OVERDOING SCIENCE

The plot revolved around what every scientist in the world is doing – overdoing science.  Andre Delambre did just that by trying to play the role of a supreme and all-powerful being.  In the movie, he created a machine that would enable teleportation possible by breaking objects (and even living things) into atoms, then transferring it (or them) to another place.  However, as other science discoveries and inventions predicted, some misfortunes were encountered along the way.  As Delambre tried to transport himself, a fly got into the apparatus, enabling the machine to mix up their atoms.  This led to Delambre becoming half-human and half-fly.

Coming from a school that specializes in science and technology, I have always asked myself if there is such a thing as overdoing science.  Should there be a limit to science?  Should science stop doing, creating and discovering things for the sake of human and morality? Should morality be taken into consideration in science?  In the movie, these are the questions I have found myself asking after watching.

In my opinion, there is such a thing as a limit for science.  Just because something is possible, it does not necessarily make it right.  The fact that people are trying so hard to have the characteristics of an all-powerful being makes it all wrong (for me, at least).  I think there is a fine line between what should be done and what could be done.  What could be is not necessarily what should be.  I believe that there are things that should be left undone to enable the world to function naturally, as it is.  For me, there is such a thing, as a God and that no one could ever equal his omnipotence – not even the smartest and strongest human being. 

In the movie’s ending, Delambre realized the effects of his ambitions (in the present) to his could-have been bright future as one of the greatest scientist of all time.  We’ve always been told to dream higher and to achieve the impossible, however, I still believe that there are some things that ambitions could not do.   

Kris Jeruta
2011-41018

Old, Weird, Disgusting, Creepy, Unrealistic.... EPIC!

I was very much entertained by the film and I found it very interesting how concepts such as teleportation and gene manipulation could be present in movies early this age. However, I'm also quite sure though that many people won't appreciate the film very much since it may come off as too unrealistic or overwhelmingly gross.

That moment when the whole audience screams... It's priceless! :))

The film also tackles the consequences of the misuse of science when ethics are not followed. Being set in the 1950's it's no surprise how the scientist in the film made such rash and unethical decisions due to the lack of a supervising "ethics group" to limit his work. In a way, one could say that the film is a morality play because it shows the consequences of "playing God" and putting ones own goals over other people's.

The movie really showed how ingenious people could be during that time. After all, it's sci-fi movies like these that bring about new concepts and technology that could be made possible in the future.

Strangely, I have to say that I really liked this film even though it had a lot of loopholes, and some "stupid" scenarios. The imperfectness of this movie is what made this film so perfect. This Sci-Fi film is one of the first of it's kind making it so much more special. I really thought that the lack technology and refinements to make this film made it look eerie, sinister and different (in a good way) compared to movies you see now a days. I really do recommend that people watch this just for laughs (unless you hate disgusting images). Old, weird, disgusting, creepy, unrealistic call it whatever you want, cause I think this is EPIC!

Weird but good

I think that the movie was good considering it was made from way back. Though it did not have much effects, you can’t blame them because of the limited technology that was offered at that time. The film is very classic, I mean the acting, clothing, lightings and all. Watching classic films is amusing. For me the movie was interesting and weird at the same time. It is weird because of all the possible animals they chose something very inferior although this may suggest or symbolize something. The plot was very interesting although it was somewhat predictable at times. I think that the movie was interesting in general. Specially the parts where Andre is fighting the fly within himself. For me, the film has strong points against the misuse of Science. It is not against Science as a whole but in the misuse of it. I would consider it as a morality play because the movie speaks of the classic “playing-god” and the consequences with it. They view Science and Technology like it is good but bad if misused with grave consequences.

Little Mistakes

The Fly (1956) is the oldest version of a movie and the oldest movie I've ever watched. What made me keep on watching was its loopholes like how come the device never mixed up the cat, the milk and its container. How come only the fly and the man got mixed up? But oh, come on! It's fiction so let it be. Like action movies defying the Laws of Physics (think Mission: Impossible movies and Lito Lapid's epic splitting of a bullet using a knife), or even the common sense (think of Da King, FPJ taking down around 80 people with just one hand gun and only one magazine), just let it be. Those impossibru moments in the movies actually serve as spices. They got your attention, right? The characters do stupid things (Yeah, I hate the scientist's wife because she can't catch the fly. She should've just let her son do it.) but those stupid things of the characters were needed to complicate and twist the story, making the movies longer and inducing gigil to the audience. That's why many of us were screaming and holding on tight to our seats and/or to our classmates.

