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.

Comments

Think this would work?

[sheepab]

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!

Re:Think this would work?

[ZaMoose]

They're not from the future. They rely on pseudo-psychics to foretell murders and they then arrest the would-be murderers. No time travel necessary.

Re:Think this would work?

[martyn s]

Well in the movie, Tom Cruise demonstrated this for Colin Farrell. Colin Farrell's character asked the same question. So Tom Cruise threw a wooden ball across the table (sorta) and right before it fell Colin Farrell caught it.

TC: Why did you catch that ball?
CF: Because it was going to fall.

So basically, just because you can predict what was happening by extrapolating and inferring, and you end preventing it, that doesn't mean it wasn't *going* to happen.

Re:Think this would work?

[The Only Druid]

You're a little mistaken, as there are _several_ schools of thought: 1) Destiny. Herein, the universe unfolds in a deterministic way that is entirely based on the original configuration of the universe including it's laws. In this universe, free will is illusory: the world can only exist in a single way. 2) Chaos. Herein, chance plays a function [to varying degrees] in every event, from the subatomic to the universal. In this universe, free will may be free (though its easy to debate). Now, Chaos has subclasses: 2a) Many-Worlds. This is based off the quantum mechanical theory that there are countless parallel universes, branching from each other at every event as a junction. In this multiverse, there are countless universes that represent every possible configuration of the universe. In such a universe, it is possible that the PreCogs sense the state the future will take in the current universe, then the PreCrime agents prevent that future, pushing the universe into a parallel path. In other words, both futures exist, but PreCrime enables the police to choose a more desireable option. 2b) SingleWorld. This is a varation on the above: there is a single universe, but it has a predictable future state given all the current information. However, PreCogs sense that future state, and provide PreCrime with enough information to alter the configuration and result in a different future. In this world, PreCogs are not "seeing the future," but instead making incredibly accurate predictions based on the current configuration. There are more, but I'm just making the point that its more complex than you're suggesting...

Re:Think this would work?

[IIRCAFAIKIANAL]

Of course, in the end, Larrel (?) proves it's not always true. I guess sometimes the ball explodes. Chaos theory comes to mind. Great movie, just saw it :)

Now to play some Neverwinter Nights

Spielberg's 180

[alexmogil]

What's with his addiction to dark movies these days? AI, Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report... yeek.

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.

Re:Spielberg's 180

[martyn s]

I dunno, it makes me feel better to attribute that pile of garbage entirely to spielberg.

Actually, to be fair, AI started out pretty good. When I saw the movie, I told people I could tell exactly where Stanley Kubrick died, because all of a sudden, out of nowhere, it started to suck horribly.

Tagline

[Vidmaster_Steve]

The film's tagline, er, the Society's tagline, just sends a shiver down my spine: "Safety IS Freedom." Wonderful dystopian world view, just like in Farenheit 451, bastardizing something that Ben Franklin had said regarding the most basic of human freedoms. Just plain beautiful on Speilberg's part.

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...

Re:Tagline

[UncleAwesome]

Slashdot folks seem to play the role of the Dilbert boss when it comes to social issues. They expect the best of both worlds. They want uncompromising individual freedom and privacy, but at the same time expect the government to prevent bad stuff from happening to them. They set unreasonable expectations with unrealistic constraints and cry foul when government errs wrong on either side. They only seem to realize the existence of tradeoffs only in software projects and not within society. Its quite amusing in a sad clown sort of way.

Re:Tagline

[blibbleblobble]

"They[we] want uncompromising individual freedom and privacy, but at the same time expect the government to prevent bad stuff from happening to them."

Before you convince too many people of our hypocracy, most of us know the government can't stop "bad stuff" happening, and has no interest in doing so anyway

Given that, taking away freedom and privacy "to protect you" just adds insult to injury, as they implement policies (RIP, the terrorism bill) which stand no chance of protecting anyone, but take away the freedoms anyway.

cat common_sense | government

Re:Tagline

[sheetsda]

bastardizing something that Ben Franklin had said regarding the most basic of human freedoms

While looking through a quote book looking for that quote, I found:

"Since the general civilizations of mankind I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." --James Madison

Rather appropriate to our current situation IMO.

