This movie is notable in that it fails to pull people into that state of mind
I have not read the book. I agree that the film did not do this as well as it could have (or the story/concept deserves), but there were 3 or 4 scenes where they actively discuss this theme rather pointedly. It's clearly supposed to be the driving theme.
I plan on reading the book between Christmas and New Years, if I happen to find it at the bookstore.
Fundamentally, it's about a man mourning about his suicide wife
No; it's not. The film is about IDENTITY. How we perceive ourselves and others. The vehicle is their relationship.
Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).
Don't get me wrong, this movie isn't great, but the concept is interesting. It requires a bit of thought OUTSIDE what's on the celluloid. People, I've discovered, are wholly incapable of that.
I dont think hollywood audiences have the attention span to see all that Lem encompasses, which might make them think a bit too much, but surely they can stomach a little more than this!
You're wrong.
During the screening I went to, dozens of people walked out. More than one person said "That Sucked" right at the end. I didn't hear anyone say anything good about it.
I thought it was good, but it wasn't nearly as complete as I had hoped (as, I think you're saying).
make you think just a little bit but not quite enough
While it stuck closely to the main theme, I can't say it explored it too deeply or considered too many facets of the main idea.
The theater I saw it in was nearly full, and a LOT of people walked out. I think people either didn't know what kind of movie this was, or have NO tolerance for the visual style of the film (read: NOT ACTION).
I liked it, but then again, I like sci-fi, and I don't see very much on the big screen.
I've heard it said that companies make way more on hardware than they ever could on entertainment. I don't really have any numbers on that, but it doesn't sound unreasonable.
They make me wear shoes now. It wasn't so much a change in the IT dress code, as it was a result of the complaints from other employees. IT dress code, on the other hand, now includes those propeller-hats, so that the other departments can easily identify us...
IIRC, there are some limitations to updating an office holders website close to an election.
Certainly incumbents hold many advantages... but perhaps the most important is the turnout: to a large degree, its the same people, especially in an "off-year" election. I'd ask anyone who's unhappy with the way things are to GO VOTE on NOV 5th.
If you have to write-in a candidate just to feel good about your vote, go ahead and do that. Vote for that potted plant, even. I need a laugh.
Hey - watch it! Hypocrisy is a rather grand tradition.
Seriously, this is a well-documented and often considered idea. People support freedoms in the abstract, but if you get too concrete, _something_ will offend them.
Surveys that ask specific questions tend to get less than 10% of the public that approves of protecting free speech (etc) as its currently protected (IIRC). Even these people often admit that it's only principle keeping them aboard. There are some real idiots out there that you wish you could make shut up, or maybe even severely injure them.
At least, that's what people tell me right before they punch me in the face.
I'd like to hear a logical explanation on why it's ok for these states to ignore UN and torture their own people.
I'll try... Because nobody seems willing to stop them.
Let's start with the rather agree-able premise: - Genocide is bad.
What do we do about this? - Imprision the guilty - If resisted, kill 'em.
What then? - Leave the country to figure that out. - Install a new leader who is Not-Quite-As-Bad - Encourage a democratic government.
Our record on all these "What thens" are, on the whole, terrible. This doesn't mean we shouldn't imprison/kill those who decimate their own populations, but I don't think we've found the answer for fixing the mess we cause by fixing the mess.
Also, I'm not sure about military action for humanitarian reasons, but I think there have been two (2) UN approved collective security actions: Korea & Gulf Wars. Simply, if there are no international repurcussions for genocide and other agression, whats going to enforce the fact that genocide is bad to those that carry it out? Doesn't failure to act mean that we don't disapprove of the genocide enough to stop it? That's a horrifying conclusion. It seems there's plenty of blame to go around.
If half a million people are killed in Rawanda in 1-2 months, and nobody stops it... it must be O.K.
Of course, I sense you're not satisfied with that state of affairs, and I agree.
I didn't remember seeing an article about it. I just assumed that a law against playing games would be worth a story - as opposed to "the gaming ban in Greece" in a Slashback.
Slashdot Mirror
This movie is notable in that it fails to pull people into that state of mind
I have not read the book. I agree that the film did not do this as well as it could have (or the story/concept deserves), but there were 3 or 4 scenes where they actively discuss this theme rather pointedly. It's clearly supposed to be the driving theme.
I plan on reading the book between Christmas and New Years, if I happen to find it at the bookstore.
nonsensical
Not only that, it's just plain WRONG.
Fundamentally, it's about a man mourning about his suicide wife
No; it's not. The film is about IDENTITY. How we perceive ourselves and others. The vehicle is their relationship.
Anybody who missed that shouldn't be writing a review. Then again, I'm not surprised; most of the people in the theater were too distracted by what they thought the movie was about (ooh! Clooney!).
Don't get me wrong, this movie isn't great, but the concept is interesting. It requires a bit of thought OUTSIDE what's on the celluloid. People, I've discovered, are wholly incapable of that.
Sorry for the rant, I am.
