5 ms·
I’m glad many of you enjoyed the movie. I watched it for the first time last month and did not enjoy it personally. I think the thing that kept making me not be
by lenocinor 4y ago
I’m glad many of you enjoyed the movie. I watched it for the first time last month and did not enjoy it personally. I think the thing that kept making me not believe the narrative was the assumption that you could somehow control how your DNA was left behind. Your body leaves behind hair and skin cells and eyelashes and whatever constantly. No amount of scrubbing like he does in the movie will help that. Also the idea that we would have really advanced genetics but not better genetic detection and tracking technology was not believable for me either.
It’s a shame because I think the core idea of the movie was interesting. I just wish the implementation was more believable for me.
- joshuahedlund 4y agoSci-fi has always accidentally reflected the limited imagination of the era it was written in. My favorite example is Isaac Asimov’s I, Robot, written before digital displays were a thing. In the story technology has advanced so far that humans have landed on Mercury for mining, but they have to track their lost robots by manually drawing a pencil graph of their radar pings.
- Vecr 4y agoI'm not sure about that, possibly he put some sort of special make-up/glue-ish stuff on his face to try to seal it in, and his clothes caught the rest of it? He's seen putting stuff in his hair, probably for that purpose. Anyway, how sensitive are detectors in real life? Remember, you need enough intact genetic material to figure out who it is, it's not like detecting anthrax or something where you can just look for a few short conserved snippets. I imagine it's not something PCR works especially well on, so you might not be able to amplify it at all.