Slashdot Mirror

"This means conveying some 'technical' facts about the boot process for home computers, and also some 'technical' facts about copyright law in the United States of America, and much more.

In the next few days, descriptions of various projects we need help with will go up on the ICC web sites. Right now, we need places for people to stay near the ICC site, which is in Shady Grove, Maryland. We also need at least one person who can show us a free operating system running on the Xbox, and we'd like to see a St. Ignucious-certifiable OS running on Apple hardware. We need some adepts to help with the gavel-to-gavel audio coverage. We are going to need folks to write to their Representatives and Senators, and more, visit with them and talk with them. If you want to help, write to jays@panix.com, and include the string 'ICC Volunteer' in the subject line." Here's NYFU's page on the gathering.

"This means conveying some 'technical' facts about the boot process for home computers, and also some 'technical' facts about copyright law in the United States of America, and much more.

In the next few days, descriptions of various projects we need help with will go up on the ICC web sites. Right now, we need places for people to stay near the ICC site, which is in Shady Grove, Maryland. We also need at least one person who can show us a free operating system running on the Xbox, and we'd like to see a St. Ignucious-certifiable OS running on Apple hardware. We need some adepts to help with the gavel-to-gavel audio coverage. We are going to need folks to write to their Representatives and Senators, and more, visit with them and talk with them. If you want to help, write to jays@panix.com, and include the string 'ICC Volunteer' in the subject line." Here's NYFU's page on the gathering.

al3x's report:

I arrived early, heeding the warnings of first-come, first-served seating. With the small room packed to standing room only, this paid off. In addition to the panelists, listed on the Workshop's site above, notable included Robin Gross, attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Richard Stallman of the Free Software Foundation, and journalist and Politech list-founder Declan McCullagh. Lobbying groups distributing materials to the audience included New Yorkers for Fair Use and the American Library Association. Several interns from NIST and a couple of other young folks like myself showed up unaffiliated with any group, and the remainder of the crowd appeared to be typical Washington: lawyers, politicos, journos (professional and college), and think-tankers. A proper press kit was noticeably (and notedly, by said journos) absent.

As the talks began, I was brimming with the enthusiasm and anger of an "activist," overjoyed at shaking hands with the legendary Richard Stallman, thrilled with the turnout of the New Yorkers for Fair Use. My enthusiasm and solidarity, however, was to be short lived. The Workshop's effective chairman and moderator, Chief of Staff and Under Secretary of Commerce for Technology Phillip Bond, offered some opening remarks touching on their previous meeting, held this past December, including noting that piracy has risen, particularly in the music industry. After further welcomes from James Rogan, Under Secretary for Intellectual Property, who acknowledged having worked with many members of the "roundtable." Rogan suggested that there were "no villains present," which drew the first of a number of chortles from the NY Fair Use crowd and their sympathizers. First on the table was a discussion of progress towards standards for Digital Rights Management (DRM henceforth).

This rather dry topic, upon which there appeared to be little consensus or definite progress, was dealt with relatively quickly, sparking only a handful of interesting and notable concerns. Here the clear divide between the tech industry and "content" industry (the movie studios , record industry, etc.) became apparent. Andy Setos of the Fox Entertainment Group called for attention to the "analog hole" in DRM standards, stating "from [the point content reaches analog televisions] it's a freeforall." The sentiment was echoed by several of the other content providers, and reiterated throughout the discussions. Oddly, with a number of opinions bounced around and no coherent conclusion, moderator Bond moved on, blessing the segment of discussion as having been productive.

Moving to discussions of business models, technological viability, and the government's role, the panelists took the gloves off and came out swinging. And as the discussion started to get juicier, so the "activists" got noisier. Comments from the RIAA's Mitch Glazier that there is "balance in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA), drew cries and disgusted laughter from the peanut gallery, who at that point had already been informed that any public comments could be submitted online. Even those in support of Fair Use and similar ideas began to be frustrated with the constant background commentary and ill-conceived outbursts of the New Yorkers for Fair Use and, to my dismay, Richard Stallman, who proved to be as socially awkward as his critics and fans alike report. Perhaps such behavior is entertaining in a Linux User Group meeting or academic debate, but fellow activists hissed at Stallman and the New Yorkers, suggesting that their constant interjections weren't helping.

