Slashdot Mirror

Everyone point and laugh:

"When Things Were Rotten"
"UFO"
"Quark"
"Futurama"

Everyone point and laugh:

"When Things Were Rotten"
"UFO"
"Quark"
"Futurama"

This is a better documentary of UNIX evolution: http://imdb.com/title/tt0308808/

It was "I come in peace." The movie was Dark Angel (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0099817/ - the 1990 movie, not the 2000 tv series starring Jessica Alba). Notably, in the Final Confrontation (as all Iconic Struggles from movies of the 80s and 90s had), the following exchange ensues:

Bad Alien: I come in peace.
Jack Caine (Dolph): Then you go in pieces, asshole.

Indeed, the story of UNIX today is depicted in this documentary.

I'm afraid Roddenberry and Company were a bit late themselves. The term "hyperdrive" was used in Forbidden Planet in 1956. And according to this article, the idea of FTL through "hyperspace" goes back to a John W. Campbell story from 1934.

Just as long as its not called a rat-monkey.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0103873/

Mars Attacks

Sounds rather like the plot to the bulk of The Thirteenth Floor...

There are still 9 more days to work on that tan, until summers endsin Australia.
Maybe a strike is the best way to get a day off.

Well I guess you haven't seen Spaceballs then, as 12345 was taken way back in 1987.

Try again, but something better.

Well, I assume it will be sometime around 2032. Toilet paper will be replaced by three sea shells.

There are some things that should be off limits. My reasoning is this: Games allow us to simulate life (not necessarily reality) in a consequence free atmosphere.

Like a book. Or a movie. Or a play. Or a TV show. Or a song. Or a poem. Or a campfire story...

I personally do not want the general public to find entertainment in simulating the rape of another individual. The effect on the individual is not something that I find acceptable.

Fine. Just as long as you're intellectually consistent enough to suggest we ban much of the entire literary genres of pulp crime fiction, thrillers and horror. And many dramatic films, and popular television dramas, perhaps some plays.

What is the argument for including this type of choice into games? Do you believe it will enhance the gaming experience? Is it simply a matter of principle and free speech?

I guess the argument is that games are just one form that may portray dramatic antagonism, violent conflicts and mature themes, and it's confusing to some folks why people single them out from the bulk of fictional entertainment.

A video game is no more engaging to the imagination than reading a book. In fact, I'd argue they're much less engaging.

Wow, am I out of touch, I thought everyone meant the Xanadu.

I don't give a rats ass about how the graphics compare to other shooters, whether or not every region of my brain is being properly stimulated, or if the plot is "weak". It's just a fun game. Why don't reviews talk about that anymore?

    Much agreed. I have the same issue with movie reviews - i mean, i can enjoy a well crafted, meaningful movie as much as i can enjoy turning my brain off to watch a B-action movie on TV or the latest summer blockbuster. Some reviewers seem to be insulted by the idea that simple entertainment can be, well, entertaining. I have no idea why it is so damn hard to find reviews that can ignore the cheezynees and focus on the fun value. Roger Ebert has been getting better at it though.

    Never mind. Commando will always be sitting next to Citizen Kane and Dr. Strangelove in my DVD collection.

I was afraid you might have meant THIS Xanadu.

when is someone going to start making movies worth while watching again?

In My Father's Den One of thousands of recent movies worth watching.

Just because something isn't advertised on T.V. doesn't mean it's illegal.

Look what happened to Cold Equations. The Twilight Zone version was very tense and concentrated on the decisions made by the pilot. But the remade movie bolted on a corporate conspiracy "only think about the money" theme.

Problem is that George Lucas already ripped it off so thoroughly that people think he invented the genre.

You may (or probably may not) like Gor, which was based on the novels that turned the concept into sleazy S&M. But at least it looks like Barsoom....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0419677/

There is simply no scale on which to compare this British film made on a small budget with fresh actors
to the mindless 10th rate drivel of Hollywood. Warning: This is a real film.

There's still buckets of stuff in the public domain.

