Slashdot Mirror

Sounds familiar.

Following a covert infiltration of their Tel-Aviv headquarters by a crack team of elite GNAA agents, Zionist news organization CNN today publicly declassified top-secret information regarding the September 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, information which was until now actively supressed by the Zionist Occupied Governments of the West. Thousands of jewish viewers across America choked on their evening halvah (muslim babies) as, in a primetime broadcast, Paula Zahn (herself a latent jew) was forced at dongpoint to reveal the awful truth behind the 9/11 attacks which the rest of the civilized (read: non-judaic) world has long suspected: Jews Did WTC.

Fast-forwarding past the 1080p CP on the greasy HD-DVD handed to them by bedpan, the CNN production team played back the devastating GNAA-compiled footage whilst Paula Zahn held back a rectal prolapse to present their findings. Irrefutable proof from highly credible sources (such as regarded public information portals jewsdidwtc.com & Encyclopedia Dramatica) was disclosed in order to finally put an end to the debate. In the interests of equal representation, a token jew was present for the post-footage discussion, together with a panel of gay niggers.

In the unlikely event that you missed this historic broadcast, it has been archived at JewTube.

Want to know more? See the proof for yourself @ http://www.jewsdidwtc.com and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

About CNN:

Trolled

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

• First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
• Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
• Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gn

Following a covert infiltration of their Tel-Aviv headquarters by a crack team of elite GNAA agents, Zionist news organization CNN today publicly declassified top-secret information regarding the September 11 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center, information which was until now actively supressed by the Zionist Occupied Governments of the West. Thousands of jewish viewers across America choked on their evening halvah (muslim babies) as, in a primetime broadcast, Paula Zahn (herself a latent jew) was forced at dongpoint to reveal the awful truth behind the 9/11 attacks which the rest of the civilized (read: non-judaic) world has long suspected: Jews Did WTC.

Fast-forwarding past the 1080p CP on the greasy HD-DVD handed to them by bedpan, the CNN production team played back the devastating GNAA-compiled footage whilst Paula Zahn held back a rectal prolapse to present their findings. Irrefutable proof from highly credible sources (such as regarded public information portals jewsdidwtc.com & Encyclopedia Dramatica) was disclosed in order to finally put an end to the debate. In the interests of equal representation, a token jew was present for the post-footage discussion, together with a panel of gay niggers.

In the unlikely event that you missed this historic broadcast, it has been archived at JewTube.

Want to know more? See the proof for yourself @ http://www.jewsdidwtc.com and Encyclopedia Dramatica.

About CNN:

Trolled

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

• First, you have to obtain a copy of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
• Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
• Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GAYNIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gn

Uh oh, life imitates art: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0779982/

"Anything you forget to take with you will kill you; anything you do remember to bring but that doesn't work will kill you; and if you're in any doubt, assume everything will kill you."

Sound advice, although I suspect the missus takes it to heart whenever we go on holiday for a weekend.

...but I think this is related: http://imdb.com/title/tt0374020/

Does the owner look like Andy Griffith, perchance?

Hey, you're not giving them very good incentive to make good videos - if they're great you'll buy them, if they're steaming crap you'll buy them. :)

Hey, you're not giving them very good incentive to make good videos - if they're great you'll buy them, if they're steaming crap you'll buy them. :)

Some of us would disagree LotR was a good adaptation, but it was very successful and has much to teach us. As do the Potter movies.

First lesson: Figure out what makes the books work and find a way to do it in film. Jackson definitely changed characters and plots to make things Hollywood/popcorn crowd friendly, but he did at least get the overall gist of things. The relationships and trials that kept the book going were re-created for the screen. The mythic story arc that is instinctively familiar to us all was preserved. The most famous version of this was the movie Amadeus. It's significantly different from the stage play, but Shaffer moved into Milos Forman's house for several months while the two of them figured out what was the spirit of the stage play and figured out how to execute that spirit in film. The result is an awesome film (IMHO). (Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/trivia)

Hollywood studios tend to focus on (no pun intended) "focus group" things. For example:

Focus Group loser: "That battle scene was wickedly awesome!! But that gay talky-talky stuff bored me."

Executive: "Note -- audiences care more about SFX than dialog."