Speaking of attention, I recall that was the problem of the scientist in the movie. He was too focused on testing his machine that he forgot to pay attention to his surroundings. He didn't notice that a fly entered with him. Hence, The Fly. That little mistake reminded me of the mistakes I usually make in my own life. Those little mistakes turned out to be the ones that drew the line between success (or better yet, passing) and failure. Lesson learned, paying attention to little details can save you because big problems can erupt from small mistakes we don't always pay attention to.

Reaction Paper: The Fly

by John Jason B. Santillan

     2013-03535

Realistically, I think that the film won't be greatly appreciated by a twenty-first century audience because the elements of 'The Fly' have been overused and exhausted by hundreds of movies already. The movie also suffers from a lack of creativity, a so-so character interaction, a predictable plot and a lack of real-world scientific grounding which would make any viewer question its believability. On the contrary, If I'm going to watch it at the time it was released, I think it would have been a pretty entertaining film. The film tries to tackle a controversial question; to what extent can we manipulate the laws of nature and physics? This was a very relevant debate considering the plight of technology and the trend of more flexible moral standards at that time in the 1900s.

It was a commentary on the grey areas in which science and morality intersect. The message that it brings forth is that science is intertwined with the moral fabric; meaning, science is still under the jurisdiction of morality. I think it wasn't much of a morality play because it lacked a discussion on morality per se. The film focused more on the repercussions of breaking the moral code, e.g. mutation after a failed experiment. The problem with this is that it assumes that the moral stance of not playing the role of God is true by default without extensively proving its validity.

In conclusion, I genuinely think ‘The Fly’ was good attempt at breaking new ground. However, like any other movies, it compromised a huge chunk of valuable substance for the sake of theatricality and commercial appeal. 

UGH.

NOOO. The picture above really made me ick when watching the movie. The man with a head as a fly is tolerable but a freaking close up of a spider is a big NO. Anyway, the movie was really weird. A scientist that gets to have a head just like a fly is a cool concept. I do not even know if it is even possible but hey it is Sci-Fi Movie! The idea is great when you think about it. And in my opinion, the lesser the special effects made it realistic as compare to a movie that relies too much on effects. And I can't believe its a 1958 film!

Anyway, it is actually a great film to watch not to mention its a film where people scream just when the stars of the film is about to kiss. Mainly because the guy has a fly-head :) I heard it got a 93% rating at Rotten Tomatoes!

Playing GOD

by: Maria Angelica Pinon (2009-27411)

The film The Fly was a very interesting movie. It was partly amusing and intriguing. It really caught my attention by the point in the movie where the wife admitted the crime but can only answer with "I cannot answer your question". The movie was several decades old so the style at first I thought it was boring. Yeah I liked the wife's dresses but it did not seem so interesting at first, the dialogue seems draggy and the way of talking and acting seems off to me since it was from a different time. Then I became curious as the flashback starts.

The title of this post is from one of the lines of the wife. Something along the lines of: the speed of progress in technology her husband is doing is kind of scary, that it just isn't natural and it is being arrogant and an attempt to play as god. At the point I kind of had an idea why the husband would be killed. It feels as if the husband cannot be satisfied with what he had achieved. Well to be fair if it was me I would love to perfect it as well, but he probably should have perfected the tests on animals first (but that was not acceptable according to the wife and probably the society). It did feel like it is a morality play due to the wife's words. Even at the end when she starts considering the disfigured husband as more of a thing than a human being so it cannot be considered as murder.

I guess that's how the society feels about scientist at that time. They probably felt that they were being arrogant and they are to blame for the harm that they may cause themselves. They did not show any good resulting from technology, even the hydraulic press was used as a murder weapon as they seem to really inspire fear for technology and advancing. But the film did end with the words that the job of Andre' as scientist is to search for the truth which is beneficial to humankind.



Random thoughts during the movie:
When I watch Sci-fi films I had too many questions that would probably make the plot unusable. First how is it the the disintegrator-integrator (teleportation device) capable of not mixing the ice, the wine, the glass the container etc. but would mix two living organisms. How come the husband can still think and act as human when he has the head of the fly and probably it's brain as well, or did the brain mutate? The fly has the head of the husband and probably the brain to be able to know that it should shout "help me" to ask for assistance to be saved from the spider, or did it just mimic blindly? ? ? Why was the wife adamant on catching the fly with her own hands, if she had let her son (who is more capable and used to catching flies than her) problem would be solved. Why did he used himself as a part of the experiment when it was not tried as much with other species. He is the brain behind the project he should have tried it at least with other humans so if something goes wrong (and it did go wrong) he would be the one who can try and fix it. Why give up after two mere days? If the wife had presented the machine, just use objects to teleport, they probably would gain much for the patent, then they can probably use it to fund ways to catch the white fly or find a way to himself without the fly probably...