Re:Tagline

[SuiteSisterMary]

This "seatbelt" bullshit makes me want to exact my patriotism and destroy any tyrant who dares impede my freedom to keep me "safe"

Lord knows it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that a person wearing a seatbelt is much more able to keep control of their vehicle in an emergency situation, and thus helps to avoid endangering OTHERS as well as yourself.

Re:Tagline

[Cryptnotic]

The problem with freedom and privacy is that if a police, sheriff, or highway patrol officer pulls up next to you and notices that you are not wearing your seat belt, he can (and will) pull you over and write you a ticket, regardless of whether you also commit any traffic-related violations. Many, many people have been pulled over for routine violations (missing taillight, seatbelts, etc) and are subsequently arrested for DUI or drug possetion.

The police believe that they have some kind of "premonition" or "precognition" or "sixth sense" when it comes to people they see on the street. They're not allowed to stop everyone they are curious about. However, they use rules like the seat belt rule to stop those of whom they are suspicious.

Re:Tagline

[Cryptnotic]

The Great Socialist Utopia across the Sierras

They don't call it the "People's Republic of California" for nothing.

Re:Tagline

[ender81b]

indeed. I have always thought about it like this:

Freedom x Security = K (constant)

You can't get more of one without giving up some of the other.

Re:Tagline

[aztektum]

I disagree. If you get hit by someone else chances of you keeping your hands securely on the wheel are small in the first place. Not to mention having an air bag blow open in your face if you get hit hard enough.

A friend got re-ended at only about 25-30 miles an hour and pushed into another car. He had his hands securely on both sides of the wheel but the sudden impact knocked him around enough (even with a seat belt) that he had no control of the wheel.

Imagine if he'd been hit at 60-65-70.

Re:Tagline

[the_rev_matt]

Having lived 80% of my life in the "Great Socialist Utopia" I'm well aware that the only people who call it that are libertarians and other extreme right wingers. If you don't like it go the fuck back where you came from and leave it to people who appreciate a responsible progressive society that encourages people to participate rather than just observe.

Mod me down fascist bastards!

Re:Tagline

[Your Login Here]

Yup. That's a known issue -- any car with a passenger-side airbag documents it clearly. Any person whose child is killed due to it therefore has noone to blame but themselves.

Dead babies are almost always a sign of a design flaw. There should be switches to dissable airbags because they can kill children and short people. Of course regulators don't trust the average driver to be able to make that decision, because it's easier to write off the deaths that do happen.

Re:Tagline

[swillden]

Lord knows it couldn't POSSIBLY have anything to do with the fact that a person wearing a seatbelt is much more able to keep control of their vehicle in an emergency situation, and thus helps to avoid endangering OTHERS as well as yourself.

So why, then, does the law require all passengers to be belted as well? So they won't be flying around the interior and distracting the driver? There are physics problems with that notion, but I'll just point out that if you're worried about things flying around the crashing car, we need to hurry up and pass a law requiring all loose objects to be strapped down as well.

Further, why is it that your argument was never raised during all of the debates I read about when the laws were passed?

The fact is that the seat belt laws were passed because they would save the lives of those wearing them and for no other reason whatsoever. This is the nanny state at work, albeit in a relatively benign way, and your sneering revisionism changes that not a whit.

Re:Tagline

[swillden]

I don't think lobbying efforts of seat belt manufacturers had anything to do with it. All vehicles were *already* required to have seat belts. I suppose maybe there is a tiny market for replacement seat belts that are worn by use, but have you ever had to replace a worn out seat belt?

If any lobbying was involved, I'd think it was by the auto manufacturers. By requiring that each passenger have a seat belt, you also require people with large families (or any large group of people that want to travel together) to purchase either a larger vehicle or more vehicles.

Re:Tagline

[el_chicano]

YOU are responsible for your own security. It's your life; and when it comes to things that happen to you personally it's your problem.

So how am I going to stop a terrorist from flying a jet loaded with fuel into a building I happen to be in by myself? Or how are you? Sounds like you have been seeing too many "Die Hard" movies lately!

Without personal knowledge of an impending criminal act you will not be able to stop it. I doubt you possess the super-hero crime-fighting skills needed to stop something of that magnitude by yourself. I know I do.

While the FBI may not be able to either, but at least they have more manpower and resources available to them than you or I could possibly have individually. I pro-civil liberties but recognize that those rights are not absolute, as they routinely get restricted or suspended during wartime...

