Damn that guy is *definitely* one of those actors who I've seen in a million things, but none of which I could think of on the spot if I met him somewhere.
*Hey! You're that guy, from the thing!*
Too bad he was also an asshole, which made it easy for Don to ignore everything he said. Common thing on Mad Men, for someone to call out Don, but in a way that mad them look like a jerk too so Don could ignore them (like when Freddy Crane called him out for his handsomeness privilege but after he himself said something stupid).
> He’s super creepy on Happy!
Thats a misnomer, really undersells the monster he is,
one quote that stuck with me is when he skins someone and says:
> "Now. You listen to me. I have removed all of the skin from your body. It is not a survivable condition. Fatal infection is inevitable if your heart doesn't shut down first, so, you see, I already have killed you. The question is; how long? The answer is; precisely as long as I require. You see, I am not some grinning idiot clown who's putting on a show for the YouTube crowd. I am a master craftsman. I will determine your time of death down to the hour, the minute, the second. So until then, and until precisely then... hang in there baby!"
I will never be able to remember the guy's name but I sure as hell can at least place him in [one of my favorite jump scares](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o).
Mulholland Drive, one of David Lynch's best imo. Mindfuck of a director if you haven't heard of him. All his stuff is very dreamlike and surreal. Twin Peaks is probably his most accessible as it was a primetime mystery tv show (that confused the fuck out of everyone), while Eraserhead is closest to a fever dream in media form.
I remember the first time I saw that movie Mulholland Drive. I thought, what in the fuck did I just watch? So I bought the DVD, because that was the format style at the time. Then later on, I bought the blu-ray, when that became the style of the time. I still own both, for what it's worth.
There *is* an explanation that explains (almost) everything pretty well...but frankly, I think the movie's more enjoyable without it. I loved watching it for the raw, visceral emotions it evokes, and trying to draw my own conclusions about what it was actually saying. Looking shit up online and learning what was "really" going on, honestly not sure if that made it better or worse
My favorite thing they did with Lon is that his thing throughout the whole show up until this point was Skittles. He always had his skittles.
Moss had him so thoroughly turned around he even changed his favorite candy.
Poor Lon. His only mistake was being too good at his job.
Barry is such a great show. 10/10, everybody should watch it once at least
This movie made me realize there are no lakes in LA. Minneapolis made so much more sense. Never been to Utah but I have to assume it’s the Jazz capital of the US.
Thanks for this, it's been so long! The similarities between the intros are super interesting, especially when I realized BASEketball came out almost a decade before Idiocracy.
He realized that there was someone much better suited for the job and willingly and eagerly gave up the job to that person. Can you imagine any current politicians doing that?
That's because the central premise of idiocracy is flawed. Our problem isn't stupidity it's greed, corruption, hate, and willful ignorance. And yes, stupidity as a biproduct of all those things. In the movie they salt their fields because it is good for a corporates profits but when someone tells them that's killing their food they stop, they even stick with it after it crashes their economy once they see it brings food back.
> Our problem isn't stupidity it's greed
This - literally everything that's wrong in and with the US descends from this. The corruption, the hate, the willful ignorance, the institutionalized racism, the punishments for poverty, all of it descends from or is a direct consequence of greed.
Forget coffee, America *runs* on greed.
He’s “said” that. I put it in quotes because I haven’t seen/read/heard him directly say it. However, there are reliable journalistic sources that say he doesn’t WANT to be president, he simply knows it’s his duty to protect democracy.
He’s not perfect but he is actually a fairly good president. And regardless of your political beliefs, he does want to see a better America. Some shitty, or presidents I vehemently disagree with, have also wanted to see a better America. And I can respect that. Trump on the other hand is only running for himself.
I think the Democratic Party might have forced him out, if they could muster a better candidate-pair to oppose Trump, but personally I'm pretty sure Biden is happy to hold the highest office in the land, a dream of his for many cent... decades.
The Democratic Party is not going to take risks on this one. There aren't many better counters to a populist Republican threat, than an old "by the book" Blue politician, and his youthful dark-skinned progressive running mate.
Camacho would be a lot better than Trump, that's for sure. Camacho wasn't a criminal, wasn't a insurrectionist, wasn't a rapist, didn't have severe psycological issues that prevented him from listening to people smarter than himself, and was capable of empathy -- for starters.
If Biden loses, we'll get what we deserve. It's such an absolute no-brainer. His admin has been such a resounding success and people are ready to vote for Trump because their Big Macs are too expensive and he didnt solve middle east peace over the winter.
People say he reminds them of Trump Presidency, but president Camacho turned to a smarter person to help solve a crisis. Trump objectively did not and then used the smarter people in his administration as scapegoats.
I just commented yesterday that someone should remake this film but remove all comedic elements. Like a torture porn flick, just show the reality of that world in the most base, cold way possible.
The most unrealistic part is that the machine that said he was the smartest among them was trusted enough that he was put in charge. Idiocy goes along with ignorance so this would never happen. They'd just dismiss the machine as broken and reject reality.
That's a good catch, but as a counterpoint, remember when he switches to water and the CEO says, "the computer did that layoff thing" - apparently, their ancestors had automated many systems, and those systems continue to function. There's also the roomba in the hospital that repeats "your floor is now clean" - indicating that there are other roombas (and other robots) that haven't yet broken down.
To me, it makes sense that there might have been a computerized aptitude testing and job placement program created centuries ago that is still running, and still blindly followed.
But they’re also so stupid to believe whatever form of authority tells them. The computer was designed by smart guys, so it must be right. No one in that world has to make a decision for themselves.
People really only obey authority as long as it aligns with their worldview. Doesn't matter what the "smart guys" do or say if the "smart guys" don't agree that Brawndo has what plants crave.
Yup. When people believe what they are doing is for a greater good (the good of science, in the case of Milgram experiments) they pretty much blindly follow "orders." I would recommend looking into subsequent studies though, where the subjects aren't aware they're in an educational setting. Those ones see a much, much lower obedience rate than the original Milgram experiment and (in my opinion) more closely align with how people actually operate.
Subsequent studies show that in the absence of a belief of what they're doing is for a greater good that people will pretty much never blindly follow an order. The Milgrim experiments are heavily criticized for the fact that pretty much none of their subjects believed a Yale experiment was willing to administer lethal shocks to volunteers on top of repeatedly prodding them to up the voltage should they protest.
People make this joke way too often. The average person is more intelligent than 100 years ago and the average IQ is actually increasing. Intelligence isn’t going to be the downfall of society, it will be greed.