[Later]

Executive Note: "Your movie is dragging during the dialog scenes, please reduce the dialog and increase the action in your movie."

The Potter movies work because Rowling waited until a studio showed up and said "We'll let you have some input (but not creative control) and we have some very passionate fans of your books in our studio at the executive level down to the director level who want to be faithful to your books." Although I'm not a Chris Columbus fan, but he really seemed to give a damn as did Kloves (the screenwriter). They figured out the elements that were the heart of the book and kept them on the screen. Although I felt they dropped the ball with Goblet of Fire where it felt like they concentrated too hard on plot event faithfulness at the expense of everything else, but I digress.

Second lesson: Get people who give a damn. People who like and care about the material tend to make better films than those that don't. It's not a 100% formula (there are countless projects the director/writer/producer loved but aren't very good), but it's better than getting people who don't give a damn. Corollary: I've read several books about pitching in Hollywood (TV and movies) and one thing everyone's said is the executives don't really listen to the content of your pitch but how you deliver it. Apparently, executives do prefer people who are passionate about a project than not. I guess it's more fun to crush their spirit that way. ;-)

Third lesson: It's OK to get the creator's input. The successful ABC adaptations of Stephen King's books had lots of King input on them -- he was the producer and screenwriter!! The Potter films let Rowling in at the early stages to provide notes and the directors apparently discuss any changes to her story with her first. And to her credit, Rowling appreciates that films are different and simply focuses on making sure the movies don't violate the spirit of the books or the characters. The original author usually has a good idea of what made the book a success than an executive who read a report by one of his readers.

Some of us would disagree LotR was a good adaptation, but it was very successful and has much to teach us. As do the Potter movies.

First lesson: Figure out what makes the books work and find a way to do it in film. Jackson definitely changed characters and plots to make things Hollywood/popcorn crowd friendly, but he did at least get the overall gist of things. The relationships and trials that kept the book going were re-created for the screen. The mythic story arc that is instinctively familiar to us all was preserved. The most famous version of this was the movie Amadeus. It's significantly different from the stage play, but Shaffer moved into Milos Forman's house for several months while the two of them figured out what was the spirit of the stage play and figured out how to execute that spirit in film. The result is an awesome film (IMHO). (Reference: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0086879/trivia)

Hollywood studios tend to focus on (no pun intended) "focus group" things. For example:

Focus Group loser: "That battle scene was wickedly awesome!! But that gay talky-talky stuff bored me."

Executive: "Note -- audiences care more about SFX than dialog."

[Later]

Executive Note: "Your movie is dragging during the dialog scenes, please reduce the dialog and increase the action in your movie."

The Potter movies work because Rowling waited until a studio showed up and said "We'll let you have some input (but not creative control) and we have some very passionate fans of your books in our studio at the executive level down to the director level who want to be faithful to your books." Although I'm not a Chris Columbus fan, but he really seemed to give a damn as did Kloves (the screenwriter). They figured out the elements that were the heart of the book and kept them on the screen. Although I felt they dropped the ball with Goblet of Fire where it felt like they concentrated too hard on plot event faithfulness at the expense of everything else, but I digress.

Second lesson: Get people who give a damn. People who like and care about the material tend to make better films than those that don't. It's not a 100% formula (there are countless projects the director/writer/producer loved but aren't very good), but it's better than getting people who don't give a damn. Corollary: I've read several books about pitching in Hollywood (TV and movies) and one thing everyone's said is the executives don't really listen to the content of your pitch but how you deliver it. Apparently, executives do prefer people who are passionate about a project than not. I guess it's more fun to crush their spirit that way. ;-)

Third lesson: It's OK to get the creator's input. The successful ABC adaptations of Stephen King's books had lots of King input on them -- he was the producer and screenwriter!! The Potter films let Rowling in at the early stages to provide notes and the directors apparently discuss any changes to her story with her first. And to her credit, Rowling appreciates that films are different and simply focuses on making sure the movies don't violate the spirit of the books or the characters. The original author usually has a good idea of what made the book a success than an executive who read a report by one of his readers.

