Slashdot Mirror
Spielberg on Privacy, Minority Report
Staring at Nothing writes "In this ABC News story famed Hollywood director Steven Spielberg voices some concerns over the current state of privacy and paranoia in a post-9/11 world. Some of Spielberg's recent movies, like AI and Minority Report have brought us haunting views of the future, but the present may be just as scary. He mentions software being developed to monitor "abnormal behavior" and concerns about originality being misconstrued as dangerous behavior." The story has some minor plot spoilers about Minority Report.
If people from the future came to arrest me for a future crime that I hadnt commited yet, could I just say to myself 'Adam, dont do this in the future' and memorize it or something, could I make them disappear, since they're from the future and all and I told my future self not to commit this crime. Ahh, brain hurts, time pretzel, OW!
In college, really poor, need a flatscreen.
Uhuh
UCH ACH BOEIEUH
Maybe he's gotten to the point in his career where he wants to send a message with his movies. Not that I'm asking for Flintstones III any time soon.
A winner is you!
But, I'm certain that we can rest assured that those in power in Warshington will see this as the WAVE OF THE FUTURE! SAFTEY IS FREEDOM! And while we're at it, democracy works, right?
Bah. I just recently moved from Nevada to The Great Socialist Utopia across the Sierras. (for monetary reasons, not by fucking choice). I've been here for three days, and I already miss my freedoms. This "seatbelt" bullshit makes me want to exact my patriotism and destroy any tyrant who dares impede my freedom to keep me "safe."
Been here for half a week, and I'm already wanting to kill cops and politicians. This place fucking turns men into animals. I must free myself...
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
Huh? Spielberg's going dystopian? Sounds more like Monty Python!
I definately think privacy is used as a sort of currency in today's technological world. People will pay in goods and services if you fill out a survey. I'm ok with that, as long as I know what I'm getting for my privacy. What I hate is when punks steal my privacy.
Wherever you go, there you are!
Some of the scenes of targeted marketing, projecting ads towards you as you walk down the hallway, all tailored just for yuo are pretty spooky.
some of the depicted technology looks downrigt creepy. and that is just from the marketing side, nevermind the government side.
the ultimate in spam, everywhere you go.
"It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
I just came back from minority report, and I really got a say, it sucks almost as bad as AI did. I was expecting a really profound message, and was very excited to see it, considering the current political climate, but you don't get anything profound or interesting from this movie. The worst part is the way spielberg explains everything out to you and treats you like a child. Spielberg has ruined *two* films that had great potential. AI, and now this.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
At rottentomatoes.com they say that 96% of reviewers give Minority Report a positive review. Don't listen to them.
I am not going to ask "Does this run Linux ?" because it obviously does not, but can anyone point to some good resources on what kind of Operating Systems do these monster machines run ? Are they some kind of a UNIX ? Or are they some elite breed of OS that mortal humans have no chance of understanding ? Linkage appreciated.
Hmmm.... I wonder if Mr. Padilla sitting in a jail cell right now for looking at stuff on the internet concerning bomb making would find this movie interesting.
Because after all if recent events have shown us anything it's that there are people out there who are willing to risk everything in order to acheive their goals. The frightening difference between these people and normal, less dangerous terrorists like say those in Ireland is that they don't care if they die as long as they get the job done, which means they will take any risk at all! Clearly this death wish is not normal. No sane, healthy person could be willing to give up their own life for any nonsense cause like religion. And if these people aren't normal, then we need some way to be able to find these people before they strike! That's just obvious! Do we want another 9/11? No! Profiling is a quite advanced science, as evidenced by some of the successes agencies like the FBI have had with serial killers. There is no reason, other then the squeamishness of liberals for it not to be used, and used successfully in the defense of our nation against the religious loonies that are desparate to bring it down. And so we must be prepared to accept some limits to our freedom in order to defend ourself; this is not only practical, but it is sensible, and those that argue against it are hindering national defense.
I don't think Spielberg's the real expert here. AI was originally a project of Kubrick's, and Minority Report is based off PK Dick, both of whom were troubled about the future while Spielberg thought it would be a hoot doing movies about trucker road rage and aliens who can make bikes fly.
Although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that he'd try to capitalize on current social context to pump up his own film... Ah, yes, "relevence"...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
No one's going to arrest Spielberg for being original or different...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
The problem with this idea is that its completely impossible to implement. There are no reliable ways of making sure that one person=one vote, no way of guaranteeing even participation geographically, economically, or any other way. Internet users nowadays are mostly people who log in to ISPs to use email and chat. They don't know what ICANN is, and don't care. Are you suggesting that voting on issues that affect so many naive users should be reduced to a tug-of war between nerds and corporations?
I dont think mod points really exist anymore. At any rate its been maybe a year since ive seen any under my various accounts, some of which are still above 50 karma
Why is it that everyone who makes this argument comes off as sacrificing MY freedom for their own security? If you're so scared of another group of airplanes being crashed into Tourist Attractions, stop building tourist attractions, or move somewhere that doesn't have any.
Keep your grubby hands off from my freedom.
Black and grey are both shades of white.
and don't listen to anyone who states their opinion as though it's some kind of fact. I also got back from seeing this movie about an hour ago, and have already decided I consider it the best of the year so far. and I have a feeling a won't be able to forget it overnight.
I'm not going to post a full review here, but suffice to say my only criticisms are that it felt a bit long, and that some of the ideas could have been better developed (there's a LOT of ideas in this movie). but concepts aside, it absolutely grabbed me on a viscreral and emotional level. I knew it had worked for me when I walked out of the theater and took several minutes to fully reacclimate to the normal world--it was almost like culture shock. to each their own opinion, I say.
sean
Only if you can go along with the tyranny of numbers. Successful politicians know this cos they know how to do the vote-gaining number-crunching equations better than your computer. If PRIVACY is an issue for you I suggest you chill out and de-intensify your territorial instincts. Lots of stuff out there that can give you a chemical buzz without too many side-effects.
Randal: Wanna watch a video?
Dante: Sure, whaddaya got?
Randal: Speilberg's latest opus, it combines his nose for commercial properties with his integrity as a chronicler of the Holocaust. Flinstone's List. Liam Neison as Fred.
Dante: We're not watchin' that... (Dante throws the tape to the floor out of disgust) Hey, remember the time we watched that? (flashback sequence)
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
I haven't seen Minority Report, but from your description I have a feeling it's a similar deal to A.I. It took me days to recover from A.I., and it still somewhat haunts me.