One of my favourite games of all time is Microprose's "UFO: Enemy Unknown" (aka XCOM: UFO Defence). I used to spend many hours developing complex bases, with dedicated research, production and tactical types placed at strategic points. I recently saw Land of the Dead and thought it was great (also enjoyed the Dawn of.. remake). The concepts of pockets of survivors battling it out against the enemy also reminded me of "V".

I'd like to see an XCOM style base building element where you develop defences (razor wire, electric fences, machine gun pill boxes), build new camps & supply stores etc. Research would be done by collecting books from libraries on tactical missions or finding dusty archives filled with CD-ROMs. The needs of the community and people in each camp would mean that you would have to venture out into the world to collect supplies, so for instance picking up bullets and new guns from gun shops or police stations, but after a tough battle to get there (e.g. Dawn of the Dead). Food supplies would be gathered from abandoned supermarkets like those in "28 Days Later" and later on harvested in the safe zones to enable survivors to reproduce. Abandoned cars could be towed back to camp and disassembled for glass, electronics and metal to be melted into new items. The game could offer a variety of ways in which to churn zombies via traps laid around the camps e.g. land mines, stake pits, fields of tar etc. The tactical element could be a combination of XCOM and Praetorians whereby soldiers are arranged into fields of fire and left to cover various choke points whilst the raid team collect supplies etc. As squad members die, it could affect the morale of the rest of the squad, causing them to drop supplies or run off to hide. Actually, I really do hope that they make a game like this, becuase it would kick a serious amount of ass.

That would be H.G. Wells, the story follows the book fairly faithfully minus the change to modern day USA instead of victorian England,

Um, no. There's no way to follow the book "fairly" faithfully if you make that change. (And that's not the fault of Wells, but of whoever decided to make that change.) That just does too much violence to some of the story, and would result in something utterly stupid. Oh, wait...

Seriously, I haven't seen that version of the movie. The previews turned me right off. I've read the book a number of times, saw George Pal's version, listened to Jeff Wayne's musical version (which is excellent, and there are strong rumors of a film version in the works) and have the Pendragon version. It's not the England -> USA setting change that's the problem, but the Victorian -> present day change. (George Pal's version suffered for that too.) The differences in technology and what we knew/know about the universe are just too great.

Oh, somebody could do a properly updated version (well, in fact they did -- but that wasn't quite what I had in mind) but the story would have to be rewritten by a competent (ie best-selling and/or Hugo-winning) SF writer first.

Made in 1998 at an estimated cost of $90 million http://imdb.com/title/tt0120751/

I think Robert Townsend could do a better Blackula.

When you see how Microsoft's internal politics (as governed by this incentive scheme) work, the company's ruthless behaviour towards it's competitors and partners alike is no longer surprising. This is the same kind of behaviour I have seen in many consulting companies. They view the world as a zero-sum game of attrition -- inside and out. The elimination process internally is only sustainable because they are very careful to present the image of a place where you can really "make it big", so the young, enthusiastic and gullible or ruthless are attracted. Externally, your partners are only such until you're in a position to take their cake away from them.

A large number of the rest of the world's companies operate with their employees working in relative harmony (aside from some fiercely competive areas such as sales). Microsoft's internal culture doesn't allow their staff to believe any other way could possibly be any better.

The movie The Corporation posited that modern companies are essentially psychopathic in their behaviour. Microsoft's executive seem to encourage the same behaviour in their employees.

Personally, I saw at an early age how these places worked, and while I was rather successful at it I decided money isn't everything. I'm glad I work in a different kind of company -- one where we genuinely try to everyone we work with whether they're in our team or not. I'm not claiming my workmates are all my friends, but that rather working peacefully towards the common good keeps us all healthier, happier people while still making more money than I really need.

Translation: I'm really enjoying this season of 24 with Sean Astin (Samwise from the Lord of the Rings trilogy) as a know-nothing boss.

Destroying life to build and enhance ours.

Sorry, but I don't want to be part of that brave new world.

"If God does not understand what we must do here today... Then he is not God."

Apoligies to the Kingdom of Heaven.

low-cost, low-level domestic eco-terrorism operations (ALF, et. al.)

As I recall, ALF was not a full-fledged terrorist, and was dangerous only to cats.