Reality is literally the opposite of this video, people are getting smarter with time, not dumber. It's called the Flynn Effect.
And tbh this logic is inherently eugenical and evil, if "dumb people" having kids is widely seen as a problem then the obvious and only solution for that is to stop "dumb people" from having kids, which is Nazi shit.
People pick apart this movie like it's a Nat Geo documentary.
It's a light hearted comedy that holds a mirror to society. It's over the top and not supposed to be realistic. It only strikes a cord because deep down people fear how we are progressing and where we will end up.
But think about any point in human history, this story would have held up - we have always feared the next generation is a bunch of morons *bred* by a bunch of morons... Which is kind of true.
Edit: I used bread instead of bred. FWIW, autocorrect is trying to change it back even after it was corrected.
>People pick apart this movie like it's a Nat Geo documentary.
It's funny you say this because the comment thread above you (as least in the order I was shown) was literally people saying that this movie should be remade as a documentary by just removing comedic elements.
and the thing is, then that documentary would be plainly about eugenics. for all the picking apart they do they kind of miss the main reason why it shouldn't be taken serious. at least i hope they miss it...
The issue is that when people treat it like a documentary, they inevitably go "THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE THE SMART PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE BABIES AND FORCE THE DUMB PEOPLE TO HAVE LESS BABIES" and... that's just eugenics
If we *really* want to prevent this future from happening, we need to stop giving corporations power over us. To listen to others when they give advice, instead of immediately discarding it. To improve our educational systems.
from what's shown in the clip, it
- thinks genetics have way more effect on intelligence than they do
- implies that socially acceptable forms of success are based on intelligence
- uses IQ to measure this intelligence
which are like the first three steps in the eugenics handbook
I remember when I first watched this, I thought it was funny. The premise is rooted in *some* logic (in the same way that a magic system in a fantasy world can be rooted in a kind of internal logic, despite not being real), and it's taken to a comical extreme. I thought it should be obvious to anyone watching this that it's a funny movie based on a silly premise that wouldn't hold true in real life. Like we know the cartoon character won't die when you drop something on their head, which is what makes it funny when the piano falls on them and they walk away crunched up like an accordion or whatever. I figured that's what the movie was trying to do.
Kinda ruined the whole thing for me when I saw people taking it seriously, and calling for eugenics in response.
Yep.
As a comedy, it's great, when you look a little deeper there's some serious thought provoking messages, and when you dig even deeper it's, oh, it's eugenics, oh no.
The movie doesn't really suggest that a solution at all. It just points out that it's possible that society is actively selecting against intelligence. It doesn't say "the answer to this is to actively control who people get to breed with".
In fact it's not exactly subtle, the movie explicitly states that high achieving professionals are putting their careers above their desire to have children because of the current economic situation. So why do you think the answer the movie is promoting eugenics? Instead of like, fixing the preconditions that prevented the high achieving people from having children in the first place?
Eugenics isn't just about restricting breeding. It's also about the idea that some groups and their genetics are inferior to others, including the false idea that smart people have smart babies and dumb people have dumb babies.
There is a global trend that as a society gets to a point of prosperity, the birth rate declines.
Developing countries tend to have higher birth rates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#:~:text=In%20developed%20countries%20where%20birth,rather%20than%20their%20continued%20career.
It's less about education and more about resources.
You can be rich and dumb. You can also be smart and poor.
And even within countries, number of children tends to increase as you move down the economic ladder.
Now of course economics and intelligence are not particularly linked. Yes people with more money tend to have higher education and tend to perform better on IQ scores. But you can easily make the argument those discrepancies are the result of the environments a person grew up and the opportunities they had to learn, rather than an innate intelligence.
Which is the real issue IMO of this film. It's not that poor/stupid people have more children. It's that children of the poor/stupid are destined to be poor and stupid. Ignoring any ability for society to uplift it's lowest members.
I think that it has to do more with the fact that the prosperity isn't derived from having children AND you can plan for child birth; those 2 features leads to people that don't want kids (oopsie babies) and those that are struggling, don't.
The other piece that is not spoken about is HOW expensive raising a child is. 150 years ago, raising a child literally made you money (extra hands on the farm). TODAY, each child to go to college is expected to cost UPWARDS of 1.5 MILLION dollars, for them to do extracurricular, feeding, etc etc etc.
Hell on my first kids expenses for life, cost more than $25k, easily. (she isn't even 2 yet) That doesn't include the medical help needed to conceive nor the costs to my wife, bigger home to house, bigger vehicles for them to fit in, etc.
I think the bigger question is whether stupid people create stupid kids. Which I really don't think is the case. I know so many smart people who come from very dumb parents
I think the current state of research is that intelligence definitely has a genetic element, but that this interplays with environment. “Nature through nurture” stuff. Try Googling Robert Plomin.
I think the position that intelligence has _zero_ genetic element is not represented much in any research based community that uses empirical methods anymore.
Yup. Idiocracy also takes the idea that stupid people breed more to a ludicrous extreme, whereby people with like an IQ of less than 80 are all hooking up with each other and having 6+ kids and presumably, those around 100 and above barely have any. If such a scenario actually happened we probably would get idiocracy due to the heritability of IQ.
We really don't understand intelligence generally anyway.
Many "dumb" people are just ignorant. If given the same opportunities and disciplinary structures of others, they may be as intelligent as the "intelligent" people.
And there are plenty of super intelligent people who have children that are no where near as intelligent.
Not even to mention there are plenty of “dumb” smart people too. I know plenty of successful engineers, doctors, professors, etc that hold completely insane, outlandish beliefs outside whatever the professional field of study is. My parents both have multiple post graduate degrees and are at the top of each of their respective industries, but still end up falling for some facebook-shared conspiracy video every other week.
>Many "dumb" people are just ignorant. If given the same opportunities and disciplinary structures of others, they may be as intelligent as the "intelligent" people.
Which is just an example of lower intelligence because of environmental factors. This is well established. They're still dumb, just not because of genetics.
“The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins from four countries, a larger sample than all previous studies “
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/
One of many, many studies. Some show as high as 80+% heritability.
it's so weird too, like, height and skin colour are genetic but the most complex organ in the solar system? nah, completely random!
(and before anyone says "environmental factors", I'm sure they matter, even beyond just not being malnourished, but more than 20%? if it was we'd never hear the end of it, making foetuses listen to mozart in the womb wouldn't just be a joke)
I have been collecting the feces of highly intelligent and healthy people and transplanting it into my rectum. My gastro issues have definitely improved and I’m almost certain I am thinking more clearly and seem to be finding answers and solving problems more efficiently than I ever have. I noticeably “feel” smarter. It’s the shit!
If you want more info, read up on Henry Goddard and his “study” on the Kallikak family. It’s pseudoscience that lead to a major eugenics movement in America.
HUGE caveat that I’m not claiming “smart” has a causal relationship with socioeconomic status… but I’m willing to say there’s at least a correlation (polluted with all sorts of variables about opportunity, equity, etc).
And there’s plenty of data that talks about birth rates across that dimension, example:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Anecdotally, most of my friends (~10) are pretty bright and decent people that would make good if not great parents. 1 of those friends has kids. I think it's a combination of a lot of different factors but at the end of the day the responsible and considerate people seem to be having fewer offspring
Educated people wear protection and weigh their circumstances when deciding if it's the time to have a child.
Less educated people fuck with reckless abandon, partially due to living in areas that eliminate sex education from schools and partly because the education they received inadequately prepared them to weigh consequences of their actions before taking them. These areas also have a strong religious influence which puts significant negative pressure on people in considering contraception or abortion as options. None of these things stop people from having sex; and thus have more children, raised with fewer resources within the family to go aroubd, in the same area that their parents were raised with the same lack of educational resources and religious pressures governing their lives.
I feel like this was the highlight of the movie, and the rest felt like that had a great premise for an SNL sketch worth of material and spread it over 90 minutes.
I don’t think it’s proposing eugenics. It’s proposing a problem and you’re filling in the solution with “eugenics” on your own. But never in the runtime of the film does it ever suggest eugenics as a solution. In fact the film resolves with education being the solution.
But it posits the same cause of this fictional society's problem as eugenicists do, therefore giving credence to their ideas and validating their fears.
Just because eugenics is wrong, doesn't make the problem statement invalid.
I can't think of the last time I've seen a well-adjusted, highly educated, financially stable couple have more than two or mayyybe three kids.
The statement is invalid though. You're right that just because a eugenicist says something doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong (A literal Nazi can say "This sandwich is really tasty" after all), but in this case it is wrong actually.
Being highly educated and financially stable doesn't mean you're producing genius children. Neither of these things necessarily mean you're smart, even. And being poor/unstable doesn't mean you're stupid, or that you will produce stupid children. You could argue that rich kids get access to more resources which helps them learn, but that's not genetic. A rich family having 10 kids isn't making any difference in the gene pool.
Highly educated people in stable situations having fewer children is normal, and does not have anything to do with genetics or intelligence. People in unstable situations often have more children because the children can help the family by working, and because the children are more likely to die. Think of back in the old days- people would have a bunch of kids to help out on the farm, and then they'd get sick and the lack of available medical care would kill half of them. People in more stable situations do not have a need to produce a dozen little farm helpers, and they can put all their resources into raising a few kids instead of having as many as possible in the hopes that some will survive to adulthood.
But it's not a "problem" in the first place.
That's "great replacement" level of thinking. It's not valid for many reasons - and it posits that this inherently produces better children.
Lord knows if that were true the elite wouldn't be the way they are.
If you removed the opening of the movie then I don't think people would say this movie has eugenics over-tones.
However, the opening of the movie is making a pretty clear point showing that we are in this situation because stupid people have too many kids and dumb people are the voters who make the situation worst. In fact, it's underlined at the end where the smart guy has some kids where the dumb guy has 20 more kids, so nothing will actually improve.
Comedy isn't immune from this kind of critique. Even Mike Judge admitted that's not what they were going for, but it's what happens to be said in the film.
[This video basically covers this read](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2hlss6Y3kg) and I think it's an important point.
Idiocracy itself also has no actual evidence to support its central hypothesis of people getting dumber over time. In so far as we can even measure intelligence with things like IQ, people are - if anything - getting smarter over time. This generally tracks in my experience - and people who think the world is getting "dumber" might instead be falling to the dilemma where we grow up and learn that our parents and the world around us were just kind of figuring things out as they were going. That adults don't have all the answers, and that things are terrifyingly prone to failure and change in a way that seemed impossible if we were younger and grew up in a stable household/society.
Some folks instead assume that things have broadly changed for the worse - and that people are "dumber" than what they knew or what they were taught about the people we're supposed to venerate who built our nations and such. It takes a lot of critical thinking and revisiting past "truths" to recognize the partial truths and nuance beneath the surface.
I also believe this explains why some people get really caught into conspiracy theories... They're still stuck in a mindset of "people are capable of broadly controlling our systems" but instead assume the various failures are nefarious.
Fact is it takes all of our best efforts to kind of tread water, and brilliant people are not gods of design. Idiocracy does not care about representing reality as it is or could be. It's a cheap shot at the poors and a fictional future that validates Mike Judge's prejudices and fears.
> people are - if anything - getting smarter over time.
[We peaked a while back and are now getting dumber.](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/)
Should be noted that it was never a surefire conclusion that the Flynn effect described that people *actually* got smarter (though it would definitely make sense given such objective factors as increased quality of nutrition).
However, it is doubly unclear whether this "reversed flynn effect" means that people are actually getting dumber. For example, the researched quoted in this article is arguing that the drop in IQ can be explained by an increased focus on STEM subjects (I'm sure Reddit would love that explanation lmao)
Yes that’s a good point. I think this is all consistent with modern sociology discourse that IQ has an upper genetic bound, modulated by environmental factors. Denmark and Norway achieved relatively high living standards across social strata decades ago, so they eliminated the environmental component. All that’s left is the genetic component, which appears to have plateaued and may even be declining. This is not the case in America, with relatively high levels of material deprivation in many communities even today. I believe the Flynn effect continues as expected in poorer nations too, as their levels of material deprivation improve.
That's a bad summarization of that research, and I'm not even treating the "Flynn effect" as legitimate in the first place, which these authors also warn against. But at least that effect is looking at around a century's worth of data, and notes a general upward trend over that time.
This study looks at data across 12 years. 12 years is barely even a generational gap, and while a trend can indicate an increase, that does not mean every point between them is a straight line up.
I generally don't believe people get "smarter" or "dumber" on average since our tools to measure that need to be treated as seriously flawed in the first place, but intelligence dips from a peak - it's still higher than when first tested. The fact that there are these waves and valleys should cast doubt on the genetic argument as well, since genes don't change that fast societally - but social behavior does.
First of all, "a cheap shot at poors" is Mike Judge's bread and butter.
