Slashdot Mirror

Plan E: Call Oprah.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Look at the headlines they give in 50 point type, and then when it turns out to be wrong it doesn't even make front page news.

Yellow cake in Niger, for example, they hail him as nearly a god when he says there was no such thing, and that turns out to be wrong...see here here here here
here and here.

They've finally run a story about it, but wouldn't it have been a lot better for them to have investigated those Wilson allegations themselves, when they first happened?

That's only one of the latest...

Roger Ebert addressed just this issue in an article on June 18th. He doesn't agree with your assertion and neither do I.

Oh, and I love the all-caps subject, guy. We don't have enough uninformed belligerent screaming in here.

Dunst is valuable, too, bringing depth and heart to a girlfriend role that in lesser movies would be conventional. When she kisses her astronaut boyfriend upside-down, it's one of those perfect moments that rewards fans of the whole saga; we don't need to be told she's remembering her only kiss from Spider-Man.

Well, here's the thing. I'm your average Joe...Not fabulously wealthy, but I do OK. I do not give to charity anymore. Oh, once I did, but then I got stuck on some sucker list and they practically started banging down my door for more donations. I am also of the school of thought that charities themselves are corrupt, taking a large portion of donations for themselves in the form of "administrative fees", which normally involve paying some fool six, sometimes seven figures.

Apparently the IRS agrees with me on this.
If I had something insane like $10M I'd sooner set up my own foundation than give any of it to charity.

I agree that theaters shouldn't be pressured into showing his film. However, it doesn't seem as if Moore agrees with free speech all that much:

From Moore: "The most important thing we have is truth on our side. If they persist in telling lies, knowingly telling a lie with malice, then I'll take them to court." From http://slate.msn.com/id/2102725/

Also from the Slate article: "The Times also reported that Moore "has consulted with lawyers who can bring defamation suits against anyone who maligns the film or damages his reputation," and that he's established a "war room" to monitor attacks on the film. Lest anybody miss his threat, the filmmaker repeated it the same day on This Week With George Stephanopoulos and in the pages of the San Francisco Chronicle, and will probably whistle the same libel tune all week long in publicity interviews for the film, which opens Friday."

So "libel" Moore and get a lawsuit. The hypocrisy!

And its not as if Moore hasn't been "fact-challenged" before. Roger Ebert, reciently wrote a great article in the Chicago Sun-Times about Moore's "fact-challenged" previous work "Bowling for Columbine". Mr. Ebert writes:

"Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine."

From http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr- moore18.html

P.S. While Disney got rocked from the left for claims of "censorship" for not releasing Moore's movie, would the left had reacted the same if Disney produced a documentary prasing Bush and making Saddam look like Hitler? Or would the left have villified Disney as "corporate-propaganda". What makes a left-wing corporate-propaganda film wonderful and thought-provoking and a right-wing corporate-propaganda film evil? Nothing, they are both corporate-propaganda.

And isn't it dangerous in this age of campaign finance reform to invite corporations into the political process through "documentaries"? What is to stop Rupert Murdoch and 20th Century Fox from producting a series of right-wing documentaries. The left has no room to complain. From there it only gets worse...

Wait. This thing is PG-13?...What was the first one rated?

According to Roger Ebert the original carried 'No MPAA rating.'

http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/1996/0 4/04122.html

Ron Rosenbaum, in his article "The Subterranean World of the Bomb", tells of a method a single person can use to turn both keys using a spoon.

I've just googled it. Here's a review of his book, The Secret Parts of Fortune, which has the article. I'd originally read it in another collection, Travels With Dr. Death.

"I actually found myself reassured," Rosenbaum writes. "The kind of person who'd cheerfully volunteer the spoon-and-string story is not the kind of person who'd be likely to conspire to use it to try to provoke World War III."

/. readers might also be interested in another of his articles, Secrets of the Little Blue Box, about the original phone phreaks, published ~1970. update: i just checked and found it online. read and enjoy.

