Slashdot Mirror
WarGames Sequel Now Filming
iluvcapra writes "This news is a little late, but on November 20th WarGames 2: The Dead Code began filming in Montreal. (I only became aware of the new production when I read that MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com for his domain name.) The film will be produced and distributed by MGM — distributor of the original WarGames — and directed by Stewart Gillard, director of such gems as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes, the team behind the original film, are not involved. The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer."
I can think of no better way to kick off the marketing campaign for WarGames 2 than by filing an outrageous lawsuit that will piss off the very geek fanbase who'd potentially be interested in the film. Well done, MGM. Because wargames-movie.com just wouldn't be good enough, would it?
The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
"Wargames 2: The only way to win is not to watch."
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
Get that 12yo girl from Jurrasic Park.... she knows Unix!
No Matthew Broderick? It's gonna suck.
If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
War Games 2: The Direct-to-DVD Adventure
It was a good movie for its time IMHO. It was definitely more geeky than those "geek" movies that followed (The Net, Hackers, etc). I certainly enjoyed it then and will still sit through it if it happens to be playing on a boring Saturday afternoon.
This looks like it has nothing to do w/the first other than the stolen name for credibility.
tagging (beta): lame
Odd. While there were huge *glaring* technical problems with the film (acoustic modem wardialing, anyone?), it had a fairly reasonable portrial of "young hacker kid" before it was popularized. Social loner who wardials entire exchanges looking for carriers is EXACTLY how a lot of us spent our time growing up. Poking and probing new systems was always a joy.
Few other movies include the phrase, "I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd help."
It's for scaredy-cat non-geeks who want to be terrified by what those mysterious boxes can do in the wrong hands.
Plus, a romantic sub-plot, a cool chase scene, and some improperly used computer terminology.
Blar.
If you saw it back in the Cold War era, it was actually a very good movie. It's hard to take serious now with the current state of technology and political climate.
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
The rightful owner of a domain is being sued for that domain by the people behind this new movie. That's pretty damn YRO-y.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
The owner of wargames.com should give MGM the domain, on one condition.
They beat him at Tic-Tac-Toe.
...WarGames2.com which is really more relevant to the movie...and already registered and re-directed to another site. At least content of WarGames.com appears to have some relevance to its name.
My mom always said, "Jim, you're 1 in a million." Given the current population, there are 7000 of me. God help us all!
The title is not exhaustive, but the description clearly says: "MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com".
People have the right (or ought to anyway) to keep domains that they purchase, develop, and maintain in good faith. MGM is going to try to bully him into giving it up. They will probably succeed, and if they do, it will be because they have more clout and more money (a more expensive lawyer). Ergo, his online rights are now in jeopardy of being violated.
I bet you're glad you posted anonymously now. And to the lazy moderator who gave this guy an "insightful", shame on you. Check more carefully next time. I realize it's too much of a hassle to read TFA, but please take the time to at least read the short description on Slashdot.
Already sounds lame, I doubt it will have the soild story line and lesson that the first had, and it already sounds like its being made by and with sub par talent.
I am sure that it will focus to much on action sequences (for the most part the first had very few) and Technobabble/Technobuzz, that will confuse the uninitiated and make the rest of us groan. The first movie avoided most of that by not over explaining concepts and just sort of glossing over just letting the viewer assume there is a technology to make such a thing happen, and letting those in the know imagine how it might be possible.
So far sounds I'm seeing direct to video land, as its best hope.
Hopefully now I can be plesantly surprised, but I doubt it.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
That'll be the whole "MGM suing the rightful owner of the domain wargames.com" bit, that you seemed to miss in the *summary* (let alone the *story*)....
Simon
Physicists get Hadrons!
They tried to get Uwe, but he didn't like the way the producers were looking at him, so he punched them out.
This movie will be as popular as Firewall.
You know, the one with Harrison Ford. He's a network security specialist.
HAN SOLO! INDIANA JONES! RICK DECKARD! DOING NETWORK SECURITY!
Well, if you can't get the nerds out to watch Han freakin Solo do Network Security...
On the number of LCD's _the_ super computer has attached to it.
The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.
No AWPs!
Would you like to play a game?
>> Y
Game Over. Opponent has no weapons.
hello yes i am UWE BOLL teh well-loved great DIRECTOR and now am making a new sequel to good movie WARGAMES which i never actuly see but i know I MAKE GOOD MOVIE if it from a game like BLOODRAYNE. now i tell you my GRATE PLAN for movie is not same hacekrs from first WARGAMES is new hackre is played by MAN FROM RESORVIR DOGS who name i never member but also MEATLLOAF is in movie with some more REAL ROMANIAN PORSTITUTS and resorver dogs man was drunk and meatloaf was drucnk and teh porstitues were drank heroin and meth too. and the hackres are also fighting with nazis and warewulfs and also a wizzrd who is maybe play by man with beards. is good movie you all love i am GREATEST DERCTIR MOVIES EVAR. if you not like i fite you but not rly. -- xo UWE BOLL
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Remember when you asked me to tell you when you were being rude and insensitive? You're doing it now.