Catching Fire Left Me Breathless

Catching Fire, a cliff-hanger sequel of the dystopian novel-slash-movie or transmedia narrative, Hunger Games, was a story I enjoyed and loved reading and watching. Just like the book, its movie was full of action (especially when Katniss and Peeta were already in the arena for the second time, of course), sprinkled with just the right amount of kisses and necessary talk. In fact, I was literally at the edge of my seat while watching, my muscles tensed up most of the time.

Maybe it was the high technology of Panem (especially in their Capitol) that locked my eyes on the screen and caused me to tense up and stay at the edge of my seat as I've mentioned earlier. Or maybe it was the fighting strategies of Katniss, Joanna, Finnick and the other victors when they entered the arena once again, for the 75^th anniversary of the Hunger Games, called the Quarter Quell, thanks to President Snow and the new Head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbeejust to prove that the Capitol cannot be defeated even by the strongest of people. I was also thinking that I was left breathless by the genius of Wiress and Beetee, also known as Nuts and Bolts as they pointed out the flaws of Panem technology like how the force field can be seen and how they helped Katniss figure out the shape and clockwork of the arena and the tricks of the game. I really like that smart duo!

Another thing that I learned from Wiress and Beetee was that even the most advanced technology has its flaws. It was high technology and it was amazing, but it was still not perfect. When tey pointed the flaws out, I immediately remembered one of the Seven Environmental Principles that I was tught when I was stil in high school, “Nature knows best.”

But technology and action (or violence, as ohters may prefer to call it) aside, I found the story and the characters touching and compelling. I felt every emotion that Katniss and Primrose Everdeen (and the other characters as well, they're just too many to mention) conveyed and I was inspired by them more than I was sorry for what they've been through. This might seem weird or insincere of me, but after reading the book and watching the movie, I was moved to become braver, stronger, better.

WHO IS THE REAL ENEMY?

This November, the movie adaptation of Catching Fire, the second of the three-book series, The Hunger Games, was shown in cinemas worldwide.  The movie shows what happened to victors Katniss and Peeta, the book’s protagonists, after the 74^th Hunger Games as they were subjected to undergo the same game a year after.  It is a story of love, hope and rebellion.  It is a movie that you have to see to understand the brilliance behind it. 

A book or movie is considered to be science fiction when it shows a content that is futuristic, which means its contents involve science and technology, space and time, extraterrestrial life and parallel universe.  In my opinion, the movie is a science fiction as it shows society that is far from what we have now.  In Panem, machines, science and technology run almost all activities. Most of the technologies shown in the movie are still unavailable in the present.  It just shows how different the World in 2013 and Panem is. 

For me, The Hunger Games (as well as Catching Fire) is a great example of Thomas Hobbes famous description of the state of nature, “life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Taking the Hunger Games and Catching Fire literally will bring you nowhere because one has to understand the subtle themes it introduces in the story.  I consider this film to be a representation of the past, present and future society.

The past, the present, and the future have a lot of things in common as the inequalities in the past still persist and will persist in the future; with the government we have now. As we can see, the Capitol has always exemplified a life of extravagance and greediness, as compared to the quality of living that the lower districts have.  This is a problem that we still experience until now, no matter how liberal our views on politics is - a problem that the movie tries to solve by sparking a revolution.

Science had tremendously succeeded in most districts by showing how powerful and wealthy they are with science and technology.  However, in some districts, distribution of wealth and knowledge has been uneven. For me, this resulted from the Capitol’s unequal treatment of its districts, one that prioritizes one district over another. The Capitol represents a corrupt government – a place where funds are used to fuel a selfish public official’s interests.  The Capitol lives in riches and luxury while some districts almost die due to the central government’s lack of attention to its regions. 

This is what Katniss Everdeen is trying to resolve by the end of the book and the movie.  She lets people realize the harsh reality in Panem and starts a revolution to make a change in her society.  I hope more people like Katniss exist in our world - to make a difference and bring justice to people. 

