View Single Post
Old 11-08-2017, 07:37 PM   #17
Basic Member
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 134
Originally Posted by jax_rox View Post
Do you mean this scene?

To me that works - it's a 'technology' that doesn't exist per se, and the way he explains it more or less make sense, so I buy that. It's a stretch for sure, but I think in the context of the film it works.

I don't buy things that you sometimes see in procedurals or other tv shows where they might ask how someone hacked into their computer and the answer is just as much jargon as you can fit to make it sound 'computery' - for example 'I backdoored into your firewall through the FTP so I could boot from the trojan I downloaded into your CPU. Once I got through the CAT5 to your modem and installed the ROM on your server infecting your RAM, it was all over.'
Yup that’s it. In my story, a company named New Life has found a way to bring a person back to life within 48 hours of initial death. There are rules, obviously. The tech keeps them alive, this is important. The misconduct comes in the form of someone “switching off” the tech to avoid a catastrophic failure. See the cold open for the potential catastrophic failure.

So basically, to protect the prototype of this breakthrough, the lead engineer who designed this back door kill switch (which wasn’t disclosed to the FDA during pre market approval) turned off the tech and resulted in the death of mister Chavez.

The stuff with the eye, I’m keeping to myself because I don’t want to give it all away. The major theme here is what do we do if the person that designed the greatest medical breakthrough in history commits murder to protect the tech? The defense will have an interesting time making the jury feel sorry for this engineer rather that this dead test subject. All criminal charges will result in the termination of further research within the company.
stevencwood is offline   Reply With Quote