Ponder is a burden, the meaning of the last gunshots, everyone saw that the teacher did not die after the gunshots sounded. What was the death? I personally think that the extreme thoughts of the teacher in the previous story have died. The last shot was given to the heroine, why? I think the film is to express a kind of communication, because the teacher's wrong thinking ends.
At the beginning of the story, there are three assumptions that support the framework of the whole movie; the
first story is that if time is infinite, monkeys can one day play a Hamlet. I have seen this assumption before, I think This hypothesis is not true, because even a monkey, it is a kind of creature, as long as it is a creature, he will have a habit of inevitability (or it can be said that he has the ability to learn, that is, the ability that artificial intelligence does not). Any type of his typing Habits may make it impossible to hit Hamlet with such a small probability event, unless a program is set so that the probability of each key on the keyboard is the same, so that we can even calculate the probability of producing Hamlet. .
The second hypothesis is the 1:5 hypothesis on the rails, which is about the value of life. At the same time, regarding morality, this story has almost no moral bottom line, making it difficult for people to choose, and this kind of moral choice in the following three scenes runs through. , The role of mobilizing the railroad tracks is the teacher. What is interesting is that this assumption reminds me of a story in China, where my wife and mother are diving into the water at the same time. Who do you save first? Later, another evolution was used, that is, if you have a stone in your hand, who do you hit first? I remember seeing an answer on the Internet. Since they are willing to jump into the water, whoever the hell saves me, this answer gave us a result. How hateful it is to make such an assumption, the plot in the movie The development is the same, almost everyone hopes that the teacher will die, haha.
The third hypothesis, can friends around you be able to save you regardless of their own safety? (Actually yes, your parents!) But the meaning of this hypothesis is also related to the moral bottom line. It shows that there is no friend before you do not know your friend deeply. If you are serious, you will Falling into a choice barrier, I feel unable to choose friends correctly. I think the obvious connection between this hypothesis and the plot of the movie is from the first scene to the second scene. When the characters played by the students add more attributes, who should choose to enter the refuge It has become obviously different from before, and we find that some people who can bear the responsibility of human continuation are no longer suitable! In this transition, everyone including the audience is expected to enter the barrier of choice. Unfortunately, the time of the movie is limited. If you choose more than one time, the characters will have more attributes (especially some hidden attributes that are not known, ha ha). Twenty-one people in here will gradually no longer have the conditions to enter the shelter. This should be what the movie wants to express.
The following mainly talks about the views expressed in the three scenes of the doomsday crisis. The first three scenes represent an infinite number of scenes, the first scene is the beginning, and the second scene should represent infinite depth of human nature (that is, character attributes). Infinite fullness), the third scene should represent the final choice, the final choice should not be randomly selected, I believe that the movie can’t make the second scene repeat indefinitely, so the third scene should be after infinite repeat Hamlet.
In the first scene, the sense of substitution in the movie is still relatively strong. If I choose at the beginning, I will basically have the same voting results as in the movie, and I will also think that the poet is the most useless, ha ha, me too! Engineers, parliamentarians, farmers, carpenters, scientists, these people who inherited advanced human civilization will definitely be more conducive to post-apocalyptic reconstruction, but there is a serious moral problem, which is the second hypothesis, so angry students chose The teacher was killed with a "stone", ending the first story. In fact, this story needs to be extended. It is the meaning of the existence of disadvantaged groups. When facing life and death, do disadvantaged groups have to choose to die passively? History tells us countless times, yes! ! This result is cruel, haha, but it did not die in vain. This kind of incident will cause serious divisions within the unaligned rights groups, and the confrontation caused by this division is likely to cause greater losses (in fact, I want to say 100% It will lead to greater losses), the movie is also made in this way, the same students in the rights group murdered the teacher.
The second story makes the characters played by the students more plump. It is obvious that the students have a choice barrier in the plot. It is worth noting that the doctor who may carry the virus. Remember the third hypothesis, she was abandoned by everyone Haha, I think that if the characters continue to be plump, none of the 21 people is eligible to enter the refuge. This should be the purpose of the film screenwriter, that is, no one is eligible to enter the refuge in the wireless cycle. I remember that there is a concept in the West that people know the beginning and are inherently evil. No one is innocent. Everyone is guilty and has an evil side, but they are not known by others. If this premise is true, then the characters will continue to be infinitely full, and sooner or later the dark side of everyone will be exposed (or the conditions that lead to the demise of the 10 rights group are for everyone), and eventually no one is eligible to enter the refuge. In this story, the teacher still plays the role of the person who can mobilize the rails. What happens in this scene is still under the control of the teacher. The students are the people lying on the rails, and the main basis for the teacher’s choice is still the ability to inherit humans. Civilized people, seeing this, I can't help thinking about what human civilization is, haha. Is human civilization just advanced technology, industrial society, and perfect laws? I will talk about this later. In the second scene, a sharp question was raised, which is to reproduce offspring. This is also the most serious problem after the Doomsday Catastrophe. The movie describes a situation where the probability of conception is very low. In this case, the teacher asked everyone and everyone Heterosexual mating improves the possibility of conception. Imagine that even the mating of dogs depends on whether the bitch is willing or not, how can humans fall to such a degree, ha ha! ! Of course some people were unwilling, so a woman stepped forward, leading to the end of the story. This plot reflects a very important point of view. In fact, there have been reactions in many places before, but here is more prominent and obvious, and the director is deliberately guiding the audience to choose what he thinks is correct (I think it is correct), that is, personal interest and collective interest. When there is a conflict, which one is more important? I think the choice of film is obvious. Individual interests are greater than collective interests (even if it leads to collective demise). This is a point of view that is now emphasized in Western countries. This is what Western countries call human rights. If you want to I want to see, China's education is completely the opposite, how human rights are absent, ha ha!
