A movie...

Howdy, I am looking to make a film(short or feature), and I am writing multiple projects up. What I really want to put up front is a film about a transhumanist concept. I am not sure what would be best to represent. I am looking to make it commercially viable. What concepts do you guys think need representation, what could be shown to the public in story form? I am not looking to make a sci-fi film necessarily, it can be, but I want it to be character-driven. The issues and the emotions involved take center stage, so to speak. I want to submit this to the festival circuit (sundance, slamdance, telluride, cannes, etc.). This is a deal worth $3,000,000 so there are a lot of resources involved, that could be put to good use.


Also, as an afterthought, it would be pretty cool to give Halperin's The First Immortal(or for that matter The Truth Machine) movie treatment, but I will save that for later...maybe we could extract some concepts from that for this project???


ok everyone thanks!!!

I think Halperin's The First Immortal may already be spoken for. I'm not sure how the rights may work for that.. but incidentally, James has been a wonderful supporter of ImmInst by donating 100 books thus far to include with the ImmInst Full Member package.

A character driven story is a wonderful idea!

From personal experience, I'm quite terrified of death. The internal conflict and fear that comes with understanding that death is the end, oblivion, has been a motivational factor in changing the course of my life. Rather than following the path most people take, I've now become sensitive and rebellious to the deathist influences of society.

Movie Idea:

The Risk-Averse Immortalist

Perhaps it would be interesting to create a character who takes the idea of not flying because it would lead to utter oblivion.. to the extreme.. so that eventually he decides not even to drive in a car for fear of death.. he stops eating tropical foods.. he doesn't socialized for fear of air born bacterial infection.. he doesn't go out in public because of of random terrorist attacks.. he's obsessed with asteroidal impacts and heat death.. etc.. etc.. he digs a hole under his home to avoid nuclear attack..

Perhaps start from the point where he decides that death = oblivion.. perhaps it was a traumatic, near-death experience..(hang gliding accident = he used to be very risk taker) then moving forward through his progression to obsession all the way to the end.. where he dies from gangrene in his toe (bit from his pet dog, who was supposed to protect him).. because he's to afraid to go the hospital.. but thankfully... at the last minute his papers come through for his cryonics policy and he's suspended.. final scene.. a frozen body lowered into a cryonics tank.

The following is a relevant and poignant reply to CryoNet from the father of Cryonics, Robert Ettinger.

Message #23303
From: Ettinger@aol.com
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2004 16:02:38 EST
Subject: extinct instinct

Some still wonder why cryonics is a hard sell, but the answer has been
obvious for a long time. The so-called "survival instinct" just doesn't exist any
more, for most people most of the time, in the circumstances of modern life.This
was reiterated in today's posts by Mark Plus regarding an interview with
Brian Alexander, reinforcing what I have said before concerning many others,
including Isaac Asimov, Fred Pohl, and Arthur Clarke.

Almost anyone will exert himself to dodge a taxi or a tiger, but if the
danger is not clear and present, then, for most people most of the time, it just
isn't a major concern. And in today's world, clear and present dangers are rare.
Very few people die of murder, or even war or terrorism. Auto and industrial
accidents kill scores of thousands in the US every year, but the threat is
merely statistical and shrugged off. Health concerns are taken somewhat seriously
by many, but it took decades to make a dent in smoking practices. Even eating
habits are affected mostly by the fear of looking unattractive, not by fear
of death. And for the sick and elderly, the prospect of death is not especially
fearsome, and may even be welcome.

People mentioned in the Alexander interview were FOR life extension, and did
NOT think cryonics necessarily a very long shot--but STILL rejected it. The
motivation just isn't there for most people. The bio-research life-extenders are
not motivated by fear of death or even love of life, but just by an
intellectual toy and career possibilities.

Conclusion? Forget about "marketing" or magic bullets. There will be a
psychological sea change at some point, but we can't predict it or jump-start it,
and we should not waste time or energy or money on over-ambitious public
relations projects.

There is still a great deal we can do. We can keep on doing what we have
done, with incremental improvements in all aspects of our operations. We can work
patiently among our own families and circles of friends. The main thing is to
do your best to save yourself and those close to you.