I highly reccommend his books. I don't know what's in Secret Parts, but Travels also had articles about:

• the true-life basis for the film Dead Ringers
• moles in the CIA
• the crazed psychiatrist Errol Morris was documenting before he changed tack and made the Thin Blue Line. Here's a review of that film if you're unfamiliar.
• is Burt Reynolds a murderer?
• Lee Harvey Oswald

I've gone way off-topic, but just had to plug that book. A fantastic read.

Q. I just returned from seeing "The Passion of the Christ." Had I been able to wrench my attention away from all of the horrified children gasping in the audience, I might have appreciated it more.

I can understand parents showing up at this film with their children expecting something different, but after a few minutes of the tremendous violence shown onscreen, I would have thought more parents would have spared their children further horror. Shouldn't ticket sellers offer some kind of warning to parents showing up with good intentions and young children?

Carson Utz, Novato, Calif.

A. I'll go further than that: No responsible parent would allow a child to see the film. "The Passion of the Christ," the most violent film I have ever seen, received an R rating from the MPAA because the group, which exists in part to quell the fears of churchgoing America, lacked the nerve to give it the NC-17 rating it clearly deserves.

This becomes an unanswerable argument for my recommendation of an A (for adults only) rating between the R (which allows parents to take in children of any age) and the NC-17, which is irretrievably associated with pornography.

Because many theaters refuse to book NC-17 films, and many media outlets will not advertise them, imagine the irony if their own policies had forced them to boycott "The Passion of the Christ"!

Let the MPAA bring back the X, which everyone understands, for porno and establish a useful adults-only rating for films that are not pornography but are simply unsuitable for children.

The Passion of the Christ is considered by many to be the most violent movie they have ever seen.

I'll just let you turn that one over in your head.

BenjyD writes:
"Except that a piece of art is not entirely arbitrary - it requires time and effort to make. If they wanted to, the developers could produce any number of these items in effectively zero time and effort."

I'll approach this on three fronts.

First, I'm going to guess you're young since your reply indicates you're probably not familiar with Warhol and his Studio 54. The point of Studio 54 was to mass market art. To, in effect, assembly line it and essentially make fun of the 80's art craze. On a side note, go see Basquiat . It's the most star-filled, incredible movie you've never even heard of.

Second, clearly the effort of art production is not commensurate with the price.

effort + raw materials != cost

Third, the central issue here is that the idea that an intangible item has hard currency value is novel. It isn't. Whether or not the people that maintain the software could effectively glut the market instantly only proves that the market is manipulatable. It does not speak to the "why" of the fact that the market exists in the first place.

Why don't you ask him.

fs

Chicago Police Admit to Spying on Anarchists and Activists

Who needs COINTELPRO when the local cops can do the job of spying, infilitrating, and disrupting the activities of any grassroots organization?

The police do not exist to protect your interests, but simply to further their own.

They will increase arrests just to make themselves look better. Cities that have low crime, and a well-funded police force usually resorts to the police just harassing random people who happen to look at them.

Well consider this your one time:

Bush was not AWOL

"The film's digital photography is inadequate to the task of filming under the bright sun of the island. A portentous zoom to the sun is almost ruined because the image is so overexposed you hardly notice the sun. Since voluptuous visuals were obviously part of Medem's plan, he should have used film. Digital is still too anorexic for his purposes." Roger Ebert.

For an interesting Lord of the Rings tie-in, see Ebert's 'movie answer man' article from a few weeks ago. That's where I first heard about the "uncanny valley" concept. Ebert talks about it in the process of analyzing Gollum's Oscar chances.

Clear Channel's recent decision to replace O'Hare airport as a landmark for the traffic updates in Chicago with the Allstate Arena due to a marketing agreement?

Clear Channel is worse than the devil.

although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003

That should be 2002 as taken from this: "So true that City of God was No. 2 on my list for last year. The film played in every major festival in 2002 and was a candidate for year-end awards, and although it did not open in Chicago until January, I didn't see the point in waiting 12 months to put it on a best 10 list when putting it on the timelier list might do it some good."

You can compare the actual nominations to Roger Ebert's predictions. He was pretty on point for Best Picture, Actor, and Supporting Actress. Its surprising to see the well liked but little seen roles getting nods. Alec Baldwin in The Cooler for one. Likewise it's interesting to see Keisha Castle-Hughes for her work in Whale Rider. Many were predicitng Charlize Theron would run away with her work in Monster but Castle-Hughes could pull an Anna Panquin upset. That role was powerful AND beloved. Something that might worka gainst Theron.

