Slashdot Mirror

I could swear that was a movie...

They use quite a lot of tricks to censor films. For example, they will sometimes pass the film back to distributor with notes explaining why they cannot pass the film at the requested certificate. The best bit? The distributor makes the changes as specifies and then resubmits the film which is then passed. The BBFC then report that they didn't have to make any cuts.,

I'm sure you'll be surprised to learn that, according to the film 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated', that's exactly the way it works in the US, too.

..or stop snorting the bug powder

Yeah, China Beach is apparently suffering from the same problem ... if you get a chance, digitize that one too :-)

well, i also watched the Sci-Fi series The Lost Room and thought it was pretty good for a TV mini-series, but that doesn't put it at the same quality as a feature film.

i'm not saying all TV series are bad; but, generally speaking, films get more funding and have higher production values--yes, even compared to HBO and BBC shows (which i agree are superb). also, if you're referring to Space Odyssey: The Robot Pioneers/Voyage to the Planets(2004), they are more accurately labeled as a documentary or docu-drama than a true serial/drama. and while docu-dramas like Space Odyssey and Walking with Dinosaurs are excellent, they're still not quite on the same level as, say, IMAX feature films like Deep Sea 3D or Roving Mars (i watched both of those on DVD, so it's not just the IMAX screen).

OTOH, sitcoms like The Office and animated series like Aqua Teen Hunger Force--each episode of which is only ~11 min.--are a perfect fit for TV broadcast. that's because production values aren't that important in comedies, and animated series are relatively cheap to make these days. it also doesn't take half a decade to write a decent comedy story, whereas serious (fiction/non-documental) dramas are more difficult to write in a short period of time, since they tend to be more plot-based and demand greater literary ability to write.

to break it down further, a 2-hour feature film costs on average ~$102.9 million to make, meaning that the average mainstream film gets about a $50 million budget for each hour of content shot. compare that with a TV series, which generally gets about $1 (sitcom) to $1.5 (drama) million per episode.

well, i also watched the Sci-Fi series The Lost Room and thought it was pretty good for a TV mini-series, but that doesn't put it at the same quality as a feature film.

i'm not saying all TV series are bad; but, generally speaking, films get more funding and have higher production values--yes, even compared to HBO and BBC shows (which i agree are superb). also, if you're referring to Space Odyssey: The Robot Pioneers/Voyage to the Planets(2004), they are more accurately labeled as a documentary or docu-drama than a true serial/drama. and while docu-dramas like Space Odyssey and Walking with Dinosaurs are excellent, they're still not quite on the same level as, say, IMAX feature films like Deep Sea 3D or Roving Mars (i watched both of those on DVD, so it's not just the IMAX screen).

OTOH, sitcoms like The Office and animated series like Aqua Teen Hunger Force--each episode of which is only ~11 min.--are a perfect fit for TV broadcast. that's because production values aren't that important in comedies, and animated series are relatively cheap to make these days. it also doesn't take half a decade to write a decent comedy story, whereas serious (fiction/non-documental) dramas are more difficult to write in a short period of time, since they tend to be more plot-based and demand greater literary ability to write.

to break it down further, a 2-hour feature film costs on average ~$102.9 million to make, meaning that the average mainstream film gets about a $50 million budget for each hour of content shot. compare that with a TV series, which generally gets about $1 (sitcom) to $1.5 (drama) million per episode.

well, i also watched the Sci-Fi series The Lost Room and thought it was pretty good for a TV mini-series, but that doesn't put it at the same quality as a feature film.

i'm not saying all TV series are bad; but, generally speaking, films get more funding and have higher production values--yes, even compared to HBO and BBC shows (which i agree are superb). also, if you're referring to Space Odyssey: The Robot Pioneers/Voyage to the Planets(2004), they are more accurately labeled as a documentary or docu-drama than a true serial/drama. and while docu-dramas like Space Odyssey and Walking with Dinosaurs are excellent, they're still not quite on the same level as, say, IMAX feature films like Deep Sea 3D or Roving Mars (i watched both of those on DVD, so it's not just the IMAX screen).

