LONGECITY

"In a retro-future when the aging gene has been switched off, people must pay to stay alive. People stop aging at 25 years old. However, stamped on their arm is a clock of how long they will live. To avoid overpopulation, time has become the currency and the way people pay for luxuries and necessities. The rich can live forever, while the rest try to negotiate for their immortality. A poor young man is accused of murder when he inherits a fortune of time from a dead upper class man. He is forced to go on the run from a corrupt police force known as 'time keepers'."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjagzGBU7ow
Edited by Forever21, 14 August 2011 - 05:16 PM.

Its great to see that these concepts are being thought about, and bringing it to the big screen again like this is great for this cause. I cant wait to watch this. I would love to see SENS or somebody take out ads in the space before this movie starts. I dont think we can afford it at this time.

IMHO, that in of itself is more than enough (for now) as it brings wider awareness to the direction we're ALL heading. Its not some B movie or foreign film. Its a big budget Hollywood film starring A celebrity. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big fucking deal.

Looks like it might be good, but the story is almost a complete rehash of an old 70s film called logans run. The details differ but the central premise is the same.

Logan's Run is a 1976 science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman," as he "runs" from society's lethal demand.

http://en.wikipedia...._Run_(1976_film)#Plot

That freeze frame there in that YouTube clip is Justin Timberlakes mother, wife and daughter in the movie. Its interesting to see and contemplate the concept. Its a bit off putting to think about, but interesting and a good example of one of the many details to think about. Movies like this are great for things like that. The more these notions can be spread, the faster people will acclimate themselves to scenarios involved.

The fiction book LifeQuest does this for cryonics for example. It is a collection of short stories that go over things that could happen in the future in a fair, balanced sort of way.

IMHO, that in of itself is more than enough (for now) as it brings wider awareness to the direction we're ALL heading. Its not some B movie or foreign film. Its a big budget Hollywood film starring A celebrity. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big fucking deal.

Well, kinda. The movie paints a dystopian picture of immortality, which could lead a lot of people to say "let's not go there".

The future must not be like this in any way. When the technology comes everyone must have an equal chance of become immortal. (Yes it's true the rich will buy it first but it will then become cheap enough so everyone can buy it).

The future must not be like this in any way. When the technology comes everyone must have an equal chance of become immortal. (Yes it's true the rich will buy it first but it will then become cheap enough so everyone can buy it).

Thought experiment:
We've had Mercedes Benz and BMW technology for a long time. When will it become cheap enough so everyone can buy it? Cuz I think I should have an equal chance to have a good car.

Why is immortality different? If it's a limited resource, and it will be for a long time, how should we determine who gets it and who doesn't?

I think an underground industry could one day manifest to fill a niche for those unable to afford patented or otherwise unavailable longevity treatments.

I just realized that Cillian Murphy is in this movie. Good casting indeed.

IMHO, that in of itself is more than enough (for now) as it brings wider awareness to the direction we're ALL heading. Its not some B movie or foreign film. Its a big budget Hollywood film starring A celebrity. In the words of Joe Biden, this is a big fucking deal.

Well, kinda. The movie paints a dystopian picture of immortality, which could lead a lot of people to say "let's not go there".

^^^ Agree with this.

It seems to paint a society in which most people who desire immortality seek to oppress other's from having it.

The question is, how will the film resolve itself? Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out' or will it say 'immortality is just plain bad!' and seek to associate it with evil oppressors who want to control everyone and depict the 'rebels' as those seeking to preserve mortality?

The future must not be like this in any way. When the technology comes everyone must have an equal chance of become immortal. (Yes it's true the rich will buy it first but it will then become cheap enough so everyone can buy it).

Hopefully by then the concepts of 'rich' and 'poor' will no longer exist.

I'd rather have 'rich' and 'poor' with my immortality than wait until there's infinite resources for everyone... because that'll take decades.

Looks like it might be good, but the story is almost a complete rehash of an old 70s film called logans run. The details differ but the central premise is the same.

Logan's Run is a 1976 science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman," as he "runs" from society's lethal demand.

http://en.wikipedia...._Run_(1976_film)#Plot

I think there's a big difference in "kill everyone when they reach 30" and "live forever if you have the money". One is about overpopulation, one is about immortality.

Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out'

No. We shouldn't.

Why should or shouldn't we provide free anti-aging medicine to everyone in the world? Does this alter your thinking about our present foreign aid budget or taxation levels?

The shriek of elitism is getting wider and wider.

No wonder films portray it this way.

Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out'

No. We shouldn't.

