Comments on: Send in the clones

Send in the clones

sciatica — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:00:42 -0800

Godsend Institute offers up this explanation of their cloning procedures. Since Dolly, several scientists have cloned other animals, including cows and mice. Now, at Godsend, we have pioneered a technique that allows a cell nucleus from a recently deceased child to be implanted within a human egg, allowing a mother to carry that child to term again.

By: sciatica

sciatica — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:02:57 -0800

Here is one of their testimonials: Our son's name was Michael and when he died he was five years old. I was heartbroken of course, but my wife was absolutely devastated. She had been told that she was unable to have children and when Michael was born, she had taken it as a sign from God. When he died, my wife's faith died with him. Then we heard about Dr. Wells and Godsend. It's been three years since he gave Michael back to us and all I can say is that if there is a God, his name is Dr. Richard Wells. First of all, is this strictly legal? Secondly, should you name your second child after your first deceased child?

By: taumeson

taumeson — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:05:41 -0800

holy fucking shit. this is a promo for a MOVIE. W. T. F.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:08:20 -0800

Moviefilter.

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:09:09 -0800

Did someone miss the viral marketing memo?

By: aramaic

aramaic — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:11:04 -0800

Somewhere in the world, a marketer is laughing hysterically.

By: taumeson

taumeson — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:13:04 -0800

the phone number is real. calling it after hours gives you an after hours message. should be interesting tomorrow.

By: homunculus

homunculus — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:14:26 -0800

He'll never survive the Ice Age anyway!

By: sciatica

sciatica — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 17:17:22 -0800

Figures. Sorry, folks. I am not on any of the viral marketing lists.

By: lotsofno

lotsofno — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:34:35 -0800

wow. they went pretty far with that.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:48:39 -0800

I saw the preview for this movie during tonight's syndicated Simpsons. It looks absolutely wretched. I'm grinning big time watching Greg Kinnear's talentless ass tailspin into oblivion.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:48:47 -0800

Somewhat like the Dog Island.

By: shoepal

shoepal — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 18:49:53 -0800

the ~~terrorists~~ marketers have indeed already won.

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:07:38 -0800

Holy shit -- Dog Island isn't real? I've sent four dogs there so far.

By: Ufez Jones

Ufez Jones — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 19:36:08 -0800

Holy shit -- Dog Island isn't real? I've sent four dogs there so far. Yes, and they were delicious. Especially the Pomeranian/Weimereiner mix.

By: LittleMissCranky

LittleMissCranky — Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:00:07 -0800

SKIPPY!!! NOOOOO!

By: Tryptophan-5ht

Tryptophan-5ht — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:00:10 -0800

"should you name your second child after your first deceased child?" ask Richard D James.

By: rafter

rafter — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:05:58 -0800

Somewhat like the Dog Island. In that its an elaborate hoax, or in that its a viral ad? This is the first I've seen of Dog Island, and I'd be thrilled to see Dog Island the movie.

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:41:48 -0800

had to be a movie... since their idea of cloning is so, well, how do I say this, unscientific. Twins aren't the same people, neither woud a clone be. Michael II is just another human that looks a lot like Michael 1.

By: planetkyoto

planetkyoto — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 00:48:03 -0800

The Godsend site is registered to Lion's Gate Entertainment, at the same street address in L.A.

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:35:51 -0800

It sounds like quite an awful movie that will no doubt confuse the public about cloning even further. If you don't mind spoilers, there's a review and short synopsis on IMDB showing exactly how dire it is.

By: rocketpup

rocketpup — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 01:44:05 -0800

Ah, the kid's name is "Adam." How... predictable.

By: biffa

biffa — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:04:47 -0800

"should you name your second child after your first deceased child?" I am planning to name all my children after Yvonne Goolagong, whether the previous ones are dead or not.

By: Gyan

Gyan — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 02:30:17 -0800

Could someone read adrianhon's linked review and tell me just how dire it is?

By: dabitch

dabitch — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 05:04:35 -0800

the child grows up fine until he's eight, the age when his clone-donator-bro died, and then he gets horrific nightmares. Unlike dolly the sheep who died at the age of six, the age her clone-mother was when the sample was taken. By the way, did y'all know that pet-cloning has gone commercial? $50 000 per "copy cat".

By: bingo

bingo — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:38:45 -0800

Did you know that since the birth of Dolly the sheep, cloning technology has become over 450 times more efficient and stable? That's equivalent to the technological leap from the abacus to the supercomputer... Movie or no movie, I think this comparison to the abacus/supercomputer thing is just not true. I'm not sure how you would measure the improvement in efficiency and stability, but however you do it, isn't a supercomputer bound to beat the abacus by a higher factor than 450? Then again, I guess the abacus is less likely to crash... p.s. I wonder if Adam's last name is "Duncan" as a reference to that oft-cloned Arrakian hero, Duncan Idaho.

By: GhostintheMachine

GhostintheMachine — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 06:58:51 -0800

Did the photo of the doctor (Robert de Niro) not give it away? I mean, he's talented and all, but there are limits to what he'll do for a role. Not many, but a few limits.

By: sciatica

sciatica — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 08:25:22 -0800

Ghostinthemachine, that pic is really small, so I didn't make the connection. In the future, I am just going to do what Planetkyoto did and always check the WHOIS before I post. As an added insult, on the links page I now notice they say: the media and the general public simply do not know enough about this emerging science to realize a hoax when they see one. with the word hoax linked to their movie site. As a member of the general public, I am not happy to have been made a rube by their site. I won't be seeing their film.

By: wobh

wobh — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:11:04 -0800

The book [spoilers] was better.

By: Darke

Darke — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 09:52:42 -0800

ask Richard D James. And look how he turned out!

By: amro

amro — Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:08:25 -0800

This reminds me (on a MUCH smaller scale) of the complex A.I. game that was played online before that film came out. Not that this appears to be a game. But still.

By: haqspan

haqspan — Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:19:05 -0800

It also reminds of adverts I saw for the terrible looking film, Laws of Attraction. It's a picture of Julianne Moore, who plays a lawyer in the film, advertising her divorce services. (Sorry no linky, I saw in print and it does not appear to be reproduced on the official site).

By: orange swan

orange swan — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:39:39 -0800

I didn't clue in from looking at the site alone, though I did think "can't believe people think cloning will replace someone" and thought it very strange that the "doctor" was photographed standing in a graveyard.

By: Zurishaddai

Zurishaddai — Tue, 20 Apr 2004 13:46:02 -0800

Now this was a viral marketing campaign for a movie!