Redsand481 This movie has some interesting points and provides some new perspectives on some ideas. However it removes all personal responsibility in the nature vs nurture argument, while simultaneously promoting the false ideal of a utopian commune. The early arguments in the movie hooked me into watching this train wreck of a "documentary" or poorly produced propaganda film as it should be considered. Zeitgeist takes a painfully strings you along with butchered short interviews to finally begin to make its points after an hour or so of essentially wasted time. It starts with pointing out the flaws and perceived flaws in our current world monetary and free market system and moves on to a lot of unrealistic solutions. It shows a fantasy version of communism where everyone is provided housing and everything they want while robots build everything, completely skipping over the point that robots are expensive and complex and someone or some entity will need to own and control them. Someone will need to spend vast amounts of their time and resources to design, build, program and learn how to do these things. At this present time the motivation for that kind of innovation is money, the movie suggest that this future entitled generation where everything is free will simply volunteer do do the remaining tasks that require human action. Many of the technologies showcased are literally in their infancy and are not yet currently viable options for making durable goods. The machines are called "rapid prototyping" for a reason, they create medium to low strength plastic parts for prototype assemblies to reduce development time and tooling costs associated with the standard r&d process, not to make mechanical items for daily use. Also why high levels of mechanization are currently possible, while not always economically feasible, humans are still required at this point for creating programs, recognizing problems, and creating improvements. They are highly trained specialists, who endure many potentially stressful hours of classroom and workplace educations, in part because that is what they enjoy and also to use the skills as an economic engine to drive their life to where they want it to be. This movie is misleading, if the writer did his homework on his suggestions in the movie he is outright lying through part of it to persuade his audience to his ideology. The movie Idiocracy provides likely a more accurate picture of the future than this mess. A movie made for profit while bashing capitalism and the world monetary system is the definition of hypocrisy.

tim-537-381539 The filmmakers certainly capture attention with facts and information about natural resources, materialistic culture, and bring to front and center many serious and credible issues facing the human race and the planet. Unfortunately, they failed to get even one contrarian argument and frequently edited their subjects to fit their agenda.What started out as an excellent and important subject for serious discussion and attention turned into gobbledygook when they filmmakers went on a tirade about how the world should work.Nothing wrong with a little bit of naive idealism, but if you're going to make a movie about such serious subject matter, you should have a clue about how the real world works and how problems are actually solved.

saymonja-148-363330 The first time that I watched this movie, I liked it, for the most part. When I returned to watch its predecessors, my opinion of the whole project diminished quite a bit. The reason: the simple presentation of "facts" which are dumbed down, reinterpreted like so much religious dogma, and presented in flashy, attention grabbing packages. This is the sad state of the transfer of "information", from Fox News, Xinhua, and other corporate/state outlets, to those with whom I tend to sympathize, such as Michael Moore and the makers of this very documentary. The idea that facts alone are not enough for viewers anymore, that they must be duct-taped together and peppered with sensationalism and explosions, angels and demons, reflects pretty poorly on our society and the state of its ability to think critically without the crutches of mainstream or underground media. Just like Zinn's book, A People's History, the hard facts, primary sources and easily researchable quotes are supplemental to what we have been indoctrinated with, and they ALONE are terrifying enough to warrant a critical reevaluation of everything that we have accepted about the world. And just like Zinn's admirable work, the "solutions" offered and shameless political bias serve to drive an immediate wedge between this work and the "unconverted".My second issue: the solution itself. I agree that world trade, on the scale that we have come to rely on by no accident, is unsustainable and pointless; but once again we have one more perfect cure-all coming from those most noble Western ideologues that brought us capitalism, totalitarian communism (and that extinct specimen that we called "democracy"). Yes, ye unenlightened masses of the Rest of the World, we have the solution for you. Leave your petty and foolish and primitive cultural nuances at the door, and step into your new, self sustaining, sterilized cubicle. You'll never have to leave your town ever again for anything. Your desire for variety will be replaced with the eternal happiness of bounty and wealth, and you'll have nothing left to need. Your spiritual conceptions of the world have all been negated as harmful and divisive, because we have interpreted them for you as such-because OUR spiritual world views brought and propagate war and proselytizing, you are only allowed faith in science. Upon seeing those models, I couldn't help but think, why the hell would I want to live there? What about the beautiful renewable, terraced, rice-growing hills of China, or the sculpted fields of Tuscany? Our choices are sterile towers or factory farms?

maros612 The movie was very strong in naming and explaining what is wrong with the world today. Namely the economy, monetary politics, usage of capital and debt creation, production/advertising/goods distribution ways and related consumer behavior. It also had many points on how our behavior impacts environment - and the makers also skillfully put stress on our planet being finite (having finite volume of resources) we can use without the regard on sustainability and/or renewal. It was alright. The most sounding point was that shopping for, gathering and consuming (=trashing) goods does not make us happy. It doesn't. Paying up debts doesn't either. But then, they've unfortunately came up with "solutions". I would have so many logical and practical questions and remarks to that as a proof it's nothing but an utopia. There's no way people could be motivated or even forced to create something like that and remain compliant with these rules. It would never work - not even in theory. Shortly after, the whole "solution" started to evolve about the designed life project called The Venus project - a vision of Jacque Fresco. It's a huge techno-communist and an utopian idea about making a high-tech tech robots and systems serve the people of this self-sufficient society. Everything would be taken care of by these machines and they would eliminate the need for standard human jobs. Even garbage and mail would be distributed by robots running around in tubes. And hold your breath : no money would exist in this society. In reality a market would start to exist the minute after this came in effect and people would trade the "free" things they get.People will always want something from each other and very likely they'll have to pay by something that represents value. The sentence about money free system would make any theory ridiculous. It said people that do not work for the money (and are under stress of their lack+need of) would not just sit around but they'd do things for joy. OK, I get that although I'm pretty sure they would rather choose fun activities than doing anything useful and a disaster would be inevitable. And wait, who would operate or service the robots? Slaves? Who would study long years to be able to program, create, build and repair all those super devices, watch over resources distribution, double check if machine are working and not making wrong choices? Who would study for and work jobs that could not be replaced technically like a doctor for example? This society was said to have 95% less crime than normal society. Sounds great but I'd like to know if people would want to risk their life as cops if they could do something safer as far as everybody could do what they wanted. Oh wait, nobody said that. Not once in the whole movie. That's probably because even in a very wild dream this could only exist if people were enslaved to fulfill "the purpose of common" good. (And they might be dumb enough to welcome that). We've had these "perfect" iron-fist "righteous" systems so many times here in history. And though we as people are fairly dumb we must have learned already there's absolutely no good in an ideological common "good". As sick as it sounds people need to be simply motivated egoistically or their will disobey and revolt. This world has gone wrong in so many ways and we really need to pay attention especially to global-scale problems and figure out how to fix them but I tell you one thing - this is not the way. By far. What has to be granted though is, they present their ideas openly and not try to hide or mix their meaning. This movie reminded me what I already knew (and extended of some interesting stats) that earth and humanity is sick and something has to be done. But I am very positive, this movie doesn't offer ideas that could serve as an effective cure and everyone who understand the reality should agree. Make sure to notice the passage when the title expresses worries about possible insults and labels like communism and fascism. The movie gave a lot of reasons for people to address these labels towards these ideas. The zeitgeist engineers then respond to this hypothetical insult and explain why would it be wrong to call them Marxists, communist or fascist. And they are right. The correct world for this non-sense would be (techno)utopianism.And they were brisk enough to even include that one!