Second, the point of the movie isn't to say that the poors are taking over the world. The point of the movie is to say that indifference from average people is what shapes the world. This is taken to the extreme to say that if the average person is completely indifferent to society, society will decay. The cheap shot at the poors is the representation of that decay so to make the movie a comedy instead of a tragedy.
Why is that video implying that intelligence isn't hereditary? It has been consistently proven by science that intelligence is highly hereditary, and implying anything else is misinformation.
"Hereditary" has multiple meanings and implications. Genetics, in so far as we can even measure their impact, have a highly contested role and as research continues to explore the relationship it gets smaller with time. But to the point about "hereditary," People "inherit" intelligence in the same way they "inherit" degrees, people with means and access and who value certain aspects tend to promote the same in their kids and offer those same means. You can't genetically "inherit" a degree, yet degrees are highly heritable. What we often see as "inherited intelligence" is something that adopted children benefit from as well with no genetic relationship.
>It has been consistently proven by science that intelligence is highly hereditary, and implying anything else is misinformation.
It's really not, this is a bit of a half-truth at best. It's often used to validate very dangerous ideas - such as, well, eugenics. The fact that we have yet to even identify a clear relevant gene or combination of genes in this relationship despite *considerable* efforts to do so should be an indication. A lot of what people "know" is not much better than pseudo-science, as there is a lot of attention around the subject but also a lot of bad research surrounding it.
The more contemporary and critically engaged scientists investigate these relationships, the more it falls apart - and contemporary experts tend to agree that there is no broad spectrum intelligence in the first place. Many biologists trying to identify this connection essentially start and end their paper with "well we haven't found a clear biological relationship yet, but this novel approach may get us some better idea."
And if you want to go on about intelligence - your first instinct should be to critically think about *why* people would cast doubt on that relationship instead of immediately casting it out. This idea of biological intelligence is dated and your certainty in it shows a lack of familiarity with the science, not more.
Notice how this movie only uses poor people as their example of idiots. Education and wealth inequality lead to more significant changes in a populations iq than anything else. You can look towards nations industrializing for example. Also, it’s not like poor people are just now having more kids. Farmers have existed for millennia
Doesn't it feel a bit classist? As if poor people are more likely to be dumb and that people born in that situation can't come out of the cycle of poverty.
It’s one of those movies where I’m kind of suspect about people who think it’s some kind of super accurate take, or some elephant in the room style, truth about society.
And everyone who enjoys it, thinks it’s about everyone else - and not them.
It’s the movie equivalent of calling someone a snowflake.
Judge himself has been quoted saying he never thought this would be more than satire. What should be purely funny is now tinged with nihilistic inevitability.
Funny movie, I really enjoyed watching it back when it was released, especially the Costco part.
Also, it's always amusing seeing how it inevitably attracts a bunch of fucking idiots into comments section who don't even know the proper definition of "eugenics" (something that does not apply to this movie in any form).
If it's implied that too many stupid people had children, and the clearly implied solution to that problem is for non-stupid people to have more children, can you explain to me how that is not eugenics?
I'm not trying to bait you, I just understand that to be eugenics, and would like to hear a formulated counter argument.
Damn that guy is *definitely* one of those actors who I've seen in a million things, but none of which I could think of on the spot if I met him somewhere. *Hey! You're that guy, from the thing!*
He's the comedian from Mad Men
Utz are better than nutz!
One of the few characters to actually call Don out on his bullshit publicly.
Too bad he was also an asshole, which made it easy for Don to ignore everything he said. Common thing on Mad Men, for someone to call out Don, but in a way that mad them look like a jerk too so Don could ignore them (like when Freddy Crane called him out for his handsomeness privilege but after he himself said something stupid).
That dudes name was not Freddy Crane. You’re thinking of Harry Crane, who is also not Mathis.
It was a dumb joke. It's the same actor who played Frederick Crane on Frasier.
He was also in Hail, Caesar and Under the Silver Lake
That’s where I originally knew him from. Just saw him in an episode of curb.
David Lynch uses him in a lot of his projects.
Yeah I'll never be able to forget his role in Mulholland Drive just because of how much that shit scarred me
That scene is amazing, especially in the context of the true meaning (or at least common interpretation?) of the movie.
He’s super creepy on Happy! It’s like his perfect role.
He was fantastic in Happy. What a show!
> He’s super creepy on Happy! Thats a misnomer, really undersells the monster he is, one quote that stuck with me is when he skins someone and says: > "Now. You listen to me. I have removed all of the skin from your body. It is not a survivable condition. Fatal infection is inevitable if your heart doesn't shut down first, so, you see, I already have killed you. The question is; how long? The answer is; precisely as long as I require. You see, I am not some grinning idiot clown who's putting on a show for the YouTube crowd. I am a master craftsman. I will determine your time of death down to the hour, the minute, the second. So until then, and until precisely then... hang in there baby!"
Smoothie #1
Oh Smoothie.
[удалено]
Phil!
One of the major Others I remember cause he was just such a dick.
I will never be able to remember the guy's name but I sure as hell can at least place him in [one of my favorite jump scares](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UozhOo0Dt4o).
Such a great scene, you know exactly what is going to happen and it still scares the scrap out of me. Great buildup.
What is this from?
Mulholland Drive, one of David Lynch's best imo. Mindfuck of a director if you haven't heard of him. All his stuff is very dreamlike and surreal. Twin Peaks is probably his most accessible as it was a primetime mystery tv show (that confused the fuck out of everyone), while Eraserhead is closest to a fever dream in media form.
I remember the first time I saw that movie Mulholland Drive. I thought, what in the fuck did I just watch? So I bought the DVD, because that was the format style at the time. Then later on, I bought the blu-ray, when that became the style of the time. I still own both, for what it's worth.
I still don't fully understand that movie. I mean that in the best way.
There *is* an explanation that explains (almost) everything pretty well...but frankly, I think the movie's more enjoyable without it. I loved watching it for the raw, visceral emotions it evokes, and trying to draw my own conclusions about what it was actually saying. Looking shit up online and learning what was "really" going on, honestly not sure if that made it better or worse
Yeah, I decided against looking things up after I watched it because I just felt like David Lynch would be mad at me for doing so. So I didn't.
Don't forget the 4k Blu-ray!
Mulholland Drive, it's a David Lynch movie so be prepared for some mind fucks.
Mulholland Drive, David Lynch movie
He plays A. Elliott Stemple on Suits.
The replies really proved your point.
He was the assistant to the dean in the movie Old School with Will Ferrell.
Cheese! Didn't we lock you in a dumpster one time?
