Slashdot Mirror

Does this count as one of those faces?

Read this interview. Courtney Solomon didn't want to direct that D&D movie, just produce it. He brought James Cameron, Francis Ford Coppola, Renny Harlin - and the idiot boss at TSR rejected them all. Eventually, Wizards of the Coast bought TSR, and the next idiot in charge promptly sued Solomon. They settle, but part of the settlement is that the movie has to begin production real quick - ruining their shot at finding investors for a bigger budget - and use the same script TSR had approved years before - even though they had a much better one ready.

To sum it up, the idiots who owned the D&D brand forced the movie to fail.

I think that story (using Nintendo chips as missile guidance?) was totally debunked in the end and it was suggested it may have been dreamed up along with the majority of the illegal weapons, to justify a war that was already desired

Particularly when it is well known that you can defeat missiles using that kind of control system with something as simples as a track ball and three buttons. Here's a picture of the operator console for such a system: http://cdn.chud.com/a/a2/a23bbcb6_11011101.jpeg

Like this? http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Ford_Econoline_Dumb_and_Dumber.jpg

The GP wasn't kidding. No one knows what the hell happened.

Although, this guy seems to have some solid idea.

...Dungeons and Dragons. Ever see that movie? How painful. Why?

The director blames the people at TSR/WOTC , that forced him to use an old script, even though he had a vastly improved one.

Why should the law? If the movie had had some more serious content would that have mattered? Seems to me our laws should reflect the understanding that Journalism holds a special place in our society and give journalists the freedom to report on our society as they see fit. If they endanger others or deprive others of reasonable profit then they should be dealt with accordingly. But in this example he did not deprive FOX of any revenue aside from those who found his review made them not want to see the movie (which is one point of a review).

Actually, we're not talking about legality. We're talking about someone who posted a story along the lines of "wow. I just found this thing called bit-torrent. It's awesome. You can get everything for free. And wolverine rocked."

Here is a screenshot of the article, by the way. http://chud.com/articles/content_images/24/fox411_wolverine.jpg. I know this is not in the summary, but please look over how much this guy gushes over how great illegal downloads are.

So, while I would agree that the law has no place deciding what content is and is not suitable for print, or what tactics are justified in the attainment of said content, private businesses and individuals can make that distinction, and Fox News has every right to say that this is not the kind of journalism they sell.

I would compare it to an article in which someone bought marijuana and then wrote about what a great high it gave them. If the editor disapproves, then they have the right to terminate employment on that basis.

"... why would anyone want to read a review of a movie that isn't finished?"

The fact that an un-released movie is available on the internet immediately is something that everyone should know, not just Slashdot readers. Unless there is government corruption, voters help determine the laws that are passed. Voters can't help guide the country if they don't know what is happening.

In a country that is democratic, reporters must be allowed to report anything that is true.

You can read the fired reporter's article courtesy of a link posted below. If the reporter did anything wrong, it was not being sufficiently negative about the fact that he could see an un-released movie online. But he was negative: "I found a work in progress print of it, 95 percent completed, on the internet last night. Let's hope by now it's gone." And, "But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded it onto this website. This begs several questions about security. Time to round up the usual suspects."

The book, The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics discussses the fact that only a very small percentage of citizens understand democratic principles. (Get the book from the library. Don't pay Amazon $66.95 for a paperback.)

What will be the effect of his posting a story about an un-finished print of the movie, and Slashdot covering it? In this case, it will definitely sell more movie tickets. He gave the unfinished movie a very positive review: "This may be the big blockbuster film of 2009, ..." Sure, people could watch the unfinished print online. But those who like movies usually don't want to spoil the fun by watching something that is not finished.

The story was posted exactly where it should be, in the entertainment section. Quoting: "I don't know what the really big headline is here: the fact that "Wolverine" is so good, or that I also found the current top 10 movies in theaters [online], ..." This is something those who watch movies should know.

Many people who watch movies don't read books or read serious articles in newspapers, or think about serious issues facing the country, or even have an internet connection. The only way they will get this news is by having the news in an entertainment section of some publication. For example, a hairdresser might mention the movie and the piracy while her customer's hair is drying.

Because I'm interested in serious issues, I already knew about the piracy problem. But I'm not the necessary target audience. I don't watch movies because there are too many typical Hollywood lies in every movie, such as: "An attractive woman should be able to break any moral rule." I've found that movies made in "Bollywood", in India, are even worse: "A woman should be able to avoid responsibility for anything by doing a little crying. If she cries, then men have to find a way to solve the problem." Obviously, being a man, I'm not going to subscribe to a lie that says that women are superior to men. I don't like any lie, and usually in a movie there are several lies every few minutes.