These sort of movies you have to look beyond the surface and dig down through the levels.
(Off Topic: To those who hated A.I.'s ending, ask yourselves: Was Monica real at the end?)
If you're so scared of another group of airplanes being crashed into Tourist Attractions, stop building tourist attractions, or move somewhere that doesn't have any.
... why does it sound to me as if you're more interested in your own freedom that those of everyone else? What about the freedom to live from fear, the freedom to be able to make your choices without having options imposed upon you by faceless terrorists?
Do these count in your book? It doesn't sound like it!
Freedom is nothing without security, because without security you cannot truly be free. Therefore freedom is dependant upon security, and for you to argue otherwise is nonsense. Our Founders understood this; just look at the Second Amendment for a fine example of how they saw the need for security as being paramount!
I made another post about this, but you may want to give A.I. another chance, or a couple of chances. The movie has a LOT of hidden levels and meaning. This site (which unfortunately isn't fully updated) has a lot of information about the symbolisms in the film. It's really a lot deeper than you might think if you didn't pick up on things the first time.
Like many other things that the Founders said, this was just a rhetorical device. If you really want to see what they meant and believed in you just need to look at the Constitution and what they thought was important enough to set into stone.
Why is the Second Amendment one that specifically gives us the security to defend ourself, if not to ensure freedom is preserved? The Founders knew that freedom and security were two sides of the same coin, and that sometimes we must decrease one to increase the other but that in the end it is all one and the same.
I am an absolute conservative. Heck, I voted for Buchanon.
Please define what sanity is when someone is willing to kill hundreds, or thousands of people on a whim, regardless if they themselves are planning to live or not????
Lets see, another 9/11, or another Internment camp of "May Become Guilty" people. Protection against unreasonable arrest and seizure, or live in fear of police because "Heck, the Oklahoma City Bomber was a White man in a rented truck, let's pick them all up!." (Gosh darn, White American Males Can't be terrorists, right?)
Your are correct in saying that Profiling is quite advanced. However, no one can give you an exact number on what someone MIGHT do.
Even if a Profiler can tell you there is an exact percentage, then at what percentage do you allow the police to break down someones door without evidence?
Use of profiling to assume any sort of guilt, is wrong.
Have you read George Orwell's 1984?
The three slogans of the Party say it all:
War Is Peace
Slavery Is Freedom
Ignorance Is Strength
Not a large jump from those to Speilberg's "Safety Is Freedom".
(Check out http://www.newspeakdictionary.com for more, including the full text of 1984.)
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
And ya caught me... I'll bite.
;) crazy than the next guy. ;P
I'm just objecting to the whole tone of your message... you want to be safe and you're willing to spend the freedoms of those around you to have it... News flash: MY freedom is not YOURS to give away. And the worse things get, the closer to that 'willing to die for' line I get... not that I'm anywhere near it now, but maybe some day.
Furthermore, the whole "anyone who would die for a cause is a nut" angle rubs me the wrong damn way.
Is there NOTHING that you would die for? That you would kill for?
To protect your loved ones?
To protect a total stranger? (die? nah... but kill... tough call)
To protect someone with whom you share quite a bit (a buddy from work?).
Is there nothing in this world that is more valuable to you than your own life? I've met people who's answer to that was 'no'. Selfish (and often lonely) bastards, every one. I pitied them.
So there are people... perfectly reasonable people... who would rather lay down their lives than see X happen.
Just because you perceive religion to be unimportant, doesn't make it so to others. Sorry.
Having said that, suicide bombing for Islam isn't the act of a healthy individual. One of the tenants of Islam (as I understand them... could be off here) is that you not attack an unarmed person... that includes a soldier that just dropped their weapon. The Old Testament lays it out quite simply: Don't kill. Crusaders, suicide bombers... same deal. Both are (or were) wrong based on a straight-forward interpretation of their own religions.
To wrap up this not-so-little tirade:
1) trading safety for freedom is bad.
2) there are things in this world that I hold to be more valuable than my life. I am not alone. I am not any more (or less
3) 9/11 sucked, but seeing the US turned into a police-state sucks MORE.
4) Various random and/or spastic points with only tangential relevance.
5) You're wrong. Agree with me.
Fooz Meister
I've recently been working on an animation project (an atomic bomb). Its a kind of arty project but to get the right effects i spent allot of time reasearching nuclear weapons. I've visited hundereds of web-sites and downloaded close to 100Mb of test films, photos and written reports on nuclear effects, and the physics of nuclear explosions and mushroom clouds. If my isp looks through my logs (lets face it, someone probably does) what are they going to think? I know what i'd think. At school i was pretty much voted most-likely-to-become-a-terrorist. I have copies of the terrorists hand-book on my computer, I hate G.W.Bush (I even had 3 of my comments removed from slashdot for threatening the president:
0 2/17/208214&mode=nested&tid=126
here:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?
sid=02/
)
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Living in fear....
I am afraid of
I can't drive to work without being pulled over
because I am black
I am afraid of
I can't use public transportation
because I am brown
I am afraid of
I can't pray to my god
because I am a Protestant
I am afraid of
I can't kneel to my god
because I am a Muslim
I am afraid of
Being shot by some moron
excercising his second ammendment rights of carrying a gun into a restaurant or a school.
I am afraid of
The police will do a body cavity search on someones daughter
Because she dresses weird
I am not afraid of dying. Knowing that I can live without fear.
That would be the law that they pawned off on us about 10 years ago by saying: "This is for YOU...besides, we'll only cite someone $15.00 for not wearing their seatbelt if we've pulled them over for another infraction". Based upon these safeguards, the voters in California approved a seatbelt law... WELL GUESS WHAT?? Seems a couple of years ago, the CA legislature changed the law...without telling or involving the voters. Now they CAN pull you over JUST for not wearing your seatbelt..and the fine is now more then doubled too... This is how government works...they get the citizens to allow the door to be cracked open...next thing you know the door has been removed from its hinges!
You thought Gattaca was a bad movie?
I don't know about the rest of the Slashdot crowd but I know I speak for more than a handful of people when I say that Gattaca was perhaps one of the best pieces of sci-fi that I've ever seen on the big screen.