“Cheeeeeseee” “No no I don’t go by that anymore”
I got out
He was great in Silicon Valley.
His episode in Barry was hilarious. https://youtu.be/17rFOB_EIUQ?si=ev3rTcecPWNy31xG
My favorite thing they did with Lon is that his thing throughout the whole show up until this point was Skittles. He always had his skittles. Moss had him so thoroughly turned around he even changed his favorite candy. Poor Lon. His only mistake was being too good at his job. Barry is such a great show. 10/10, everybody should watch it once at least
Mickey Cohen in LA Noire.
He has an excellent scene in David Lynch's Mulholland Dr.
What was that movie even about?!?!
yes.
The Casting Couch - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiCfHW3N3vo
Patrick Fischler
He was also in "Lost"
He was in Suits as Harvey's Arch nemesis,
Patrick Fischler looks so much like Tyler Hoechlin to me.
He was on burn notice too, as one of westins clients
He played A. Elliot Stemple on Suits
he's the guy who that thing happened to in Mulholland Drive
Patrick Fischler
Twin Peaks!!! The Return!
He looks like the happy version of Joaquin Phoenix.
No joke, his twitter profile is "You probably recognize me as that guy from that thing, so I hope it's one of the good ones"
I'm pretty sure I saw him in Toronto and that was my exact reaction (I didn't approach him, just couldn't place him for the life of me)
He had a recurring role in Suits and that was filmed in TO, so you're likely correct.
[удалено]
I would have sworn it was more than that too. Maybe he is uncredited in those episodes where he only has a few scenes?
Welcome to Costco, I love you
This and the BASEketball opening scene had me right from the start in a way no other film has.
baseketball intro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1-QAF8gLy0
This movie made me realize there are no lakes in LA. Minneapolis made so much more sense. Never been to Utah but I have to assume it’s the Jazz capital of the US.
the riish dance TD celebration goes ham though
Thanks for this, it's been so long! The similarities between the intros are super interesting, especially when I realized BASEketball came out almost a decade before Idiocracy.
forgot all about that. its been too many years since i've seen it.
I don’t have your fuckin ball!
Bate’n!
"My first wife was tarded. She's a pilot now."
I think at this point Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho is probably our best option for President.
He realized that there was someone much better suited for the job and willingly and eagerly gave up the job to that person. Can you imagine any current politicians doing that?
That's because the central premise of idiocracy is flawed. Our problem isn't stupidity it's greed, corruption, hate, and willful ignorance. And yes, stupidity as a biproduct of all those things. In the movie they salt their fields because it is good for a corporates profits but when someone tells them that's killing their food they stop, they even stick with it after it crashes their economy once they see it brings food back.
> Our problem isn't stupidity it's greed This - literally everything that's wrong in and with the US descends from this. The corruption, the hate, the willful ignorance, the institutionalized racism, the punishments for poverty, all of it descends from or is a direct consequence of greed. Forget coffee, America *runs* on greed.
I mean, Biden DID use scientists to create his green new deal.
If Trump were not running, I don't think Biden would be either. He's only running to keep Trump out.
He’s “said” that. I put it in quotes because I haven’t seen/read/heard him directly say it. However, there are reliable journalistic sources that say he doesn’t WANT to be president, he simply knows it’s his duty to protect democracy. He’s not perfect but he is actually a fairly good president. And regardless of your political beliefs, he does want to see a better America. Some shitty, or presidents I vehemently disagree with, have also wanted to see a better America. And I can respect that. Trump on the other hand is only running for himself.
I think the Democratic Party might have forced him out, if they could muster a better candidate-pair to oppose Trump, but personally I'm pretty sure Biden is happy to hold the highest office in the land, a dream of his for many cent... decades. The Democratic Party is not going to take risks on this one. There aren't many better counters to a populist Republican threat, than an old "by the book" Blue politician, and his youthful dark-skinned progressive running mate.
Yeah but those are liberal scientists that believe in climate change and vaccines. How can you trust their plan with that track record
I hate that I live in a world where it isn't immediately clear that this is sarcasm.
Camacho would be a lot better than Trump, that's for sure. Camacho wasn't a criminal, wasn't a insurrectionist, wasn't a rapist, didn't have severe psycological issues that prevented him from listening to people smarter than himself, and was capable of empathy -- for starters.
If Biden loses, we'll get what we deserve. It's such an absolute no-brainer. His admin has been such a resounding success and people are ready to vote for Trump because their Big Macs are too expensive and he didnt solve middle east peace over the winter.
People say he reminds them of Trump Presidency, but president Camacho turned to a smarter person to help solve a crisis. Trump objectively did not and then used the smarter people in his administration as scapegoats.
Classic movie. Unfortunately, too optimistic.
I just commented yesterday that someone should remake this film but remove all comedic elements. Like a torture porn flick, just show the reality of that world in the most base, cold way possible.
That's pretty much Don't Look Up. As a further twist, it was written pre-covid, even though it came out after.
It's pretty much reality.
So, a suicide flick.
might as well make a it a documentary, like Collapse
Jordan Klepper has a bunch of footage already that can be used for this
They should just make the 'Kicked in the Balls' movie, I'm sure it'd be a hit.
It's no "Football In The Groin". But that had Hans Moleman, so it would be unfair to compare them.
Don't forget the academy award winning "ASS".
The most unrealistic part is that the machine that said he was the smartest among them was trusted enough that he was put in charge. Idiocy goes along with ignorance so this would never happen. They'd just dismiss the machine as broken and reject reality.
That's a good catch, but as a counterpoint, remember when he switches to water and the CEO says, "the computer did that layoff thing" - apparently, their ancestors had automated many systems, and those systems continue to function. There's also the roomba in the hospital that repeats "your floor is now clean" - indicating that there are other roombas (and other robots) that haven't yet broken down. To me, it makes sense that there might have been a computerized aptitude testing and job placement program created centuries ago that is still running, and still blindly followed.
But they’re also so stupid to believe whatever form of authority tells them. The computer was designed by smart guys, so it must be right. No one in that world has to make a decision for themselves.
People really only obey authority as long as it aligns with their worldview. Doesn't matter what the "smart guys" do or say if the "smart guys" don't agree that Brawndo has what plants crave.
> People really only obey authority as long as it aligns with their worldview Ever heard of the Milgram experiment?