Ministry of Silly Walks

[Tackhead]

> Spielberg: "What really disturbs me - a nerd who does have a weird walk - is that I imagine that suddenly a van pulls up and hauls me into an interrogation, you know, for being original ... or for being different."

Huh? Spielberg's going dystopian? Sounds more like Monty Python!

Privacy as the new currency?

[UnknownQ]

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.

creepy future.

[Alien54]

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.

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.

Re:creepy future.

[gilroy]

Even Phillip K. Dick could never create a reality as fractured as the RIAA... :)

He did write an awful lot about conglomeratization, though, and how in The Future, your only hope is to live in the cracks left between Big Industry and Big Government.

Re:creepy future.

[blibbleblobble]

"the ultimate in spam, everywhere you go"

Right. Now imagine introducing someone from as little as 50 years ago to modern television... "you must watch the adverts, it's in the contract"

Just saw minority report

[martyn s]

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.

Give credit where credit is due...

[wrinkledshirt]

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"...

Re:Give credit where credit is due...

[Macrobat]

I shouldn't be surprised that he'd try to capitalize on current social context to pump up his own film...

Maybe that's what he's doing, but the message that you can't trust a pre-emptive police state is written pretty obviously throughout the movie, and it went into production before 9/11. So he's capitalizing on a wider social context than just the current hysteria/paranoia. And why shouldn't he? Don't artists get to criticize society? And does doing a kiddie movie like E.T. automatically and forever prevent him from having anything to say about the world?

Re:Give credit where credit is due...

[elmegil]

It's not like he came up with that message though. Go read the original short story by P.K. Dick. Actually, if what I've heard is true, the one thing I think I can probably give props to Spielberg here for is actually staying true to the original short story. Blade Runner, for all it's amazing qualities, is nothing like PK Dick's book, and don't even get me started on Total Recall....

Re:Give credit where credit is due...

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Don't artists get to criticize society? And does doing a kiddie movie like E.T. automatically and forever prevent him from having anything to say about the world?

No, I think his complete lack of faith in his audience automatically and forever prevents him from having anything to say about the world... or better yet, actions speak louder than words and his "talking" about the evils of government in a movie which blatantly shows how little he cares about the people under it - namely, the audience - disregards the message he tries to convery with his crappy movie. This might all seem like rambling because I don't want to give away any spoilers (the ending sucked big time), but I walked out of that theatre very disappointed in the movie and it's [lack of] vision.

He's go nothing to worry about...

[Codex The Sloth]

No one's going to arrest Spielberg for being original or different...

can't let that go

[seanw]

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

Re:can't let that go

[martyn s]

Let me say something, before you judge me: I was *really* excited to see this movie, and I don't overanalyze movies the way you seem to think I am. If something "grabs me on a visceral and emotional level" I'll love it and that's all there is to it. All the analyzing in the world won't be able to make me think a movie that makes me feel that way is bad (see gattaca, truman show).

Not only that, I was really really primed to LOVE this movie. I was already thinking about seeing it again, before I saw it the first time.

But it just didn't work out that way, and I'm very disappointed. I'm sorry I sounded like I was stating my opinion as a fact. I thought I made it pretty clear that most critics disagreed with me (96% on rotten tomatoes). Without saying anything about how any of you will enjoy the film, let me be clear: *I* did not enjoy the film. YMMV

Re:can't let that go

[seanw]

hey, no big deal--I wasn't attacking you so much as defending the movie. I am sorry you had such a crappy experience. I think to some extent it's a symptom of our culture (and one that Minority Report commented on) that movies are hyped so far over the top. it generates a box office bash, but also a lot of disappointed movie fans. thanks for replying, though.

sean

Re:can't let that go

[martyn s]

Thing is, I'm not swayed by "hype" and that has no bearing on how I felt about the film. Maybe I missed the point, and maybe I will, in fact, see it again. But I was hoping for the experience that you seem to have gotten, but I, unfortunately, did not. It just didn't carry the kind of message, or commentary I was hoping for. I wasn't looking for flash, I was looking for something really profound, and I didn't really get it.

Re:can't let that go

[Cryptnotic]

If you can't tell the difference between opinion and fact, regardless of how it is stated, then you have bigger problems than what movie to go to.

Examples:

"Minority Report" is 153 minutes long. (Stated as fact, but may or may not be true.)

