nimitzbrood (nimitzbrood) wrote,

The cost of living in this universe...

June 13, 2009 2:36 PM 6/13/09

Netflix was kind enough to put Hancock up for instant viewing so I just finished watching that and as usual my mind wanders afterwards. Sometimes it takes the form of “I wonder what people would be talking about after seeing this film?”.

So I ran through a little simulation in my head of after movie dinner and light conversation among some people I know. And maybe I missed a beat but the reoccurring topic of that simulated conversation was the price that Hancock has to pay for his powers and his immortality.

And I kind of don’t understand that question because I understand why he had to pay a price as high as he did.

Leaving out all the magic parts and the suspension of disbelief you can just look at it in terms of pure physics which says among other things that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and that for every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction.

Look at just our everyday lives. Just to move ourselves through the universe there is the cost in energy that comes from physical food that comes from energy, etc.

Now imagine what it costs to keep those actions running for an indefinite period of time without the body breaking down. Now add the energy required to be able to fly, lift a car, etc. Adds up to quite a bit doesn’t it?

So if it takes an immense amount of energy to keep a “superman” running and flying where’s that coming from? Well one place I can easily see it coming from is having an opposite pole.

Ever held two magnets apart but close enough together that there’s a serious amount of force pulling at them? Suppose you could feed a small amount of that force back into the magnets in some other form without breaking the magnetic bond?

Get the idea?

So the price for Hancock to remain an immortal superhero and his mate to be alive is for him to forever be separated from her. Because she’s his opposite pole.

And that makes me think. I wonder if the reason so many people feel powerless is because they’ve been too close to their opposite pole for too long. What if as human beings the reason we’re weak is because we’ve given in to the pull and snapped back to a resting position?

It makes some sort of sense to me. The people that I see that are moving forward in life, growing, accomplishing things that are worthwhile, etc. are the ones that tend to go against the grain in some way. And they are always pushing themselves towards one goal or another and almost always a positive one.

So that leaves me with even more questions.

How do you find the opposite you’re supposed to pull against?

If you pull hard enough how much will you be able to accomplish?

Is it possible to create a superhero in this universe? Are enough partial-superheros strong enough to accomplish the same things?

I don’t know. I really don’t.

But I’d like to find out. :-)
Tags: hancock, movies, philisophy, superheros
  • Post a new comment


    Anonymous comments are disabled in this journal

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded