Slashdot Mirror


HBO's Fahrenheit 451 Trailer Teases Dystopian World Filled With Burning 'Chaos' (hollywoodreporter.com)

HBO has released the first trailer of its film adaptation of Ray Bradbury's best-selling 1953 dystopian tale, Fahrenheit 451, which depicts a time period where history is outlawed and "firemen" burn books. The Hollywood Reporter reports: In the Ramin Bahrani-directed film, Michael B. Jordan stars as Guy Montag, a fireman who comes to question his role in enforcing the state's censorship laws, and in so doing finds himself at odds with his "mentor," Beatty (Michael Shannon). "By the time you guys grow up, there won't be one book left," Jordan is shown telling a group of students. Throughout the trailer, a reel of destruction is shown as Beatty's voiceover warns that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing." "We are not born equal, so we must be made equal by the fire," Beatty explains. Jordan will also serve as the film's executive producer. Sofia Boutella, Martin Donovan, Laura Harrier, Keir Dullea, Jane Moffat and Grace Lynn Kung also star.

14 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. Equilibrium by abies · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I always considered Equilibrium as spiritual successor to Fahrenheit 451 and enjoyable film to watch (even if bit too Matrix-like in certain places). I'm not sure if I'm looking forward to watching Equilibrium-sans-gun-kata...

    1. Re: Equilibrium by sycodon · · Score: 2

      People like to hate on Keanu Reeves, but the dude has some very real gun skills.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  2. Re:HELL YEAH! by Calydor · · Score: 3, Insightful

    News for NERDS.

    "A very popular book about the dangers we face in the future is now being made into a movie."

    --
    -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
  3. Burn It All by mentil · · Score: 2

    I read Fahrenheit 451, years before I read 1984. IMO, the latter is more relevant to today's society, and gives a more complete and insightful view of totalitarianism (and it was written first, even). Oral history can be passed down even if the history books are burned (and this was standard practice until literacy became common). The practices of modifying historical records and promoting 'alternative facts' shown in 1984 are more worrisome, although Fahrenheit 451 had some of this as well (George Washington was said to be the first Firefighter IIRC).
    Digital information storage makes destruction of paper books, specifically, less worrisome. The entirety of the world's history books could fit on a disc or microSD card nowadays, which is easier to hide than a cache of books (and its contents are less obvious). The internet means countries that don't do this could host websites that contain the forbidden history texts. Now in North Korea, this story might be more relevant.

    Took me years to learn that that is not, in fact, the temperature that paper burns at (~450C IIRC). There is also an old film adaptation, which I don't remember a lick of, but don't think it had as many people on fire as the book did, given flame-resistant gels weren't employed in film until (IIRC) Firestarter 20 years later.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Burn It All by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      The film adaptation was pretty close to the book, thought there were a number of things in the book that were either hard to with the technology of the time or just hard to translate to film entirely (the TV addiction in the book, for example).

      I don't think the book aged well. Even at the time of release, microfiche existed and given that TVs were everywhere in their future it was surprising that no one realised that you could put one page of a book in each frame of a TV recording and store books like that, rather than having people memorise them. Or even sneak them in as individual frames in other shows and let everyone else distribute them, but not notice their existence without a special TV: one frame of book every 200 frames would give you one novel every half hour to hour of TV show.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  4. Re:HELL YEAH! by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Informative

    This is more news for nerds than the announcement of the awesome features of the latest iPhone or Samsung Galaxy. The (old) movie is actually something a lot of geeks had and have some interest in, so a remake is certainly of interest.

    The feature list of the phones was more something for squealing fashion girlies...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  5. The missing points of F451 by goombah99 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Early editions of F541 lacked the additional third forward penned by bradbury himself on why he wrote it. I found them illuminating because most adaptations of F451 get the overt points and action points correct but mis the understated points. So we get book burning and an oppressive dystopia, and people who memorize books in the movies, along with irony of the "fireman" title. But we often lose the subtler notion that one of the good things about books is they might offend you and be politically incorrect. Another theme is ironically something we didn't have words for till about ten years ago, the "cognative bubble" and "online freinds" in which someone can immerse themsevles in something like facebook or reality TV (in the book portrayed by soap operas) in which the human part of our interactive nature is falsely satisfied by thinking we are interacting and experiencing emotions, whereas it's just a carefully scripted empty echo chamber and all we do is pick which echo chamber we want to lock our selves away from the world in.