"Minority Report" is the worst movie since "Dude Where's My Car". (Clearly an opinion.)

Re:can't let that go

[Nightpaw]

My opinion is that MR is worse than DWMC. Certainly, they are very different movies, but Minority Report just bored me. I was ready to walk out after all the exposition with the crazy gardener lady.

Re:can't let that go

[quintessent]

May I add:

Ditto,
ditto,
and ditto.

This movie will be on my mind all week. It impressed me on many levels, including: sci-fi coolness, intellectual, and immersive thriller.

It's an Orwellian rip-off

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.)

Re:It's an Orwellian rip-off

[zbuffered]

I would argue that Safety actually *is* freedom. In the movie, they can only tell when murder is about to occur - not other violence, rape, copyright infringement, cable theft, or other, lesser crimes. How great would the world be if we didn't have to fear for our lives? It'd be almost as free a world as if there were no spam. We wouldn't have to hide.
If only they could predict the weather...

BTW, Minority Report sucks ass, it's an insult to your intelligence.
I watched it on an Imax screen with a 10,000 watt sound system, there's one part in the movie that scared the crap out of me. Not nightmares, or make-you-afraid-of-the-dark scared so much as quiet, quiet, 10,000 watts blaring scared.

Re:It's an Orwellian rip-off

[Nightpaw]

BTW, Minority Report sucks ass, it's an insult to your intelligence. I watched it on an Imax screen with a 10,000 watt sound system, there's one part in the movie that scared the crap out of me. Not nightmares, or make-you-afraid-of-the-dark scared so much as quiet, quiet, 10,000 watts blaring scared.

...doo-doo-dee-doo...





RUN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Re:It's an Orwellian rip-off

[cobar]

I would argue that Safety actually *is* freedom.

Hardly. You pervert the term in the same way as FDR's 4 Freedoms. "Freedom from fear" is not freedom, no one can make you be afraid except yourself. "Freedom from slavery" on the other hand is more valid as it's complement is typically violence-backed slavery. Freedom is the ability to act however you like or believe anything you want. It cannot be freedom from, it must be freedom to.

Freedom commonly involves risk. Driving at 120mph might well end your life. Smoking too much crack might cause you to OD. But true freedom ignores the consequences, leaving the only arbiter of freedom to the laws of nature and personal preference. Your vision of freedom is boring, imagine if everyone had to avoid doing anything that offended anyone.

The only just restrictions of freedom are those of imposing your will on someone else by force. In any other situation, the person can ignore or avoid you.

In the movie, they can only tell when murder is about to occur - not other violence, rape, copyright infringement, cable theft, or other, lesser crimes. How great would the world be if we didn't have to fear for our lives? It'd be almost as free a world as if there were no spam. We wouldn't have to hide.

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.

BTW, Minority Report sucks ass, it's an insult to your intelligence.
I watched it on an Imax screen with a 10,000 watt sound system, there's one part in the movie that scared the crap out of me. Not nightmares, or make-you-afraid-of-the-dark scared so much as quiet, quiet, 10,000 watts blaring scared.

Nice non-sequitur. You manage to condemn the movie off-handedly and then follow with what appears to be a compliment, though you really fail to carry through and finish either idea. It's not suprising you don't like the movie as you are the kind of person Spielberg (and presumably P. K. Dick) is trying to fight against.

Re:So...

[Pedersen]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

You mean that second amendment? The one which basically states that individual security belongs in the hands of the individual?

Yes, those other freedoms do count. And if you want them, take them. But do it without infringing on my personal freedoms. It's not that difficult.

Ahhh the California seatbelt law!

[Newer Guy]

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!

Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[WIAKywbfatw]

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.

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[martyn s]

No, no, not at all. I was referring to Gattaca and The Truman Show as movies which just grabbed me in a visceral type of way. I was saying I *LOVED* those movies.

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[martyn s]

I didn't discover this fact until after I realized how much I loved both gattaca and the truman show: both gattaca and the truman show were written by the same person, andrew niccol. He is coming out with a new movie in august, called simone (or s1m0ne).

I don't have any movie "buddies". Maybe you can suggest something for me to see, because I'm always looking for interesting movies.

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[martyn s]

Sorry, that link didn't work, here's simone

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[martyn s]

I don't really know what you're talking about, and I don't know why this was moderated up. The Truman Show is genius.