The other key is to name the enemy. So long as the media uses euphemisms like "sectarianism" instead of calling them what they are, terrorists, people will remain confused because it sounds like some theoretical, unimportant issue. But terrorism is the issue, and it must be fought on all fronts.

Anybody remember this movie? These robots remind me of the spider robots Gene Simmons used to battle Tom Selleck. Interestingly, when I looked it up at IMDB, I find out that Michael Crichton Directed and Wrote that POS movie. Well, POS to todays standards.

Something about these robots reminds me of this movie

not sure how popular (or good) this movie actually is ;)

but the scene where the two AI go through human history - and beyond - in about 2 min is worth the time spent, even if it ultimately ends up in cliche pulp robo-fascist territory...

When I was a kid, my Mom and Dad used to let me stay up late on Thursday night to watch a strange new show, Star Trek. Star Trek's view of the universe, science and technology stuck. Like many people I meet of my generation (I'm 44), I was inspired to a scientific/technical career by Star Trek, the space race, and so on, while I was a kid. This has to be A Good Thing, IMHO.

The one real issue in all of this is the way that lots of mildly autistic engineering folks (most engineering types live life their own way, in their own world) are meeting and mating with other mildly autistic engineering folks, producing profoundly autistic kids.

Some years ago I owned a chunky silver chain necklace, long before the hip hop morons started sporting such things. It had a definite Klingon look to it, and if anybody asked I would tell them I had had a relationship with the Klingon Ambassador's daughter, and it was a going-away present when her dad was posted back to Kronos. An interesting relationship. If anybody asked about the bruises, I looked them right in the eye and told them. :-)

...laura

Flushing toilets are good, tru dat.

The 'yardstick' quote was from "Fight Club" [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0137523/%5D.

It seemed apropos. :)

Rachael: Do you like our owl?
Deckard: It's artificial?
Rachael: Of course it is.

That comment reminded me of a scene in the movie "S.F.W." where Spab and his friend mosh around and wreck Spab's room. Funny stuff.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0109045/

Mildy offtopic but:
Shameless Plagirism from another slashdotter sig: "We want peace for all and prosperity for mankind. We are United States Government; we don't do that sort of thing."

That's actually a quote from the end of the movie Sneakers. James Earl Jones (playing an NSA chief or something like that) says the "We're the United States Government! We don't deal with that sort of thing." part. See IMDB.

~~
Thank you for your time, and now back to our regularly scheduled Slashdot programming...

Personally, I think they jumped the shark when they based a game on a lame 70's gang movie. However, if done properly (big IF), I coulde certainly see a ping pong game being as intertaining as a tennis game and tennis games are pretty fun. Then again, I'd rather play Virtua Tennis than Vice City and I'm not exactly a big tennis fan. I'd also certainly NOT play the game if they added crap like "bling" and 'hoods.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0266308/

You have to see it.

And when Hollywood does in fact do stories that break a mold, they do it with movies like Brokeback Mountain that they know are going to alienate fans of the genre.

That's why it's called Ground Breaking

Imagine if Schindler's List http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/ came out in the 1930's. Or God forbid, The Color Purple http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088939/ came out in the 1950s. Jews! Colored folk? Not in my country! God hates them! The bible says so..... some where... (thumbing through King James)... oh yeah. Leviticus. Where it also says Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins, some called for the death penalty. BorkeBack Mountain, and Copote were exceptional movies. Not even for what some would call controversial topics, but the fact that the directors sculpted moving stories and incredible cinemetography. You van try to doubt me, but the Oscars pretty much speak for themselves. God bless Ang Lee

And when Hollywood does in fact do stories that break a mold, they do it with movies like Brokeback Mountain that they know are going to alienate fans of the genre.

That's why it's called Ground Breaking

Imagine if Schindler's List http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0108052/ came out in the 1930's. Or God forbid, The Color Purple http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088939/ came out in the 1950s. Jews! Colored folk? Not in my country! God hates them! The bible says so..... some where... (thumbing through King James)... oh yeah. Leviticus. Where it also says Eating birds of prey, eating shellfish, cross breeding livestock, picking up sticks on a Saturday, planting a mixture of seeds in a field, and wearing clothing that is a blend of two textiles are examples of acts of ritual impurity which made a Child of Isreal unclean. These were not necessarily minor sins, some called for the death penalty. BorkeBack Mountain, and Copote were exceptional movies. Not even for what some would call controversial topics, but the fact that the directors sculpted moving stories and incredible cinemetography. You van try to doubt me, but the Oscars pretty much speak for themselves. God bless Ang Lee

Look at what happened with King Kong.

