Quote from: RedFox
I didn't see anyone leave, but some people (including myself) did laugh at the ridiculousness of it. I don't think any people really got it (how could they with no frame of reference?), but maybe it's about planting seeds?
--------------
IMO, you start by utilizing the same or similar concepts from similar films in this genre. The first that comes to mind is '4d' type people in the original Star Trek series, whose presence was only 'heard' thru a song effect of the staff hearing a 'bee' buzzing sound.... The latter ST 2nd generation had a few '4d' type concepts like time travel and its affects... and one '4d' type was 'Q' , wouldn't he be considered that? I never really cared for that series, though the wormhole series was interesting. Either way, if this structure was utilized, then pre-release buzz could be perhaps generated through that Star Trek fan base, which is at minimum worth a few million in ad revenue, and if pre-screenings are any good, will generate 'word of mouth' buzz. The problem is collecting the various concepts as utilized in various sci-fi projects and meshing or morphing them together in a manner that takes them to a better understanding of '4d', both the negative and positive which is preferable and understandable to most people, especially those in this fan base and genre. Star Wars covered the 'dark vs light' dynamic of empire vs republic, telepathy, jedi genetic abilities vs normal people and Yoda would be a good example of the mind vs form as well as the basic teach/learn profiles. Harry Potter is another popular series using some of these concepts in some ways. There's alot of anime in Japan dealing with post-catastrophic destruction scenarios, mulitple dimensions etc.
The main problem seems to be the lack of apparent conformity, but then most esoteric data is the same and isn't this true for most languages until some latter acclaimed writer delineates it and gets others to accept this version as the new standard? Perhaps the problem is whether or not the director et al have a consistent idea of what they are presenting to the public? Haven't seen the film, but usually you start with what is already present and then proceed to make course corrections only after getting the audience's attention and 'hooked' enough to start any exposition that might require them to actually think and not just watch. It seems that most entertainment vehicles just utilize these concepts as tools for fantasy and not much else. Too much static on their 'radio'... the Matrix is about as good as it gets it seems, even for that team, as they couldn't get out of their own Matrix except perhaps death.... perhaps as the 2 and 3 sequels didn't make even that seem possible, which brings in the question of thought vs form and they didn't seem ready to tackle that subject.