Also, here are two stories. You can decide which is more believable:

1) It's a big budget movie, and there have been piracy problems in the past, but the movie studio didn't have enough security. Even though thousands of people are losing their jobs every day, someone risked losing a good movie-making job to post a stolen un-finished copy of the film so anyone can see it without paying. That person risked his job without any way of making money from the theft.

Or:

2) Someone at the movie studio decided that having an un-finished, rough copy of the movie available on the internet would be a good marketing scheme.

Many people understand

I think he was fired for this in the last paragraph of the review: "But obviously someone who had access to a print uploaded the film onto this website. This begs several questions about security". No sir, it doesn't beg any questions. Do journalists take any English classes at all these days? Also, I think if he wouldn't have rambled on (here's a screenshot of the article) in one of the paragraphs about how easy it was to watch all sorts of movies online, and how he was planning on watching another pirated movie afterwards, he might not have been fired. Making a stupid decision is one thing, but acting stupidly while going through with said decision is... well... stupid.

The column has been purged from Google's cache as well, but not before someone took a screenshot of it.

Neuromancer is getting made. Gibson is even on board for the screenplay.

Probably true, not to mention the characters that are need to be in the Hobbit are really old even in Hobbit anyways.
Still I was upset PJ even spent time on king kong. If MGM & New Line did indeed get the green light to make The Hobbit, then it should be top priority.

This is a problem at the moment with the lack of time between theatrical release and dvd release. DVD Producers just dont have time to make good dvds when the final content is due as the film is released. There was a recent interview on CHUD (here http://www.chud.com/index.php?type=interviews&id=6 261/) with Richard Taylor, the dvd producer for King Kong talking about the new 2 disc special edition. He talks about how difficult it is for the dvds to have any decent special features like commentary and production diaries when the director and crew are all so busy right up untill release that the dvd producer can't get the time of day before the final content for the dvd is due. What this leads to is more barebones dvd releases followed 6 or 12 months later by a special edition, and then sometimes again later. Most people probably dont see this as a problem, but as someone who takes an interest in features and likes nothing more than watching a film I have enjoyed and listening to the director commentary to get a bit more out of the experiance, I'm worried that if the release date of dvd is pushed forward then there will be no features initially and that only some movies will get the special edition releases down the track.

Only if you're into cheap copyright infringement. ;)

Well, personally, I can't wait for this one to hit the big screen.

Looks hilarious, especially considering the last scene of the trailer!

I agree with the Hayter part. He does look quite a bit like Snake, if you look at a picture of him: http://www.chud.com/graphics3/hayter.jpg
So it's entirely possible that he could play Snake...

Thanks. It looks like they have a bad thing going on Chud, if they think "dark green on black" text is fun to read. They even have dark grey on black. IMHO, if you need to highlight the text and/or past it into a text editor to read the web content, they've already failed it. However, I don't think that having checkboxes and option buttons on the page (rendered in the typical colors) would spoil whatever effect they are aiming for. I did not see what you meant with the searchboxes.

An example is http://www.chud.com/

I'm sure there are better examples, but basically when there is a theme to the website, the standard objects can disrupt the flow. In that above example, this can sort of be seen with the searchboxes.

following the toy link and scroll down to the bottom. you will see a 'sexy single woman' ad right below the toy ad. I didn't see the small txt on the edge iniitially. ;)

So I looked at the link and found this

Where's Zaphod's other fscking head!! Even if it is on his tongue or on his ass for that matter! Marvin looks 'cute' not depressed. That and the fact that I learned this from the toy line is the icing on the cake. Nothing is sacred here folks.

No I'm not going to get over it either. You can't Jar-Jar-ify Marvin and get box office revenue from me. I'd be interested to know how much of this Adams signed up for and how much he was boxed into.

... with a one-headed, two-armed zaphod beeblebrox????

oh, wait. i just RTFA.

that said, i love the plushies.

Here's a linky to the toys and office products from the movie. Marvin looks too cute and I want one of those mugs!

Actually they may be following your advice; the plans for Star Trek XI (the next movie) have halted indefinitely. See the CHUD.com news report for corroboration.

Frankly, I think this is a good idea, and not just because it could save the franchise, but rather it sounds like a good business decision. Check out the numbers on the franchise movies. The last one absolutely bombed when you look at the budget for it. I believe these numbers also don't include advertising which I imagine would be substantial.

The series definitely needs a respite.