I didn't ask you.

Looks like it might be good, but the story is almost a complete rehash of an old 70s film called logans run. The details differ but the central premise is the same.

Logan's Run is a 1976 science fiction film based on the novel of the same name by William F. Nolan and George Clayton Johnson. It depicts a dystopian future society in which population and the consumption of resources are managed and maintained in equilibrium by the simple expediency of killing everyone who reaches the age of thirty, preventing overpopulation. The story follows the actions of Logan 5, a "Sandman," as he "runs" from society's lethal demand.

http://en.wikipedia...._Run_(1976_film)#Plot

I think there's a big difference in "kill everyone when they reach 30" and "live forever if you have the money". One is about overpopulation, one is about immortality.

Do you watch the trailer?

'At 25 aging stops and each person is given one more year to live'.

Unless they have 'the money' of course.

At least in logans run you get an extra 4 years of life before you have to enter the carousel.

Same difference to me. Why populate a world with greedy CEO types and kill off all the ones who had hearts and lived by meaning? All the poor artists and musicians, poets, etc would basically be a memory superseded by the greedy morons who live life based on how much they can take from other's (in this case company employees at the bottom of the pyramid) and keep for themselves (the top of the pyramid).

I would hate to live in a world populated primarily by this type of cretin. Immortality for all who want it! Period.

Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out'

No. We shouldn't.

I didn't ask you.

I didn't answer you. Its a forum.

Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out'

No. We shouldn't.

I didn't ask you.

I didn't answer you. Its a forum.

You keep misusing the negative rating system, and then having your buddies, or your alternate account rate you up, like the immature person you seem to be.

^^^ That is, the question was not about what your miniscule opinion of the matter was, it was about how the films plot resolves itself. Learn some reading comprehension.

Will it say that 'yes, there are those who would seek to keep innovations tightly secured for the few, and thus oppress the 'lower classes' from possessing it, and this is wrong, we should instead share the gift with all who would seek it out'

No. We shouldn't.

I didn't ask you.

I didn't answer you. Its a forum.

You keep misusing the negative rating system, and then having your buddies, or your alternate account rate you up, like the immature person you seem to be.

Immaturity is your reputation here. Not mine. For instance, making false accusation is an immature move.

^^^ That is, the question was not about what your miniscule opinion of the matter was, it was about how the films plot resolves itself. Learn some reading comprehension.

I didn't ask for your explanation.

Immortality for all who want it! Period.

No, not all. It must be earned / justified.

^^^ That is, the question was not about what your miniscule opinion of the matter was, it was about how the films plot resolves itself. Learn some reading comprehension.

I didn't ask for your explanation.

You are definitely the most immature person on this forum in terms of the little witty quips you leave on serious posts, as if you are any funnier than dane cooke (get it? dane cooke isn't funny at all).

Just stop the silliness. I know you have people de-rating your negative comments too. What a mature person, going around hitting the - tab every chance you get, like a baby given a new toy to play with.

I'm glad we can agree that Dane Cook is not funny.

So, is it too late to be friends? Can we discuss the part about giving "all" immortality? We might both learn a thing or two.

My olive branch.

I'm glad we can agree that Dane Cook is not funny.

So, is it too late to be friends? Can we discuss the part about giving "all" immortality? We might both learn a thing or two.

My olive branch.

Sure, you can be my annoying metrosexual friend who tags along with me to bars in the city and pretends to be gay in order to meet women.

By the way, I support gay rights! But metrosexuals I don't understand.

Why should or shouldn't we provide free anti-aging medicine to everyone in the world?

I missed this one. Great question.

I don't have an issue whether its free or not. My issue is whether it should be made available to everyone at all. It doesn't take a lot of contemplation to see the conundrum in that.

Why should or shouldn't we provide free anti-aging medicine to everyone in the world?

I missed this one. Great question.

I don't have an issue whether its free or not. My issue is whether it should be made available to everyone at all. It doesn't take a lot of contemplation to see the conundrum in that.

Well let's use common sense, what my comment implied was anyone who desires immortality should have the opportunity to pursue it. Of course there are exceptions, as with mass murderers for example. But that should go without saying.

On the flip side of the coin, there are bound to be re-conditioning methods that evolve side by side with anti-aging drugs. Such as the The Ludovico technique depicted in clockwork orange. But that's another discussion of an entirely different moral dilemma.

My point was that being poor, or not being a 'major contributor' of the economy or of society in general should not deter people from the right of immortality. Maybe some people need two, three or more life times to realize their full potential!