Jude Law's nod is interesting since I don't remember anyone really talking about his performance (as compared to what Sean Penn, Bill Murray and Johnny Depp did this year). Ebert picked Russell Crowe's in Master and Commander which, likewise, didn't seem to have a big impact.

Strangest one is that City of God got three nominations... although it had its NY/LA debut in December 2003 (Ebert made specific mention of it in his Top of 2004 to explain its absence). But here its getting nods for Cinematography, Direction and Writing. It probably only has a chance in Cinematography where RotK is (strangely) absent.

RotK will probably run away with Makeup, Music(Song), Sound, Writing (Adapted), and Costume Design. Of course those are the second tier ones that end up as consolation prizes for a lot of folks. The interesting thing will see how it does in the big categories (which I guess Adapted Screenplay is one).

Nooooo, it's the planet Zeist , not Zeiss ... that would just be silly.

ObParodyTagline: "There should have been only one!"

Aparently someone didn't see the news.
U.S. Productivity Best In 20 Years
2003 home building best in 25 years
2004 Economic Forecast Best in 20 Years, Conference Board Reports
I first heard this news on CNN which isn't exactly pro-Bush.

Hollywood is full of fake shit. But let's force them to be explicit about what is fiction and what is real. The Golden Globes are awarded by an in-bred group of random no-nothing foreigners based in large part on who has given them the best perks that year. I think that the world's movie fans deserve better.

Why should we geeks care what 90 people, self-selected for a lack of integrity, think of the Lord of the Rings or anything else?

It would be worth more if they weren't a sham...

" . . . with the advancement of technology, it has become common practice for on-air personalities across the industry -- such as Rush Limbaugh -- to anchor programs remotely . . ."

And just what technology might that be - Pharmacology?

. . . but seriously folks . . .

This reminds me of the movie Quiz Show from 1994. After people find out that certain charasmatic contestants have been supplied with the questions before the show, an executive from the program testifies before Congress. His statement in the movie goes something like: "Hey - we never said is was factual, we only said it was entertaining.". Here is some testimony from what I believe is the actual 1950's hearing.

As far as radio goes, disco was bad enough, now that it's all pre-packaged and rotated - I'll stick to playing my guitar with my friends. However, for actual entertainment, and a counter-voice to Limbaugh (et. al.), I'm eagerly anticipating the new channel and programming involving Al Franken

May the Universe continue to bless itself - through You!

I doubt those were watermarks, rather it was probably the DTS time-coding which you saw.

Read the second question on this page, or do a google search on "cap code" dots AKA "crap code" dots.

Animation? Unless you're thinking of the special effects, you may have it confused with some other movie; Pirates of the Caribbean was great, because the subtitle may as well have been, not Curse of the Black Pearl, but The Adventures of Pirate-silla, Queen of the High Seas. I'm not normally a fan of gay comedy -- Wong Foo, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Will & Grace, etc -- not because I'm offended, but because it usually just isn't that funny to me. But in PotC, Johnny Depp played his pirate pretty much like a high seas drag queen, and it was just hilarious. Far better than it had any right to be. I saw it 3 times last week on an 8 hour flight because I couldn't stand how bad "Charlies Angels 2" was -- that and it was just a wonderful movie. Give it a chance.

Animation? Unless you're thinking of the special effects, you may have it confused with some other movie; Pirates of the Caribbean was great, because the subtitle may as well have been, not Curse of the Black Pearl, but The Adventures of Pirate-silla, Queen of the High Seas. I'm not normally a fan of gay comedy -- Wong Foo, Priscilla Queen of the Desert, Will & Grace, etc -- not because I'm offended, but because it usually just isn't that funny to me. But in PotC, Johnny Depp played his pirate pretty much like a high seas drag queen, and it was just hilarious. Far better than it had any right to be. I saw it 3 times last week on an 8 hour flight because I couldn't stand how bad "Charlies Angels 2" was -- that and it was just a wonderful movie. Give it a chance.