OTOH, sitcoms like The Office and animated series like Aqua Teen Hunger Force--each episode of which is only ~11 min.--are a perfect fit for TV broadcast. that's because production values aren't that important in comedies, and animated series are relatively cheap to make these days. it also doesn't take half a decade to write a decent comedy story, whereas serious (fiction/non-documental) dramas are more difficult to write in a short period of time, since they tend to be more plot-based and demand greater literary ability to write.

to break it down further, a 2-hour feature film costs on average ~$102.9 million to make, meaning that the average mainstream film gets about a $50 million budget for each hour of content shot. compare that with a TV series, which generally gets about $1 (sitcom) to $1.5 (drama) million per episode.

well, i also watched the Sci-Fi series The Lost Room and thought it was pretty good for a TV mini-series, but that doesn't put it at the same quality as a feature film.

i'm not saying all TV series are bad; but, generally speaking, films get more funding and have higher production values--yes, even compared to HBO and BBC shows (which i agree are superb). also, if you're referring to Space Odyssey: The Robot Pioneers/Voyage to the Planets(2004), they are more accurately labeled as a documentary or docu-drama than a true serial/drama. and while docu-dramas like Space Odyssey and Walking with Dinosaurs are excellent, they're still not quite on the same level as, say, IMAX feature films like Deep Sea 3D or Roving Mars (i watched both of those on DVD, so it's not just the IMAX screen).

OTOH, sitcoms like The Office and animated series like Aqua Teen Hunger Force--each episode of which is only ~11 min.--are a perfect fit for TV broadcast. that's because production values aren't that important in comedies, and animated series are relatively cheap to make these days. it also doesn't take half a decade to write a decent comedy story, whereas serious (fiction/non-documental) dramas are more difficult to write in a short period of time, since they tend to be more plot-based and demand greater literary ability to write.

to break it down further, a 2-hour feature film costs on average ~$102.9 million to make, meaning that the average mainstream film gets about a $50 million budget for each hour of content shot. compare that with a TV series, which generally gets about $1 (sitcom) to $1.5 (drama) million per episode.

I hear she's a nature writer.

The short answer is "Never."

The Hollywood production represents a huge investment in time, money and talent.

It has always made sense to draw on sources where experiments are less risky.

Thorne Smith re-invents the ghost story in the twenties with sophisticated, light-as-air fantasies, like Topper.

Ten years later you have the perfect cast: Cary Grant, Roland Young, Constance Bennett and Billie Burke.

The tech is in place for the special effects you will need -

and you are off and running.

You have a hit on your hands.

You have an audience primed and ready for more.

This "script" has worked countless times for the studios.

Stage to Lordsburg appears in The Saturday Evening Post. It is strong enough to rekindle adult interest in the Western - and the production unites two veterans of the genre, the director John Ford and the actor John Wayne.

I agree that great special effects are not able to support a sub-par script, but I'd have to disagree that a story (how implausible/impossible it might be) can not be told without the use of great special effects.

Check the date on this movie... then grab a copy to watch. The effects were, to say the least, painful...

... and show the film as an audio/visual aid to film students. Of course, that was because Gilliam didn't like his film being cut to ribbons, and not due to legal entanglements with another studio.

I'm continually surprised to hear that King didn't like Kubrick's adaptation; I thought he did a remarkable job in capturing and reinterpreting the novel, as you accurately describe a director's job to be.

The problem with The Shining was the casting, not the directing.

Like the Michael Keaton Batman movie, casting Jack Nicholson for the part of someone who starts out normal and then turns crazy is a mistake. You know Nicolson is crazy from the start. He has managed to convince people that playing a slightly more extreme version of himself on film is "great acting".

The reason 'I-just-made-him-up-man' doesn't generally show up in the box office is simply because there's no anticipated built in audience.

Even though Hancock was somewhat of a Zzzz movie for me, it managed to make $600m worldwide.. So it's not unprecedented.