And indeed, as discussion progressed, I felt that my representatives were not Stallman and NY Fair Use crowd, nor Graham Spencer from DigitalConsumer.org, whose three comments were timid and without impact. No, I found my voice through Rob Reid, Founder and Chairman of Listen.com, whose realistic thinking and positive suggestions were echoed by Johnathan Potter, Executive Director of DiMA, and backed up on the technical front by Tom Patton of Phillips. Reid argued that piracy was simply a reality of the content industry landscape, and that it was the job of content producers and the tech industry to offer consumers something "better than free." "We charge $10 a month for our service, and the competition is beating us by $10 a month. We've got to give customers a better experience than the P2P file-sharing networks," Reid suggested. As the rare individual who gave up piracy when I gave up RIAA music and MPAA movies, opting instead for a legal and consumer-friendly Emusic.com account, I found myself clapping in approval.

Though Jack Valenti proved he could stump with the best good ol' southern gentleman, deriding his intelligence before offering sweeping proclamations, the majority of the discussion was surprisingly consumer-friendly. All in the room, even Valenti, agreed that P2P technology was not inherently bad, but could merely be put to bad uses. Geeks should be happy to know that their voice is being heard by the tech industry: folks from Intel and IBM really seemed to "get it" along with Reid and the aforementioned crowd. There was clear animosity, however, between content providers and the techies. Elizabeth Frazee of AOL Time Warner, for example, was quick to say that "the content industry is looking for government help," and tech industry reps were quick to suggest that we're nowhere near even agreeing on standards or what needs to be enforced, much less imposing legislation. The general sentiment of the tech crowd appeared to be that piracy was a social issue and an everpresent one, and no amount of legislation or technological blocks (your Palladiums and whatnot) would stop it. The solution, the techs seemed to suggest, was competing well in the marketplace and offering consumers a good reason not to pirate content.

The session drew to a close, and a large bearded man in an ill-fitting suit quickly jumped up to say the NY Fair Use people would be giving a press conference of their own out front at 4:30. I followed a reporter from NewsForge to the motley band of activists, who preached largely to their own choir, with the exception of a few youths like myself and the remaining reporters. I confronted Richard Stallman for his thoughts on the "better than free" proposal that Reid had offered, to which he was happy to sermonize on the false construct of intellectual property. I suggested that perhaps artists could, if they so chose, license their music under a GPL-inspired copyleft like the Open Music License, and strike out an independent path, as he did in the software industry. I was informed that musicians needed the record industry for wide exposure, and of the record industry's various artist-related evils. I then inquired about how Stallman felt about downloadable music services like Emusic.com, which place no restrictions on how you use the music you've bought from them, though the music is copyrighted and the artists and labels are compensated. Stallman agreed, after having informed me minutes ago that intellectual property as a concept was bunk, that this sounded pretty reasonable.

I walked away from the afternoon's experiences feeling much more represented by the tech industry, though sympathetic to the activists' desire for more consumer representation in future Workshops. Notably, the EFF was explicitly shut out of this discussion, which is unfortunate; the NY Fair Use crowd, however, never bothered to request a representative, preferring to show up and disrupt the debate on their own terms, and for nobody's good but their egos, it seems. If the tenor of this discussion remains focused towards the marketplace, as the tech industry wants it to, then we as geeks and concerned consumers have little to worry about. However, if the content industry gets its way, we're looking at legislation mandating DRM, which is essentially subsidizing the slowly-failing record and movie industries like we've done with airlines and big steel. Our best hope, I'm surprised at myself to say, is in a Free Market, and not screaming, indignant geeks passing out buttons and shouting down Jack Valenti.