The movie doesn't deserve such a low score. No, it's not a good movie, but it isn't terrible either and it's certainly not the worst movie of the year.

The things that makes it look so bad are probably the stupid title, Bennifer, and a quote that sounds really lame out of context. I think most reviewers jumped on the bandwagon. Who the heck wants to like a movie starring Affleck and J-Lo?
I think Ebert's review is pretty good.

As MrAngryForNoReason pointed out, they do register and have been seen by a number of people in a number of movies (I've peresonally seen it in about 7 already) as noted in this Movie Answer Man column.

"Q. While watching "Kill Bill, Vol. 1," I noticed that several times during the movie, there would be a flash of three or four small dots, arranged in the same formation, lasting only a couple of frames. It could not have been blood spots (my first theory), because this happened even during parts where there was no bloodshed (which were, of course, few and far between). Is this something Tarantino did, or a problem with the print that the theater showed?

Jeremy Gable, Anaheim, Calif.

A. The dots are part of a new studio anti-piracy system that has already been dubbed "Crap Code" by insiders. The Answer Man was right on top of this innovation, with an item in the column for Oct. 5 by Steve Kraus, Chicago projection expert. He says the dots are so large because then they can be seen even on digital versions pirated on the Internet."

That article from Oct. 5 contains this mention of Cap Codes

"Q. Have you been seeing spots when you go to the movies? It may not be your eyes! More than 20 years ago Kodak devised a system called "Cap Code" designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source. Cap Code uses very tiny dots that flash occasionally but are so small that the average viewer almost never notices them.

Well, something new and horrible has been introduced on some studios' prints. Sort of a giant picture-marring version of Cap Code dots: Very large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture, usually placed in a light area. They flash in various patterns throughout a given reel while other reels of the same film may have none at all.

A Kodak spokesman who helped devise the original Cap Code says this is not the work of his company but theorizes that it may be intended to be more visible on the murky compressed copies that get posted to the Internet where the original, very subtle Cap Code may be difficult to discern.

On one movie technical forum they are referring to this new system as "Crap Code" or "Cap Code on Steroids." There are reports coming in of viewers complaining of the spots on the pictures. While theaters strive to keep prints free of dirt and scratches, Hollywood starts sending out prints with built-in marring. Among the films known to be afflicted are "Ali," "Behind Enemy Lines," "28 Days Later" "Freddy vs. Jason" and "Underworld," probably many others as well.

Steve Kraus, Chicago

A. You're the expert projectionist at our Chicago critics' screening room, with a fierce love of high-quality film, so I can imagine how upset you are. What's amusing about Crap Code and the other efforts to catch pirates is that most of the thieves are apparently industry insiders. A recent news story says studios may even be discouraged from distributing advance DVDs of their Oscar contenders to academy members, because some of these movies quickly find their way to the Web."

fs

As MrAngryForNoReason pointed out, they do register and have been seen by a number of people in a number of movies (I've peresonally seen it in about 7 already) as noted in this Movie Answer Man column.

"Q. While watching "Kill Bill, Vol. 1," I noticed that several times during the movie, there would be a flash of three or four small dots, arranged in the same formation, lasting only a couple of frames. It could not have been blood spots (my first theory), because this happened even during parts where there was no bloodshed (which were, of course, few and far between). Is this something Tarantino did, or a problem with the print that the theater showed?

Jeremy Gable, Anaheim, Calif.

A. The dots are part of a new studio anti-piracy system that has already been dubbed "Crap Code" by insiders. The Answer Man was right on top of this innovation, with an item in the column for Oct. 5 by Steve Kraus, Chicago projection expert. He says the dots are so large because then they can be seen even on digital versions pirated on the Internet."

That article from Oct. 5 contains this mention of Cap Codes

"Q. Have you been seeing spots when you go to the movies? It may not be your eyes! More than 20 years ago Kodak devised a system called "Cap Code" designed to uniquely mark film prints so that pirated copies could be traced to the source. Cap Code uses very tiny dots that flash occasionally but are so small that the average viewer almost never notices them.