Kris Jerurta 

2011-41018

District 13

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the second book (and film) in the Hunger Games trilogy. The film is classified as a science fiction film by most movie sources and I would have to agree with this classification. The film contains scenes of scientifically implausible feats. For one, it’s implausible for the central island where the Quarter Quell takes place to be able to spin the way the gamemakers did. The force field that envelopes the entire arena is also scientifically implausible because of its massive size and because the force field would have to be constantly active which, with force field technology still in its infancy in the military for example, is just not plausible. The fog depicted in the movie that causes blisters is actually used as chemical warfare agents today and also naturally occurring in nature-- so this is scientifically plausible. However, the instant relief the tributes experience just from contact with water is what’s scientifically fictional in that scene.  In the film, the water just magically dissolved the blisters. In reality though, it takes a lot more than just water to heal blisters-- and definitely not as quickly as shown in the movie.

The film is a commentary on present society in my opinion. However, the points the film makes can also be applied to our society in the past and in the future. The film depicts the large gap between the rich and the poor, a scenario common in third-world countries like ours. The Capitol satirizes the shallowness and superficiality of today’s people, with physical looks and social status becoming the priority for many today. The film also criticizes society’s recent obsession with reality TV. The tributes in the film are victimized largely for entertainment of the viewers. Though it’s an exaggeration, many of the reality TV stars of today suffer when the cameras aren’t rolling-- for our entertainment.

Science. technology and society fail in the country of Panem because of how concentrated science and technology are in the Capitol and yet so restricted in the other districts. District 12 is depicted as having no electricity at all except for the electric fence bordering the district. Here, science and technology is being abused by the those in power to control and detain those less powerful. They are also the tools used to conduct the Hunger Games, with the gamemasters “playing” with the tributes to their hearts’ content. Science and technology here are being used to hinder society’s, rather than stimulate and foster development.

Hungry for More

by: Jeffrey Ordoyo            

          I believe that the Hunger Games is a work of science fiction since it introduces concepts about technology and science that are non-existent or underdeveloped in the world today yet have a possibility of existing or being truly functional in the future. Science fiction however, is a very broad genre and could mean many things, therefore it isn’t right to give just the title of “science fiction” to the Hunger Games Trilogy since it also falls under the category of Action-Adventure and Dystopian fiction.

What makes the Trilogy great is how it reflects the state of the society today and most likely in the distant future. As I said before, the hunger games is a dystopian fiction meaning the characters live in a society where there is utmost chaos. Dystopian Fictions are meant to highlight the negative aspects and perspectives of society and so that solutions can be made to the world and avoid circumstances that appear in the literary piece.

In the book and movie, it is evident how advanced technology has become in the fictional world of Panem. However, advancement of technology has not helped in aiding the problems that encompass the 13 districts. Futuristic technology such as holograms, state-of the art medicine and surveillance may exist yet they are used in ways that do more harm to the people of Panem. Only a few benefit from the advanced technology because of the status and power they hold higher among everyone else. Science and Technology in Panem does nothing to solve problems on poverty and equality but rather does the opposite and widens the gap between the oppressors and oppressed.

I've always found the Hunger Games trilogy to be a very interesting literary piece. Although it may be criticized for it's rushed ending, it's weak plot, or unoriginal ideas, I still found the book and movies quite enjoyable. I’m very excited about how the actors, directors, and writers are going to interpret the Last book of the series Mocking Jay and I hope they add a spice to the rather dull end.

Reaction Paper: Catching Fire

by John Jason B. Santillan

     2013-03535

Catching Fire is a work of fiction because it explicitly says that it happens in a futuristic setting. If I were to answer the question of whether or not the Hunger Games could became a reality in the future, I think it wouldn’t. Firstly, there are mechanisms in the state to prevent the creation of an elitist and oppressive government. In case the government messes up, we have assembly and protest rights to forward the agenda of the marginalized and to correct the errors. Secondly, the use of technology is never for the exclusive use of the state. So when the government develops highly advanced technologies, people on the ground can copy up with equally capable machinery. I do concede that to some extent there would be a gap between state technology capacity and that of citizens but it will never be as big as that of status quo to the point that citizens become systematically oppressed as in the Hunger Games.

The Hunger Games is a commentary on the past, present, and future. The rhetoric that Catching Fire wants to forward, i.e. inclusive policies that promote equality amidst varying economic status within the state, is shared by all three timeframes. The names, systems, modes and instruments used may differ across time but the struggle remains the same. It will always be the classic struggle for equal rights between the marginalized and the aristocrats of society.

