1. Life shift. Life span can be transferred from one person to another. In interpersonal transfer, at least one party must have the willingness to transfer or accept the transfer before the life span can be transferred.
As a result, there is a lifetime transaction, a lifetime gift. Theft or life robbing also occurs. But lifespan cannot be transferred from humans to animals, and vice versa. An additional explanation should be given: the movie does not talk about lifespan, but "time", but in fact it talks about lifespan.
2. Life storage. Life span can be transferred from the human body and stored in some kind of container; it can also be transferred from the container into the human body; life span can also be transferred from one container to another.
It’s a pity that this film is less focused on the superhuman transfer of lifespan.
Three, the fixed value of life. At least on the earth, at least for interpersonal transfer, the lifespan value does not change due to life transfer, and there is no transfer loss.
Therefore, a second of Einstein's transfer to me is also my second, and it will not become my quarter of an hour. Of course, how the lifespan is priced is another matter. This is a relatively low-level story setting and depends on the specific economic system.
4. Transferable life span. Only a person's life span after 25 years of age is a transferable life span (it seems that only after 25 years of age can one accept another's lifespan transfer).
In other words, assuming 100 babies are born today, and assuming that they all grow up smoothly in 25 years, the result is that there will be (or even increase) 100 years of transferable lifespan (why is it 100 years and why)? It's not 200 years or 500 years, it depends on the next one).
5. Natural life span and aging stop. Everyone’s natural life expectancy is 26 years, but they can extend their life without restriction because of the transfer. After 25 years of age, aging stops.
In other words: if life transfer is not considered, then a person's biological clock will automatically stop at the age of 26, leading to immediate death. If one considers life transfer, that is, in combination with the previous setting, after a person is 25 years old, once the life balance is not balanced, he will die immediately, or even live under 26 years of age.
6. Other conditions are basically the same as currently known human nature and social attributes. For example, the age of sexual maturity and the marriage system (I must say that it is not human nature to retain the marriage system).
Why is it set like this? ----For science fiction writers, this question is meaningless. But for the audience, this question makes a lot of sense. If the setting of a science fiction story is not appropriate, it will be difficult for the audience to resonate or even understand, and the science fiction movie will lose its prophetic or allegorical nature.
I think the figures for the two settings of "natural life limit" and "transferable life" (which are also the most important settings of the film) in this film are not ideal, which detracts from its fable value.
According to the conditions of this film, cruel competition and exploitation are fundamentally inevitable. If everyone is self-reliant, fishing, hunting and gathering, there is no competition and exploitation, then everyone will die at the age of 26. But the age setting of human sexual maturity has not changed. 26-year-old men and women may not even give birth to children, even if they have children, how old they can be. I can hardly imagine how human society will continue and how culture will be inherited in the world set by the film if there is no cruel competition and exploitation. In the world set by the movie, anyone who lives past 26 years old must be an exploiter.
To make matters worse: the time pressure is so pressing, the fertility rate will inevitably drop. 25-year-old parents have to raise children, but also engage in life-span competition. Who wants to have children so hard? The fertility rate is low, and the total amount of transferable lifespan in the society is even less (the immortality set in this film must come from the sacrifice of young people). Doesn't this make the competition for life resources more fierce?
In short, the basic setting values of this film are too far apart from the real human world. We are like standing in a three-dimensional world and watching a small slapstick in the flat world. We feel that the people in the play are pitiful and pathetic. The real change that the hero and heroine should strive for is not the bankruptcy of banks and capitalists, but Andrew Niccol's revision of the script. At least, genetic engineering should be restarted to change the two numbers 25 and 1.
Of course, if someone observes our world from a high-dimensional world, they will definitely feel that we are always making small troubles, both pitiful and pathetic. At this point, the film still has a strong allegory warning effect. When I heard the banker of the heroine's father say, "You can only cause chaos for a while, but don't think about changing the system like this," I was still shocked.
View more about In Time reviews