Warning: My mom thought comic books were bad -- so I didn't read many of them when I was younger. I did read many issues of X-Men, but I was never fanatical about them: I enjoyed them, but it wasn't a religion.

As a movie, X-Men is great. It's not the best movie in history, but it certainly is a great action movie.

The movie throws some off-beat slapstick humor in with amusing references to the namesake comic books. The characters themselves are all enjoyable: more developed than the characters in most movies, even if the depth any one of the characters could have achieved is only hinted at.

That's partly because X-men is ambitious: it has a lot of characters in it, and not all of them are given enough screen time to develop them fairly. The focus is largely on Professor X, Magneto, Rogue and Wolverine. The Jean Grey/Cyclopse/Wolverine love triangle thing is done up pretty well, but Cyclops is (as CowboyNeal put it so eloquently) "Just as gay as we always thought he was." Other favorites swoop through as well, including some cameos in the professors school that I won't spoil.

I was kinda sad that Mystique was essentially reduced to a covert-ops sort of character instead of a bad-ass. I'm not sure if her lack of lines was intentional, or if perhaps they ended up on the cutting-room floor because Rebecca Romain-Stamos can't act. Maybe [director Bryan] Singer just wanted her silent and cold, but I'd always thought of her as more of a leader than she ended up being portrayed here.

The sets are fantastic. The respective compounds for both the forces of good and evil are entertaining, and the fight scenes in and around the Statue of Liberty lives up to all the pre-movie hype -- many shots are indescribably cool.

The action is great. Watching Wolverine slice guns in half. Watching Magneto throw cop cars around. Watching Mystique transform from Wolverine to herself mid-kick ... its simply intense and entertaining. Very well-realized, considering the tons of source material, from which a lot had to be dropped simply for time.

It's not gonna make the hardest-core of the comic community happy, but I don't think that ever was Singer's intent. I think he wanted to first and foremost create a good action movie that was true to the spirit of the characters. And I think he did that.

So No, it isn't a masterpiece, but it's a damn entertaining 90 minutes, and I'll go see it again. It was everything good about a Hollywood summer film. If you enjoy a well-crafted blockbuster, you'll enjoy this movie. If you are the anal-retentive comic book collector from The Simpsons, you'll get angry. If you're just looking for an enjoyable film with fighting and explosions and laughs, look no further. X-Men is it.

Warning: some plot is discussed in my review, but nothing relating to the ending, which we all know anyway:

Director Bryan Singer had a particularly tough job when it came to making X-Men. He had to try and please the rabid X-Men fans -- who make up one of the most impassioned sub-genres of outcast culture and who were noisily vigilant for even the slightest deviations from the comic version. He had to attract millions of plain-ol' movie goers who don't give a hoot which joint Wolverine's knife-fingers spring from. He had to find actors who wouldn't be blown away by Patrick Stewart (Prof. Charles Xavier) and Ian McKellen (Magneto). And for good measure, he had to live up to the high expectations set by his last movie, Usual Suspects.

Despite the fact that X-Men was good, and at times gorgeous, fun, he didn't totally make it on any of these counts. His biggest problem was that Stewart and McKellen's acting almost totally overwhelm the movie. You had to feel sorry for Hugh Jackman (Wolverine), James Marsden (Cyclops), Halle Berry (Storm) Anna Paquin (Rogue), Rebecca Romijn-Stamos (Mystique) and the others who seemed to literally shrink in the company of Stewart and McKellen. You can hardly blame them, in the presence of two of the most decorated and experienced actors in the English-speaking world. This imbalance is most evident from the very first encounter between the noble-minded Prof. Xavier and the allegedly evil Magento.

It's easy to see why some geeks and many outcasts have always loved the X-Men a sentiment very much reflected in the movie. It's easy to resonate with a film that has a U.S. Senator pushing for the public listing of all "mutants" and seeking to remove them from the public school system of America because they might conceivably be dangerous. The very same thing, of course, is happening to "geeks, Goths and freaks" all over the United States today, post-Columbine.