Yup. When people believe what they are doing is for a greater good (the good of science, in the case of Milgram experiments) they pretty much blindly follow "orders." I would recommend looking into subsequent studies though, where the subjects aren't aware they're in an educational setting. Those ones see a much, much lower obedience rate than the original Milgram experiment and (in my opinion) more closely align with how people actually operate. Subsequent studies show that in the absence of a belief of what they're doing is for a greater good that people will pretty much never blindly follow an order. The Milgrim experiments are heavily criticized for the fact that pretty much none of their subjects believed a Yale experiment was willing to administer lethal shocks to volunteers on top of repeatedly prodding them to up the voltage should they protest.
Realistically all of these machines would be broken with nobody smart enough to fix them. Unless there's a completely autonomous self-repair system.
People make this joke way too often. The average person is more intelligent than 100 years ago and the average IQ is actually increasing. Intelligence isn’t going to be the downfall of society, it will be greed.
Reality is literally the opposite of this video, people are getting smarter with time, not dumber. It's called the Flynn Effect. And tbh this logic is inherently eugenical and evil, if "dumb people" having kids is widely seen as a problem then the obvious and only solution for that is to stop "dumb people" from having kids, which is Nazi shit.
People pick apart this movie like it's a Nat Geo documentary. It's a light hearted comedy that holds a mirror to society. It's over the top and not supposed to be realistic. It only strikes a cord because deep down people fear how we are progressing and where we will end up. But think about any point in human history, this story would have held up - we have always feared the next generation is a bunch of morons *bred* by a bunch of morons... Which is kind of true. Edit: I used bread instead of bred. FWIW, autocorrect is trying to change it back even after it was corrected.
>People pick apart this movie like it's a Nat Geo documentary. It's funny you say this because the comment thread above you (as least in the order I was shown) was literally people saying that this movie should be remade as a documentary by just removing comedic elements.
and the thing is, then that documentary would be plainly about eugenics. for all the picking apart they do they kind of miss the main reason why it shouldn't be taken serious. at least i hope they miss it...
People pick the movie apart because a substantial number of people do treat it like it might as well be a nat geo documentary.
The issue is that when people treat it like a documentary, they inevitably go "THEN MAYBE WE SHOULD HAVE THE SMART PEOPLE TO HAVE MORE BABIES AND FORCE THE DUMB PEOPLE TO HAVE LESS BABIES" and... that's just eugenics If we *really* want to prevent this future from happening, we need to stop giving corporations power over us. To listen to others when they give advice, instead of immediately discarding it. To improve our educational systems.
Well, eugenics is what the movie suggests as the solution. That's why I think this movie kind of sucks.
from what's shown in the clip, it - thinks genetics have way more effect on intelligence than they do - implies that socially acceptable forms of success are based on intelligence - uses IQ to measure this intelligence which are like the first three steps in the eugenics handbook
I remember when I first watched this, I thought it was funny. The premise is rooted in *some* logic (in the same way that a magic system in a fantasy world can be rooted in a kind of internal logic, despite not being real), and it's taken to a comical extreme. I thought it should be obvious to anyone watching this that it's a funny movie based on a silly premise that wouldn't hold true in real life. Like we know the cartoon character won't die when you drop something on their head, which is what makes it funny when the piano falls on them and they walk away crunched up like an accordion or whatever. I figured that's what the movie was trying to do. Kinda ruined the whole thing for me when I saw people taking it seriously, and calling for eugenics in response.
Yep. As a comedy, it's great, when you look a little deeper there's some serious thought provoking messages, and when you dig even deeper it's, oh, it's eugenics, oh no.
The movie doesn't really suggest that a solution at all. It just points out that it's possible that society is actively selecting against intelligence. It doesn't say "the answer to this is to actively control who people get to breed with". In fact it's not exactly subtle, the movie explicitly states that high achieving professionals are putting their careers above their desire to have children because of the current economic situation. So why do you think the answer the movie is promoting eugenics? Instead of like, fixing the preconditions that prevented the high achieving people from having children in the first place?
Eugenics isn't just about restricting breeding. It's also about the idea that some groups and their genetics are inferior to others, including the false idea that smart people have smart babies and dumb people have dumb babies.
IQ is hereditary.
There are literally people in this comment section calling it a documentary. You don’t even need to scroll 5 comments down.
That’s a crumby take on life. 🥖
>the next generation is a bunch of morons bread by a bunch of morons... Which is kind of true. Bred. The morons aren't making sourdough.
They might be made of something sour, though.
> Edit: I used bread instead of bred. You also used cord instead of chord.
Bread instead of bred and cord instead of chord...
Man, I could like, really go for a Starbucks, you know?
Only the extremely greedy and extremely dumb are having kids.
Is there any scholarly research that corroborates the hypothesis that smart people breed less?
There is a global trend that as a society gets to a point of prosperity, the birth rate declines. Developing countries tend to have higher birth rates. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_and_fertility#:~:text=In%20developed%20countries%20where%20birth,rather%20than%20their%20continued%20career. It's less about education and more about resources. You can be rich and dumb. You can also be smart and poor.
And even within countries, number of children tends to increase as you move down the economic ladder. Now of course economics and intelligence are not particularly linked. Yes people with more money tend to have higher education and tend to perform better on IQ scores. But you can easily make the argument those discrepancies are the result of the environments a person grew up and the opportunities they had to learn, rather than an innate intelligence. Which is the real issue IMO of this film. It's not that poor/stupid people have more children. It's that children of the poor/stupid are destined to be poor and stupid. Ignoring any ability for society to uplift it's lowest members.
I think that it has to do more with the fact that the prosperity isn't derived from having children AND you can plan for child birth; those 2 features leads to people that don't want kids (oopsie babies) and those that are struggling, don't. The other piece that is not spoken about is HOW expensive raising a child is. 150 years ago, raising a child literally made you money (extra hands on the farm). TODAY, each child to go to college is expected to cost UPWARDS of 1.5 MILLION dollars, for them to do extracurricular, feeding, etc etc etc. Hell on my first kids expenses for life, cost more than $25k, easily. (she isn't even 2 yet) That doesn't include the medical help needed to conceive nor the costs to my wife, bigger home to house, bigger vehicles for them to fit in, etc.
I think the bigger question is whether stupid people create stupid kids. Which I really don't think is the case. I know so many smart people who come from very dumb parents
I think the current state of research is that intelligence definitely has a genetic element, but that this interplays with environment. “Nature through nurture” stuff. Try Googling Robert Plomin. I think the position that intelligence has _zero_ genetic element is not represented much in any research based community that uses empirical methods anymore.
Yup. Idiocracy also takes the idea that stupid people breed more to a ludicrous extreme, whereby people with like an IQ of less than 80 are all hooking up with each other and having 6+ kids and presumably, those around 100 and above barely have any. If such a scenario actually happened we probably would get idiocracy due to the heritability of IQ.
