Interesting point about Elgar. I didn't know that. Thanks!
As for tweaking in the studio, Performance Today (a show on NPR) did a story on that a while back. I'd much rather have a live performance, warts and all, then a perfect performance that was a composite of a number of different takes. When I first got a CD player, back in the 1980s, the first CD I could find of Beethoven's 9th was by van Karajan. Later I got the Bernstein one in Berlin, after the fall of the wall. Bernstein's is full of excitement and life. It's just wonderful and exciting to listen to. The other, by von Karajan, is, like most of his work, a technically perfect icicle -- pretty, but not warm or exciting at all.
It's all the variety a passionate performer brings to his work that makes it interesting -- certainly far more interesting than a technically perfect recording.
Pretty much anyone who can tell you why Yasha Heifitz was great and Brittney Spears is worthless (other than as eroticism) can tell you the same thing. If you have to ask, I suggest Music Appreciation 101.
I agree that it should be appreciated. While it is easy to call it as bad as black velvet paintings of Elvis, there is a place for this.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing more performances in the style of Horowitz or Heifitz. I think it's important to bear in mind that the artists themselves, especially ones with enough stature so anyone would want to do this with their work, would have had enough freedom in recording that they likely recorded what they wanted to in the style they wanted to, so listening to a sonata Horowitz never recorded, done in his style should be taken as interesting, but NOT Horowitz.
It would be interesting to see if this process can make a piece come alive and fill it with zest the way some artists have done. If this is used in as a supplement to real performances, great. Those that care enough to know the difference between this and a real performance would easily know the difference. Anyone else likely would not care.
At least it's not something like colorizing films, where once a film is colorized it bastardizes the original intent and sometimes makes the original B&W hard to find in stores.
Actually, that's the next step. They get us used to just "Computer" and "Documents", then they'll change to "Our Computer" and "Our Documents" as they gradually take control of everything on the computer. Then the ultimate in simplification. You'll boot the computer and, instead of icons, you get:
You may be right. I'm not sure. A friend who didn't have a DVD player had borrowed a copy of the DVD from someone and wanted to see it. He asked me if he could watch it at my place, and I let him. I only saw that 1st scene (I had work to do). According to my friend, it was the sequal to CTHM, and he said it was not well distributed in the US. I'm going by what he says, and I should have said so, since he may have been wrong or worded it in such a way it confused me.
I hadn't realized Possession was so highly acclaimed. I don't keep track of such things (for example I've already forgotten what films were on the Time list we were discussing). Maybe that does change the comparison, but when I think back to much of the SF I've read, if I hold Possession as a standard, few of the SF or Fantasy books I've read would come close or surpass that standard. SF is noted for poor character development. The focus is often on cool technology instead of humanity. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a column (I think it was in Writer's Digest) by an SF author about his story, "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" (I think that's the right title -- I've never been able to find a copy of the story). He said he named the character Nada, to stress that he went out of the way to make sure the character was not developed at all. Since then, he's had many anthologies and texts ask to include the story as an example of good SF.
I've always liked SF, but I find I'm reading it less and less and looking more and more at classical literature to hold my interest.
Good point -- about how theft can occur at that point. Thee are other times like that where the same thing can happen.
1) Someone doing that has to use the card in a physical location or have purchases sent somewhere. They still need the skills to figure out how to dodge discovery there.
2) One breakin will result in tens of thousands of numbers stolen. Compare that to one at a time being stolen at a restaraunt. People doing breakins often have wasy of automatically rotating through cards and using as much as possible on each card, so I'd still put my money on a breakin vs. a waitron.
I'm not saying you that waitrons are all safe. I know there are some involved in what you're talking about (and also in padding bills), but I cant' see counting them as the primary threat.
The real dangers in internet commerce are in the backend systems. Online merchants may be using insecure means to store cc information (like text files and easy to exploit databases) or may keep transaction logs on easily accessible web or ftp servers!
But since many merchants are being broken into and having cc numbers stolen from their systems that handle point of sale transactions, it seems that the risk of having an internet backend or a POS backend broken into are both bad. Of course, storing logs on open ftp servers is just plain stupid. I think if a firm is that careless, people should be able to sue them if their number is stolen because of such idiocy.
Why is this rated insightful when the statement is ignorant?