Robert Ettinger

Yeah, that's too bad about the First Immortal, I don't trust Hallmark at all. Anyway, that is a good idea, about the risk averse immortalist, thanks! Maybe we could take that idea and apply it to a different situation. The guy could have a family, maybe even just a wife, outside of the city, in the suburbs. There is a catalyst that causes him to recognize a memory he suppressed about something earlier in his life(seeing his parents die, or something traumatic that has to do with death). He begins a gradual descent into a complete mental breakdown and he alienates himself from his wife in his attempts to control his life and prevent it from ending. Well, something like that. Yeah, I think this is a good direction, although I hesitate about establishing a negative connotation between Immortalist thought processes and complete mental breakdowns/alienation from society. What do you guys think?

spifflink: Yeah, I think this is a good direction, although I hesitate about establishing a negative connotation between Immortalist thought processes and complete mental breakdowns/alienation from society. What do you guys think?

I think that it’d be okay to include a character with some risk-averse characteristics. It’s always possible to do it in a palatable way without it being one of the major attributes of the character. For example, the character could have a strong Buddhist spirituality, who has simply come to believe that simplicity allows for a more intellectually refining lifestyle. Keeping things simple, therefore, means that basic, biological and psychological needs are identified, and what follows is the natural tendency not to want things rather than avoiding them.

The character could convey some genius in certain respects because of his or her choice to be productive for income purposes and also productive for sophistication. In other words, even though the character is “simple,” it must be manufactured likable to the largest audience possible.

The plotline could be chronological and involve a profound development in the character from childhood discovering the power of philosophy and science, to adulthood creating a powerful network of minds in making immortality possible, to maturity in which the audience would get a sense of posthuman capacities that can’t even be fathomed yet.

However, I would caution that making a movie like this will get discouraging philosophical bashing like the “Matrix” movies did regardless how thoughtful and dead-on your premises are.

For example: You would have to assume that life is better than death, which is not the case for a lot of people. Simply asserting that “oblivion” equals death is not very compelling; if we’re oblivious, we can’t care that we’re dead; a love for life must exist prior to any scary thoughts that oblivion might evoke. You would then need to assume that immortal life is better than a relatively long life. No one can make this assertion because no one has led a really long life, especially in times when the world is always changing and people are forced to constantly reinvent themselves in order to survive. This is exhilarating for some, but not for everyone. And one of the only attitudes that would nicely circumvent this problem is social Darwinism, but the world currently refuses to embrace this ethical predilection.

Anything Transhumanistic is too intellectual, meaning that it takes too much thinking to appreciate. People can’t be sold on these ideas. These ideas are unmarketable whatever the entertainment quality. People who embrace them are too smart to be marketed to. They embrace them on their own.

In the 'for what it's worth' column, a Sci Fi homemade movie about a time machine just took the Sundance Film Festival award for drama. Futurism as well as the Past is 'hot topic' with the public these days.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/3427495.stm

I think a film called 'Buying Immortality' would be one of relevance..

I've been thinking recently of the social tensions that will arise with the advent of at least at first, expensive life-extension technologies. Looking after aging parents is becoming more and more of an issue that is being publicly talked about and a concern for the wage earners today.

What happens when treatment regimens that require a six week stay in a 'health spa' can rejuvenate the elderly and add years of life to those who can afford the 'holiday'? What tensions will evolve within a family when sons and daughters are caught beween buying that new car and sending their parent for 'treatment'. What will happen between friendships when those of better means are able to provide their loved ones with treatments that will keep them around while their friends are not? This is not going to be just a matter of being envious of another's home or material possessions. Denzel Washington's movie about a father who took a doctor hostage in order to provide treatment for his son will only be one of many aspects of life-extension interventions when they are only available for the rich. The study of the allocation of resources on a personal scale will require difficult decisions by individuals just as much as those same decisions will need to be made on a societal scale.

The interventions need to be made as widely available as quickly as possible.