Although, really what it comes down to is that good film ideas don't make it to the surface often in Hollywood. Regardless of the great ideas that may get bandied about on a daily basis, all you have to do is consider that they made _3_ movies in the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107438/ 'Look who's talking' series.

_3_

Sit and think about that for a second.

_3_.

__ 3 __

And yet, we still have yet to see Goonies _2_.

fuck Hollywood.

fuck them up their 'Lets bring Michael Knight back' asses.

They did the Watchmen movie for the simple reason that 'gritty' comic book movies were proven hot by Sin City and 300. Look on IMDB, Sin City 2 is in pre-production and Sin City 3 is in planning. They're already planning "300-2" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/.. Are you kidding me?

Hollywood finds one single good idea and then spreads it as thin as possible until we are revolted by the idea of _another_ film in the series coming out. Then they find a new idea. Then in 10-20 years it becomes retro and cool again and a new generation of dummies will line up for the rehashed garbage that the latest generation of sub-retarded writers belch out in-between the projects they _really_ care about..

The reason 'I-just-made-him-up-man' doesn't generally show up in the box office is simply because there's no anticipated built in audience.

Even though Hancock was somewhat of a Zzzz movie for me, it managed to make $600m worldwide.. So it's not unprecedented.

Although, really what it comes down to is that good film ideas don't make it to the surface often in Hollywood. Regardless of the great ideas that may get bandied about on a daily basis, all you have to do is consider that they made _3_ movies in the http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107438/ 'Look who's talking' series.

_3_

Sit and think about that for a second.

_3_.

__ 3 __

And yet, we still have yet to see Goonies _2_.

fuck Hollywood.

fuck them up their 'Lets bring Michael Knight back' asses.

They did the Watchmen movie for the simple reason that 'gritty' comic book movies were proven hot by Sin City and 300. Look on IMDB, Sin City 2 is in pre-production and Sin City 3 is in planning. They're already planning "300-2" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1253863/.. Are you kidding me?

Hollywood finds one single good idea and then spreads it as thin as possible until we are revolted by the idea of _another_ film in the series coming out. Then they find a new idea. Then in 10-20 years it becomes retro and cool again and a new generation of dummies will line up for the rehashed garbage that the latest generation of sub-retarded writers belch out in-between the projects they _really_ care about..

Hypothetical question. If some artsy filmmaker made a low budget Watchmen movie that was really low budget, Im talking about uses visual symbolism instead of special effects, less than half a million budget, etc etc, that was absolutely in keeping with the spirit and meaning of the source work would you go watch it? Would you watch it over a Hollywood version that was visually cool?

I can't speak for the entire Watchmen thing as I'm not into the whole comic book deal but I will tell you that I found the ultra-low budget Call of Cthulhu was just the thing to helping me get my Lovecraft groove back on after a long time away from the old gents works.

And it's not that I've ever seen Lovecraft as low budget but I guess most people do simply by his association with the word "pulp."

Now, would I rather see a high rent version of the same thing? Only if it was spent on actors who can act. Eye candy doesn't mean anything if I can't get into the story. Eye candy is only good if it goes unnoticed instead of being the focus of a film.

I have a plan and you all will soon bow down before me:

1) Create perfect woman in petri dish

2) First /.'er to lose virginity

3) Patent troll

4) ?

5) Profit

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090305/

Prior art.

What about these guys? http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0218817/

However, it is still important to remember that some tiny garage startups do succeed, dramatically in certain cases.

Very true... look what these guys did!