The premise behind the original - for those too young to remember - is (abridged) that a hacker breaks in to a NORAD computer and proceeds to run a wargame simulation of an ICBM strike on the continental US. The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched.
That's probably not an exact synopsis of the plot, but it's close enough to make no nevermind.
Now in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, which relies on a massive counterstrike against the initiator BEFORE his missiles arrive at their targets, this is at least a plausible scenario - close enough to allow sufficient suspension of disbelief to allow the movie to work. It's true that these command centres were manned 24/7 watching for any sign of an incoming strike, and that the time window between detecting the strike and making the decision to initiate the counterstrike was very small. It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.
But we aren't in that game anymore. There is no longer a 20 minute window in which someone has to decide to launch a nuclear counterstrike based on a fairly narrow band of incoming data. No terrorist group - indeed, very few nations - are capable of the "mutual" in "Mutually Assured Destruction".
So a Homeland Security central command centre starts reporting dozens to hundreds of terrorist strikes on US Territory? So what? Response will be in the hands of local Guard units and law enforcement/emergency responders, not a remote C3S cell. The worst that could happen is that troops are mobilized needlessly - and there's time to see if the purported strikes show up on CNN.
The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.
That doesn't bode well for the success of the movie, methinks.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
...that they recast Matthew Broderick as the erstwhile teen again. Sure he's a bit grey behind the ears, but he's still got the right composure. Right? RIGHT?
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I get my mindless plot-holed terrorism fantasies from the US Govt.
Actually, in the opening scene of Wargames a psychological experiment reveals that many silo crews would not launch their ICBM's, there not being much point to pounding the rubble when the world is ending anyway. In order to plug this leak in our defense control of the missiles is handed directly to the WOPR supercomputer which already has the most trusted advisory role in case of an attack. And it's WOPR that Broderick hacks. And it's WOPR that doesn't realize the "game" is real, its missile control outputs having been directed to the control of real missiles. And the humans, having been removed from the decision loop, aren't in a position to stop it.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
The plot outline from IMDB (unedited, though it pained me): Computer hacker Will Farmer (Lanter) engages a goverment super-computer named Ripley in an online terrorist-attack simulation game. Little does Farmer know that Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid.
So, this kid plays Counter-Strike against some bots? He's in de_dust, plants the bomb and starts thinking, "gee..terrorism sure is a bad thing, and by playing this game I'm almost condoning it. I must have been born to be a terr'ist. Better go turn myself in now...[logs off]"?
Sounds like a wonderful movie.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
Not sure how that was a huge technical problem, particularly as name for that technique is derived from the name of the film which popularized it
It's named after the method explained in the dialogue, not the particular visual portrayal used, which was clearly chosen by the director so as to let the lay viewer know he's "hooking the phone to the computer". The glaring technical problem is that you can't auto dial with an acoustic coupler because the computer obviously has no mechanism for pressing down the hookswitch on the damn phone to hang up between calls.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
But if you don't see the movie, you might miss out on Jean-Robert Bourdage's performance as the hot dog vendor! And you know it's gonna be good, because only him and Matt Lanter have signed on to the production, according to IMDB.
Hot Dog Vendor: Kid, you don't have what it takes to hack into a terrorism-simulation computer.
Will Farmer: I'd like mustard and ketchup on my hotdog.
Hot Dog Vendor: Will, it's too dangerous!
.... The domain that they grabbed got hijacked by some kid named David.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
I'm sure they're planning to remake all of Matthew Broderick's films including "Ferris Bueller's Day Off 2 - Skippin' Work" where the now middle-aged Ferris and Cameron miss work to grow their sagging beer bellies and watch strippers all day.
Ruby on Rails Screencast
yeah, that one got me too. I was sure Dell had registered a domain to inform me of the suckiness of their products.
This may have some merit. According to the Decision, the domain originally pointed to the respondent's site, on which he sold computers. After receiving the C&D, he pointed it to a site featuring commentary critical of Dell.
It really shouldn't matter though, as there is no way a reasonable person could confuse a site called dellcomputersucks.com with Dell's own website, thus violating their trademark. Unfortunately, Carolyn M. Johnson, Peter L. Michaelson, and Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. didn't see it that way:
I don't care why you're posting AC
For historical quaintness, and my proportionate age at the time, Wargames will always be worth watching every 5 years on my $1 copy. (1981 pricing!)
The truth is that the kid will hack in, find someone using the server to host Things Not Intended For The PG13 movie rating
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
The glaring technical problem is that you can't auto dial with an acoustic coupler because the computer obviously has no mechanism for pressing down the hookswitch on the damn phone to hang up between calls.