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[blair1q]

Gattaca was only bad because (a) the premise was a bit stupid; and (b) it was massively underproduced. It felt like it was a Sci-Fi channel production, rather than a major studio release. And (c) the thing about the swimming, purely stupid and manipulative. I give it a 6. I don't remember if Uma got naked in it, but if she did, 7.

--Blair

Re:Gattaca a bad movie? You're kidding, right?

[PurpleBob]

Truman Show? You must be kidding. Did you get the permission of us slashdot crowd over here beofore you uttered such hersey?

Wow.

I've seen several posters stupid enough to believe in the existence of a Slashborg, a collective mass of all Slashdotters which shares one opinion.

This is the first time, though, that I've seen someone claim that he is the Slashborg, even speaking in the first person plural.

Poster: what did you expect? A rally of support? "Yeah! Right on! The Truman Show can be dismissed as a bad movie without watching it because Jim Carrey is in it, and therefore it causes homosexuality too! We bow down to you, Mr. Coward!"

Re:can't let that go QWZX

[c_jonescc]

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.

Like it or not, we need famous people's backing

[GuyMannDude]

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

is privacy freedom?

[Openadvocate]

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.

Re:I'm a class A terrorist threat

[t_allardyce]

whats the point of your post? I thought it would end with something like "im not a terrorist im just doing a project for school but the gov will still single me out"

Whats the point in the film where the dumb cheesy jock spouts some line to the desperate girl who takes the bullshit and in the end they kiss.. i've seen those films so many times its a cliche. Just like the cliche that all slashdot posts must conclude with "damn government hurting the inocent people like me". Well i thought i would be original for once, stick out from the norm - and look where it got me - being accused of terrorism! there. (does that sound familiar, read the story of this post...)

I've got suggestions... I'll be your movie buddy.

[El Camino SS]

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.

Minority Report Sucked

[pgrote]

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.

Re:Minority Report Sucked

[levendis]

AI should have ended 20 minutes earlier...
I sense a trend

Obligatory quotes...

[Loki_1929]

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

Re:I'm a class A terrorist threat

[t_allardyce]

Frankly, you should also realize that its a federal offense, even in jest, to threaten the president of the united states. I feel the man is, at best, an unintelligent politician, but I'd still personally slam you to the ground to protect his life: he's our leader, elected and chosen, and we have to accept that this title comes with respect and protection.

I was going to just quote that block and use that as the whole comment. Thats got to be the single best reply i've had to any comment this whole year! I'm not even going to begin to pick it apart.. I almost chocked to death laughing. :)

Another Spielberg Interview

[m_chan]

In this interview Roger Ebert talks with Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise regarding Minority Report. Spielberg speaks on the point of the future direction of advertising and privacy:

The Internet is watching us now. If they want to, they can see what sites you visit. In the future, television will be watching us, and customizing itself to what it knows about us. The thrilling thing is, that will make us feel we're part of the medium. The scary thing us, we'll lose our right to privacy. An ad will appear in the air around us, talking directly to us.

Re:I've got suggestions... I'll be your movie budd

[evilpenguin]

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...

Re:Pure rhetoric

[Stonehand]

Actually, starting from the very first Militia Acts, it was the individuals and not the government which was responsible for arming the people -- and the people kept the arms themselves. In addition, the militia consisted merely of men within a given age group... which is largely the case today (see 'unorganized militia' in the US Code. Yes, it's a sexist definition. But it's there.)

Re:So...

[commodoresloat]

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?

I don't mean to come off too obnoxious, but it is pathetic to me that someone expressing such cowardice would sign his posts "A True American Patriot" (I know your sig refers to "Russian Radical" writer Ayn Rand, but still). So these assholes hit a couple of our buildings, and may hit more. I'm far more worried about "options being imposed on me" by the likes of John Ashcroft than any terrorist. Don't get me wrong, terrorists are a threat in a very real sense, but they can't take our liberties away - we can only give them away. The sad thing is people wrapping themselves in the American flag as they give them up without even a freakin' fight.

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!