You're right. Now that you can build a cruise missile for 5 grand I'd be more worried about that than some Astronaut Farmer making an ICBM.

exactly. i too played with simple implementations of those four concepts by my sophomore year in high school, which is why i gave them as examples. but i'm glad others have had similar experiences.

the image processing stuff i worked on was mostly to do with motion-detection/tracking using my webcam, using a simple XOR operation to detect changes between the current and previous frames of the video stream. when there was no motion in front of the camera, the filter would just produce a blank image, but any motions captured by the webcam would produce a negative gray scale image in the areas of movement--it looked almost like how the alien creatures see things in the movie Pitch Black. it wasn't a very useful application, but i had fun writing it and learning how to work with image filters and bitwise operations.

playing with different bitwise operators also helped me in writing a program to decrypt/recover saved AOL Instant Messenger passwords. of course, i didn't actually break the encryption myself; i simply implemented my own decryption algorithm based on the abundant documentation others had already written on the encryption scheme. but that experience also helped me write my own AIM client in VB. i also wrote an AIM bot in Perl that i automated with a cronjob on my shared hosting account so that i could display my own (or anyone else's) online status on a webpage using a simple CGI script--this was before AOL created their own online status widget.

i'd also implemented very rudimentary AI algorithms, for instance a single-player Tic-Tac-Toe game, by the time i was in high school. so these types of projects are definitely within the capabilities of high school students, especially if there is an instructor to guide them. kids aren't as stupid as adults often think. class assignments don't have to be dumbed down to the point where they no longer provide any sort of challenge. as long as teachers come up with creative projects to hold the students' interest, they will absorb new material like a sponge. conversely, if you just make students write simple Excel macros that are neither challenging nor fun, students will naturally get bored and lose the motivation to learn.

So what you're saying is you're like Bruce Campbell in Army of Darkness. Seems like a lot of work to protect a few people, but it is entertaining. :-]

From what you've written, I'm assuming you're a Windows admin professionally. The solution you've found fits well in that light. But for the people out there that aren't Windows admins, there are much easier ways to get to a satisfactory result.

Have you tried Kubuntu? Most of the functionality you mentioned would already be installed and configured correctly, and the package manager makes installing new apps and updating old ones a breeze. You've also got a lot more flexibility for writing custom backup scripts and such.

It's called Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

Clearly, they're still working out the kinks in Zombie Cyborg McLean Stevenson.

(for those who don't get it and need to get off my lawn: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078623/)

Didn't you see The Astronaut Farmer? The government won't just let you build your own rocket...

Seriously though, NASA has placed restrictions in the past and it just recently became more open.

Look at the human genome project, private sector is doing better.

Plus the private sector will always invest if there is potential profit, THAT is the beauty of capitalism. :-)

Finally, somebody besides a fictional archaeologist who understands the difference between knowledge and belief.

I can know only what I have observed or logically deduced from observation. Knowledge can be modified through experience or the presentation and interpretation of evidence (that is, argument).

I believe whatever in the hell I choose to for no reason at all except that's what I want to believe. Belief can only be modified by the personal choice of the believer.

The more computers come to handle criminal and civil matters, such as with traffic light monitors, the more Joe jobs will become a problem.

One of THX-1138's many social commentaries. A slow, dry movie but damn insightful, IMHO. Still it does not make up for Jar Jar.

Are you implying that this audience isn't interested in domes cities and artificial living environments??

Starlost: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069638/

"Writer Harlan Ellison, unhappy with changes made to his concept for the show, had his credit changed to the pseudonym "Cordwainer Bird.""

That's all they did in GATTACA too.

Yes, and apparently you need to WTFM.

Again? It wasn't that good. Will check IMDB instead: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0119177/plotsummary :

Vincent is one of the last "natural" babies born into a sterile, genetically-enhanced world.

In "the not-too-distant" future, where genetic engineering of humans is common ...

I would love to give Majel Roddenberry in my car.

I can go you one better - I once held her in my arms...

I was working as a PA for a movie called Mommy. Majel played the role of Mrs. Withers, a schoolteacher who gets killed by the movie's lead villainess.

In her final scene, Mrs. Withers is hanging up decorations after hours in her classroom when she is confronted by the murderous lead character. After a brief argument with her would-be killer, Majel's character climbs back up a stepladder to resume her decorating and the murderess does the dirty deed by pushing Majel off the stepladder, causing her to fall to the floor where she presumably dies from a fractured skull.