We really don't understand intelligence generally anyway. Many "dumb" people are just ignorant. If given the same opportunities and disciplinary structures of others, they may be as intelligent as the "intelligent" people. And there are plenty of super intelligent people who have children that are no where near as intelligent.
Not even to mention there are plenty of “dumb” smart people too. I know plenty of successful engineers, doctors, professors, etc that hold completely insane, outlandish beliefs outside whatever the professional field of study is. My parents both have multiple post graduate degrees and are at the top of each of their respective industries, but still end up falling for some facebook-shared conspiracy video every other week.
>Many "dumb" people are just ignorant. If given the same opportunities and disciplinary structures of others, they may be as intelligent as the "intelligent" people. Which is just an example of lower intelligence because of environmental factors. This is well established. They're still dumb, just not because of genetics.
“The heritability of general cognitive ability increases significantly and linearly from 41% in childhood (9 years) to 55% in adolescence (12 years) and to 66% in young adulthood (17 years) in a sample of 11 000 pairs of twins from four countries, a larger sample than all previous studies “ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2889158/ One of many, many studies. Some show as high as 80+% heritability.
A lot of people on reddit really, really need to believe this isn't true. Their entire worldview depends on it.
it's so weird too, like, height and skin colour are genetic but the most complex organ in the solar system? nah, completely random! (and before anyone says "environmental factors", I'm sure they matter, even beyond just not being malnourished, but more than 20%? if it was we'd never hear the end of it, making foetuses listen to mozart in the womb wouldn't just be a joke)
Smart children can be born from unhinged uneducated parents
that's irrelevant if the probability of this happening is way smaller than dumb children being born from dumb parents
Intelligence is very heritable.
[удалено]
I have been collecting the feces of highly intelligent and healthy people and transplanting it into my rectum. My gastro issues have definitely improved and I’m almost certain I am thinking more clearly and seem to be finding answers and solving problems more efficiently than I ever have. I noticeably “feel” smarter. It’s the shit!
smart ass
If you want more info, read up on Henry Goddard and his “study” on the Kallikak family. It’s pseudoscience that lead to a major eugenics movement in America.
HUGE caveat that I’m not claiming “smart” has a causal relationship with socioeconomic status… but I’m willing to say there’s at least a correlation (polluted with all sorts of variables about opportunity, equity, etc). And there’s plenty of data that talks about birth rates across that dimension, example: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/
Anecdotally, most of my friends (~10) are pretty bright and decent people that would make good if not great parents. 1 of those friends has kids. I think it's a combination of a lot of different factors but at the end of the day the responsible and considerate people seem to be having fewer offspring
Educated people wear protection and weigh their circumstances when deciding if it's the time to have a child. Less educated people fuck with reckless abandon, partially due to living in areas that eliminate sex education from schools and partly because the education they received inadequately prepared them to weigh consequences of their actions before taking them. These areas also have a strong religious influence which puts significant negative pressure on people in considering contraception or abortion as options. None of these things stop people from having sex; and thus have more children, raised with fewer resources within the family to go aroubd, in the same area that their parents were raised with the same lack of educational resources and religious pressures governing their lives.
Wiki has a summary here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
[Yes.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0049089X14001276?via%3Dihub)
[Lots.](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160289607000244) It is a well-established fact.
Declining birth rates across developed nations?
I feel like this was the highlight of the movie, and the rest felt like that had a great premise for an SNL sketch worth of material and spread it over 90 minutes.
[удалено]
A few more highlights: * Oi my balls * Starbucks gives handjobs * His lawyer got his law degree from Costco
Agreed, it had some moments but the execution didn’t quite land. Like a bunch of skits strung together
Yay, diet eugenics!
I don’t think it’s proposing eugenics. It’s proposing a problem and you’re filling in the solution with “eugenics” on your own. But never in the runtime of the film does it ever suggest eugenics as a solution. In fact the film resolves with education being the solution.
But it posits the same cause of this fictional society's problem as eugenicists do, therefore giving credence to their ideas and validating their fears.
Just because eugenics is wrong, doesn't make the problem statement invalid. I can't think of the last time I've seen a well-adjusted, highly educated, financially stable couple have more than two or mayyybe three kids.
The statement is invalid though. You're right that just because a eugenicist says something doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong (A literal Nazi can say "This sandwich is really tasty" after all), but in this case it is wrong actually. Being highly educated and financially stable doesn't mean you're producing genius children. Neither of these things necessarily mean you're smart, even. And being poor/unstable doesn't mean you're stupid, or that you will produce stupid children. You could argue that rich kids get access to more resources which helps them learn, but that's not genetic. A rich family having 10 kids isn't making any difference in the gene pool. Highly educated people in stable situations having fewer children is normal, and does not have anything to do with genetics or intelligence. People in unstable situations often have more children because the children can help the family by working, and because the children are more likely to die. Think of back in the old days- people would have a bunch of kids to help out on the farm, and then they'd get sick and the lack of available medical care would kill half of them. People in more stable situations do not have a need to produce a dozen little farm helpers, and they can put all their resources into raising a few kids instead of having as many as possible in the hopes that some will survive to adulthood.
But it's not a "problem" in the first place. That's "great replacement" level of thinking. It's not valid for many reasons - and it posits that this inherently produces better children. Lord knows if that were true the elite wouldn't be the way they are.
If you removed the opening of the movie then I don't think people would say this movie has eugenics over-tones. However, the opening of the movie is making a pretty clear point showing that we are in this situation because stupid people have too many kids and dumb people are the voters who make the situation worst. In fact, it's underlined at the end where the smart guy has some kids where the dumb guy has 20 more kids, so nothing will actually improve. Comedy isn't immune from this kind of critique. Even Mike Judge admitted that's not what they were going for, but it's what happens to be said in the film.
[This video basically covers this read](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_2hlss6Y3kg) and I think it's an important point. Idiocracy itself also has no actual evidence to support its central hypothesis of people getting dumber over time. In so far as we can even measure intelligence with things like IQ, people are - if anything - getting smarter over time. This generally tracks in my experience - and people who think the world is getting "dumber" might instead be falling to the dilemma where we grow up and learn that our parents and the world around us were just kind of figuring things out as they were going. That adults don't have all the answers, and that things are terrifyingly prone to failure and change in a way that seemed impossible if we were younger and grew up in a stable household/society. Some folks instead assume that things have broadly changed for the worse - and that people are "dumber" than what they knew or what they were taught about the people we're supposed to venerate who built our nations and such. It takes a lot of critical thinking and revisiting past "truths" to recognize the partial truths and nuance beneath the surface. I also believe this explains why some people get really caught into conspiracy theories... They're still stuck in a mindset of "people are capable of broadly controlling our systems" but instead assume the various failures are nefarious. Fact is it takes all of our best efforts to kind of tread water, and brilliant people are not gods of design. Idiocracy does not care about representing reality as it is or could be. It's a cheap shot at the poors and a fictional future that validates Mike Judge's prejudices and fears.