Well, according to imdb King Kong cost around $207m to make and has made ~$520m at the worldwide box office (as of Jan 27th). Is a profit of $310m+ (not counting DVD sales & rentals) a failure?

"Look at what happened with King Kong" ... "and nobody went to see it so the movie tanked" etc..

Sorry, but the facts don't add up to what you are saying.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business

Budget = $207,000,000
Just the US box office takings are $216,326,425.
And that is before you add in the global box office takings.

And then, on top of that money, you have the DVD release still to come, which is going to most likely be at least $100M+ (which is nothing compared with top DVD sales, e.g. Shrek)

Overall, its easily going to earn way over $100M+

The problem here is that King Kong is a popular film. Its not an original film and its not an art film. Its a popular, action, popcorn etc.. style of film, for the masses.

Just because something is not high art, or to your liking, doesn't make it bad for everyone. I like art movies but I also really like films like that, and judging from the takings, I'm not alone.

Forget that how about a movie that doesn't involve super elaborate 100 to 1 fight scenes? Want to see a genuinely good fight scene, go get "In the Heat of the Night"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0061811/

and watch the scene where Sidney Poitier' character, gets corned by 4 guys and notice the completely unrealistic lack of roundhouse kicks, and wire-aided double-back-flip kicks to the face. I mean in the face of four attackers, he doesn't even manage to "one-punch knock-out" any of them.

Fight scenes in movies suck hard now-a-days none of them resemble anything you'd see on the street. In some movies that's fine in others it ruins immersion. Super polished coriographed fights have there place in some movies, not ALL movies. 99.9% of the population CAN'T do a backward somersault, and 100% of the population can't do it fast, or hard enough to stop and attacker even if they hit them in the face with it.

Seeing a good fight scene where two guys duke it out street style is hard, if not impossible now-a-days, and it detracts from movies rather than adds to them. The transporter 2 sucked and I don't care how cool you think the fights looked.

God, every time I hear about the new movie named Crash, I think of the 1996 movie also named Crash which had a VERY different plotline:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0115964/

It drives me nuts that the Director would choose the same title as another recent excellent movie, albeit one with a vastly different premis and plot. It confuses the hell out of me.

Movies now are much more than what they were 20 years ago. You aren't getting the same product.

This is debatable. There's no denying that cars are much better today than they were 20 years ago, but entertainment really isn't about technology; it's mostly about story and characters. The reason that the block-buster model is giving way to indie movies is that they focus on the basics.

Would the average american want to watch a black and white movie, where you can see the strings, and there's only 6 actors, and the director/producer/editor/cameraman/lighting tech/lead actor is all the same person?

I think most people here would like Primer. Budget: $7,000.00. (And it's in *COLOR*!)

• Really good special effects can be done with almost any computer for almost nothing.
• Competition from other kind of amusements. Computer games are almost as good as movies and they are interactive. Some are better than others, but they all consume a lot of time that would have been used to watch movies.
• Home theaters instead of big movie centers and cinemas. The picture quality is still better at the cinema, but you will get better sound at home today. And no annoying people farting, messing with their popcorn or burping either (unless you invite som friends).
• People will wait for the extended DVD edition.
• More and more of a movie can be done in a small studio instead of a big studio and still make it look like outdoors by computerized special effects.
• The public is more demanding for better quality both in plot and effects. (better isn't always more, so a large fireball can be replaced by a small - the outcome will still be a fire)
• Some large films are actually overdoing themselves choking the audience instead of involving them.

All this means that Hollywood has to both be better at doing good movies and cut unnecessary costs. Just having good actors won't do a good movie - even if some actors are able to lift a movie by prescense. Patrick Stewart, Kevin Spacey, Sean Connery, Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry and Cate Blanchett are a few that has the ability.