The scene called for an upper torso shot of Majel falling backwards off the ladder. Since we're talking "B" movie here and the budget did not include an airbag for her to fall onto, the director had me and three other PA's stand next to the ladder with our arms linked together so as to catch her. She literally fell into my arms - not once but several times before the final take. Absolute highlight of my life! What really impressed me, though, was how trusting she was and - to echo what many other posters have already said - how joyful she was as a person.

One other story about Majel's final scene in the movie - her very last camera shot was from above, looking down on the fallen Mrs. Withers as she lay dying on the classroom floor. The director told Majel to ham it up a bit for her death scene so the editor would have some extra footage to work with for the final cut, so there she laid on the floor - eyes closed, a pained expression on her face, rolling her head to and fro and moaning...

(i'm just gonna let that image sink in for a moment or two)

... it was a hypnotic moment, the entire crew was transfixed and except for Majel the room was absolutely quiet. And at some point it sunk in with me that the scene had been going on for a lot longer than was probably necessary and that the director wasn't saying "cut". It must have occurred to Majel as well because she suddenly stopped, raised her head and looked over at the director as if to ask whether it was enough footage. But before she could speak - out of the deafening silence of that moment - a small desperate voice in the back of the room cried out "Marry me, Majel!!".

If you ever get a chance to see the actual movie, keep that story in mind as you watch Mrs. Withers' final on-screen moments.

She also did the voice in a lot of the Star Trek video games including Elite Force, which I thought was Majel. So I bet she could take over and they could just pass it off as "changed vocal module" if they acknowledge it at all.

Just like North Korea and al-Queda working together?

So does John Wayne.

In one incident, Bond bet Wayne that they could stand on opposite sides of a newspaper and Wayne wouldn't be able to hit him. Bond set a sheet of newspaper down in a doorway, Wayne stood on one end, and Bond slammed the door in his face, shouting "Try and hit me now!" Wayne responded by sending his fist through the door, flooring Bond (and winning the bet).

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115571/

But don't worry, Charlie Sheen will stop them.

This has to be the coolest name for a scientist I have ever encountered!:
Dr. Madhat Abdel-Jawad...Madhat FTW!!!

Or, maybe I have watched too many 1950's-1960's grade B (or some/most less than 'B') 'mad scientist' movies for my own good.
It could also be Lewis Carroll's fault for "Alice in Wonderland" having the 'MadHatter'....I just don't know anymore...

Oh yeah, have pink flamingo, will travel...BTW, WHO are you, again?. (Don Ameche's character as the senile father)
Worth watching, a very funny but family safe movie- I give it a 'two thumbs up' rating.

"My wife and I were just discussing her the other evening; while watching WALL-E. Feeling sad that pixar didn't cast her as the voice of the ship's computer. Instead we got a vague homage to Alien in Sigourney Weaver."

Hmm. And Sigourney Weaver played the part of Gwen DeMarco in Galaxy Quest - a person who's job it was to repeat what the computer was saying.

This is in addition to what everyone else is saying. Although the the fantasy is nice, I don't think anyone is going to have a homebrewed lauch complex any time soon.

On the other thing, I think that the moon flight was as well thought out as the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. In probably sounded good at the frat house when everyon was wasted on trash can punch, but the next morning, no one quite knew how to handle the consequences.

The fact is we are down to three shuttles. The fact is we are likely not going to flying if we get down to two. The fact is we have wasted the past 8 years has been wasted. We have known we need to replace shuttle for 5 years. Fact is that the shuttle itself was designed over an eight year period, with the first fully functional vehicle appearing a few years later. One can't just wake up on morning and say, ooh, I want a space program. Not any more. There is too much history. If Orion is not a point where a vehicle can be built, maybe it should be killed. What we need is a reliable heavy lifter, which we have. What we need is a reliable manned spacecraft, which we can build. What we need is a space station, which we have but let politics get in the way of. Then we can have shuttle from LEO to the moon, mars, wherever. Mopst of all, we need to look at how to do this effeceiently.