Yeah, it doesn't have a ton of special effects but the film has everything - a good basic story, a few twists along the way, some great performances and a message that stays with you longer than the time it takes for the end credits to finish.
Compared to today's average "sci-fi" film - dross that's nothing more than eye candy, such as ID4 - Gattaca is mana from heaven.
If only all sci-fi was as beautifully-crafted and thought-provoking.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
i love Big Brother. Thanks for helping me get a hold of myself.
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
Even though were off topic by now:
Here in Boulder, CO, Roger Ebert shows up every year and shows a film. He takes a week to go all the way through it, at about 2 hours a day. Anytime someone sees something they would like to discuss they can yell out 'STOP!', and Ebert will pause the film, and the audience is free to discuss. It's a pretty good time, with an audience of 500 or so, and he usually picks very interesting movies.
Anywho, I saw him last year while he did Fight Club. He spent about half an hour on the first day discussing symbolism. His idea is that there are three types of symbolism:
1. That which the artist placed.
2. That which you placed.
3. That which got there on it's own, but is undeniable.
The goal for the critic is to not place his own symbolism. If every movie you see references some specific thing, chances are you are putting it there. Now here in the west, it is rare to find a work that doesn't reference Christianity in some way. It's a cultural response, too deep for most artists to remove. But if every concept you see goes right to the parting of the red sea, you are no longer objective. (I hope I am being clear so far)
As far as the "deepness" of AI, I would say that is symbolism that you are adding, without the help from the work itself.
I personally hated the movie because Spielberg has become condesending, and assumes that I cannot understand what his philosophical point is. He doesn't leave anything in the air anymore.
Anywho, just my thoughts, with the citation of Ebert.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
Speilberg has been suffering from the "I need to to be taken seriously" bug recently by tackling films with "messages". In a nutshell, he is way out of touch with the audiences whom he reached only twenty years previous. It's not surprising. George Lucas invented the Blockbuster, and Speilberg perfected it. He's a "sequel Director" or as William Goldman states flatly, a "whore". I think after doing all these delightful films he wishes to be viewed as a serious artist. Or what I like to call "A For Your Consideration Director". The problem is that all his latest movies suck with the suck-meter reaching critical mass during AI. Kubrick + Speilberg = Icy Schmaltz.
Don't get me wrong - I love early Speilberg. I mean - what is a blockbuster but cinema fast food and Speilberg created some tasty whoppers in his day. But his latest work is pure drivel. But at this point, he is beyond critique from mere mortals.
My advice, Stevie - in case you just happen to be a member of the Slashdot crowd - put down the philopsphy for dummies book and return to the spatula.
I find it refreshing that artist such as Spielberg are able to shine some sort of light on these issues, engcouraging debate, and hopefully taking some of the wind out of the sails of those that do not see the danger and bad side effects of their proposed solutions.
I'm not sure I would refer to Spielberg's comments as shining "some light" because anyone who reads slashdot regularly is already well familiar with these issues and he's certainly not bringing anything new or profound to the table. However, I do agree with your point (at least what I believe your point is) and that is that we need public figured like Spielberg to start fleshing out these ideas for others to think about. Let's face it, the most beautifully written post here on slashdot is going to have neglible impact on whether our privacy is taken away or not. But someone like Spielberg has the entire Western world listening to his comments. What he says may seem pretty obvious to us but will actually seem profound to the millions of people who see nothing wrong with public face-scanners and all the other surveillance devices either currently in operation or on the drawing board.
I guess my post is a long-winded way of saying I agree with you that we need people like Spielberg to publicize the privacy issues for the benefit of those who don't think unless a celebrity gives them something to chew on.
GMD
watch this
Is it just me or is this movie eerily like Time Cop with Van Dam?
When ever the debate about monitoring and privacy comes up, I always say that I truly hate being monitored all the time. And the answer you always get is that you have done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear. Well that's really an entire different discussion.
I like turning my cell phone off when I am not working. Often worries friends and family because they can't reach me when I'm not home. What's up with that. 5 years ago one would travel around Europe and the only thing they would hear from you was a postcard. These days where you can bring your phone all over and people can reach you it destroys all the fun.
This brings me back to the part about monitoring. If something as simple as the ability of people to reach you everywhere via your phone has clearly changed the behavior and our culture. If we were to be monitored all over inside and outside our house, I am quite sure that it would change our behavior as well. Now I am no psychiatrist so I can't really give any conclusions about how we would change, but somehow I doubt that it would be for the better. I would say that it would generate far more problems than it solve. Well it help that I does not all happens at once. This is of course often the fear that people are not aware of all the little changes that ends up in total monitoring of your life and when it does happen, we would all have got used to it(?) and not worry about it at all because it would happen so slowly that the culture would be able to change and adapt.
my sig
He doesn't leave anything in the air anymore.
I have to disagree with you there in the case of A.I. In fact, I think you could say that he probably left too much in air, considering how many people hated the ending and think it's some sort of sappy good time. I thought this analysis was particularly insightful. Read the part by "thade" where he makes the case for Monica being a construct intended to satisfy David's quest.
Bottom line, the fact that we can argue what the ending means argues against the fact that Spielberg made everything "obvious".
That's just one issue, I think there's a lot in the movie that Spielberg just touches on, but doesn't really go in-depth about. I particularly like the comparison between David "The Perfect Boy" and Martin "The All Too Imperfect" boy, and how imperfection and obnoxiousness define humanity in a very important way.
I believe that this could be a good example of when our desire for a safe world degrades our ability to live as free as we could. I believe that this is a dangerous trend since the 60's. I find it totally stifiling
Wait a sec. If the pre-cogs can see crimes that have yet to happen, and then stop them, then it stands to reason that since the "criminal" was arrested, the crime never happened. So then, how could the pre-cog see the crime that was going to happen, if it was stopped before it happ......NOOOOOOOOO.......BRAIN...OVERHEATING... ***Head Explodes***
Fight Club. Obvious reasons.
The Road Warrior. Watch it again thinking you are watching a Clint Eastwood movie. Think about the narrative. Simple, effective. Ahead of its time.
Memento.
Hard Boiled.
The Usual Suspects.
Shaolin Soccer (New hilarious Hong Kong movie).
Enemy at the Gates.
The Game (Savides is the DP... awesome).
Schidler's List.
Blade Runner (Jordan Cronenwerth DP).
Chunking Express.
The Conversation.
The French Connection.
