Slashdot Mirror

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

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?

Yes.

Steven Soderbergh predicted in a Wired magazine interview that the typical film launch will coincide with the dvd release and cable/satellite broadcast, all in the same day. Why? Because of piracy and dwindling box office returns. In fact, Soderbergh is putting his money where his mouth is with his upcoming film Bubbles.

More like Night of the Comet http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0087799/

Besides the other correct reply I want to add on to the fact that whether or not it was profitable, King Kong did not provide a very good per-dollar investment. Even if it ends up making $825MM after DVD sales, that's a 4-to-1 return on the investment and they had to wait about two years to recoup the cost.

Smart (read: "profitable") companies have been churning out horror flicks to capture the teenage market or romantic comedies. These are still two types of audiences which want or need to go to movies: teenagers because they can't or won't hang around their parent's house, and couples who are going out on dates. To some extent, families are sort of a third group (Narnia). But teenagers are still a big draw.

Take a look at how When a Stranger Calls has done. First off, you probably have not heard of this recent movie, and neither had I until I saw a trailer on Apple.com. That should tell you that the marketers are doing a good job because they're not wasting money on convincing people like us to go to this movie. Entire cost: About $15 million. The movie started taping this summer and about six months after production made all of its money back. Two weeks after the opening weekend it had tripled its gross. We can safely say over the next two years (same timeline as King Kong), this movie will make eight or more times its gross after raking in DVD sales, worldwide sales, pay-per-view and cable.

Or take a look at Hostel, another horror/thriller. Within a month of its release, it made back ten times its budget. It still has been less than a year since production started. By this time next year it will have made 15 to 25 times its budget. (It hasn't even come out in most foreign territories).

There's tons of these types of movies that are not terribly good but because they are cheap and to some, somewhat entertaining, they make money. Madea's Family Reunion is on its way to make $50MM if you can wrap your head around that. That's 1/3rd of what Fantastic Four made and they spent at least $50MM on marketing the movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business

Simply put, what kind of meaningless comment was that about King Kong? Besides, what kind of mega-dollar monsters hasn't George Lucas himself spewed out, and with considerably less good results (Episode I anyone?).

What they all need is 1. to pay the stars less 2. pay MPAA nothing 3. pay the people who actually have no part in the making of the movie, well, less 4. get better stories.

Voila, more movies will make a profit then :)

Don't purchase survival horror games. Results might be counterproductive. This is SPECIALLY true if the hospital you're in is called "Brookhaven Hospital" :P

Given that the 5 "best" picture nominees grossed less than $200M in total, there is no evidence they are "decent stories", but implied evidence that they favor the ongoing PC agendas of Hollywood. And the same situation happened last year and the year before. When WAS the last good film?! I would say "I, Robot"...and what did it win? Nothing from "the Academy": http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/awards

Would you like to explain how King Kong, Walk the Line or Pride and Prejudice were PC films?.

Pride and Prejudice is a centuries old chick flick, bleck. King Kong was, by all accounts, fit for teenage masturbation and nothing more. Walk The Line is about all I would call a half way decent movie.

The reason the term "PC" is used is that "the Academy" is clearly not listening to the people. Check out the Top 50 '2000s' movies on imdb.com, the most popular 2005 movie according to We The People was "Sin City", yet that received zero nominations. On the other hand, the geisha movie wins three oscars...to go with its raspberry award.

Basically Hollywood could care less about us. Once in a while they accidentally nominate a good movie (e.g. Batman Begins) but they make sure it doesn't get nominated for much or win anything (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/awards).

We have to do our part, boycotting crap like War Of The Worlds, and even crap actors like Jessica Alba (Fantastic Crap). And when the little movies and concepts succeed, we succeed, so we should put our money down on the good ones -- part of the reason I bought The Matrix 10-DVD set.

Given that the 5 "best" picture nominees grossed less than $200M in total, there is no evidence they are "decent stories", but implied evidence that they favor the ongoing PC agendas of Hollywood. And the same situation happened last year and the year before. When WAS the last good film?! I would say "I, Robot"...and what did it win? Nothing from "the Academy": http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0343818/awards

Would you like to explain how King Kong, Walk the Line or Pride and Prejudice were PC films?.

Pride and Prejudice is a centuries old chick flick, bleck. King Kong was, by all accounts, fit for teenage masturbation and nothing more. Walk The Line is about all I would call a half way decent movie.