 I think that science and technology didn’t really fail in the world of catching fire because technology is simply an instrument. What this means is that whatever damage or harm the technology may inflict upon people, it’s never to be blamed because technology only serves its purpose and function to the individual or entity that’s utilizing it. I think that what really failed was the society of Panem. It emerged as a failed state because it ended up with class rivalry, economic underdevelopment and weak state power. It’s weak in that they fail the most basic test of state power: it is unable to maintain domestic order and personal security, signified by the civil unrest and citizen’s distrust with the government  as a reaction to the Hunger Games. Instead of serving the needs of its people, the people in the power seat used their political power against the people and against the best interests of the state.

Ultimately, it’s imperative that we have the active effort in aligning the use of science and technology with society’s goals. If we make sure that technology doesn’t undermine the values of humanity, then we’re most likely to remember who the real enemy is.

GDayX Experience

by George Tongol

It was a really interesting Saturday for me when I attended the GDaysX at Xavier School, San Juan. I did not know what to expect when I got there but I knew that it was going to be about all things Google. Basically what I learned from that day was how to maximize Google’s services as tools in expanding a start-up business or in making an already large company even larger.

The first speaker talked about how an entrepreneur can be successful by using the right technology with the right attitude. Ms. Gail Tan stressed to the audience, "Focus on your users and everything will follow," as this was Google's motto every time when developing an application. Entrepreneurs should know how to listen to the customers in order to meet their needs rather than focusing on the company's goal. This way, success will come knocking at their door. Ms. Tan also said that entrepreneurs have to have a community where people work towards one goal. Success does not only come from one person but from a group of people working together. With the right tools-- like Google's many applications, success can be achieved more easily. This is where the next speaker introduced the concept of “collaboration” in many Google's applications.

Google Drive and Google Docs are some of the applications that entrepreneurs can use in order to work with a lot of people anytime, anywhere. It is very interesting to note that the speakers were able to teach the audience the basics of these applications in order to jump-start their businesses. Ms. Kring Elenzano, a popular Filipina Youtube personality and a successful blogger, talked about using Youtube and her different blogs to create a brand for herself to help promote her products in the hopes of producing sales. She stressed the importance of creating a bond with the subscribers (of the Youtube channel) and with the readers (of the blogs) in her success. She explained that this same principle is why many companies have a blog separate from the company’s official site (where the products are listed and where orders can be placed).

I was able to gather many insights from my day at GDaysX. Even though I am not currently an entrepreneur, I learned that Google’s services can be utilized to stimulate the growth of any business. Google’s services increase efficiency, communication, collaboration, storage management, brand management and many more. The limit to how much Google can do for one’s business is limited only to how well the person is able to maximize Google’s array of very useful services.

POLITICAL METAPHOR

THE HUNGER GAMES SEQUEL: Catching Fire
STS Reaction Paper
by: Aedriane Celis

          Recalling my first encounter with this exceptional prose written by Suzanne Collins, I was magnificently drawn into its world. It is a story that was not merely imagined but subjectively created with a distinct perspective.

            By definition, science fiction is fiction based on imagined future scientific or technological advances and major social or environmental changes, frequently portraying space or time travel and life on other planets. Therefore, The Hunger Games Sequel isn’t science fiction nor is it a propaganda film; rather I understand and think it to be more of a “Political Metaphor”.  Political because, there is a constant realistic portrayal of how society has been working in the past, present and --- maybe –-- in the future. Struggles and occurrences such as the search for hope and who will lead the fight for freedom; the rights to live in tranquility; and uprisings brought about by the indifference between leaders and classes. On the other note, it is a metaphor because the story builds on figurative expressions and does not really manifest purpose literally, through a futuristic setting and the exaggeration of characters.

            The city of Panem is filled with imbalance in several corresponding things. It is a city subdivided into superiors-inferiors and fighters-followers. This lack of proportionality could have defined the failure of science, technology and society to succeed in the world of the 13 Districts. Division of districts in varying specialized fields -- agriculture, mining, etc. -- inflicts limited avenues for the people to attain knowledge; and the intensive implementation of hard labor in the districts resulted to a degree of incompetence in the better purpose of Science and Technology.  On the other note, society was brought down by the abusive use of the greater people – for fear of rebellion or repeat of war in the past against its citizens.

            Catching fire is the transition between the first sight of hope and the final touch of freedom. Some fear rebellion, some have not yet realized the common good, but some have found the strength to fight in favor of all the odds.