First off, there's a reason the first Amendment comes first. Second, there is no tradeoff between liberty and security - these are abstract constructs that only make sense in real world situations. In the real world, there may be a tradeoff between a specific liberty (my right to drive a plane into a building) and a specific aspect of security (my ability to go to planes and/or buildings without being incinerated), but to say "you can't have liberty without security" is nonsense. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of restrictions on liberty we are being asked to endorse under the banner of the "war on terrorism" won't do a damn thing to address any real security threat. I am all for taking away people's right to hijack airplanes or blow things up. But we're being asked to give up a lot more. To simply endorse a "no liberty without security" position is to say you're willing to give up any old liberty in order to create whatever damn illusion of security your leaders happen to be waving in front of your face at this particular moment.

I was as devastated as anyone by the WTC collapsing, but after all the smoke cleared, we were hit by 20 people, who killed far fewer people than we as a society openly sacrifice in cost-benefit analyses every time we build a new highway (not to mention deaths we tolerate as a result of the alcohol and tobacco industries), and they hit us in a scheme that was clever but that just about everybody involved has practically admitted that they should have seen coming. The people we've caught - Reid, Massaoui, Lindh, Padilla - these are some fucked up people, no doubt, but are these really people we can't destroy without turning into a police state? Are we so afraid of a bunch of fanatical and fucked-up twenty-somethings who light their shoes on fire that we're willing to throw the Constitution out the window?

Spielberg talks Privacy? Ha!

[Anenga]

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.

You're right!

[FearUncertaintyDoubt]

Why can't he do more of those light, upbeat movies like Amistad and Schindler's List?

Just another kind of publicity

[alizard]

Has Spielberg broken with MPAA? Has he stopped funding anti-Internet and anti-privacy politicians like Feinstein and Boxer? Has he done anything which would cause a reasonable person to assume that he really is putting his money where his mouth is? As for his choice of actors, I think this speaks about his real personal priorities.

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.

Re:Just another kind of publicity

[blair1q]

Funny. I thought der Fuhr---er, I mean, John Ashcroft was a Republican.

--Blair

Re:Just another kind of publicity

[alizard]

Fritz "Hollywood" Hollings is a Democrat. Feinstein of anti-gun and pro-Internet censorship infamy is a Democrat.

The only political party with a good record on freedom/personal liberty issues at the national level is the Libertarian Party.

Re:Just another kind of publicity

[blair1q]

But the libertarians have never satisfactorily answered what they'd do when their ethos results in a 9600% increase in crime. Other than maybe repealing all laws that are broken regularly on the premise that if enough people are breaking them it must be a matter of freedom of choice.

Re:Just another kind of publicity

[alizard]

Never said I was a Libertarian. In fact, I did a bit of Libertarian-bashing in passing a few days ago.

While I wholly agree with the "no censorship" and "eliminate victimless crime laws" part of their political agenda... and I think that their definition of taxes is useful... I don't regard what they've got as a substitute for either a religion or ideology.

With respect to victimless crimes... marijuana has been decriminalized and enforcement of other drug laws is minimal and uses a medical model, not an enforcement model. Instead of an increase in other kinds of crimes, the Dutch get safe streets. Prostitution is legal in defined areas in large parts of Europe... and in Nevada. Where are the problems? I can speak about Holland directly because I've been there and seen this work in person.

Speaking as someone whose Net experience started in 1991, the place worked better before idiots tried censoring it.

Crime drops in US areas where concealed weapons permits are easy for non-criminals to get. somewhere on my personal site

The burden of proof for the idea that if personal freedom is legalized, other kinds of crime will increase drastically, has necessarily to be on the head of the person who asserts it. Extraordinary statements require extraordinary proof.

So far the evidence is... freedom works, d00d.

Basic Problems

[SJ]

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.

Re:Basic Problems

[FunkyChild]

It sure is, I saw it on Friday in Sydney.

Re:Basic Problems

[Blackheart2]

I haven't seen the film yet, but I think this issue could be addressed by claiming that the precogs can only witness future situations wherein the killer has already made his decision to commit murder. So, the order of events would always be: Joe decides to kill Jane, precog sees Joe kill Jane, Joe kills Jane.

Now you will say, "But Cruise's character is accused of murdering a man he's never met, so, if precognition works the way you suggest, his agency's claim that he will murder that person would be unsupportable." OK, but consider that the sort of "decision" I have in mind might be made very indirectly.

For example, maybe Jane is black and Joe decided consciously 5 years ago to become a skinhead, and its in his nature that if he goes that far, that he will always end up killing Jane or someone sufficiently like Jane in a sufficiently similar situation, if he ever encounters it. By this logic, Joe does possess free will, the precog's precognition ability doesn't interfere with it, and the critical decision points could be many years past, giving the precog plenty of time to predict typical murders.