The third scene is the last scene after the infinite loop. In the third scene, no one has the conditions to enter the refuge and inherit human civilization. I personally think that the third scene is the result of reflection after the wireless loop. In the movie Directly through the heroine, the teacher deprived the teacher of the right to choose the right group and established a new selection model. It is not stated in the film. I think that the right group cannot enter the refuge (the heroine did not actually intend to enter the refuge). The right group is selected by a referendum (through the first two scenes, the audience can basically know who belongs to the right group), and the right group (at this time is fought by the female protagonist, in fact, the female protagonist is the spokesperson of the power group) choose to enter the refuge People. Of course, this model may still be used by the holders of rights in reality. There are still many issues worth considering, and there are still many flaws, but this is the preliminary conclusion I have told me from watching this movie. There are actually many more conclusions. It is worth studying in depth (such as the law-making procedures in reality, etc.), the talent is ignorant and superficial. Let's discuss the next question directly. In the third story, the characters who choose to enter the refuge are almost completely opposite to the previous two scenes. Can these non-rights group characters (that is, vulnerable groups) bear the responsibility of human continuity? The result of the movie is that they actively chose to die, but everyone may not pay attention. The last nine people, they actually inherited the best quality of mankind, "unity." Remember the scene where the nine of them blocked bullets together. I think unity is the most precious quality that human beings can continue to continue after the end. If the teacher is killed, does he hate the powerful? If the teacher died while taking refuge, it is estimated that there is still hope for human civilization to continue). Finally, I would like to ask one question, what is needed for the continuation of human civilization? In the last scene of the movie, it tries to beautify the lives of these nine people in the refuge. It seems so calm and comfortable, but at the same time a little bit so unmotivated. They also take drugs, as if they must perish. I want to say that human beings are not in primitive society. Are you eating and drinking Lazard, picking fruits and playing rabbits, these basic skills? By the way, there is another skill that is playing, haha, the ancients have all come here, so to continue human civilization, I think they have nine (less, at least 100 More than one can avoid excessive gene repetition) The skills you have mastered are enough, and you won’t let the offspring study it slowly!
Highlights:
1. Nine people block bullets to save people, why do they all die as bombs? I think it's not that I don't want to live anymore, but I can throw everything away to fight against the power!
2. In the third act, they still have a lot of trees after they come out of the refuge. As the saying goes, there are water, there are fish, and there are trees, there are fruits, and maybe there are meat, so nine of them are completely likely to survive after they come out.
3. In the first act, the vulnerable group was shot and killed. I don’t know if you paid attention to the next two acts. The vulnerable group ran away, and the person who escaped in the third act has not yet died (although a few were killed by sexual immorality) Male), in fact, the development of human civilization to this level may not be due to the escape of vulnerable groups. Didn't anthropologists say that the ancestors of human beings were Africans? Then we and the Europeans are not both vulnerable groups that run away. You are looking at the African rights groups that are not mixed up very well now, and the recent Americans were actually vulnerable groups in Europe earlier (relatively disadvantaged) , At least not from the rights group, as you can see from the American Revolutionary War) went to the United States to pan for gold.
4. My conclusion is that "vulnerable groups are the cornerstone of human civilization." But it does not mean that I agree with the saying that human civilization is created by the people! The element of this sentence flicker is greater than its true element.
5. There are so many gays in the movie! I agree that homosexuals (at least most homosexuals are disadvantaged and need to be protected) can enter the shelter. Why? This is a movie about rights. If I have the right to choose, I will be a true servant of the people, not the majority, nor the minority, but everyone!
6. Remember that the teacher's gun was stolen in the third act? This tells us that the rights of a democratic society cannot be spoken by guns. Remember that there are no bullets in the guns the hostess gave to the teacher. This tells us that when granting rights to others, we must restrict his rights at the same time. Did you hide the gun hidden by the teacher? This tells us that the rights need to be supervised. If you supervise, there may be unexpected receipts. Haha, I am not reactionary. Don't spray me! !
7. In the world of the blind, the one-eyed is the king, telling us that in a society of supply and demand, the bottom line of morality is actually very low (if no one is forced, it is estimated that the six women will fall in love with their king), ha ha! ! ! In fact, there is no need to exaggerate morality. Excessive morality actually has the right to cause trouble! !
8. Logic has always been emphasized in the movie. In fact, the logic has not been very good. I don’t know if you have found it. If they don’t exercise enough for 10 people and do yoga like Indians, it’s okay to live with a few more people.
9. I guess no one can see this! If you see this, give it a thumbs up, I want 32! ! Hey-hey! ! It doesn't matter if you don't give it, don't spray me, I also want to thank you for seeing this!
View more about After the Dark reviews
