@lava: A few operators are killed when their surrogate is destroyed in the comic. They seem to be using the same special circumstances in the movie from what I've heard.
I would sky dive without a parachute or run through the lion enclosure with meat strapped to my robotic bits. Irrisponsible yes. Funny as hell......oh yes yes!!
CodenameV, you should read Joe Haldeman's book Forever Peace, which deals with the moral and emotional implications of a superpower using remotely piloted combat robots against third world peasants with assault rifles. Among many other things.
This is the first featurette to mention that there's body-swapping going on: people using surrogates of the opposite gender, or even choosing to be children (if I could do this, and I was like 60 years old, I'd try to use a version of myself at my physical prime i.e. 30ish)
Why not just use another surrogate-model entirely? Why look like myself (albeit at an idealized age) instead of my older self?
"It's a costume party, but they just gave you your old clothes to wear...why?"
"It means...I'm still me"
--Number Six, The Prisoner
there's people you run into online...well that I've run into....who literally just sit at home, with NO JOB, and "make money by selling things on eBay".....I have no idea how that works, I assume its like how a pawn shop works, selling stuff for a greater price.
But still...that's your "life"? No higher degree of education, not really "producing" anything?
I can understand the folks who write computer programs for a living and then disseminate them online, so they work from home: that requires a degree of skill.
But how do you meet a "significant other" that way? "Hi, I live out of my house and make money selling stuff on e-Bay, but one day my Star Trek fanscript is sure to pan out"?
I hope the movie touches on the "unmanned asault vehicle" aspect too; other books have done this: If wars are fought ENTIRELY by UAV"s, even humanoid ones....and they're not even "sentient" I mean they're remote puppets.....does that make war "Moral"?
The First World countries can afford robotic Surrogate soldiers, no one ever "dies" for them in war it's just the financial cost, while the Third World insurgents are actually dying by the thousands?
But we're sort of already doing that: NATO soldiers in Afghanistan are expensively trained and then equipped, with night vision, advanced guns and armor, etc. while the insurgents are basically just villagers running around with black market Kalashnikovs.
Hundreds of them can die in a given battle compared to one NATO guy, and we consider that a tragedy: Battle of Mogadishu, the UN forces lost 20 guys compared to 1,000 militiamen, and it was considered a tragedy.
Now I'm not, of course, saying I sympathize with the historically clear-cut examples of "Taliban insurgents" or sometihng.
I mean in future wars...well we do this now just with planes, even: fighting insurgents who have NO air support using cruise missiles and jet strikes.
Will they eventually get the hint?
Or look at Iron Man: how moral is it for Iron Man to simply WADE THROUGH warlords like they're nothing?
@CodenameV: That's the danger of technology. We can use our tools to expand our capabilities, and to distance ourselves from the consequences of our actions, but in the end there is always a danger that the tools sort of take over our lives.
Pretty soon we're just soft blobs of flesh living vicariously through our tools, unable to venture outside because our real muscles, brains, and senses of courage have atrophied beyond usefulness.
I know I'm always going on about it, but there is something appealing about being a hunter-gatherer, with only a few simple, possibly stone-age tools to separate us from the flow of nature.
@Anekanta: There is a certain level of irony in the idea that Man is set apart for he can create and use tools but ultimately he uses this skill to render his hands obsolete.
@Anekanta: You go right ahead scrabbling in the dirt for roots and walking for days to run down game. I'll be over here not dying worn-out at 35, not dying in childbirth, and having anesthesia, antibiotics, and surgery.
@RandomFrequentFlierDent: I think that's part of the joke of the movie: his "Surrogate" looks like a hokey, idealized version of himself...just as a man with a bad toupee is trying to present an idealized version of himself to the world....then his ACTUAL self looks like Bruce Willis does without any makeup or anything, really haggard.
Now I've watched the trailer -- whoa, did they ever "Hollywoodize" that. In the book, only the surrogates were destroyed, no people died. And it was set in Atlanta, not San Diego, and the main character was a cop, not FBI. I'll bet the suspect won't have the philosophical depth he does in the book, either.
I liked the book and think it will make a good movie, though they'll have to lose much of the world-building and backstory. Hope Willis plays it serious, as written (which he can) as opposed to the "BRUUUUUCE" macho style that he falls back on.
Not sure why they're bewigging him as the point of the book is that his robot looks just like him. Guess they think general audiences are too stupid to get that?
09/14/09
This is not it.
09/14/09
09/14/09
09/14/09
And whats worse? Steeplejack is not in the movie.
09/14/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
Great. Now I remembered how badly I want a Half Life movie.
08/19/09
Why not just use another surrogate-model entirely? Why look like myself (albeit at an idealized age) instead of my older self?
"It's a costume party, but they just gave you your old clothes to wear...why?"
"It means...I'm still me"
--Number Six, The Prisoner
08/19/09
But still...that's your "life"? No higher degree of education, not really "producing" anything?
I can understand the folks who write computer programs for a living and then disseminate them online, so they work from home: that requires a degree of skill.
But how do you meet a "significant other" that way? "Hi, I live out of my house and make money selling stuff on e-Bay, but one day my Star Trek fanscript is sure to pan out"?
I hope the movie touches on the "unmanned asault vehicle" aspect too; other books have done this: If wars are fought ENTIRELY by UAV"s, even humanoid ones....and they're not even "sentient" I mean they're remote puppets.....does that make war "Moral"?
The First World countries can afford robotic Surrogate soldiers, no one ever "dies" for them in war it's just the financial cost, while the Third World insurgents are actually dying by the thousands?
But we're sort of already doing that: NATO soldiers in Afghanistan are expensively trained and then equipped, with night vision, advanced guns and armor, etc. while the insurgents are basically just villagers running around with black market Kalashnikovs.
Hundreds of them can die in a given battle compared to one NATO guy, and we consider that a tragedy: Battle of Mogadishu, the UN forces lost 20 guys compared to 1,000 militiamen, and it was considered a tragedy.
Now I'm not, of course, saying I sympathize with the historically clear-cut examples of "Taliban insurgents" or sometihng.
I mean in future wars...well we do this now just with planes, even: fighting insurgents who have NO air support using cruise missiles and jet strikes.
Will they eventually get the hint?
Or look at Iron Man: how moral is it for Iron Man to simply WADE THROUGH warlords like they're nothing?
It's like fighting a god.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
Pretty soon we're just soft blobs of flesh living vicariously through our tools, unable to venture outside because our real muscles, brains, and senses of courage have atrophied beyond usefulness.
I know I'm always going on about it, but there is something appealing about being a hunter-gatherer, with only a few simple, possibly stone-age tools to separate us from the flow of nature.
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
08/19/09
Plus I can't get over Bruce Willis with hair. Tee hee.
08/19/09
That made sense to me that they did that.
08/19/09
08/19/09
05/10/09
05/10/09
Not sure why they're bewigging him as the point of the book is that his robot looks just like him. Guess they think general audiences are too stupid to get that?
05/10/09
And hey, it's Sunday? Where's the Orobourus?