Inverse71%

53 Years Later, An Iconic Sci-Fi Cult Classic Just Got A Huge Upgrade 46%

By Don Kaye64%

7/28/2026, 3:00:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18% saturation with 172 hits. Analysis detected 1,230 faulty-reasoning hits from 953 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.2% and a BS Rank of 46% (14,456 of 26,762 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 54.00% of the article peer group.

Mgm/Kobal/Shutterstock Released in 1973 and coming out this week in a new 4K UHD transfer on Blu-ray, Soylent Green is set in the distant (!) 
year of 2022, in a polluted, congested New York City bursting with 40 million inhabitants as the world teeters on the edge of ecological and societal collapse. 
The film stars Charlton Heston (whose brand in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s was apocalypse, with films like Planet of the Apes and The Omega Man to his name) as Thorn, a detective assigned to investigate the murder of a wealthy businessman named Simonson (Joseph Cotten). 
Simonson was on the board of the Soylent corporation, which produces the processed soy and plankton wafers that feed most of the world’s population. 
Suspecting that Simonson was assassinated, Thorn doggedly pursues the case despite being warned off it by his superiors and escaping several attempts on his own life  until he ultimately discovers the horrifying truth behind Soylent and its newest product, Soylent Green. 
Directed by Richard Fleischer ( Fantastic Voyage ), Soylent Green was based on a 1966 science fiction novel called Make Room! 
Make Room! 
by Harry Harrison. 
While Harrison's book is very much a warning about overpopulation and the hoarding of dwindling resources by the 1%, the major reveal in the film  which we’ll get to in a moment  is nowhere to be found in the text. 
Yet Harrison's grim view of the future remains intact in this cult classic. 
How Was Soylent Green Initially Received Upon Release? 
The film, which was a decent hit at the time for the struggling Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer studio, was met with a rather mixed reception from critics. 
Roger Ebert liked it, calling it a “good, solid science fiction movie,” although his future TV sparring partner, Gene Siskel, called it “silly” and found it laughable. 
Other reviews commended the film for its vision of the future and Edward G. 
Robinson for his moving performance as Sol, the elderly police researcher who works with Thorn and signs up for assisted suicide when he discovers the secret of Soylent Green. 
Robinson passed shortly after completing the film, making his work here (Sol passes away listening to classical music and watching soaring images of unspoiled nature from a past long gone) all the more poignant, which critics at the time and in the years since have noted. 
Why Is It Important to See Soylent Green Now? 
Soylent Green is more than its cultural catchphrase. 
| Mgm/Kobal/Shutterstock “Soylent Green is made of people!” 
That line, delivered by a gravely wounded Heston at the end of the film, is no spoiler; it’s hardly a surprise in the movie itself and it’s become embedded in the pop culture zeitgeist. 
But the reveal that the "food" being produced for the poor by the Soylent Corporation is made from human remains is, as mentioned above, not part of Harry Harrison’s original novel, but was presumably added by screenwriter Stanley R. 
Greenberg. 
The latter also significantly changed the character of Sol, the nature of the murder case, and Thorn’s budding relationship with Shirl (Leigh Taylor-Young), who is the murder victim’s mistress in the book but in the movie is “furniture”  essentially a sexual slave (shades of The Handmaid’s Tale )  who comes with the apartment in the luxury, high-rise building that Simonson lives in. 
Yet as Harrison himself remarks in author John Brosnan’s Future Tense: The Cinema of Science Fiction , all the machinations of the plot  including the revelation about Soylent Green  are almost unimportant, both in his book (which is set in 1999) and the film. 
What is important is the cumulative effect of watching this dystopian, doomed world come gradually into focus: the food lines, the rationing of water, the riots when supplies run out, the squalid, small spaces in which people live and sleep, and the contrast with the lives of the wealthy and privileged, who live in spacious apartments with hot water and access to real beef and vegetables. 
“The background is the foreground,” Harrison said, and he’s right. 
You can guess halfway through the movie what Soylent Green is made of, and while that’s still frightening  could things get that bad?  what lingers from the film is the miasma of smog that hangs over NYC, resembling the haze from the Canadian wildfires that blanketed the city just last week . 
Or the vast disparity between the way Simonson lives and the existence that Thorn and Sol scratch out in their one-room hovel. 
Or the woman lying dead on the steps outside an overcrowded church, while her toddler daughter weeps beside her. 
Could things get that bad? 
One might argue that we’re almost there already. 
What New Features and Upgrades Does Soylent Green Have? 
The new 4K remaster is the big draw. 
| Mgm/Kobal/Shutterstock Soylent Green has been released previously on laserdisc, DVD, and Blu-ray, with only a scant handful of features. 
Two vintage featurettes are ported over from the earlier releases, one a look at the making of the film and the other a tribute to Robinson. 
An archival commentary from Fleischer and Taylor-Young is also repurposed here, next to a new one from film historians Michael Brooke and Johnny Mains. 
In addition to the new 4K transfer  an interesting challenge for a film that’s meant in several scenes to look hazy and washed out  other new features include archival interviews with Heston and Fleischer at the British Film Institute, reversible cover art, and a booklet featuring fresh writing about the movie. 
Free samples of Soylent Green are thankfully not included. 
Soylent Green 4K Blu-ray 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.1%Don Kaye: 4.0%Inverse: 3.2%Confirmation Bias12.1%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Don Kaye: 5.0%Inverse: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 1.2%Inverse: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Don Kaye: 6.9%Inverse: 4.7%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 0.9%Don Kaye: 0.2%Inverse: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.9%This article: 2.1%Don Kaye: 0.5%Inverse: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 3.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%Don Kaye: 7.3%Inverse: 1.7%Pessimism Bias16.8%This article: 18.0%Don Kaye: 8.0%Inverse: 7.0%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Don Kaye: 3.2%Inverse: 4.3%Halo Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 4.6%Inverse: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.7%Don Kaye: 2.9%Inverse: 2.1%Appeal to Authority8.7%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.7%Don Kaye: 1.4%Inverse: 0.5%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.5%Don Kaye: 0.8%Inverse: 6.5%Hasty Generalization1.5%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.6%Don Kaye: 1.8%Inverse: 0.8%Bandwagon3.6%This article: 9.5%Don Kaye: 2.9%Inverse: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion9.5%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.8%Don Kaye: 1.2%Inverse: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.8%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.0%Don Kaye: 0.5%Inverse: 1.0%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 15.2%Don Kaye: 3.8%Inverse: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)15.2%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.2%Inverse: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.6%Don Kaye: 1.3%Inverse: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 6.1%Inverse: 17.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.2%Inverse: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 4.5%Inverse: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Don Kaye: 0.0%Inverse: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Don Kaye: 2.9%Inverse: 4.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.7%

953 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers1.5%attributed speech939writer words
Selected voice

Harrison

100%flagged-word coverage
10 attributed words71% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Harrison: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Harrison: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.