The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'

1. Stargate SG-1 (1997)
2. Stargate Infinity (2002)
3. Stargate Atlantis (2004)
4. Stargate Universe

The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'

1. Stargate SG-1 (1997)
2. Stargate Infinity (2002)
3. Stargate Atlantis (2004)
4. Stargate Universe

The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'

1. Stargate SG-1 (1997)
2. Stargate Infinity (2002)
3. Stargate Atlantis (2004)
4. Stargate Universe

The working title of the third 'Stargate' television series is 'Stargate Universe'

1. Stargate SG-1 (1997)
2. Stargate Infinity (2002)
3. Stargate Atlantis (2004)
4. Stargate Universe

shooting on the two 'Stargate SG-1' movies finishes in June

Given the constraints of the budget, I thought the SciFi channel did a darned good job with the movie that ended the Farscape series - they took the concept about as far as it could be taken [I mean, seriously, it's hard to top an out-of-control wormhole that threatens to swallow up the entirety of space-time as we know it], and tied up most of the loose ends [boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy regains girl plus newborn baby].

I hope they take these Stargate movies at least as seriously - the SG-1 franchise deserves to go out with a bang.

I'd like to see all the species in our galaxy [The Asgard, the Nox, the Oannes, Ba'al & his gang, etc etc etc], teaming up a la Justice League of America, or Avengers/Defenders, and going head to head with the Origin armies, in a four-hour epic maelstrom of a battle, with blood and guts and iron and ash and fire and brimstone, and finally wiping those rat bastard Ori off the map forever.

And speaking of going out with a bang, after they've dealt with the Ori once and for all, the male leads could then turn to fighting over who gets to bang Inara Serra.

And it would be really neat if they could convince Kurt Russell & James Spader to come back and play some roles - maybe president & vice president of the USA?

Or perhaps they could be in the cast of "Wormhole X-Treme!".

[And if you wanna get really cynical, it could be revealed that the entire Stargate franchise was merely the fantasy of a writer for "Wormhole X-Treme!" - kinda like how Bobby Ewing just reappeared in the shower one morning.]

But the book and movie were made together, and are supposed to go together, it was an artistic experiment.

Not true. The movie was written first. It was inspired by Clarke's "The Sentinel" and Borges' "The Aleph", but while the actual writing was done by Clarke, Kubrick demanded so many rewrites that Clarke himself admits that he didn't really write 2001 -- Kubrick did. The book was based on Clarke's understanding of what was going on in the movie, but the two stories are not the same, because (among other things) Kubrick is not Clarke. It's like saying that you have to watch Blade Runner to understand Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Yes, both works are strongly related, but they're not designed as a unitary whole, and treating them as such will lead you astray.

Too true. We are coming to Idiocracy. In fact even that movie was dumbed down by making the main character an idiot in most peoples eyes.

I prefer to do my own research rather than to cite someone else's work. I cite my life experience.

I have no idea whether it was based on a sci-fi novel or not, but it sure as hell *felt* like it; it was thoughtful, deliberate without being dull, took both the science and sociological angles as seriously as possible, etc. Excellent movie, highly recommended: IMDB Link

I tis true that 99% of them are pure crap. But there are few winners like Alien Apocalypse starting Bruce Campbell http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0404756/ This is one of my favorite movies ever.

Actually, Close Encounters came out after Star Wars, although they're really close enough together that they were in production at the same time.

Actually, Close Encounters came out after Star Wars, although they're really close enough together that they were in production at the same time.

of course, this being slashdot, many people here will know solaris for what it is to aficionados of good science fiction: the art in high form by one of the greatest and most cerebral of it's artists, stanislaw lem

however, i want to introduce a different solaris to the slashdot crowd:

this solaris

look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now

it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why?