Full Metal Jacket.
Cube.
Trainspotting.
Band of Brothers Box set.
Enemy Mine (really nails human nature).
Quills.
Those are just a few.
I am tired of the ass kissing everyone does of Spielberg.
It was horrible and cliched. It should have ended 30 minutes before the official end. ENDING THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A STATEMENT ABOUT WHERE WE ARE GOING!
Tell me, why in the hell does Hollywood think we need happy endings?
Anyone who claims that this movie is profound or is making a statement hasn't been living in this world that long.
The movie did have a neat vision of gadgets in the future. I would love one of those spiders as a pet.
And of course, being someone who makes up stories for a living in the movie industry, every word he says must be true.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
He likes to be called Herr Ashcroft. Thanks.
Feel 'free' to add to these. (pardon my pun)
"Now we must choose between safety and freedom, we must not flinch if freedom means anything." - Dennis Burke, USA Today
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams
"If a nation values anything more than freedom, it will lose its freedom; and the irony of it is that if it is comfort or money that it values more, it will lose that too." - Somerset Maugham
"My greatest fear is that too many members of the public will embrace the government's call to give up some freedom in return for greater safety, only to find that they have lost freedom without gaining safety." - Nadine Strossen, President ACLU
"Liberty without learning is always in peril and learning without liberty is always in vain." - John F. Kennedy
"Better to die on one's feet than to live on one's knees." - Dolores Ibarruri
"He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression." - Thomas Paine
"I know not what course others may take but as for me: give me liberty or give me death." - Patrick Henry
"When the rights of just one individual are denied, the rights of all are in jeopardy!" - Jo Ann Roach
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
ACLU... when they speak of 'liberty' and 'freedom' yet then act in the interests of self serving (as in self at the EXPENSE of others) groups I cannot then take them seriously. Not from a simple lack of trust in their integrity and honour, but in fact because if they cannot see the hypocricy and contradicting nature of what they say then do, they have no sort of real judgement... or at least they have no roots in reality in which to judge it.
I defy you to find any documention backing up that quotation. This is simply one of those fake quotations that bounces from one person to another on the internet because they think it sounds good. But in truth it is just a lie.
Okay. Justa have to...
Fight Club stinks. It hasn't a single redeeming feature. YMMV.
The Road Warrior is a metaphor for The Wizard of Oz. Think about it. Mel has a squeaky metal joint. He needs a heart, a heart he lost "in the roar of an engine." He comes to care about something other than himself again and he finds his heart. Watch the movie again and don't think Clint Eastwood. Think "The Tin Man." You'll be surprised how thoroughly The Wizard of Oz pervades the movie. Strange. Fun. Exciting. Surprisingly intellectual mayhem. One of my all-time faves.
Memento. A very good movie. Brilliantly original structure, although in many ways a routine noir, it manages to surprise through its unique structure and to say something very poignant about truth and memory. Very very good.
The Usual Suspects. Other than brilliant performances and photography, I thought this was one of the most routine movies I've heard otherwise intelligent people rave about. Violent and pointless. Saw the "surprise" coming from a million miles away. Damned fine acting and cinematography though. Worth seeing.
I don't know Hard Boiled. I'll check it out.
Shaolin Soccer sounds like one I'd like. I'll check it out too.
Enemy at the Gates? Huh? Why?!?
The Game. Again, other than a glossy look, WHY?!?
Schindler's List. Very good. A movie that pushes all the "greatness buttons" and still manages to be very good.
Blade Runner. Good. One of the best science fiction movies ever, although that is damning with faint praise.
Chunking Express. Solid good movie.
The Conversation. Good writing. Great actor.
The French Connection. Fair writing. Great actor.
Full Metal Jacket. The first 50 minutes may be the best movie I ever saw. Falls apart after that. Okay, okay. The guys being shot in the square are a metaphor for our involvement in the war. I got it already. I got it!
Cube. An object lesson on how to make a 90 minute movie out of a 30 minute Twilight Zone episode and do it all on the smallest budget possible. However, it manages to be better than any other movie I've seen with similar ambitions. Ultimately pointless.
Trainspotting. Brilliant. Tragic. Honest.
Band of Brothers. Good.
Enemy Mine. Another movie that starts brilliantly and then falls into routine mayhem. Good with flaws.
Quills. Great acting.
But what about:
Network
Dr. Strangelove
Rear Window
North by Northwest
Citizen Kane
Fearless
Witness
Rashomon
The Seven Samurai
Greed
Modern Times
Duck Soup
The General
The Snapper
Apollo 13 (I must be one of the few people who thinks this is a great film -- it must help to have lived through it the first time and to remember sitting on the stairs listening waiting for Neil to walk, just like the scene in this movie. I usually dislike Opie's movies for out Speilberging Speilberg, but this one worked for me. Don't ask me why.)
The Quiet Man
The Philidelphia Story
The Manchurian Candidate
The Sting
Life of Brian
The Searchers
The Sea Hawk
The Adventures of Robin Hood (Errol Flynn version of course)
Forbidden Planet
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (original version, not 70's remake)
The Maltese Falcon
The African Queen
The Man Who Would Be King
and so many more...
IIRC, isn't that Larry Niven's Law of Freedom? I seem to remember reading it in some of his stories, did he lift it from somewhere?
InThane
From the article:
He told reporters that plans are firming up for the next Indiana Jones movie, and that he'll be re-teaming with George Lucas and Harrison Ford.
I hope Steven Spielberg keeps Lucas locked up in a box for the duration of the writing, filming, and editing process. Please, not the Ewoks!
Why else do you think the most popular chain of supermarkets is called Safeway ??
I don't get it.
My argument against being forced to wear seatbelts, is just that, we're FORCED to wear them. I hate the things. Fucking buckles never seem to latch in right, they always tend to lock up on me before I get them pulled out of the wall to latch them in, so I have to retract them the whole way, then start pulling it out again. Fucking pain in the ass.
.44 caliber ball through my foot, better fucking arrest me, because I'm NOT BEING SAFE. I (used to, thank you very much, California) keep my USP .45 loaded, charged and hammer-dropped at my hip. OH GOD I COULD POSSIBLY SHOOT MYSELF! MAY AS WELL FINE ME FOR NOT BEING SAFE!!! Fuck, I hate this Nanny State mentality, the whole "fine you for not wearing your seatbelt" is only the first step. Before you know it, everything that's not safe, scissors made of metal, kitchen knives, glass bottles, can openers, will all be made ILLEGAL, because a small, extremely vocal subset of the populace thinks that the Government should make unsafe activities ILLEGAL, rather than leaving the safety up to the person who is doing the activity.