The reason the term "PC" is used is that "the Academy" is clearly not listening to the people. Check out the Top 50 '2000s' movies on imdb.com, the most popular 2005 movie according to We The People was "Sin City", yet that received zero nominations. On the other hand, the geisha movie wins three oscars...to go with its raspberry award.

Basically Hollywood could care less about us. Once in a while they accidentally nominate a good movie (e.g. Batman Begins) but they make sure it doesn't get nominated for much or win anything (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0372784/awards).

We have to do our part, boycotting crap like War Of The Worlds, and even crap actors like Jessica Alba (Fantastic Crap). And when the little movies and concepts succeed, we succeed, so we should put our money down on the good ones -- part of the reason I bought The Matrix 10-DVD set.

'The market forces that exist today make it unrealistic to spend $200 million on a movie,' said Lucas, a near-billionaire from his feverishly franchised outer-space epics. 'Those movies can't make their money back anymore.'

Who cares how large the budget is?? Is that a deciding factor for any moviegoer?

Even if it was, LOTR had half of that budget, and I don't think many thought it looked amateurish... It had made $314,000,000 as of the end of 2003.

Look at what happened with King Kong.

Yeah, to many it kinda sucked especially for being too long. The point...? That a high budget movie has a risk of failing if it's a remake with some pacing problems? Of course! But maybe Lucas has been blinded by his Star Wars brand, and automatic interest in anything about it, so much that he believes it's more about the effects and the title than the movie, and after that the revenue is received on a silver platter. Unfortunately for most, that's a luxury he's among few of having.

There was a series of shorts on a local kids station based out of Paris, Ontario, called Short Circuitz. They featured CGI videos and music usually about a minute long. Most of the sequences can be found on "The Mind's Eye" or "Beyond the Mind's Eye" (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0167046/) I think the one you're talking about is called "Seeds"... Good luck

Then, someone will take a chance on a big budget blockbuster...

What is most amusing is that it is Lucas who doesn't seem to appreciate this. I believe it is widely acknowledged that this cycle was key to the success of Star Wars. By the late 1970s, Hollywood had stopped making the epics and studios had gutted their effects departments. Movies like Easy Rider prompted a move towards gritty, low-budget, dramas. And then, a young director pushed a epic space opera...

How many times, in the "behind the scenes" documentaries about Star Wars, does Lucas brag about how no one else in Hollywood thought an epic would work?

You wanna talk about sequels? Lets chat:

http://imdb.com/title/tt0454901/

I have no idea what Lucas is talking about.
http://imdb.com/title/tt0360717/business

Kong cost $207m and made (US Box alone) $216m so it made money, toss in worldwide revenue and while it didn't blow the roof off anything it still made money. Now toss in the video game licence, other merchandising and future DVD and TV rights sales and you've got a film that will still make a good truck of money depsite being nothing more than a warmed over remake. What that film teaches us, i think, is that no matter how lame the concept, if it is hyped well enough and sold big enough anything can make a buck no matter how grotesque its budget is.

Color me confused: according to IMDB, King Kong had an estimated budget of $207 million, but had already brought in $520 million worldwide by the 26th of January. How is that a failure?

Is my point of confusion that the amount brought in was the Gross profit figure, and the taxes and other overhead eat up more than $300 million of that?

Rent The President's Analyst ( http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0062153/ ) and tell me that you do not worry.

,dave

I'm still waiting for a follow up for History of the World: Part I featuring Hitler on Ice! and Jews in Space.

Repeat after me: William H. Macy was born to play Ned Flanders. No live-action Simpsons movie will work without him.

Think about it.

.. had similar thoughts regarding the mark of the beast.

Only then he thought a barcode on the arm would be the mark. This character Johnny cited several barcode for humans studies.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0107653/

"terminate with extreme sanction"? Where the heck is that from? Two hits on Google. Your're probably thinking:

Terminate with extreme prejudice.

It's from the classic movie "Apocalypse Now". Besides, "sanction" itself means to stop (and also to approve, demonstrating the wonderful economy and clarity of the English language). Ok, carry on with your interesting dicscussion...

Wasn't it 2010?

The monoliths are multiplying!

Well, you can make a fairly good film for $7,000. Film production is a huge waste of money, just as much as hyping Britney Spears is a waste of money.

The article mentions engineers and producers, with the latter getting offers about half as much as the former. Can someone explain the difference between these two jobs?