But X-Men has to be judged as a film and not as a political statement With the possible exception of Wolverine and Rogue, we never really get to know any of the X-types well enough to care a lot about what happens to them, or to understand why they're doing what they're doing. Until the very end of the movie, which is a somewhat hokey confrontation at the Statue of Liberty, they never really seem to jell as a team.

Despite the sensibilities and complaints of X-Men fans -- it's obvious why the comic series meant so much to hunted brainaics everywhere -- Singer is under no obligation to be completely faithful to the strip. He had to make a gazillion-dollar Hollywood movie that lots of people who'd never heard of the comic book would go see, and filtered through that Hollywood prism, there's no way he could keep the brooding, sometimes haunting edge of the comic.

Beyond that, Singer's particular rendering has some big flaws as a big-screen tale. We're supposed to hate Magento, but there isn't anything particularly hateful about him. He's trying to save his species from what he believes from personal experience is a possible Holocaust-style extinction. He might get carried away by his fervor, but he's admirable in many ways, and even the silver-tongued Xavier doesn't make much of a case for his stubborn defense of the human race. (Magento's Holocaust connection was written into the series 20 years after its creation).

One of the soft spots of the movie -- and this hurts the story line as it's presented on the screen -- is that despite their powers to morph, melt through walls, move people through the air, what really terrifies the renegade wing of the mutants and motivates them to wipe out the human race as it's constituted isn't some powerful enemy, but pending legislation in Congress, one of the world's least effective and menacing institutions.

This leaves the movie without a villain to really hate or a cause we can particularly identify with. We love the leaders, but the superheroes themselves are too wooden and poorly developed. The movie has too little humor. Apart from a couple of lame jokes cracked by Wolverine, it wouldn't have any.

On the other hand, X-Men is beautiful cinematically. Magento's headquarters and Xavier's School for Gifted Youngers are wonderfully rendered. So are most of the other special effects, which are sometimes brilliant but move too quickly.

So for my money, the bottom line on X-Men is that it's disconnecting. The strange thing is that despite all of these disappointing flaws -- the original strip and premise really did deserve better -- the movie is still one of the best of this disappointing summer crop.

It was odd seeing this movie directly after coming from the MPAA/DMCA/DeCSS forums at H2K, where Emmanuel Goldstein made the insightful and disturbing comment that there was really no one who could even report on the trial impartially, since every major news entity has an ownership relation of some sort with the studios who are suing 2600. So why did I feed the media monopoly another $9.50? I'm not really sure.

It certainly wasn't because I thought it was going to be a great movie. No movie that opens in the period late June-late August is ever worthy of the title "great," and this was no exception. Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen were given the job of carrying the movie, which is challenging to do when your character is unconscious for half of the film, not that I'm giving away part of the plot or anything.

Minor characters apparently had to beg for lines -- the three evil henchmen have a grand total of perhaps three lines between them, two for Toad (wisecracks), one for Mystique (supermodels should be seen but not heard) and zero for Large Grunting Guy. The minor good characters don't fair much better.

It felt like a fair amount of the movie ended up on the cutting room floor. Somewhere in there was probably an explanation of why Cyclops can't open his eyes without huge bursts of ravening energy pouring from them, but we didn't get to see it. It used to be that these "blockbusters" were short so that there could be one more screening in a day. Well, not any more. Once you've added in 30 minutes of advertising at the beginning of the movie, it's as long any other film. And the 25% advertising/75% content ratio is about right -- pretty much the same as television, yes? I'd recommend that this movie be seen on video -- VHS, the last format we'll ever have where you can still skip the advertising.

Rob's review isn't wrong, of course -- there's some good special effects (and a few bad ones), some bright flashing lights, some explosions, and some good acting by at least two of the actors in the movie. And of course I could stare at Rogue all day, she's easy on the eyes, if you know what I mean. But I didn't come away from the film feeling enlightened or even really entertained. The good news for the people who liked it is that you can expect lots more -- about 10 minutes of those 90 were devoted to setting up a sequel. The rest of us will have to stay home and rent Gladiator.