I've been in two car accidents in my life, both times, I was hurt because of the seatbelt. First time, it was just a bruise, second time, it was a broken collarbone. Had I had the damn thing off, I would have escaped completely unharmed (I drive a Volkswagen, '72 Beetle, not exactly the safest machine on the road). If I ever got into a Real Accident, I'd be dead anyway. So why even bother with the seatbelt? I did some calculations, If I got into a head-on at 65, the bolts that hold the belts to the body of the car would be torn out by my inertia. So, I've never seen a point, really.
So, I drive "unsafely" The only person that I'm potentially endangering by not wearing my seatbelt is MYSELF. There is no reason, no point in a policeman issuing ME a five fucking hundred dollar ticket just because I am potentially putting MYSELF in danger. Hey, fuckheads, I shoot black powder, that shit's dangerous too! Had it go off while I was capping, almost put a
Fuck that noise. I keep hoping for a newspaper to slip through a crack in spacetime decreeing that this small, vocal subset was the first up against the wall when the revolution came.
Why is it when I hit ^R that ZSH calls me a cocksucker?
I just saw his latest creation (that's been released), Minority Report. Great movie, in all aspects.
However, there was one thing that bothered me in the movie. When John (Tom Cruise) walks around town, advertisments are everywhere. And they are personalized. "You deserve a cruise John Anderson!" "John Anderson! Get a free account at Washington Mutual!". And this isn't just in his living room, it's in PUBLIC! Meaning everyone knows who you are! I mean, what if your a celebrity and it says "Get half off on Jello Tom Cruise!" then everyone will go "TOM CRUISE?! WHERE?!".
Something else, when he walks into GAP it says "Enjoy those low-cut jeans Mr. Yakamoto?". What if you don't want people to know what kind of clothes you buy? I mean, what if you went into a video rental store and it said "Enjoy Naughty Nurses 2000 Mr. Anderson?".
How I see, if you ask "What about my privacy?!" in 15 years people will laugh at you. Is that bad? Not really. It isn't good either. It's just the future.
Why can't he do more of those light, upbeat movies like Amistad and Schindler's List?
Singling out people who act "erratic"? Anyone who goes to high school in America knows that this has been going on since Columbine.
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
I hate to say it, but I liked AI more than this film, and I didn't like AI all that much.
The reviews are just way way WAY overhyped. This was a mediocre action movie. It's too long, takes itself too seriously, and treats the audience like an idiot.
Plot holes abound, especially at the end.
Finally, Spielberg's idea of where technology will be in 30 years is laughable. They actually think people will be standing in front of large projector screens waving their arms around like idiots with some kind of 3-D glowing mouse strapped onto both hands. After 15 minutes of using a computer like that, you'd be pretty winded I'd think.
And to get info from one computer to another...they have to copy it onto some kind of clear card-- you'd think the computers would be networked, but apparently that technology's been forgotten. Apparently they weren't using Macs...
Anyway. It's not HORRIBLE, but it's not that great. Not provocative or thought provoking in the least.
See it on cable.
Very Disappointedly Yours,
Anonymous Coward
OpenSecrets link to Spielberg's soft money campaign contributors
He's just another phony liberal in the great Hollywood phony liberal tradition. When he finds another set of buzzwords and social concerns that'll pull in his target demographic, he'll use them, i.e. don't be surprised if he sounds like Rush Limbaugh someday.
Right now, he's using the right buzzwords for people who pretend to themselves that they still have social concerns while providing the dollars that bought the politicians that enacted obscenities like DMCA passed and worse legislation to follow.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Peter Jacksons 'Bad Taste' is the best Sci-Fi movie I have seen, when I wasnt laughing I was vomiting. The guy eating the Alien Spue and then trying to drink seconds..... and, "Geez they come apart easy.'
mocom--
I haven't seen the movie yet, but from the look of the trailers, there is a basic flaw in the concept.
1. The legal system works on the principle that we have a choice in what we do. You choose to do bad things, you get punished.
2. MR shows Tom seeing things before they happen and subsequently arresting people for a "crime they are yet to commit."
3. This means that Fate no longer exists and that we live in a determinist world. Thus, someone who committed a crime had no say in the matter. It was going to happen no matter what the "criminal" did. To convict someone of murder, you have to prove intent.
So unless there is some explaining in the movie on why Tom arrests people for doing something they had no say in, I can't see how the movie can be plausible.
We all know the real reason Minority Report cost so much to make and it took as long as it did in editing was having to CG out Tom Cruise's braces out of every scene.
Have you seen those things?
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
All we have in "Minority Report" is a movie that serves the common goals of both Spielberg and Cruise at crucial points in their careers. Spielberg wants to be taken seriously and wants to avoid the orbital pull of ET, Indiana Jones..which were entertaining movies, but only earned him studio, but not artistic respect from Hollywood. He had to wait until Schindler's List before receiving an Oscar. Nonetheless, aside from Schindlers, all of his movies feature one dimensional, simple, cartoon like characters. Ironically, I think Jaws was the last movie where Spielberg created real, full characters.
Now Tom Cruise, will always act Tom Cruise. He is turning 40 and in several more years look kind of foolish next to young co-stars. So he doesn't want to end up like Harrison Ford or Kevin Costner. Hence, he has to do movies which validate him as a "senior", leading man. Minority Report works for him because it is action without being too Top Gun-nish.
The above post was right: this is just a big budget, A-list remake of Van Damme's "Time Cop".
One good (moral) part was that it promoted self-responsibility, which I think the world as a whole has forgotton.
am i the only phillip k dick fan who's pissed off about this movie? why is this called a "spielberg film," and not "spielbergs screen adaptation of a short story by philip k dick?" who cares what spielberg has to say about the story? why didn't the director of LOTR get interviewed about the origins of Middle Earth and connections between the trilogy and midieval literature? because he didn't write the damn book, that's why, and if he took credit for it, no matter how good his screen version might be, he'd be laughed at as a fraud. philip k dick was one of the greatest authors america has ever produced, and he did have many interesting things to say about the future. as far as i can tell, spielberg has nothing interesting to say about the future; let's focus on what dick had to say, and ignore the grandstanding of a egomaniac who wants to take credit for others work.