Actually, Das Boot was more than only a film. I saw the TV series and was impressed by both the acting and the story. It was the first time I could grasp both the ruthlessness and the futility of war.

Actually, Das Boot was more than only a film. I saw the TV series and was impressed by both the acting and the story. It was the first time I could grasp both the ruthlessness and the futility of war.

There was a great sci-fi movie back in the 60s, "Crack in the World" http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059065/ that had a similar story line to this, only it ended up with a rift forming in the earth's crust that spread across Africa and they used nukes to end it all, causing a huge chunk of crust to be hurled into space. Life imitates art again.

The volume slide of the audio player on the BBC site goes to 11! Powerpuff girls rule!

Uh, no. "Up to 11" originated in This is Spinal Tap.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven

That's good to know!

Four upmods please?

Minority Report. Serves the double purpose of marketing to individual preferences, and also keeping track of the populace.

So, what you're saying is the UK just has to figure out how to use their network for advertising and Tom Cruise can shoot Minority Report II over there.

Let's face it, how many fundamental concepts about science and engineering do we learn, not in school, but from educational programs or segments on TV or in other media. MacGyver, Star Trek, Mythbusters for more solid science. A lot of it is exaggerated yes, but the fact is that dramatic presentations of science do help inspire young people to see science as a career path.

You're not really pointing at television shows as paramounts of solid science are you? Mythbusters sure, I can see that, but MacGyver and Star Trek? Please. They might be great for inspiring interest in STEM but they're hardly chock-full of accurate information.

When I was a kid (don't remeber the exact age, around 10 maybe) I used to watch this cartoon http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0284735/ (dubbed to swedish). 20 years later when I now think of what I still remember about human biology and where I learned it the majority are from that show and not from biology class.

Minority Report. Serves the double purpose of marketing to individual preferences, and also keeping track of the populace.

Mark Inglis reached the summit. HE HAS NO LEGS. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0883680/

I have mixed feelings on the Everest thing. I guess I can understand people wanting to test their limits, and push themselves. And the isolation and harsh environment can be intruiging.

However, the stories of loved ones, wifes and children, left behind when someone screws up and dies, really make these acts seem selfish at times. (Stories such as the adventurer calling the loved ones on the satellite phone before their inevitable deaths make for good drama, but don't change the fact that it's horribly unnecessary risk for someone with a family...)

If I'm were well enough off to have $65,000 to plunk into a hobby, I think one of my main goals in life would be to stay *alive* and enjoy it :) ("Okay, I made it, I'm succesful; now let's not screw it up and die!")

I have somewhat more sympathy for folks like Steve Fosset who took fairly calculated risks with a lot of safety measures included (and ironically didn't die doing anything particularly dangerous), and potentially pushed some technological research in his quests.

To wax philisophical for a moment, perhaps it's because there aren't a lot of life-risking activities that can greatly advanced mankind these days, as in the days of the explorers. Maybe the same mentality of Columbus (or insert-your-favorite-explorer-here), just doesn't have a satisfying role in today's society, where all the exploring is pretty much done, so these people find these substitue quests to pacify them. ("Deep space astronaut" might be a good calling for these folks, but there's not exactly a lot of openings.)

Or perhaps I just personally don't see the lure of mountain climbing; it's likely other folks I admire, such as more modern transatlantic sailing adventurers (e.g. Joshua Solcum) could be considered to be in the same class, achieving things that tested their limits, but in the end didn't really advance mankind, other than providng some great tales. (See "Sailing around the world alone.")

(Even more off-topic, for a bizarre story about business/financial/PR pressures for a sailing circumnavigation, and the ensuing cheating and resulting insanity, check out Deep Water. A fascinating story, and good documentary on it.)

To each his own, I guess. Intentionally risking hypoxia doesn't sound like that much of a kick to me (although I hear hypoxia is fun, for the few minutes before you die).

Reminds me of this great movie.

Oh cone on mods, that was funny. Haven't you guys ever heard of Harriet the Spy?

Any relation to Michelle Trachtenberg (Dawn from Buffy the Vampire Slayer)?