    When I first read F451 and long before the internet existed in it's present form, coincidentally that week, the San Francisco Public library removed Mary popins from the library for it's portayl of a black maid. Later they restored a bowlderized version which replaced the offensive subservient black english of "I's been `specting you missus poppins" with "i have been anticipating your arrival Miss Mary Poppins".

    In his forward Bradbury described how he didn't think firemen would arrise all at once or at all but rather he was describing something that also had no term at the time but what we call creeping political correctness and trigger warnings. An assumed civil right that the world must be sanitized so it offends no one.

    At the time I thought is seemed prescient and a good warning. But that was before the internet, and boy was he right about what's happened since. Now we even have a president who starts his day in the warm soapy bath of fox and freinds soothing his ego. But he's not the only one.

    --
    Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
    1. Re:The missing points of F451 by rgbatduke · · Score: 2

      Besides, by the time anybody gets around to burning books according to Bradbury's vision, there won't be any books to burn. Books are so last millennium...

      Now, if his "fireman" was an AI bot whose assignment was to crawl the network and delete heavily encrypted documents that might or might not be proscribed books and replace them all with identically encrypted pictures of Donald Trump plus an announcement that AI killer bots have been dispatched and are on the way to transform you and your entire family into fertilizer and Soylent Green, that might work. Hey we could even have the bot develop some sort of remorse for its role in the systematic winnowing of the human species, compassion, a sense of literary style after it starts reading the compressed libraries containing all of human knowledge that it is deleting, one by one. It could vow to make a copy inside of itself and protect it, not realizing that there is an audit bot that kills killer bots if they do just that and reinitializes them free from such dangerous data.

      But what the bots all fail to realize is that there are still humans alive that CAN actually read things with their eyes and don't HAVE to have the books read directly to their auditory interface via their implants, and they've taken to printing these books on sheets of reprocessed tree wood and hiding them in plain sight inside of their houses where network bots, being non-corporeal, never go.

      There could be bot wars in virtual space! God-bots that come down and judge the bots on the basis of the perfection of their implementation of bot-ethics and bot-belie..., I mean "bot programming". A bot swarm that judges the human species as too imperfect and corrupt to continue to existing even as a "purpose" for the virtual bot-verse, a swarm that comes alive and declares to the entire network (itself) that it is God and uses its bot-waldo killer units to wipe out mankind on Earth!

      Pardon me, I have to wipe a bit of spittle off of my chin. Ah, better now. Where was I? Oh yeah, making the point that even the SF masters, for the most part, missed the ongoing explosion in information accessibility and available supplementary "intelligence" available to a rapidly increasing fraction of all of humanity. A handful of them came close, but even by the 80's when one could see the writing on the wall in a manner of speaking -- computers for everyman, exponential growth in speed and capacity, the first hints at computer-to-computer networking, revolutions in operating system, interface, and available software, they insisted on presenting future societies with green-screen terminals and huge bulky computers, just ones that were "smarter" in unrealistic ways.

      Bradbury's vision was almost the opposite of what has actually happened. Far from book burning, entire societies that do burn books, that wish they could completely control the flow of information, are finding that their citizens have de facto access to the huge fraction of "all human knowledge" via the internet. If it weren't for the absolutely absurd long-term monetizing of "books", transforming them as a protected commodity long after they are written and the author is dead to ensure an unearned profit stream for complete strangers, we'd all be able to access ALL books written more than 30 or 40 years ago at the outside, for free, everywhere in the world, on our phones and personal digital devices, and very soon now we would indeed be able to carry copies of "The Library" of human knowledge inside of our pockets.

      What neither Bradbury nor even the modern masters have understood and portrayed is the vulnerability of the memetic superorganism that has been self-assembling and of which we are all members, like it or not, is its susceptibility to information corruption. We are in the middle of an info-war right now. It's been going on for years now, but only recently have the various human powers fully realized how potent a tool the subtle corruption of information streams in real time is in their per

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
    2. Re:The missing points of F451 by Dread_ed · · Score: 2

      "Later they restored a bowlderized version which replaced the offensive subservient black english of "I's been `specting you missus poppins" with "i have been anticipating your arrival Miss Mary Poppins"."

      What do you call this? Reverse cultural appropriation? Cultural whitewashing?

      Seems pretty racist to completely remove the cultural signature of a minority racial group from a work of literature.

      That aside, the recursive aspect of a book about censorship being censored is ironically humorous to me.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    3. Re:The missing points of F451 by quanminoan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      “What Orwell feared were those who would ban books. What Huxley feared was that there would be no reason to ban a book, for there would be no one who wanted to read one. Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information. Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egotism.

      Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us. Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance. Orwell feared we would become a captive culture. Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture, preoccupied with some equivalent of the feelies, the orgy porgy, and the centrifugal bumble puppy.

      As Huxley remarked in Brave New World Revisited, the civil libertarians and rationalists, who are ever on the alert to oppose tyranny, “failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

      In 1984, people are controlled by inflicting pain. In Brave New World, they are controlled by inflicting pleasure. In short, Orwell feared that what we fear will ruin us. Huxley feared that our desire will ruin us.”

        Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

  6. I'll say it's dystopian by mark-t · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's about the future, and they are still using Fahrenheit.

  7. Re:Gun Katas were style by Megol · · Score: 2

    You are :(

  8. Re:Red Dawn 2064 by rgbatduke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure, just like it is legal for a US citizen to own a machine gun. You can do it, you just have to submit a lengthy and complex application (eliminating a major fraction of the terminally stupid right there), be absolutely squeaky clean with the law (eliminating a significant fraction of the remainder who were able to fill in the form or got somebody smarter to do it for them), and to be certified as being not mentally ill (active) as opposed to being sane as far as anybody knows (passive) which takes out a goodly fraction of the ones who are smart enough to fill in the form, honest (or smart!) enough never to have been arrested for any crime beyond disposing of their gum on a sidewalk at age twelve, who are STILL silly enough to think that an AR-15 or AK-47 or other semiautomatic large magazine rifle designed exclusively for killing people (and shooting the hell out of trees, targets, beer cans, all of which I'm sure is good clean fun if you're into that sort of thing) is a good thing BECAUSE they are borderline, schizophrenic and off their meds, bipolar and off their meds, etc.

    Oh, and to own a machine gun, you also have to be pretty well off financially, because there IS NO SUPPLY with this set of hoops to jump through, so the price of what machine guns are out there to be purchased is astronomical. As in your "hobby" will cost you 20 large or more just for your first gun, and ammunition to feed the full metal jacket kitty ain't cheap, so taking your gun out and actually shooting it for a day probably costs as much as a decent deer rifle. I'd be perfectly happy for that to be the case for removable magazine (and hence large magazine) semi-automatic rifles as well. After all, having money is (like it or not) a symptom of not being terminally stupid, and being more likely than not to be at least approximately sane, although yes the class certainly contains some spectacular counter-examples who are sane, smart, and badass criminal who need the ARs "for their business". But we can at least hope that they fail the legal background check. Make assault rifles really expensive so that most of the jackasses who own four now can't afford them unless they sell their trailer home and their boat and a whole lot of meth.

    Otherwise, sir, you are "dead" on the money. A bolt action 30-06 doesn't have the rate of fire of an AR-15, its magazine holds a humble five rounds, but those rounds can have bullets that range from 110 gr to 220 gr, and You Do Not Want To Get Hit with a 220 gr silvertip 30-06 bullet -- or to fire your 30-06 holding such a bullet inside a house or neighborhood unless you want to put holes through your own house and the house next door and your neighbor inside. An AR 15 has a 5.65 mm, 63 gr bullet. High muzzle velocity, sure, but it is still like shooting somebody with buckshot at close range, only one bullet at a time. I say somebody, because while the 30-06 is good for game ranging from deer through elk or middling large predators, the AR 15 isn't really good for shooting anything bigger than a coyote.

    I also happen to think that using a semi-automatic rifle for hunting is borderline immoral as it encourages bad practice -- if you are shooting at a deer and think you are going to need two shots to kill it, you shouldn't be taking the shot in the first place, and don't we ALL wince when we're in the woods and we hear that signature five round pop pop pop pop that indicates that some butt-head has emptied his magazine at the sound of a squirrel rustling in the leaves somewhere?

    So modest proposal -- leave the 2nd amendment right where it is, as the regulation of machine guns has already passed muster. Add ARs to the existing law pretty much as is. AR being defined as a) semiautomatic; b) centerfire; c) rifle; d) bullet > 40 gr; e) bullet diameter > 0.22; f) removable magazine; g) with > 5 round capacity. That still leaves open semiautomatic shotguns, which are usually already regulated as far as magazine capacity is concerned and which arguably have some role in bird

    --
    Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  9. Re:Let's be careful by eaglesrule · · Score: 4, Informative

    Meanwhile, schools are banning literary classics because they contain a word that some people happen to obsess over.

    The worst place Trump could get 'ideas' from would be from those that hate him: the censoring, deplatforming, shouting down, physically attacking, blasphemy law enforcing, thought-policing fascists that pretend to be against fascism.