Well, something new and horrible has been introduced on some studios' prints. Sort of a giant picture-marring version of Cap Code dots: Very large reddish brown spots that flash in the middle of the picture, usually placed in a light area. They flash in various patterns throughout a given reel while other reels of the same film may have none at all.

A Kodak spokesman who helped devise the original Cap Code says this is not the work of his company but theorizes that it may be intended to be more visible on the murky compressed copies that get posted to the Internet where the original, very subtle Cap Code may be difficult to discern.

On one movie technical forum they are referring to this new system as "Crap Code" or "Cap Code on Steroids." There are reports coming in of viewers complaining of the spots on the pictures. While theaters strive to keep prints free of dirt and scratches, Hollywood starts sending out prints with built-in marring. Among the films known to be afflicted are "Ali," "Behind Enemy Lines," "28 Days Later" "Freddy vs. Jason" and "Underworld," probably many others as well.

Steve Kraus, Chicago

A. You're the expert projectionist at our Chicago critics' screening room, with a fierce love of high-quality film, so I can imagine how upset you are. What's amusing about Crap Code and the other efforts to catch pirates is that most of the thieves are apparently industry insiders. A recent news story says studios may even be discouraged from distributing advance DVDs of their Oscar contenders to academy members, because some of these movies quickly find their way to the Web."

fs

Roger Ebert writes in his review of Love Actually this week:

"I once had ballpoints printed up with the message, No good movie is too long. No bad movie is short enough."

...is Brigette Helm, who played Maria and (my all-time favorite terminatrix) "False Maria" in Fritz Lang's "Metropolis."

Ebert is a sucker for pretty pictures. Notice that he gave Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within four stars---writing off the plot with a sentence or two, then rambling on about how pretty it was. From his "Dark City" review:

``Dark City'' by Alex Proyas is a great visionary achievement, a film so original and exciting, it stirred my imagination like ``Metropolis'' and ``2001: A Space Odyssey.'' If it is true, as the German director Werner Herzog believes, that we live in an age starved of new images, then ``Dark City'' is a film to nourish us. Not a story so much as an experience, it is a triumph of art direction, set design, cinematography, special effects--and imagination.

Hey, he's a sucker for pretty pictures just like the rest of us.

--grendel drago

The guy [Roger Ebert] knows what he's talking about. At least his opinions are largely compatible with mine, and probably the artsy-geek set at large.

Posting their reviews in .mp3 gets them some geek points anyhow.

He should get additional geek points for being one of the most vocal, thoughtful, and relentless critics of the MPAA, especially for their irrational ratings and related restrictions on advertising.

I also enjoy his writing style and usually find his reviews thorough and consistent enough (with a few major exceptions) that you can evaluate whether you'll like a movie, even if you don't always agree with him. Also fairly enlightened on the impact of the Internet, piracy, and worth checking out his views on companies like Blockbuster, Wal-Mart, and their nutty policies.

Some of his thoughts on piracy remind me of the "sadly comical" reports that reviewers are being searched for cellphone cameras at the IMAX releases, contrary to industry boasts that the full-immersion experience makes piracy irrelevant.

Why won't you people learn to link?

<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/output/ebert1/cst-ft r-matrix05.html">link text here</a>

like so

link

His review is here.

You know, actually being full of hate isn't very constructive either. I'm gonna pull another one of those horrible Western values you seem to... well, actively dislike (since you're somehow above "hate") and ask you this:

What's not to hate about rape?

Yes, instead of asking why do they hate us, why not ask why they rape us? Oh, right, it's her fault if an "Australian pig" (or Norwegian whore, or French harlot, or your wife, or your sister, or your daughter) doesn't want to get "fucked Leb style", she should just put on a fuckin' burkha with the rest of the cattle, shouldn't she?

To which I say - fuck that.

Perhaps the infamous Kodak Cap-codes (movies, see here and here) would be a good way to fight these leaks of alpha/beta builds. Maybe not fight them because leaked builds are a good way of getting free testing but you will at least know where your weak links are.

Roger Ebert wrote a column about this when the decision to ban screeners was announced. I tend to agree with most of his points, and can't wait to see what he says about this latest turn of events. We should all be happy, and not because this likely means more pirated pre-release copies of movies. No, it means there'll be some degree of fairness and equal exposure in oscar selection.