This is truly a Slashdot moment to cherish.
Well, don't worry -- it'll probably happen again.
Very soon. *ahem* Sorry.
AMD's 64-bit chips will be comparatively priced to the 32-bit ones
So, they're going to be twice as much?
heh.
and just fast forwarded through the 'boring bits' of it.
Heh. The film itself does a fair amount of fast forwarding (through the video testimony).
I dont think hollywood audiences have the attention span to see all that Lem encompasses, which might make them think a bit too much, but surely they can stomach a little more than this!
You're wrong.
During the screening I went to, dozens of people walked out. More than one person said "That Sucked" right at the end. I didn't hear anyone say anything good about it.
I thought it was good, but it wasn't nearly as complete as I had hoped (as, I think you're saying).
make you think just a little bit but not quite enough
While it stuck closely to the main theme, I can't say it explored it too deeply or considered too many facets of the main idea.
The theater I saw it in was nearly full, and a LOT of people walked out. I think people either didn't know what kind of movie this was, or have NO tolerance for the visual style of the film (read: NOT ACTION).
I liked it, but then again, I like sci-fi, and I don't see very much on the big screen.
Shhh!
I get all my karma by reposting all the (Score:5) comments on repeat stories.
I just noticed today that there are ads with Tony Hawk and Yo Yo Ma.
(not together)
I'm hoping that they'll make some with Gates/Ballmer lookalikes...
In my opinion, the most disasterous game ever is still E.T.
that was an April Fool's joke.
or... was it?
heh.
How did the industry let this happen?
I've heard it said that companies make way more on hardware than they ever could on entertainment. I don't really have any numbers on that, but it doesn't sound unreasonable.
They make me wear shoes now. It wasn't so much a change in the IT dress code, as it was a result of the complaints from other employees. IT dress code, on the other hand, now includes those propeller-hats, so that the other departments can easily identify us...
IIRC, there are some limitations to updating an office holders website close to an election.
Certainly incumbents hold many advantages... but perhaps the most important is the turnout: to a large degree, its the same people, especially in an "off-year" election. I'd ask anyone who's unhappy with the way things are to GO VOTE on NOV 5th.
If you have to write-in a candidate just to feel good about your vote, go ahead and do that. Vote for that potted plant, even. I need a laugh.
These kids think that if it was made before they were born, the inventor must be dead.
Hmmph.
For those wondering, he's on a boat.
Either way, he doesn't exactly have his feet planted firmly on the ground...
they have a policy of only releasing a game after translating it to the local language
Then why not simultaneously release in the United States and the United Kingdom?
They have to add all those U's.
Hey - watch it! Hypocrisy is a rather grand tradition.
Seriously, this is a well-documented and often considered idea. People support freedoms in the abstract, but if you get too concrete, _something_ will offend them.
Surveys that ask specific questions tend to get less than 10% of the public that approves of protecting free speech (etc) as its currently protected (IIRC). Even these people often admit that it's only principle keeping them aboard. There are some real idiots out there that you wish you could make shut up, or maybe even severely injure them.
At least, that's what people tell me right before they punch me in the face.
I'd like to hear a logical explanation on why it's ok for these states to ignore UN and torture their own people.
I'll try...
Because nobody seems willing to stop them.
Let's start with the rather agree-able premise:
- Genocide is bad.
What do we do about this?
- Imprision the guilty
- If resisted, kill 'em.
What then?
- Leave the country to figure that out.
- Install a new leader who is Not-Quite-As-Bad
- Encourage a democratic government.
Our record on all these "What thens" are, on the whole, terrible. This doesn't mean we shouldn't imprison/kill those who decimate their own populations, but I don't think we've found the answer for fixing the mess we cause by fixing the mess.
Also, I'm not sure about military action for humanitarian reasons, but I think there have been two (2) UN approved collective security actions: Korea & Gulf Wars. Simply, if there are no international repurcussions for genocide and other agression, whats going to enforce the fact that genocide is bad to those that carry it out? Doesn't failure to act mean that we don't disapprove of the genocide enough to stop it? That's a horrifying conclusion. It seems there's plenty of blame to go around.
If half a million people are killed in Rawanda in 1-2 months, and nobody stops it... it must be O.K.
Of course, I sense you're not satisfied with that state of affairs, and I agree.
That's Florida.
I'm pretty sure it would YELL whatever was inside <blink> for the entire time you were on the page, no matter what else was also going on.
At this point, that's more likely to happen than the UK joining the EU...
"I'm not worried that a block of ice might fall on your head," said Martinez-Frias, "but that one might fall on mine."
ok, he didn't say the last part, but I'm sure that's what he was thinking.
Ah, so it is. Thank you.
I didn't remember seeing an article about it. I just assumed that a law against playing games would be worth a story - as opposed to "the gaming ban in Greece" in a Slashback.
At any rate, I'll go away now.
I've submitted that story... I can't imagine that others haven't. Maybe they think it's a joke?
MSNBC article