> people are - if anything - getting smarter over time. [We peaked a while back and are now getting dumber.](https://www.popularmechanics.com/science/a43469569/american-iq-scores-decline-reverse-flynn-effect/)
Should be noted that it was never a surefire conclusion that the Flynn effect described that people *actually* got smarter (though it would definitely make sense given such objective factors as increased quality of nutrition). However, it is doubly unclear whether this "reversed flynn effect" means that people are actually getting dumber. For example, the researched quoted in this article is arguing that the drop in IQ can be explained by an increased focus on STEM subjects (I'm sure Reddit would love that explanation lmao)
Yes that’s a good point. I think this is all consistent with modern sociology discourse that IQ has an upper genetic bound, modulated by environmental factors. Denmark and Norway achieved relatively high living standards across social strata decades ago, so they eliminated the environmental component. All that’s left is the genetic component, which appears to have plateaued and may even be declining. This is not the case in America, with relatively high levels of material deprivation in many communities even today. I believe the Flynn effect continues as expected in poorer nations too, as their levels of material deprivation improve.
That's a bad summarization of that research, and I'm not even treating the "Flynn effect" as legitimate in the first place, which these authors also warn against. But at least that effect is looking at around a century's worth of data, and notes a general upward trend over that time. This study looks at data across 12 years. 12 years is barely even a generational gap, and while a trend can indicate an increase, that does not mean every point between them is a straight line up. I generally don't believe people get "smarter" or "dumber" on average since our tools to measure that need to be treated as seriously flawed in the first place, but intelligence dips from a peak - it's still higher than when first tested. The fact that there are these waves and valleys should cast doubt on the genetic argument as well, since genes don't change that fast societally - but social behavior does.
First of all, "a cheap shot at poors" is Mike Judge's bread and butter. Second, the point of the movie isn't to say that the poors are taking over the world. The point of the movie is to say that indifference from average people is what shapes the world. This is taken to the extreme to say that if the average person is completely indifferent to society, society will decay. The cheap shot at the poors is the representation of that decay so to make the movie a comedy instead of a tragedy.
Why is that video implying that intelligence isn't hereditary? It has been consistently proven by science that intelligence is highly hereditary, and implying anything else is misinformation.
"Hereditary" has multiple meanings and implications. Genetics, in so far as we can even measure their impact, have a highly contested role and as research continues to explore the relationship it gets smaller with time. But to the point about "hereditary," People "inherit" intelligence in the same way they "inherit" degrees, people with means and access and who value certain aspects tend to promote the same in their kids and offer those same means. You can't genetically "inherit" a degree, yet degrees are highly heritable. What we often see as "inherited intelligence" is something that adopted children benefit from as well with no genetic relationship. >It has been consistently proven by science that intelligence is highly hereditary, and implying anything else is misinformation. It's really not, this is a bit of a half-truth at best. It's often used to validate very dangerous ideas - such as, well, eugenics. The fact that we have yet to even identify a clear relevant gene or combination of genes in this relationship despite *considerable* efforts to do so should be an indication. A lot of what people "know" is not much better than pseudo-science, as there is a lot of attention around the subject but also a lot of bad research surrounding it. The more contemporary and critically engaged scientists investigate these relationships, the more it falls apart - and contemporary experts tend to agree that there is no broad spectrum intelligence in the first place. Many biologists trying to identify this connection essentially start and end their paper with "well we haven't found a clear biological relationship yet, but this novel approach may get us some better idea." And if you want to go on about intelligence - your first instinct should be to critically think about *why* people would cast doubt on that relationship instead of immediately casting it out. This idea of biological intelligence is dated and your certainty in it shows a lack of familiarity with the science, not more.
Notice how this movie only uses poor people as their example of idiots. Education and wealth inequality lead to more significant changes in a populations iq than anything else. You can look towards nations industrializing for example. Also, it’s not like poor people are just now having more kids. Farmers have existed for millennia
You’re thinking about it too hard. Broad satire.
tell that to the people calling the movie a documentary
Mike Judge is not responsible for idiots interpreting his movie in a way he never intended.
I hope you say the same to everyone who suggests it has anything similar to our reality.
Doesn't it feel a bit classist? As if poor people are more likely to be dumb and that people born in that situation can't come out of the cycle of poverty.
It’s one of those movies where I’m kind of suspect about people who think it’s some kind of super accurate take, or some elephant in the room style, truth about society. And everyone who enjoys it, thinks it’s about everyone else - and not them. It’s the movie equivalent of calling someone a snowflake.
Poor people turn recieve less education through no fault of their own, is that a more comfortable way of wording it?
Smoothie didn't have a heart attack masturbating. His fate was far more infamous than that.
We don’t have time for a hand job Joe!
Still my favorite opening scene, ever. A close second would be Inglorious Basterds, for completely different reasons.
I really need to watch this movie one of these days.
I’m feeling this opening montage for real except my fiancé was actively sabotaging the IVF I’m still paying for.
This is back on HULU right now. Literally watched the first 2/3 like 2 hours ago.
a wise man once said: I’ve been around the world and found that only stupid people are breeding.
"In *this* economy?"
wow
going through a divorce, the fact we never had kids is the biggest relief
🤣👍 good movie
Judge himself has been quoted saying he never thought this would be more than satire. What should be purely funny is now tinged with nihilistic inevitability.
Remember when they predicted Trump winning the White House and you were watching the movie like, "Things will never get THAT bad."
Then measles came back.
Funny movie, I really enjoyed watching it back when it was released, especially the Costco part. Also, it's always amusing seeing how it inevitably attracts a bunch of fucking idiots into comments section who don't even know the proper definition of "eugenics" (something that does not apply to this movie in any form).
If it's implied that too many stupid people had children, and the clearly implied solution to that problem is for non-stupid people to have more children, can you explain to me how that is not eugenics? I'm not trying to bait you, I just understand that to be eugenics, and would like to hear a formulated counter argument.
That’s a great documentary.
Only movie to change genre over time, from a comedy into a horror.