, ooo, me, me!
Post by Mark
I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
rowwr
And she's into video games!
I believe that Soylent Green predated Pong and that the writers
predicted video games.
Bluuuuue Rajah
2008-07-28 12:21:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark
Post by T987654321
The premise of the film was stupid, but it's very good despite that.
I've always thought the world was divided into those who liked
"Soylent Green" (and "The Omega Man") and those who didn't. I'd prefer
only to deal with people who like both films. The rest of the world
can go to hell.
I'm not sure what was "stupid" about the premise of the film. It's
just typical futurist science fiction. I especially would like some
"furniture."
I thought that part of the film was very thought provoking, where people
were referred to as inanimate objects - books and furniture.
Howard Brazee
2008-07-26 02:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bluuuuue Rajah
I liked it.
The green isn't my favorite flavor.
Flasherly
2008-07-26 02:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bluuuuue Rajah
I liked it.
Also thinking of that movie just recently, vaguely in context of
health foods -- the three no-no's: bagged, canned, or frozen,
according to some persuasions. A mention, that "intelligent" people
know how to eat, for instance, with a health food store at the top of
a nearby hill, beneath which are a couple of supermarkets, among
affiliates of nationally recognized chains. The health food store is
interestingly situated on a road directly in line to where only the
richest can afford to live in waterfront homes that can be expected to
fetch, say, an easy $1M. A health food store where an identical bag
of a recognized brand of whole wheat flour fetches $6, as opposed to
buying it from the two nearby supermarkets at $3 and change. Of
course, that bag of brown flour is likely to be the exception among
things not found at the supermarkets. Food's realistically up 300% in
the past year or two. A person may be standing in front of you with a
cart of food at the supermarket. Perhaps a cart half-full, maybe
something more, who then pulls out $200 to pay. Expensive, yes? What
about that same amount of food, comparable to healthier alternatives
which might run $400-600 at the aforementioned health food store.
Maybe it's me, but ever noticed how a proliferation generic store-
specific brands many supermarkets offer as alternatives, such as
Walmart, which pretty much exclusively contracts through China, might
evince traces of uncomfort, aftereffects, or ever make one vomit,
whereas, when switching to buy a different brand, presumably better,
there's no problem? Masses of people do have to eat. If not, then
they go and get hungry. Given commodity bubbles, processing for the
masses would seem a reasonable assumption not entirely divorced from
some certainty closer to Soylent Green (yellow, blue, or
red...whatever), than agricultural practices at the time of Soylent
Green. Events interesting for following a post-WW2 era leading to
greater efficiency among the commodization of foodstuffs, standards
steer under FDA auspices, at something less production now serves to
greater quantities, apart being amiss from some quality prior.
Perhaps unfounded, although I'd think twice before picking up that bag
of generic-branded offerings.
Grant Hurlock
2008-07-26 10:12:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bluuuuue Rajah
I liked it.
I spit it out.
Howard Brazee
2008-07-26 11:55:19 UTC
Permalink
The source, _Make, Room, Make Room_ wasn't particularly about Soylent
Green. It was about the way-over-crowded world. It seems to me to
be likely that someone tried to sell the concept to Hollywood, and
some producer grabbed onto that one small element and decided that was
the story they could sell.
Steven L.
2008-07-27 16:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
The source, _Make, Room, Make Room_ wasn't particularly about Soylent
Green. It was about the way-over-crowded world.
In fact, in the original story, Soylent Green was just made out of soy
and algae and so on, not people. The cannibalistic element was added
for the movie.
--
Steven L.
Email: ***@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
Anim8rFSK
2008-07-27 17:16:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steven L.
Post by Howard Brazee
The source, _Make, Room, Make Room_ wasn't particularly about Soylent
Green. It was about the way-over-crowded world.
In fact, in the original story, Soylent Green was just made out of soy
and algae and so on, not people. The cannibalistic element was added
for the movie.
So, for those of us that haven't read the original story, what was the
point of it?
--
Star Trek 09:

No Shat, No Show.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...