|
|
Post by fathermushroom on Oct 14, 2008 20:08:37 GMT -5
I was just thinking:
If the "new" goal of the mission is to reduce the crew from 7 to 3, for the survival of the species, the only statistically sensible thing to have done would be to have the three younger men pair up with the three women, have frequent sex for the next month, and hope that all three women get pregnant. Then, the 3 chosen survivors would be the women, and they would each give birth, hopefully, to healthy children each of whom would have genes representing almost all of the astronauts.
Any other combination would be evolutionarily stupid.
And, for good biological measure, if they wanted to, the old guy could go at it with one of the women in the hopes that there might be fraternal twins. You wouldn't do that with all three women because you'd want the least inbreeding risk possible for the children when their turn came later on. They'd need to know whose father was whose.
Does this bore you? I found it fascinating, for a few minutes of my life.
|
|
|
|
Post by BoB3K on Oct 16, 2008 9:10:29 GMT -5
Oh, great, now you've done it. You've gone and put more thought into that plot point than the writers put into the entire movie... probably more thought than they put into all of the movies that they ever made... perhaps even more thought than they ever gave their ENTIRE LIVES! Okay, that may be an exargeration. OR IS IT?!!
Seriously though, good points. I give your idea the thumbs up. You can go tell them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shep on Nov 1, 2008 9:42:39 GMT -5
I was just thinking: If the "new" goal of the mission is to reduce the crew from 7 to 3, for the survival of the species, the only statistically sensible thing to have done would be to have the three younger men pair up with the three women, have frequent sex for the next month, and hope that all three women get pregnant. Then, the 3 chosen survivors would be the women, and they would each give birth, hopefully, to healthy children each of whom would have genes representing almost all of the astronauts. Any other combination would be evolutionarily stupid. And, for good biological measure, if they wanted to, the old guy could go at it with one of the women in the hopes that there might be fraternal twins. You wouldn't do that with all three women because you'd want the least inbreeding risk possible for the children when their turn came later on. They'd need to know whose father was whose. Does this bore you? I found it fascinating, for a few minutes of my life. Very clever! |
|
|
|
Post by braindeadzombie on Nov 1, 2008 11:27:39 GMT -5
I was just thinking: If the "new" goal of the mission is to reduce the crew from 7 to 3, for the survival of the species, the only statistically sensible thing to have done would be to have the three younger men pair up with the three women, have frequent sex for the next month, and hope that all three women get pregnant. Then, the 3 chosen survivors would be the women, and they would each give birth, hopefully, to healthy children each of whom would have genes representing almost all of the astronauts. Any other combination would be evolutionarily stupid. And, for good biological measure, if they wanted to, the old guy could go at it with one of the women in the hopes that there might be fraternal twins. You wouldn't do that with all three women because you'd want the least inbreeding risk possible for the children when their turn came later on. They'd need to know whose father was whose. Does this bore you? I found it fascinating, for a few minutes of my life. If you really want to destroy the movie, the whole crew should have been women and their trunk should have been a refrigerator filled with sperm samples.  |
|
|
|
Post by ilmatto on Feb 25, 2009 6:24:59 GMT -5
I once read an academic article on this issue, the gender makeup of a crew etc. The article said you can't have an equal number of men and women because the men and women will immediately pair up that will cause problems if (and when) infidelities occur. You can't have a few men and a large number of women because the men will go into some kind of alpha male struggle to own the harem of women. The article concluded that the best possible arrangment would be a small group of women who are in operational control and a larger group of subordinate men, and the women share the group of men with no ownership by any particular woman.
And since this most closely correlated with my own fantasies, I wholeheartedly approved of the study.
It was a very interesting study especially when it went over groups of three as being inherently unstable, because two people will pair up as friends and exclude the third, but this pair is constantly shifting. Constantly changing alliances; building up resentments. You can only imagine the outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by ilmatto on Feb 25, 2009 6:27:05 GMT -5
Well I recently saw Doomsday Machine; my first CT episode ever viewed. And talk about missed riff opportunities! Everytime that halfwit Casey Kasem opened his mouth I would immediately say "...and keep reaching for the stars..." Every time he opened his mouth.
|
|
|
|
Post by crowschmo on Feb 25, 2009 19:35:37 GMT -5
Then, the 3 chosen survivors would be the women, and they would each give birth, hopefully, to healthy children What if all their children turned out to be females? Then they would all have to take turns switching genders, like frogs.  |
|
|
|
Post by fathermushroom on Feb 28, 2009 17:08:16 GMT -5
What if all their children turned out to be females? Then they would all have to take turns switching genders, like frogs. Well, now you've got me all steamed up again. Except the 'frogs' reference. |
|
|
|
Post by fathermushroom on Jun 17, 2009 19:28:08 GMT -5
Does anyone out there know why they HAD to end the movie the way they did? I understand the original flick ran out of money, and wasn't "finished" until 5 years later. But when you watch the so-called finished product, you can see they had footage in the can of the lead astronauts talking to the miraculously surviving Danny and Georgina. Like, the other astronauts are surprised and delighted, and they have dialogue and footage to show it.
So, what did they lack to tie this puppy together? Because the stuff they actually USED to cobble together an ending was so generic they could've done as well with almost anything. Footage of elephants in Zimbabwe would've worked as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by pslowner on Jun 17, 2009 21:27:22 GMT -5
This is the kind of movie where you could understand and excuse kids for burning down drive in theaters.
|
|
|
|
Post by Bix Dugan on Jul 24, 2009 9:03:48 GMT -5
I liked the ending!
Actually, I started falling asleep the first time I saw it.
And that was at the Live CT show in L.A. last year!
Not kidding.
But it was a very warm evening...
|
|
|
|
Post by dph on Aug 31, 2009 7:57:01 GMT -5
I am just amazed to find that there is heavy use of stock footage from Toho's movie Gorath. I am surprised that they were able to do this without getting in to trouble from Toho's beastly lawyers. These scenes were most of the ones with the rocket, the circular space station, destruction scenes OF TOKYO, and even the planet as it exploded was just a picture of the planet Gorath.
|
|
|
|
Post by majorjoe23 on Aug 15, 2017 15:22:48 GMT -5
|
|