Warning to slashdot readers: all of these movies are in fact bad.
These ideas aren't really that orginal, after all speilberg is just turning them into movies. The real genius are the writes who wrote the orginal books, like Bradbury and P.K. Dick...
You want to read about some really fucked up paranoia and craziness read some P.K. Dick sometimes (basis of minorty report?), also wrote 'do androids dream of electric sheep?' or also know in the movies as 'Blade Runner'. His works have stood the test of time, just like J.R.R Tolken.. after all great writes have already created the entire universe for a movie, and it's almost impossible to screw up great works when turning them into a movie. For how many of you, did Lord of the Rings seem to be 'exactly' the way you envisioned it when reading the book?? I know for myself it was almost bang on the images that I had in my head.
Good artists create, great artist steal.....
The following is a spoiler do not read
why was John Anderton successfull.
When you ask yourself that question, you think you know the answer, you see the movie, you glance around, and you say "its obvious buzz, its because he was really good, and had connections as the police cheif"
You are both right, yet wrong.
Let me explain. The reason the precogs always got the criminals was because the murder was going to happen, they were able to apprehend on time. The more pre-meditated the murder the further in advance the pre-cogs had to capture the soon to be criminals.
The thing to getting the story is you have to remember how the events of the movie were set in motion, agatha pulls John into a tank, and shows him a mysterious murder scene.
These events eventually lead to the death of the killer of the mother of Agatha (the chick in the soup).
Agatha committed 3 murders, she was responsible for the 3 deaths that occurred, two of which were in all honesty innocent bystandards, the last person was the one who had killed her mother.
Agatha never pulled the trigger, because she could see the future. She waited six years in a vat of water to get revenge for the horror of her life, she did so with the complete knowlege of the two twins.
Who knows how far Agatha could see in the future, all the clues for the assurtion I make are there!
Agatha uses the even where the investigating cop is going to ruin Johns life to further her own ends, she can see many possible futures, not all her activity is monitored on the dome screen.
She picks out the possible future, and possible actions that would lead to death of her mothers murderer. She gave John the tools, and the motivation to release her from the tank, she knew that by having revealed to him the info about Ms. Lively that the old fella (im horrible with names) would set plans in motion to have John killed. I am even sure that when the old man planned the set up, he did it without ever guessing HOW he would get John to the place to commit the murder.
The BOOM, the pre-crime report, a report made long before John EVER KNEW THE NAME OF THE GUY, this is incredibly important, because they showed right in the beggining that crimes of passion or rage took MUCH longer to predict, and with MUCH less time to stop the murder. AGAIN this murder was predicted a day or so BEFORE THE CRIMINAL EVEN KNEW the name, which means that it was being picked up because it was pre-meditated in either one of two ways.
Agatha can predict her own pre-meditated murder, or it was predicted because it was pre-meditated by the older man, either works, the first one is obvious, the second scenario less so. I propose Agatha knew would happen, since she could think, she knew she was there, and she knew not to give images revealing that fact.
So what happened? John Anderton, did kill the man, so what it didnt happen exactly as planned, it happened, the fellow died.
Now Anderton is still on the run, he gets to his home, Agatha could have easily warned him, just as she had in his escape, but that wouldnt have fit into her plans, she needed John captured again, and she needed Johns wife to hear the story, and be moved to sympathy.
So here we have it, she tells them a long, lovely distracting story of their childrens childhood. She then warns them far too late about being captured, this puts it in place for the inevitable death of the old evil man at the end, and her release from pre-crime.
All of her dreams come true, and as payment she gets John back together with his wife.
The plot holes all make sense if you say
"Agatha is the murderer"
and all the puzzle peices fit.
Sorry about the bad grammer, bad spelling, lack of names etc. This is a forum post not a full end review.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Frank Herberts Dune series had much to say about precognition of future, changing, events. Paul Atreidese could see in the future, but future itself was not set, by seeing the future, and then acting within the future that he had control over, he thus bent the future to his will. If he had not been able to see the future, things would not have gone so well for him. By being able to see the future he trapped himself into the future, if he had not had future abilities then he would have been under the control of fate, what would happen would always happen. When you have a choice of what happens, the future itself becomes more frightening, because you can always choose a possible future where things go as you want. Nothing will ever happen by chance because you can do whatever is needed for things to go your way, every time. What a horrid existence it would be. Now in the case of the pre-cogs, they saw the entire future too, or at least i have come to beleive. The ones able to be seen by the computers were the most vivid and powerfull, the bits of future that was too powerfull. The pre-cogs set the future in the image they had developed, and it was going to come to pass. They saw the ball rolling, they saw what would have happened if things were left without intervention. when someone intervened, then the crime simply didnt happen, because this was the possible future where it didnt happen. Imaging, there is a "possible" future that there are men outside your door waiting to kill you, if there were me telling you might be able to save your life, if i didnt tell you then you would most likely die. the fact I am going to tell you wouldnt make a lot of difference, because I hadnt told you yet, and I wouldnt tell you if i hadnt seen the images. So the instant I see the images is the instant that time alters to a future were you do not die, but simply because it was averted doesnt mean it wasnt going to happen anyway.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
Lets say the brain emits waves of all our thoughts, like a satellite broadcaster of sorts. The waves are public domain, yes, just like the current frequencies we get radio and television on right now? Does that mean it's okay to create a backwards compatible device to listen in on these free set of waves? They are public domain after all!
Yeah, mod me for trolling, fools.
Yeah, I see a few there...
Oh, I noticed that there was a couple there that you said, "other than the glossy look, why?" Well, I am a professional videographer and photographer. So I let it go sometimes because I really focus on the photography, and a lot of movies like the game I think take cinematography in a whole new ground, and there is something to be said for that. So I am an image geek. I look for the cinematographer before the director, and complain to my wife that we got a shitty print in the theatre.
I would however resuggest Enemy at the Gates to you for one good reason... there is not a wasted shot in the movie, not one. It propels rather well. Also it is a challenge to add suspense to a sniper fight, and I thought it was well done.
Also, Shaolin Soccer is a movie that is done by a man that will be the next great overseas comic.