TSage

At the recent Polar Express junket, Tom Hanks was very noncommittal either way when asked about another turn as Woody, sans Pixar (asked, by the way, by CHUD's own Fred Topel). "The creative team that put together the original Toy Stories was quite specific and quite organic, I think. Not that there aren't other talented people that would be involved. That would be a bridge I would cross when I come to it."

Although this was already "slashdotted" when it was first linked form aintitcool.com here is a working mirror.

Though come to think of it, cut-and-paste theft wouldn't be the worst thing to happen to Slashdot. At least it would save us the hassle of registering with your former employer's website.

exactly: http://www.chud.com/

mod parent up!

Bonch, aka Overly Critical Guy, who keeps proclaiming he hates the bias of Slashdot and all the people the comment here, has submitted a review here. Talk about interesting personality conflict.

I didn't know trolls submitted articles these days.

Trolls submit articles.

But trolls don't write articles.

THIS REVIEW IS PLAIGARISM, PURE AND SIMPLE

bonch (38532) did write this review.

Unless bonch's name is really Devin Faraci, "bonch's" review is cut-and-pasted from chud.com.

What a pathetic piece of shit. It's a copy and paste from here, as the parent indicates. I hope this gets modded up because it is my last post for the next 24 hours!

...you do realize this joke is completely ripped off from Chud's report on this, don't you?

That's so bad that it's being given away with the animated series DVD? The one that blue screens a bunch of nobodies in front of footage from Starship Troopers?

"from time to time some poor guy the director might have picked up on the street waves a plastic-thingie shaped like a bug's limb from the side of the screen. (A friend of mine actually started calling it "Eddy" as it became his favorite character)."

"The plot: Well... there actually is one. ...features some slimy parasites that control humans by entering them through their mouth. (That's the only new cgi, by the way!)"

Stargate already did that one. Well, so did Alien, et al. More here.

there's a couple of interviews with the principles behind this (producer, director, etc.) here and here. this definitely sounds like one very interesting film from a technical and artistic perspective.

there's a couple of interviews with the principles behind this (producer, director, etc.) here and here. this definitely sounds like one very interesting film from a technical and artistic perspective.

"Auds"? Obviously this is short for "audience," but still. Let's move on.

Variety seems to love these abbreviations. Nick Nunziata of CHUD sums it up:

For those not invested in Variety's ass injuring dialect, re-skedding and distribs are slightly quicker ways to say rescheduling and distributors. I can only imagine these folks in the bedroom saying "Honey, thank God I circummed my 'nis or you'd not know the face of Baldhammer(TM)". Annoying.

Don't look if you didn't see Reloaded movie. here

I'm guessing that you're an American and aren't familiar enough with plummy Englishmen to understand how different John Cleese is to Simon Jones, the very actor who played Arthur Dent and in fact the character was BASED on. As I've posted elsewhere, James Fleet of Four Weddings and a Funeral and The Vicar of Dibley fame would be perfect.

Ain't It Cool News has had several reviews, and there are some in the Chud message boards if you hunt for them. Hell, Time magazine contains a spoilerific review. Therefore, this is hardly the first.

Plus, I've heard many complaints that Reloaded contains too much philosphical dialog. Bah!

Just a quick hint for those of you who are expecting to be thrilled by this one just like the first: don't. As good as this movie may be, it can not produce the same feeling you had when the concept was fresh and new. Lower your expectations to a more realistic level and you won't come out of the theater dissapointed.

"I've known the man for five years. All I can tell you that I know, certainly I know, I love that motherfucker, but I don't know a fucking thing about him. I'm telling you the truth. That motherfucker's like nobody else on the planet. That's why he's the one." - Laurence Fishburne speaking on Keanu Reeves.

Two Words: Chris Elliot

Sounds like Philip K. Dick's " Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep "?

"My schedule for today lists a six-hour self-accusatory depression," Iran said.

"What? Why did you schedule that?" It defeated the whole purpose of the mood organ. "I didn't even know you could set it for that," he said gloomily.

Here's a picture of Cassiopa and Sheba (from Battlestar Galactica)

Here's a picture of Athena (from Battlestar Galactica)

Here's a picture of colonel Wilma Deering (from Buck Rogers)

Compare the Buck Rogers one with this photo of Natalie (on the right) and this one from above.

The similarities have not been lost on a lot of people;
http://www.chud.com/board/ubbhtml/Forum1/HTML/0015 45.html

IMHO - Natalie still seems much like a girl, compared to the others above that seem like women. Maybe it's because I grew up with them ;-))

Also it seems Battlestar Galactica is making a comeback;
http://www.kobol.com/revival/index.html