Well now, hang on there, chief. Recall that in answer to the question, "doesn't that cost a lot of money?" he replied "There's ways around that." Clearly, he was blue-boxing. Now, correct me if I recall wrongly, but when you're blue boxing, you don't actually have to ATH1 - instead, you broadcast a 2600 Hz tone so that the trunk line appears "dead", then stop the tone and transmit the routing digits for the remote telco office now listening to the trunk line. Coincidentally enough, broadcasting a 2600 Hz tone and routing digits could be done with an accoustic coupler. Maybe the directors knew a little more than you give them credit for?
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
It's still a sequel of a movie that doesn't need one.
> While there were huge *glaring* technical problems with the film...
:-)
On that note, one of the things they did RIGHT was they wrote a special program so that every time Matthew Broderick hit a key on the keyboard, one letter showed up on the screen. (That is, he could press any key, and the correct letter appeared.) I hate that in 99% of movies, the sounds of the keys being pressed has no relation in time, speed, or quantity to what is appearing on the screen. God damn, it was a solved problem TWO FREAKING DECADES AGO!
That said, the studio loaned him a Galaga machine to practice on while shooting--that's really him playing in the scenes that show him playing. He was sad to see it go at the end of filming.
Source: Dynamite Magazine (anyone else remember that?) I think, in an article published way back then.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
I also see the idea of not allowing people to put up blatantly copyrighted domain names, and then holding them from the copyright owner (i.e. "cocacola.com" or buying "amazon.biz" and holding it from Amazon.com purely for profit), but something like "apple.com," while a name of a major computer manufacturer, would be perfectly valid had it been bought by a person who used it to sell bushels of apples online, or had apple-picking vacations for sale, etc. Similar to "War Games" - it is a common term. Of course, had wargames.com been squatting the site, that'd be another story.
When the U.N. decided that famous people can sue for their domain name (juliaroberts.com was the case I remember), I assume this does not apply to some 24 year-old girl whose name is Julia Roberts from Ithaca, NY - right? Surely Erin Brockovitch has no-more right to the domain name than the nobody from upstate NY. But they both have a right to it over some squatter of course. But then again, what if someone bought that site and made a legitimate Julia Roberts fan page? Would that be valid?
Does anybody really think the notion of an intelligent computer is realistic any more? I mean, it's believable that a computer won't cooperate with you, but having a mind of its own and actually getting things done? It seems that the popularity of Windows OS has pretty much made such a concept pretty unbelievable among average people these days.
Now maybe when the computer was a mysterious device that few people used, could you get away with portraying them as dubious, intelligent entities, but is that a believable plot device nowadays? This kind of premise should have been abandoned about the same time movies about high school kids building sentient robots was abandoned.
I suspect, like most late remakes, this will fall flat.
"No offense, but the first blew chunks. I don't see how this can be improved."
Rimmerian Nitpick: If it blew chunks, wouldn't it stand to reason that it had plenty that was improvable?
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
Sounds like a remake.
Except, Wargames was pretty good in terms of research and accuracy. The AI philosophy (learn from its mistakes) looks a bit outdated now but was pretty much what researchers were looking at at the time. The voice synthesis on every terminal in the world was a bit daft, and a few bits and pieces were a lttle hokey, but we didn't have the usual computer cliches. There was no "Running Virus" with progress bar. No 72 point lettering. No magic mechanism to break the password. Broderick's character actually had to spend ages rummaging through information just to get past the login. I'll admit that some of this was hokey but it's the least hokey computer movie ever by a long shot.
If they can manage a similar level of realism for Wargames 2, then it would be interesting. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that. I expect to see loads of pointless explosions, a whole bunch of meaningless jargon, and lots of computer nerds totally bamboozled by the genius of some 16 year old kid.
Is it wrong of me to judge the movie so soon?
At some point, you have to accept that the movie isn't going to portray every little thing with maddening detail, and that you have to assume some plausible backstory exists that isn't being depicted. Guess what, you rarely see characters going to the bathroom or sleeping either. Rather than calling it a "glaring technical problem," you assume they do it off-screen at some point.
"Sufferin' succotash."
More like direct-to-piratebay.org
Now I'm not saying this movie will be a bomb, but the KKK just tried strapping an advance editing screener copy to Al Sharpton's car bumper the other day.
Obviously.
It's all about US trademark law.
Essentially the judge will look at the case in the light of 'causing confusion in the marketplace'. In other words, the entire goal of trademarks is to PREVENT confusion in the free market. If the judge finds the current domain name to be causing confusion, then he could potentially rule that it is to be surrendered to MGM. Who knows how it will go? That's why it pays to have a good attorney that can make a convincing case before a judge.
Libertas in infinitum
Name me one person in the real world who is completely evil, other than Hitler.
Easy. Bob Saget.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Ur like really old, right?