Just because some fraudulent transactions were made over the Internet, this poster and the person writing the original question assume (and you know the word play you can do with that word) the card info was stolen over the internet. That is not necissarily so, and likely not true -- or rather it is likely not true the card info was stolen as the result of it being used over the internet. (I can't believe that on Slashdot, of all places, this assumption has gone unchallenged.)
For example, a few weeks ago there was a news story about DSW (Discoount Shoe Warehouse). A number of credit card numbers were stolen from their system. The cards were not used over the internet (just try finding a website for them that you can order from!), but by people in line at checkout registers. I don't know if the numbers were stored while waiting to go through, or obtained as they were sent through, but it was made quite clear all the numbers were from in person transactions.
I had a problem with my number being stolen about six months ago. I found out that almost all such theft takes place when someone breaks into a merchant's computer system and takes a list of numbers, names, and expiration dates. It has nothing to do with whether you used the card in person, over the phone, through a fax order, or on the internet. The only thing that makes a difference is if your card number is in the computer someone breaks into.
So whether you use your card over the internet or not hardly matters at all. It's whether you've used it at a merchant or service that gets broken into. I'm really surprised that important fact was missed in the original question and in the parent post.
BTW, I deal with a credit union, they told me what to do, and the money was replaced almost as fast as the fraudulent charges came through.
I'm not an expert, but I hear the chances of a cc number being stolen over an open phone line are greater than it being stolen over a secure transaction on the internet. If anyone has more info on that, I'd be interested in hearing it.
I had an incident about six months ago. I bank through the state credit union. I got a call on my cell from their security company. Since I wanted to make sure it wasn't some kind of phishing scheme, I asked for their number and who they were. I also was not about to discuss credit info over a cell phone. It was late, so the next morning I called my credit union, asked about it, found out it was legit, and called the security company back. THEY had detected the fradulent charges, they warned me, and they told me what to do (go to the credit union and sign papers). The money was back in my account the next day or so.
If it's taken that long to get your bank to do anything, you're with the wrong bank. Let them know. I'd also talk to the state regulators, since they may be interested in the bank's lack of action (and it might scare the bank).
Just because the fraudulent transactions were done over the internet doesn't mean the card numbers were stolen from an internet transaction. Many of the stories of credit card number theft are about institutions that did not secure their computers and had been broken into by someone on the internet. For example, locally, we had a warning about DSW (Discount Shoe Warehouse). Their computer was broken into and many card numbers were taken, but those numbers were ones used by people who shopped in person, not who charged over the internet. I don't know the details, and don't see why they'd need to keep the numbers once the transaction was charged, so it may be someone was able to monitor transactions and steal card numbers as they were sent through, but the stolen numbers were not used by the original card holders over the internet.
I'm no expert, but I've been told that if you use a card through a secure connection, the odds of it being intercepted are less than it being intercepted over an open phone line.
The novel was "Possession". I never saw the movie, since I heard it was piss poor. I also couldn't see turning it into a movie since so much of it has to do with what the characters wrote. Part of what fascinated me about it was that I had recently finished a 3 hour film script (which I'll be shooting one day) that had a main plotline in modern times that was closely intertwined with one from the 1920's, and Possession had a similar situation.
Also, comparing fantasy novels to Shakespeare just isn't fair.
Why not? Shakespeare was writing for an audience he needed to keep interested. He was competing with other plays going on at the same time and often had to write plays that met certain criteria (Hamlet was written to compete with another play with many of the same elements). In other words, he had to write to meet deadlines, to compete for ratings of a type, and to appeal to the masses as well as the more educated. Modern writers have had Shakespeare to learn from, and have many more resources than Shakespeare had, like word processors to make writing easier, climate control so they don't have to write in sweltering heat or freezine cold, and they have not only Shakespeare to read (to learn from), but hundreds of poets, playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, essayists, and other types of writers to help them learn about style, setting, character development, and the like.
So what is unfair about comparing modern writers to Shakespeare? He worked with what he had, and they have much more than he did. If they don't want to see farther, then they have chosen to NOT be a dwarf standing on a giant's shoulders. While that is a valid choice, it's no excuse to keep them from being compared to any writer in history.
Yes, T2 was fun, but there's a big difference between a work being fun and being great. For example, when I get stressed and need an escape, I'll re-read the John Carter of Mars books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. They're a lot of fun, but there is no way I'd ever classify them as great novels or as works of literary note.