You might claim that Joe doesn't have free choice after he's made his decision, and part of having free choice is the ability to always change your mind. I can't argue against that, except to say that if every person can always change their mind at any point after a decision, then there seems to be no role for people's nature or nurture in their decision-making process, and so individuality disappears.

You might also argue that if Joe doesn't have free choice after he makes his initial decision, then convicting him for murder would be unjust. But I could counter that by claiming that Joe should have been more self-aware when he decided to become a skinhead, and realized what the consequences would be, that he might be unable to stop himself from killing Jane (or someone like her) in the future. Then, perhaps, the court is convicting him for being stupid or ignorant, which is a bit unsavory, but probably not unjust by many standards. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse", etc. I think there are limits to how much leeway a judge will give for stupidity; the important issue is knowing the difference between right and wrong, and Joe can probably know that, both when he makes his decision and when he kills Jane.

Re:Speilberg rant

[ceejayoz]

Sounds like you haven't seen Minority Report yet.

Re:95% chance you are going to commit a crime...

[ceejayoz]

Most people don't advocate profiling to assume guilt. Profiling is simply to choose the most likely groups and give them more scrutiny.

Al Gore got searched twice in one day - absurd. 98 year old grannies get their nail clippers taken away. Meanwhile, airport security ignores the guys like Reid (the shoe bomber). Shouldn't we be able to decide that people like Reid are more likely and search them more often than the 98 year old grannies and the famous former Vice President?

Re:So...

[commodoresloat]

That is your personal opinion.

Perhaps, but it's not an uninformed opinion; it's easily confirmed by looking at (for example) the PATRIOT Act, or the military's attempt to define the Constitutional rights of "combatants" out of existence, or the new powers recently given the FBI... In case you forgot, hijacking planes and blowing shit up was illegal long before Sept. 11.

Re:So...

[commodoresloat]

Heh, I never claimed to be a friend of the Bush dynasty. Glad you enjoy the site; too bad it hasn't been updated in forever. But you can read "back-issues" at http://nofuncharlie.com/archive

the works of other people

[mcdade]

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.....

Here's the ones I agree with...

[El Camino SS]

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.

This is how you get your privacy back!

[systemapex]

The solution is easy. You change your legal name to something so long and complex it causes a buffer overflow in the advertising software:-)

Where's the Beef?

[L. J. Beauregard]

[Padilla is] not only a terrorist, but a traitor.

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.

Re:Pure rhetoric

[squiggleslash]

Thanks a f---ing bundle. Having read the AC and your interpretation of the same sentence, I'm wondering what on earth the true definition is. I never noticed that comma before.

It definitely doesn't mean what you say it means, because it would be nonsense if so: "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed". How do you infringe a militia? You may infringe the right to set up one perhaps, but a militia per-se is not infringable, any more than a car is, or a bag of sugar.

The only thing I can think of is that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" is being defined as "A well regulated Militia", which still makes little sense, although then the last part begins to work again, one infringes the militia by infringing the right to keep and bear arms. Which is back, in a roundabout way, to the NRA definition, even if it isn't the way the NRA would define it.

Most headscratchingly confuzzling.

Re:Seatbelts Also Prevent Injuries To Others

[swillden]

Some of that makes sense, but the argument I was responding to was that the seat belt laws were enacted to protect people in other vehicles, which (a) makes very little sense and (b) is an argument that has only come up long after the fact.

Further, there is really no need for a *law* to protect the driver from his/her back seat passengers. The driver has ultimate control over that. My car does not move until everyone is buckled in.

Finally, I do take issue with one part of your post: the potential for bodies that fly out of a vehicle to injure bystanders who wouldn't be injured otherwise is tiny at best. Can you document a single instance of this?

I think public saftey advertising like the TV ad you mentioned is a laudable approach to the issue. Passing laws to force people to protect themselves, however, is unnecessary and insulting.

Wow, are you ever abrasive

[zbuffered]

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.

Re:Niven's law?

[ender81b]

yeah, it's in his N*space books, don't know about any others

Re:I've got suggestions... I'll be your movie budd

[evilpenguin]

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.

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-peop le-in-beautiful-clothes-do-backflips movie.

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.