I'm not looking forward to mortgaging my house myself, but if I can keep my mother and father alive by doing so.. I will. Seems the banks will be big winners in the end... as usual.

Kevin your ability to see the big picture is comendable. If we had any sway in Hollywood we could star someone like Russell Crowe as the embittered and vengeful protagonist who'se dying father can only be saved through a therapeutic new bio-tech treatment.

The wife would be played by someone akin to Penelope Cruz or maybe even a Sandra Bullock type as the cliched caregiver who must stand by her man's difficult decision. The boy could be some up and coming actor. And the dying father would be Sean Connery, I don't care what it takes he must be in the movie.

The setting could be in any American small town or even city and the bad guys would be the government, as well as threatining political figures who will not pass important laws allowing for vital stem cell technologies to pass.

We could incorporate BJ's idea of fear of flying, Crowe's character, or someone like him, in all seriousness, could be extra scared of flight which would add a cool dynamic to the already intense plot line.

The film would end on a plane with the protagonist having to meet a deadline, something would go wrong with the plane, flashes of death would channel through our hero and he would have to land the plane himself, an homage to all great airplane disaster movies. Once the plane is landed our hero would storm into the hospital and literally force the doctors at gunpoint to go on with the therapy...or he would have to do the therapy himself relying on knowledge of stem cells that he picked up along the way. Just an idea

The problem with hollywood is that everyone likes a happy ending, and especially one that is realistic or believable.
Since plausible physical immortality has yet to be given formal recognition as an absolute possibility, people will be apt to consider any such movie pure science fiction, alot like Vampires, Werewolves, and the like.
While such movies capture and intreague most of the mortal population, they do so because their stories involve tragedy, true love, vengeance, retribution, or war.
The "entertainment" value is the recognition of a story told, not one yet to be deciphered.
As such, movies in which characters who possess immortality, often face great peril with very little reward for having defeated natures decree, for whatever reason. Statistical probability would infer that if a human being was to exist long enough in their physical youth while retaining all their cognitive skills and experience, such individuals would eventually encounter circumstances that were sought after early on in their mortal, much younger lives.
Examples such as:

1) Finding True Love
2) Amassing incredible wealth
3) Making a great discovery
4) Inventing or developing an idea or concept into reality
5) Accomplishing a set number of said goals who's time constraints would require more than the maximum average human lifespan could permit; i.e defeating a great advesary, or completing a lengthy project.

Basically succeeding at any endeavor which would otherwise be deemed as either incredibly improbable (like the odds for winning a lottery) or insurmountable for the limits of a singular individual.
To create a successful flick, the science aspect would have to be "Based on a true story" of some sort, for which we have no public evidence as of yet to go upon.
To capture the audience is to wrap their attention inside something plausible, something probable, and most importantly, something inevitable.

Jace Tropic said:

Anything Transhumanistic is too intellectual, meaning that it takes too much thinking to appreciate. People can’t be sold on these ideas.

Most muggles don't take fantasy movies seriously either, yet look at how hugely popular and commercially successful the LOTR films were. They even swept the Academy Awards, which is extremely unusual for that genre!

This happened because the director made the audience believe in the characters. They were real people, with real passions, doubts, fears, and flaws. Middle Earth also seemed a real, tangible place. A place many wanted to go.

To be successful, even a transhumanist film must be made human for the viewers. They must believe in, and empathise with, the characters and their choices. They must see the transhuman future as a real place. A believable place. An exciting, preferrable place. A place they want to go.

People might be sold on these ideas Jace, if they were expressed not in terms of abstractions, but in emotional terms. Most people react more strongly to emotions than logic. Touch their deepest hopes, fears, pains, and desires, and you can sell them almost anything.

The FutureFoundation is making a TV-Series about the next Thousand Years.
I suppose it may also feature something about immortality and the singularity.
http://futurefoundat.../nty_index.html

Most people react more strongly to emotions than logic. Touch their deepest hopes, fears, pains, and desires, and you can sell them almost anything. wink.gif

Exactly! Throw in some emotion and suddenly all the idiots think they should care about the given cause. People are like bowling pins set them up right they'll fall just the right way. [lol]