He is a Hong Kong Jim Carey, and he writes his own movies. His humor is Western in style. You cannot get this in the US right now unless you import it. But if you can, it is really a sidesplitter... especially when they make fun of every kung fu movie style ever. It was an Asian blockbuster. It might be coming over via Miramax.
I totally agree with you on these movies:
The Searchers
Sea Hawk
The Maltese Falcon
African Queen
The Quiet Man (Hell yes!)
Fearless (No one ever remembers it!)
You still forgot Gone with the Wind and Casablanca, though... and you can't forget Bringing Up Baby.
Movies from PKD stories, that I know of...
'Blade Runner', based off 'Do Androids Dream of
Electric Sheep', a novel. A good novel,
but the movie is perhaps better.
'Total Recall', based off 'We can remember it
for you wholesale' (a much better short story
than movie, and almost completely different).
'Minority Report', based off a short story
of the same name. Story's good, it's
simple, works great as a movie.
The last two stories are included in the
'Philip K Dick Reader', one of the collections
of his short stories (I think it has
two other good ones, Paycheck and Autofac,
which haven't been made into movies).
For those interested in reading some more of him,
'A Scanner Darkly' and 'The World Jones Made'
are two good novels.
The solution is easy. You change your legal name to something so long and complex it causes a buffer overflow in the advertising software:-)
You're forgetting something. Padilla is being denied his day in court. He is locked up on nothing more than Ayatollah Ashcroft's say-so.
Does the gummint have evidence aganst Padilla? Fine. Charge him with a crime. Put him on trial. Show us the evidence. What they're doing to Padilla, even if he's guilty, amounts to a suspension of habeas corpus; and since the war on civil lib^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hterrorism is unlikely ever to end, that means we'll never get it back.
There is no security without rule of law. If we allow Ayatollah Ashcroft to have his way, we may manage to hunt down that last terrorist -- but we will only replace the terror of Al Qaeda with the terror of the midnight knock on the door.
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
Boy I remember when I was doing some freelance Windows application work in the 90s and I thought I was really stepping out into the Twilight Zone with stuff I had never seen elsewhere, I started getting concerned about the safety of my code so I began looking for encryption packages.
Well I found many and I put them to use, but in the mean time I also found that by looking for encryption software I was apparently setting off bells somewhere because I began noticing a lot of weird coincidences in terms of weird bugs and trojan payloads crawling out of the woodworks.
Now when you get into encryption it shows you are paranoid and when paranoids get together you're bound to have a lot of hokey pokey games going on so I'm willing to assume I wasn't being targeted by any particular group, but it's not altogether beyond the pale.
Trying to escape this is crazy. I mean I'm all for good privacy legislation, but if you're at all interesting there's no reason you can't be observed regardless of the legal issues involved. Legal issues only count in court. They, whoever they may be, don't have to bring up the fact that they're observing you illegally when they charge you with some off-the-wall silliness they dreamed up.
Your best bet is to trade your beautiful girlfriend for a homely one and start having a really lame sex life, get a pot belly and sit around in your drawers all day and leave the house a mess. Constantly rant on public bulletin boards so they get the impression they're just wasting their time on someone who is trying to be noticed but isn't worth their attention. They'll get bored quick. This is a kind of lifestyle steganography.
You're bitching about the shitty car you have. If the seat belt gives you trouble, dude, get a new car!
Even if you did a head-on at 65 mph(?) the seatbelts would still be there. Assuming you have a car made in the last 20 years or so. In fact, the fire department would probably have to saw the car to pieces to be able to cut the seatbelts loose and take you out.
If you don't like it, move the fuck out. Go to Ghana or whatever.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are not one who rags on anything popular even when it deserves the popularity without question. Though, your list straight out of AFI's top 100 leads me to believe otherwise. Also, you seem to believe (save, maybe two or three) that a good or great movie has not been made in the past 35 years?
Philosophically, I'm a determinist, so this really pushes my buttons. Determinists generally believe that, seeing as the state the universe is just a bunch of atoms and quanta bouncing off each other, the results of those reactions are necesssary and unavoidable. Uncertainty throws a sprocket in the works, but it doesn't derail it. It doens't mean you have 'free will' any more than Netwonian physics did. At any rate, determinists tend to agree that because the outcome of our actions is physically necessitated from birth by the way in which the quanta of which we're composed and the quanta they encounter bounce off each other, our moral actions are necessitated and we have zero ability to modify them. So there's no such thing as good, guilt or blame. You're as good and as guilty as Adolf Hitler.
At any rate, the idea that you might be able to predict crimes really puts focus on the determinist question. Are you as guilty before a crime as after it? I'd have to think so. And so are you guilty a week before? A month before? As an embryo? A zygote? Sperm and ova? Is your mother guilty? Is the table on which you were born as guilty as the sperm and ova? What the hell is guilt? Are you being punished for your essentially 'evil' temperament at the time of and prior to the crime, seeing as you haven't committed the crime yet? Why are you evil? When did you become evil? At whatever exact point in time you became evil, wasn't that event just determined by previous, unavoidable environmental variables?
Obviously, there's no answer for that. But it worries me that so many people seem to believe in punitive justice rather than corrective justice when there doesn't seem to be any basis for the concept of blame that anyone can point to.
Seatbelts don't just protect those who are wearing them. Passengers in the rear who aren't wearing seatbelts can seriously injure the front seat passengers, and passengers in the front without seatbelts will be thrown through the windscreen if the car is going fast enough, which as well as being not too good for them, could potentially cause problems for others.
In the UK there was a TV ad that was designed to encourage people to wear seatbelts. It showed a mother driving a car with her two teenage children as passengers, the daughter in the front passenger seat and the son sitting behind the mother. It showed a collision in which the son, who wasn't wearing a seatbelt, was thrown forward into the back of his mother, smashing her head against the steering wheel and killing her instantly (this was an older car with no airbag). The son was unharmed as his mother had cushioned the impact for him, and the daughter was screaming hysterically.
Suck figs.
While others are slamming this movie to various degrees, I enjoyed it for the most part. There were some elements that were imperfect, the length, the fight scenes etc but for me the interesing subject matter outweighed the problems. For exciting fight scenes though, I have to say the Bourne Identity gets my vote right now for best 'Non Matrix Like fight scenes ' in a recent movie. :-P )
Now, on to the ideas, as one poster mentioned, the directed advertising was interesting, but based on the portrayal in the movie, there must have been some form of directed audio at work. Cruise/Anderton never heard other's ads while walking, only his own.