Watch this movie some time. Anne Heche and Dennis Leary are engineers. Dustin Hoffman and Robert DiNero are producers. The script is very pro-producer, so bear that in mind. But it's the best explanation I've seen of what a producer really does.

"You insensitive prick! Do you have any idea how much that stings?"

Really though it's not that good, it only gets 4.2 stars at imdb.

-s

Actually, your result is highly encouraging!

Look again, and you will see that that first article, Pamela Franklin is 3 paragraphs long (has been for a month) and contains a fairlyy extensive list of this person's work. Now go flip open ANY encyclopedia and thumb over to Pamela Franklin. No really, go ahead, I'll wait. At the very most, if you are consulting a special-purpose film encyclopedia, you're going to get an entry that's about the same size, and won't have links to articles on her place of birth (Yokohama, Japan), and her fellow English film actors. Even her IMDB bio is only slightly longer and contains far more subjective statements such as, "Attractive, hauntingly pretty child actress".

Also, I will point out that some of the entries that you hit are actually infrastructural. Lists, tables, disambiguation pages, etc., are actually an interesting aspect of Wikipedia, and I think well deserve to be counted toward the million article count. These are essentially an extended appendix that links topics and concepts, easing searching and overall making Wikipedia easier to use.

The movie you are thinking of is Deep Blue Sea.

Hollywood Stock Exchange IPO Needed:

Deep Blue Sea 2

(it is freaking SCARY that I was talking about that movie mere seconds before this popped up on RSS :))

I liked it better the first time, when it was called The Day of the Dolphin", but I guess they'll call it the Day of the Shark. Still waiting for a sequel.

I hope this new project is run with much stricter controls.

... on television. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0149261/ - Deep Blue Sea with Samuel L. Jackson.

No mention of "The Worst Toilet in Scotland" from Trainspotting which must be near there somewhere, as the first bullet on the trivia reveals.
I must be squeamish--I couldn't make it past that scene. Something about watching humans debase themselves like that, even fictionally, is too disquieting. Drugs are not the God you thought they'd be, no?

"Liebe Freunde Freien Wissens, durch eine vor dem Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg am 17. Januar 2006 erwirkte einstweilige Verfugung wurde dem Verein Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Forderung Freien Wissens e.V. untersagt, von dieser Domain auf die deutschsprachige Ausgabe der freien Enzyklopadie Wikipedia (wikipedia.org) weiterzuleiten."

This roughly translates as, "Dear friends and comrades, Wikipedia has been shut down as of January 17th, 2006 due to a court injunction by the government of Germany, due to extensive support by Wikipedia for the Jews and the state of Israel".

This type of support was made illegal in Germany in 1939 by the Berlin Pact, signed by Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany has announced that this injunction will not be lifted until Wikipedia stops supporting "Die Juden".

"We also feel this injunction came in due time, as Wikipedia is being overrun by articles pertaining to non-notable blogs with completely useless information (or "blogs"), which are also illegal in the Great Republic of Germany. We are pleased to receive the support of the Gay Niggers, as they have already declared war on the blogs, and know how to defeat this communist ideal before it can become a threat to freedom," said Mrs. Merkel.

About Germany

"Bundesrepublik Deutschland" was founded before the middle ages by the Visigoths. The government was non-notable per above until the late 1930's, when Germany underwent an extremely positive and successful cultural revolution. Today, Germany is a beacon for free economy and a land without Jews.

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 cha

No, actually, it's named after the star that was in Forbidden Planet.

No one has brought up Sneakers and Martin Bishop (Robert Redford)?

I won't provide any spoilers, but this is certainly a method to bypass the system.

Maybe you and the laser should go get a freakin room.

How about in Gia? ;-)

I'm going to paint her phone with it.

I don't know, a simple knock sequence kept Hogan's Heroes safe for years.

I thought that the effects of flying through a black hole were known since 1979! In fact, if you zoom in on this massive image, you can just barely make out the survivors of the Nostromo! (Okay, that was lame, but I'm shocked that I appear to be the first to make reference to the movie.)

In an effort to burn out their server properly

Okay, that was funny.

Devil's Advocate: Would you say the same thing if it were the Minnesota Democrats?

(I can ask the question as I vote for neither party and do not live in Minnesota. I just enjoy seeing one-sided statements made as though that's the only group who would commit such an act. I also like seeing people switch roles and arguing for each other's positions to remove their bias)


Recently viewed for the first time and hooked on cable: Foolproof