folks, we're talking about the MOVIES. we're not talking about a collegiate journal here. if you don't understand my drift, allow me to smash you over the head with it: a movie has to be somewhat dumb to succeed. if it is too brainy, most of your audience's eyes will glaze over, and you won't really have an audience

now before some of you grow despondent, i said SOMEWHAT dumb, not totally dumb

that's equally poisonous to a healthy box office profit

so the point is simple: too cerebral, and your science fiction story won't do good business. it's as simple as that. the story must match the iq of the audience. and so if the iq of the story is 175, then only people at that rarefied corner of the bell curve will go see the movie and enjoy it. (and it is equally true that if the iq of the story is 25, you are dealing with similar small subset of the population, fortunately)

you're science fiction must have an iq of 100. then it will be science fiction that will succeed at the box office. and unfortunately, science fiction being a genre that appeals to the intelligent amongst us, there will always be a disconnect between popular science fiction, and celebrated science fiction. always

but do not give up hope, dear brainiac movie/ sci fi lovers, every rule was meant to be broken

of course, this being slashdot, many people here will know solaris for what it is to aficionados of good science fiction: the art in high form by one of the greatest and most cerebral of it's artists, stanislaw lem

however, i want to introduce a different solaris to the slashdot crowd:

this solaris

look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now

it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why?

folks, we're talking about the MOVIES. we're not talking about a collegiate journal here. if you don't understand my drift, allow me to smash you over the head with it: a movie has to be somewhat dumb to succeed. if it is too brainy, most of your audience's eyes will glaze over, and you won't really have an audience

now before some of you grow despondent, i said SOMEWHAT dumb, not totally dumb

that's equally poisonous to a healthy box office profit

so the point is simple: too cerebral, and your science fiction story won't do good business. it's as simple as that. the story must match the iq of the audience. and so if the iq of the story is 175, then only people at that rarefied corner of the bell curve will go see the movie and enjoy it. (and it is equally true that if the iq of the story is 25, you are dealing with similar small subset of the population, fortunately)

you're science fiction must have an iq of 100. then it will be science fiction that will succeed at the box office. and unfortunately, science fiction being a genre that appeals to the intelligent amongst us, there will always be a disconnect between popular science fiction, and celebrated science fiction. always

but do not give up hope, dear brainiac movie/ sci fi lovers, every rule was meant to be broken

of course, this being slashdot, many people here will know solaris for what it is to aficionados of good science fiction: the art in high form by one of the greatest and most cerebral of it's artists, stanislaw lem

however, i want to introduce a different solaris to the slashdot crowd:

this solaris

look at that carefully folks: the contrast between the cost and the profit. some of you may be getting my point now

it had a big star, a bug budget, and a big director, and it lost money. why?

folks, we're talking about the MOVIES. we're not talking about a collegiate journal here. if you don't understand my drift, allow me to smash you over the head with it: a movie has to be somewhat dumb to succeed. if it is too brainy, most of your audience's eyes will glaze over, and you won't really have an audience

now before some of you grow despondent, i said SOMEWHAT dumb, not totally dumb

that's equally poisonous to a healthy box office profit

so the point is simple: too cerebral, and your science fiction story won't do good business. it's as simple as that. the story must match the iq of the audience. and so if the iq of the story is 175, then only people at that rarefied corner of the bell curve will go see the movie and enjoy it. (and it is equally true that if the iq of the story is 25, you are dealing with similar small subset of the population, fortunately)

you're science fiction must have an iq of 100. then it will be science fiction that will succeed at the box office. and unfortunately, science fiction being a genre that appeals to the intelligent amongst us, there will always be a disconnect between popular science fiction, and celebrated science fiction. always

but do not give up hope, dear brainiac movie/ sci fi lovers, every rule was meant to be broken

I would add Pi http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0138704/ to your list. I enjoyed it quite a bit.

GWTW premiered in Atlanta on December 15, 1939. Gone With The Wind

Gone With The Wind was the year's, prestige, big-ticket, road show for adults. Running three hours with an intermission. Budgeted at $4,000,000 in an era when Stagecoach could be produced for $500,000.

Summer was the off-season.

Theaters were air-conditioned beginning in the 20's, but there was little relief to be had anywhere else.

If you go to IMDB.com and look at the All Time USA Box Office stats, you'll see lots of Star Wars movies at the top... I started from the top and counted down - Movies like Star Wars, ET, etc. are the big special effects movies that are talked about in the article. "Thinking Man" Sci Fi arguably starts after the first 13 or so shoot'em ups with Back To the Future.(A weak argument, IMHO) Terminator 2 follows that, and although I would personally look at the Terminator series as a thinking mans movie, there is no dismissing the fact that it is also a big sfx shoot'em up (Even though Arnold doesn't kill anyone in that particular movie). 3 more big budget shoot'em ups later, you land on the Planet of the Apes remake - BZZZT - sorry just doesn't qualify... 6 more shoot'em ups later, the list ends. Now I get that the list isn't indexed for inflation, but the Sound of Music is on that list, so is the Godfather, and even the Rocky Horror Picture show, all before Star Wars...At the end of the day, "thinking man's" sci fi doesn't sell. We, as a people, only have ourselves to blame for that.