The spiders were interesting, and perhaps a not that unrealistic a technology. ( and besides, imagine what could you do with a Beowolf Cluster of those things.....
I quite enjoyed the frameshift of how when Cruise/Anderton was a cop we were rooting for the good-guys, and then when the tables turned, we rooted for the 'bad-guy'. Made a good statement that perceptions are based on which side of the rope you stand on. The issues of privacy and security reminded me of elements of the novel I am reading now, Gorky Park. In the novel, many of the things seen in MR are long in place in Russia, just using different mechanisms. In the novel the detective needs to find a missing girl, but he comments in an aside, "It is unnecessary to check the hotels, as it is illegal for residents to stay in a hotel. Everyone is provided state housing, so what legal use would they have of a hotel room". Beautiful.
Our current 'freedoms' are window dressing.
9/11 has been a bonanza for the state to gain more control than ever, with full public approval due to FUD.
Heres looking ahead.........
When such laws will be rescinded unless there is a major backlash from the public.
Bush and his cronies have been wringing their hands with glee ever since the attack. They couldn't have planned it better themselves and now he can continue his father's dream of finally completing the conversion of the US into a police state.
Criminals and religious nuts can buy their way into office. Corporations buy politicians who then protect their vested interests. At this rate the country is doomed.
Now here's a question - are there any countries that operate a free market? Are there even any countries where politicians are elected based on merit?
This is what Stoiber, president of the German CSU and presidential hopeful in the next elections(Christian social union) said in an interview in which he called for a ban on "Killerspiele" (meaning "Killer video games") and "Gewaltvideos" (violent videos) and general, international internet regulation. There are enough German speakers here to translate this quote, so I won't bother. He seems to be a big fan of the BPjS (now called the BPjM) and favours expanding it's powers even further (They were already expanding after the German parliament tightened youth protection laws after Erfurt). Though one has to wonder what kind of a deluded fool you'd have to be to vote vote for someone like this...
Read more about it on heise.de
What??
There is no situation in which a seatbelt will help you controll your vehicle. The seatbelt laws are designed to protect insurance companies. If you cause an accident, somebody dies, and thier family sues you, that costs your insurance company alot more money than if the person was just injured. Look, it was the insurance companies that lobbied the government to pass these laws, so who do you think they were designed to protect?
Maybe Speilberg is concerned because the software profiled him as abnormal for editing/censoring the 20th anniversary of E.T.?
Sure but who says it's 100% accurate. The US requires that you prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt - could you guarantee me that up until the minute the suspect points a gun at the victim that he was going to kill him based solely on some previously accurate 'psychics'? I may dream hateful epithets and envision killing someone in my mind. There is nothing wrong with that until I put into action a plan to carry it out.
I don't think it's 100% accurate, and in fact the movie's point is that it's not a perfect system. The murders predicted are going to happen, but everything else, including the circumstances surrounding the murder, are not always clear, and that is what makes all the difference.
But that's not my point. In the movie, Tom Cruise visits one of the original creators of the pre-crime system, and she's not afraid of him even though she knows that he's going to murder somebody, he's not going to murder her. Not having to worry about that takes a load off of one's mind, and that was my point. Any other comments you made based on the stance you assume I am taking are fine, but don't assume that I stand on the other side of the fence. I'm pro-murder-free-world, and if you assume by my previous post that I'm pro-anything else (except for 10,000 watt sound systems), then you're incorrect.
Your vision of freedom is boring, imagine if everyone had to avoid doing anything that offended anyone.
Your vision of my vision of freedom is incorrect.
Synergy is your friend
Obviously, there are some flys in the ointment, because they have to hand-tweak. Don't they have anything better to do?
--
Ask the Ya-Hoot Oracle Anything!
Clock it, the requisite reference to 1984 was made by the 6th post in the discussion, i think that's a new record. Seriously folks, go buy a second book. I hear Robert Ludlum's got some good stuff.
I formed my opinions prior to the AFI lists, thank you very much. Very few good movies have been made in the last thirty five years, but I believe my list contains several: Fearless, Witness, and Network being just the first ones that leap to my mind.
p le-in-beautiful-clothes-do-backflips movie.
Many many very pretty movies have been made in the last ten years. Even several I have enjoyed (MIB, The Big Lebowski, etc.) Very few of them have anything actually human in them. Any alien looking at the media output of the last twenty years would think the primary mode of human social interaction is exploding or showering one another in a hail of bullets. Maybe that is even becoming true (viz. planes flying into buildings, school shootings). It isn't my primary mode of interacting. I actually talk to people. More of the crises in my life have been illness and death of loved ones, difficult relationships, lost jobs, while there have been relatively few cloned extinct monsters, evil computer programs, and meglomaniacal supervillians.
I don't have a problem with the odd movie like this (heck, I enjoyed Jurassic Park and Batman. I even liked Die Hard), but every goddamned movie? I'll take a "Glengarry Glen Ross" or a "Fearless" over another brass-shell-casings-fall-in-slow-motion-while-peo
Also, for the record, I tossed off my little list after about 45 seconds of thought. The fact that most of the movies I love are old doesn't mean that I don't like any new movies. Just about anything the Coen brothers have done has impressed me. Every once in a while a "Roger and Me" or a "Boys Don't Cry" gets made. And every once in a while a purely commercial and totally entertainment piece is done so well that I actually sit back and enjoy myself (Men In Black leaps to mind).
I hope this clarifies it for you a bit. And I hope it doesn't hurt as badly the next time I don't like something you like.
It strikes me as odd that Spielberg has decided to reinvent himself as one of those 'cutting-edge' directors, like the kind who do those art house films with foreign names that 99% of the population can't spell, pronounce, or view for extended periods of time.
Steve- you are NOT an independent film director, do you know WHY? The big reason is because you can get a $50 million budget without asking the studio. You just make a film, and then sell it.
You're not cutting-edge, you're barely creative, and you have subcontracted your chewing and swallowing to your staff!
Where do you get off trying to convince the world that you are a dark and tortured visionary whose only goal in life is to explain his dream to the world.
You had your chance to do that, and you gave us JAWS. Good work!
I guess those "urban planers" (look about 3/4 down the article) will be the ones responsible for razing Washington DC?
Talk about witty spelling errors!
they like to suck leet haxxor dick too buddy