I’ve started to read reviews of the new movie In Time, and there is apparently some confusion around the movie’s setting.
For those not familar with the movie, the above trailer will explain it, but the key element here is that people stop aging at 25, and have to actually earn their minutes/hours/days/years after that by working to continue living. People can also trade/give away time they’ve earned to others, so time has literally become money. According to Roger Ebert, this leads to some very cool gambling scenes where people are literally betting their life on the game.
A neat idea.
However, based on what I’m reading, I guess the movie itself never talks about the obvious reason this system has developed- they bloody discovered immortality! You can’t have a whole population of immortals, especially a growing population of immortals! That will quickly turn into hell on earth. You need to have some system to keep the population in check, and this is an incredible meritocratic system that keeps the productive people alive and active in society while getting rid of the excess population who serve no purpose.
I call this a big missed opportunity because the whole thing could have been turned into an incredible look at the whole idea of both immortality and how many people society needs/wants.
Instead, it apparently turns into a standard “hot guy and hot chick being hunted by bad guys in endless chases and gunfights” movie.
Sigh. I wonder if the actual good bits ended up on the cutting room floor, and the director’s cut DVD will be the version with the actual story? I might actually watch it then.
Rob