As if the major studios don't control hollywood enough, a ban on DVD distribution would have killed most independant studios chances of even being considered for an oscar.

Movies with limited distribution, and fewer available numbers of prints would've been shut out in favor of those which can afford advertising, and set up screenings at enough locations that a significant portion of the academy could view them.

This move at least allows some degree of fairness. All movies have the chance of being viewed by all screeners, regardless of who distributes or produces them. It's still not perfect, but it's much better this way.

As movie critic Roger Ebert explains the result is they started searching movie critics for video cameras at the entrance to film screenings and the MPAA ordered the studios to stop sending out tapes. That gives the major studios a huge advantage over small indie films which are hard to find in theaters.

Once again the security action is misdirection. The movies are leaking from insiders so they hassle outsiders.

The misdirection is a typical response. Like how the 9/11 terrorists used their real names, jumbo airliners, and were in the country legally so the feds make all airline passengers present IDs 22 times, come out up with tough new rules on small planes, and hassle foreigners to make sure they enter the country legally.

they literally ALMOST KILLED HIM ... One of them even pulled out a collapsable baton and hit him while he was down ... they started beating her with the baton ... In-bar muggings and shootings are on the rise

Hmmm, somehow I doubt we'll hear about this in Michael Moore's next documentary.

I wish I liked phish, cause then I could get it.

Are you kidding me? When Phish played Hampton a while back tickets were going for thousands of dollars. Heck even the festival they did this summer was 150+ a ticket! Plus I don't know what to think about this story.

I think it's true with anime, too -- the growing popularity over the past few years has made a number of anime pop up which, honestly, aren't all that worthy, to reference the Miyazaki quote.

Not exactly comforting, if you ask me! I expect air traffic controllers to know their systems and how to use them.

Then obviously you haven't been following the news. Remember the PATCO debacle? Guess what? We could be seeing another round of the who-needs-experienced-ATCs? game.

He actually said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." (one reference). By "with us", he was meaning with us against the fight against terrorism.

So your subtle changing of his words completely distorts what he actually said and meant. That would qualify as FUD, or just outright fraud. I would have hoped readers and the moderators would have known better.

It appears we are headed back to being a segregated society.

No kidding. They'll probably use Water Striders.

That can be anything from the surreality of an "Alice in Wonderland" to the verisimilitude of things like documentaries, biographies, etc. For the latter, the people telling the story get to pick & choose what facts they present, and so always leave out other aspects of the truth; for the former, the storyteller has fun & doesn't bother with reality.

As far as I can tell, every story ever told must fit somewhere along that spectrum. They all, always throw out rules when those rules are inconvenient -- or are you saying that every movie you've ever enjoyed was done with a single cut and a single camera and so no un-scientific violations of the normal flow of time & space?

The goal isn't to never violate the rules of real life -- they all do that, from start to finish, without exception -- but to find some balance between adhering to & ignoring those rules in order to tell a good story. After all, what is the point here: to tell an entertaining & even compelling story, that maybe raises some allegorical points about the world we live in -- or to teach us about epidemiology? Considering how badly this story seems to work as a science lesson, it's hard to believe that that's what they were trying to do. I can't fault that.

You're right that Vamus wasn't wrong to nitpick over the science, and I don't blame him for finding fault. Never see a movie about your personal area of expertise -- you'll always be disappointed in the depiction, and that's exactly what Vamus is really telling us :-). Also interesting was Roger Ebert's critique of the same movie -- he also brought up apparent Darwinian inconsistencies, but ultimately concluded that he always has nits to pick, but in this case those problems weren't enough to change his mind about how essentially entertaining this movie was to him: Darwinians will observe that a virus that acts within 20 seconds will not be an efficient survivor; the host population will soon be dead--and along with it, the virus. I think the movie's answer to this objection is that the "rage virus" did not evolve in the usual way, but was created through genetic manipulation in the Cambridge laboratory where the story begins.

Not that we are thinking much about evolution during the movie's engrossing central passages. [snip]

It's a movie. Suspend your disbelief, have fun. Then go back to the textbooks :-)