Have you seen Primer (2004)? This is Sci-Fi the way it ought to be. Everything in a story like this seems normal except that little bit of scientific speculation. Or might that actually be possible as well? And weeks/months/years later, you're still talking/thinking about it.

Movies like Star Wars may be entertaining in their own right, but they have little to do with science. That stuff has more in common with Lord of the Rings: Fastasy-Fiction, except with spaceships and lasers. Star Wars is basic Swords and Sorcery... err, light sabers and The Force.

Logan's Run wasn't laughably bad in any way. On the contrary, it kicks total ass. If you want a laughably bad movie, you have to turn to something like Phase IV or the truly horrible Silent Running.

Logan's Run was one of the rare examples of a watchable Sci-Fi film from the 1970's. Planet of the Apes is another.

Logan's Run wasn't laughably bad in any way. On the contrary, it kicks total ass. If you want a laughably bad movie, you have to turn to something like Phase IV or the truly horrible Silent Running.

Logan's Run was one of the rare examples of a watchable Sci-Fi film from the 1970's. Planet of the Apes is another.

How about Gattaca? Very sci-fi, few action scenes, excellent story.

And for the really geeky... The announcements in the background are in Esperanto.

You must have a degree in...nameology.

For those of you who don't know, that is a reference to this movie.

I am old fan of Stanislav Lems work. I have to say i would never call American version a remake (Are we calling all versions of "Hamlet" a remake after first one?" Tarkovsky is brilliant director, but unfortunately i have to say for director of his class borth "Solaris" and "Stalker" are plain failures. They still show his high class and much better that a lot of movies out there, but if you compare them to the rest of his work you can say that he is not really good Sci-fi director. You also need to realize that American and Russian version are talking about different things, and yes American Version is not following the book exactly ,but bring the central idea of the movie (not the book) better and that part of artistic process, finding something in the book and making a movie about it. Probably it will be more fair to call movie differently but say it's based on Solaris novell in this case (you can read lem comments about second movie here : http://www.lem.pl/cyberiadinfo/english/kiosk/kiosk .htm#solstation ) Russian version unfortunately didn't really cover main idea of the book and tried to do too many things at the same time. You can read Lem comments about russian version here.: http://alek.xspaces.org/2005/07/28/lem-on-tarkovsk y
Also you can read some ideas about book here : http://www.lem.pl/cyberiadinfo/english/dziela/sola ris/solarispl.htm#1
In general I have to say Lem probably wouldn't like the second movie either, but i still must say that doesn't make it a bad movie, it just probably should have have a different name and say --- based on the characters and event from the book instead of being called Solaris. As with many good books there are usually interesting ideas in them that authors might not have originally planned to explore. So it take good director and script writer to explore those. In my own opinion and based of what i know about Lem work i would say second movie bring some of those idea better that Tarkovsky did. If you really want to see great work by Tarkovsky you should see Andrey Rublev. But this is not science fiction. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0060107/

After "Bicentennial Man" (*shudder*), I had hoped that the Good Doctor's work would not be further reduced to trash by Hollywood... but I was wrong. I'll have no part of "I, Robot", the Holly-weird version.

On the other hand, sci-fi movies that are not space operas may be judged as differing too much from the "Star Wars" archetype and canned as being too risky.

Didn't seem to stop Ridley Scott from making Alien and Blade Runner right after Star Wars. There is and will always be smart sci-fi out there. And there is and will always be pulp. I would actually argue that Star Wars is more than just pulp, especially in Empire Strikes Back, but nonetheless smart sci-fi continues to be made.

In fact, I can think of several recent films like The Fountain, Sunshine, and Solaris just off the top of my head; none of which could be described as "space opera" by a longshot.

-Eric

On the other hand, sci-fi movies that are not space operas may be judged as differing too much from the "Star Wars" archetype and canned as being too risky.