You may not agree on the list, and there are others too. Some directors are also better than others to make a good movie out of what may seem nothing. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was one of the best. Not that George Lucas is that bad either. The important thing is not how you are as a person when you are a director, but the ability to use what you have and compose the result to something that ends up as a whole that is more than it's parts. Another director that also is able to get good results is Luc Besson, who is very productive, and where Nikita and Léon are two films that are worth checking.

So in my opinion - cut down on all those kerosene effects and figure out something more bone-rattling thrilling experiences. You don't have to get to all special effects just to shock the audience - use as little as possible and with a good mix. Alfred Hitchcock was good at this. Just because a film has been cheap to make doesn't mean that it has to be bad.

• Really good special effects can be done with almost any computer for almost nothing.
• Competition from other kind of amusements. Computer games are almost as good as movies and they are interactive. Some are better than others, but they all consume a lot of time that would have been used to watch movies.
• Home theaters instead of big movie centers and cinemas. The picture quality is still better at the cinema, but you will get better sound at home today. And no annoying people farting, messing with their popcorn or burping either (unless you invite som friends).
• People will wait for the extended DVD edition.
• More and more of a movie can be done in a small studio instead of a big studio and still make it look like outdoors by computerized special effects.
• The public is more demanding for better quality both in plot and effects. (better isn't always more, so a large fireball can be replaced by a small - the outcome will still be a fire)
• Some large films are actually overdoing themselves choking the audience instead of involving them.

All this means that Hollywood has to both be better at doing good movies and cut unnecessary costs. Just having good actors won't do a good movie - even if some actors are able to lift a movie by prescense. Patrick Stewart, Kevin Spacey, Sean Connery, Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry and Cate Blanchett are a few that has the ability.

You may not agree on the list, and there are others too. Some directors are also better than others to make a good movie out of what may seem nothing. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was one of the best. Not that George Lucas is that bad either. The important thing is not how you are as a person when you are a director, but the ability to use what you have and compose the result to something that ends up as a whole that is more than it's parts. Another director that also is able to get good results is Luc Besson, who is very productive, and where Nikita and Léon are two films that are worth checking.

So in my opinion - cut down on all those kerosene effects and figure out something more bone-rattling thrilling experiences. You don't have to get to all special effects just to shock the audience - use as little as possible and with a good mix. Alfred Hitchcock was good at this. Just because a film has been cheap to make doesn't mean that it has to be bad.

• Really good special effects can be done with almost any computer for almost nothing.
• Competition from other kind of amusements. Computer games are almost as good as movies and they are interactive. Some are better than others, but they all consume a lot of time that would have been used to watch movies.
• Home theaters instead of big movie centers and cinemas. The picture quality is still better at the cinema, but you will get better sound at home today. And no annoying people farting, messing with their popcorn or burping either (unless you invite som friends).
• People will wait for the extended DVD edition.
• More and more of a movie can be done in a small studio instead of a big studio and still make it look like outdoors by computerized special effects.
• The public is more demanding for better quality both in plot and effects. (better isn't always more, so a large fireball can be replaced by a small - the outcome will still be a fire)
• Some large films are actually overdoing themselves choking the audience instead of involving them.

All this means that Hollywood has to both be better at doing good movies and cut unnecessary costs. Just having good actors won't do a good movie - even if some actors are able to lift a movie by prescense. Patrick Stewart, Kevin Spacey, Sean Connery, Samuel L. Jackson, Halle Berry and Cate Blanchett are a few that has the ability.

You may not agree on the list, and there are others too. Some directors are also better than others to make a good movie out of what may seem nothing. In my opinion Stanley Kubrick was one of the best. Not that George Lucas is that bad either. The important thing is not how you are as a person when you are a director, but the ability to use what you have and compose the result to something that ends up as a whole that is more than it's parts. Another director that also is able to get good results is Luc Besson, who is very productive, and where Nikita and Léon are two films that are worth checking.

So in my opinion - cut down on all those kerosene effects and figure out something more bone-rattling thrilling experiences. You don't have to get to all special effects just to shock the audience - use as little as possible and with a good mix. Alfred Hitchcock was good at this. Just because a film has been cheap to make doesn't mean that it has to be bad.