>tfw in that Downsizing movie kids could be taken to be permanently shrunk if their parents wanted them to be>One parent even mentions their child being scared around their comparitively huge grandparents>tfw there's probably multiple instances of divorced parents taking their sons or daughters to be downsized with them>And every time they're visiting the other for the week they're basically a giant/giantess to them
>>220166774>start of the movie explains there will be abundant resources after youve downsized because everything will be big>goes back to living in poverty anyway????
>>220167123Matt Damon's wife divorced him after he downsized so they took the vast majority of his assets and wealth.
>get eaten by a bird
>>220169376They had protection against that
>>220169512I think it failed at the end.
>>220167154Yeah but the money ratio was like 1:80. None of them should be in poverty. Or do you also get 1/80th of the pay when youre small?
>>220169599Not at the end, no.
>>220169769IIRC they get 1/80th the pay, and you're reliant on anything you saved up before shrinking.
>>220167154This whole bit pissed me off immensely. Surely there would be some kind of legal thing he could do where he could take her to court.Also where the fuck were all his rich friends? If that happened to a buddy of mine I'd send him at least a 1000 bucks (which nets him 80 grand) which should be enough for him to live in the house he selected (or at least better than what he ended up in) while he takes that bitch to court.
>>220170129Would you get downsized?
>>220170168Fuck no. But then I'm also the kind of guy who wouldn't use a transporter in Star Trek.
Imagine being a dad with a divorced wife who took your momma's boy child to be downsized with her, and now every time he comes over to stay with you for the weekend you're reminded your bratty little spoiled rich son is literally the size of your ballsack now.
>>220166774Is… is this some kind of fetish thread?
>>220170315That's the right choice because it's a soul destroying disassembly machine that kills you every single time then puts you back together. I also would very much prefer to never eat anything from a replicator if possible.
>>220170446Eating food from a replicator is fine because the science of just arranging molecules into the same structure as something else like food or clothing works, and is probably (definitely) better for you than the processed shit you get now (I love deli meat, but that shit is straight up cancer inducing), the difference is your food is dead already, you're not destroying a soul to make food. Which brings up two thoughts, 1. It's definitely more ethical because then nothing ever has to die for the sake of sustaining another living creature, and 2. If the soul component of food is necessary in some weird metaphysical sense where you're consuming a life force via the consumption of something else, then that makes food both insanely unethical, and insanely metal. You kill something then tear apart its soul to consume piece by piece.
>>220170361Honestly that sounds pretty fun from the kid's perspective
>>220170621All the time on Star Trek when they eat real food they always say something like "It tastes so much better than the replicator." or something like "I can't believe how good this is, your mother used to cook all the time?". I imagine all replicator food would be like drinking diet soda, sugar free candy, vegetable / onions burgers, in comparison to the real thing. Just not quite up to the real thing.It's also worth noting that the replicator is mainly a convenience, farming technology, hydroponics, etc has also advanced and is far more energy efficient, it's like if you cooked everything from frozen in a microwave. It's easy sure but you're sacrificing a lot.
>>220170168I would downsize women and eat them
>>220170898That makes no sense unless the scanner that gives the 'recipe' to the replicator sucks and you don't get all the flavor compounds.
>>220167154Was that before or after they bought a zoo?
>>220171061>That makes no senseTell that to the writers. It gets mentioned a lot and not just from Starfleet but other races like Klingons as well say things like replicated gagh and blood wine just aren't the same as the real thing.Also the replicator doesn't function quite like how you're thinking, at least not on a Star Fleet ship, its mentioned a couple times like when Deanna Troi uses it to make chocolate ice cream, it's not literally making it, it's making a healthier version from different components that is supposed to taste the same but with better nutritional value and when she asks for real ice cream the computer outright refuses because it's not regulation.
China would definitely make slaves/criminals fight bugs and shit. It would be awesome
>>220171177I guess it makes sense, you gotta keep your crew in shape
>shrinking movie>Just turns into a normal size movie with some silly big props every once in a while
What's some good shrinking kino?The Incredible Shrinking Man (1957)Honey I Shrunk the Kids (1989)Honey We Shrunk Ourselves (1997)Thumb Princess (1999)Are probably my favs. OP and The Incredible Shrinking Woman sucks and the Ant-Man movies are slop
>>220172376I'd don't know if I'd even call it a shrinking movie the shrinking isn't even really the point or focus it's just something that happens while the movie beats your head in about environmentalism. Like you said they never really do anything interesting with the concept because the movie is also not very good.
>>220172736Does Indian in the Cupboard count?
>>220166774I’ve never seen a movie have a premise that is so interesting and then they choose to have the least interesting story with it that they could’ve possibly come up. Like it’s actually impressive
>>220173178I do like that movie but the little people didnt really shrink they just were in the kids head or something I only saw it once tbf
>>220169512>They had protection against thatNot in the original Norwegian colony. A single seagull would have wiped them all out. That or mosquitos or crabs or any kind of small predatory insect. Maybe ants.
>>220170898>All the time on Star Trek when they eat real food they always say something like "It tastes so much better than the replicator."Nobody said that shit until Alex Kikezman got his grubby mitts on the franchise. Same as all the bullshit about how replicators recycle the ship's sewage, it fucking doesn't it works the same way as the transporter and holodeck by taking the energy from light and reconstituting it into matter. It's edible fucken photons. That part of the point, that in Star Trek their lives are so wonderful that they can make food from fucking light and that all the suffering they face is a moral thing that they have to over-come, that being a better person makes your world better.If the tech couldn't actually make shit 1 to 1, then the fucking transporters would be turning people into fucking goo monsters like that one dude from The Motion Picture.I'm convinced that Nu-Trek is trying to fuck up replicators as a way of undermining the concept of Star Trek being a hopeful future on a fundamental level.Like it's a fucken metaphor like "sure on the surface it looks good, but really it's hollow and bad and made out of shit."
>>220170395Was definitely supposed to be but didnt turn out that way
>>220173227the premise is completely retarded what are you talking about
>>220171040Same except I'd stuff them in my urethra.
>>220175390thats why its fun
>>220173227Isn't the general /tv/ consensus still that In Time is the prime example of films that wasted good concepts?
>>220174960TNG/DS9 have multiple instances of characters being surprised at the quality of real food and/or the novelty of cooking real food with actual meat. You're a retard who outed himself as never having seen any of the series. In TNG Riker visits a Klingon ship and practiced adapting to Klingon recipes through the replicator only to be surprised the dish is served live, and the Klingons home about synthetic food. O'Brien's wife was shocked his mother cooked actual meat. She was surprised at want haggis was. In another episode Scotty is resurrected and demands actual alcohol implying synthetic alcohol doesn't hit the same. DS9 Sisko's father is a chef on earth who often encourages his son to enjoy real things and not get lost in technology. These are a few examples off the top of my head.
>>220176470>You're a retard who outed himself as never having seen any of the series.I'm sitting less than four feet from my Star Trek Blu-Rays. I will admit I forgot about that stuff as it's been a few years since I last watched them, but I still maintain that the replicator works well. There's also instances of people saying how good the replicator is, like that unfrozen Texan who talks about how the Martini the replicator makes is the best he's ever had, it's just down to the programming. I also maintain that the difference between classic Trek and Nu-Trek is that while other characters might talk about how much better it is to cook food rather than just replicate it, classic Trek doesn't have the spiteful cynicism the Nu-Trek possesses, which is why those moments don't immediately jump to mind.Classic Trek used the limitations of the replicator to describe how to do something to bring people together, how cooking could be a communal and fun experience, nu-Trek uses it to further shit on the Federation.