Didn't seem to stop Ridley Scott from making Alien and Blade Runner right after Star Wars. There is and will always be smart sci-fi out there. And there is and will always be pulp. I would actually argue that Star Wars is more than just pulp, especially in Empire Strikes Back, but nonetheless smart sci-fi continues to be made.

In fact, I can think of several recent films like The Fountain, Sunshine, and Solaris just off the top of my head; none of which could be described as "space opera" by a longshot.

-Eric

On the other hand, sci-fi movies that are not space operas may be judged as differing too much from the "Star Wars" archetype and canned as being too risky.

Didn't seem to stop Ridley Scott from making Alien and Blade Runner right after Star Wars. There is and will always be smart sci-fi out there. And there is and will always be pulp. I would actually argue that Star Wars is more than just pulp, especially in Empire Strikes Back, but nonetheless smart sci-fi continues to be made.

In fact, I can think of several recent films like The Fountain, Sunshine, and Solaris just off the top of my head; none of which could be described as "space opera" by a longshot.

-Eric

http://imdb.com/title/tt0069293/ http://imdb.com/title/tt0069293/ The original "Solaris" also, very, very deep story.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0069293/ http://imdb.com/title/tt0069293/ The original "Solaris" also, very, very deep story.

Don't forget Farenheit 451. Excellent Bradbury book made into a compelling movie. Was a lot of fire...

Its not his fault he can't spell, it is slashdot after all. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0768212/

TFA seems to be right, as most of the top ranked Sci-fi flicks at the imdb are just future-based action movies:

1. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
2. Star Wars
3. The Matrix
4. Metropolis
5. Alien
6. Aliens
7. 2001: A Space Odyssey
8. Terminator 2: Judgment Day
9. Blade Runner
10. Donnie Darko

Rest of the list, here.

--
Text link ads, the easiest way to earn money with your web!

But what about Blade Runner? That's about as serious as Sci-Fi gets and was made later than Star Wars.

I believe the problem is more with Hollywood studios not wanting to take any risks, always sticking to the same formula. The genre is irrelevant.

I recommend Underground (1941) - it looks at a lot of different aspects of State control.

Dude, Tomorrow Never Dies was not a documentary.

there are two kinds of workers: segmentors and integrators. Segmentors want to maintain a strict separation between work and home while integrators don't mind mixing the two.

Tennant is now the tenth Doctor, correct? (Hartnell, Troughton, Pertwee, T. Baker, Davison, C. Baker, McCoy, McGann [I count this movie since McCoy was in it], Eccleston and Tennant). source: http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=dr.+who (There was an extra Doctor in there [Craig], but only for two episodes which I have not seen, so I suspect it was a alter ego/mirror/doppleganger kind of thing.)

According to lore and one of the episodes I vaguely recall involving the Master trying to steal the Doctor's body, time lords can only regenerate twelve times. That means the Doctor is nearing his end. Obviously, to continue the series the writers will come up with something clever to perform a transfer or get around the twelfth regeneration. Here's where this rumor might have some credibility.

Doctor regenerates into a woman (#11) which may or may not be Billie Piper. Since the doctor gets younger each regeneration, Billie might fit the bill nicely. Dr. Rose picks up a male assistant, falls in love and gets pregnant. Eventually she gives birth to a half time lord, half human. At some point (maybe birth, maybe puberty, maybe 18 yrs old) all the memories and experiences from the past Doctor transfer into this offspring continuing the line.

Alternatively, Dr. Rose could tryst about the universe getting knocked up by every compatible species and slowly give birth to a new generation of time lords. :-) In more spectacular, sci-fi fashion, Dr. Rose might get pregnant once, travel back to 0,0,0 and in some chaotic, meta-physical, multi-dimensional manner give birth to a new line of time lords and bring Gallifrey back into being.

If anything like this comes true, I think someone owes me a few pints of Guinness. ;-)

might i ask where it is from? ;-)

Sure. It's from Goodfellas, probably the best mafia film ever made. The commentary track on the DVD features the real Henry Hill talking about his life as dramatised by Scorcese in the film. He comes to the same conclusion you do for the same reasons - it's no kind of life for anyone.