Yes, I agree. Technically The Matrix is fascinating. I've watched Trinity's bullet-time kick, Neo's rooftop bullet dodging, and his "resurrection" after being shot a number of times just because it is so well done, but a few cool scenes do not replace good writing and good acting matched with good cinematography. (Am I the only person in the world that thinks Keanu just walked through all three movies with very little acting?)
Anyhow, remember not all geeks are film geeks.
You're right. What I find irritating is that a really smart geek would realize that film, like any art or field of study, will have its own standards and criteria in determining what is great, average, and barely premeditated. There are many topics that come up here that I don't know much about, and I'm not about to jump in, presume I'm an expert and able to make judgements better than those closely involved with the subject. I guess I wish all here would have similar standards and realize that while they may love The Matrix, those who are making lists of films may have different standards they use in evaluating whether a film is great.
BTW, you also mentioned a couple films I had either forgotten or didn't know about, so thanks! They're on my "to buy" list, but it'll be a while before I get to them.
More good examples. Notice, though, that yours and the examples in another response are NOT the "typical" ones cited in this topic. I've seen a huge number of people citing The Matrix as a great example. As geeks, many of us pride ourselves on our intellectual development and discernment, so I think it's quite sad that so many can hold up The Matrix as an example of something that should be one of the 100 greatest films of all time. It says that many of us geeks think we're developing our brains, but aren't and are just too easily fooled by things that look deep, but are nothing more than dime-store philosophy.
You make an excellent point when you say you also need to create. That, to me, is a major point. Often a SF flic is great at creating a new world, or providing a unique point of view of our world, but doesn't do the also part -- it doesn't start with good dialog and direction and go from there. It merely does something that pretends to be different and those behind it think that is enough, and don't bother with good writing as a foundation. In my book, a good SF film must first be a good film. Few do that.
Yes, I saw the latest SW. To be honest, the first time through on a movie like that, I'm just so wowed by the visuals I don't notice things like whether Qui-Gon is looking at Jar-Jar's face, or Ahmad Best's face (under the CGI). I love being able to relish eye candy like that, and it's never the same the 2nd time, so the first time I see something like that, I turn off my critical analysis. I'll wait another week or so to see it as a story with acting and writing instead of seeing it as 2+ hours of pretty pictures.
I don't remember the exact timing. I think it was in the early 1980s, but I remember that Time and Newsweek used to try to carry serious news reporting, like Changing Times (although CT has a different focus). Then (and again, I think it was the early 1980s), both noticed their circulation numbers were going down, so they decided to popularize their content. While they still carry a few hard news stories (but not reported on as hard news), they focus more on keeping a fluff approach that doesn't get too deep or take the risk of reporting anything that might be too 'true' and offend potential subscribers.
If I remember the timing right, it was after they both wimped out that USA today came out as yet another way to dumb down the real news.
And, yes, US News & WR is a much better news mag, but what do I know? I'm one of those dirty liberals that likes NPR and PBS. I have yet to see a US news program that covers issues as well as The News Hour.
So when Time comes out with a list of the 100 best anything, I don't give it much credit, since I know it is the 100 best dumbed down anything, with a few good examples included to make people feel like they're stretching their brain. I'd be much more interested in American Film Institute's or Pauline Kale's 100 best films of all time (although you could count on AFI's list being mostly or all USA, since their focus is on American film).
You give soem good examples. I have wanted to see the original "Solaris" for years, but haven't gotten around to it. (When I was a teen, I was slave to the local movie houses, then later, when VHS came in, I wasn't into collecting and locally it was hard to find a film like that. I've seen the DVD at Barnes and Noble and it's on my "to buy" list.) I've also heard about "Abre los ojos" and would like to see that. I rarely bother with anything with Tom Cruise in it anymore. After seeing how he ruined Mission: Impossible by making the films showcases for him to act macho, I have little hope for anything he's in. He has too much star power now for him to be in a film he doesn't have major control over.
Matrix, at least, was interesting, but I was disappointed that all the groundbreaking fx were focused on violence. It really didn't even have the grace of the well done martial arts films (I'm thinking especially of the first battle, in the rain, in the sequal to Crouching Tiger, but I can't remember the title). Most of The Matrix was flash and splatter -- the stuff that impresses people who like to say, "Oh, wow," but that doesn't create an experience of any depth.
For me, one crucial point of a good film or literary work is that when I'm done with it, I feel it somehow has changed me. Either I have more insight into humanity or the nature of the Universe, or something that makes me better than I was before, or it has to make me feel like I've really been on a journey where I haven't been before. By that criteria, I'd dare to say "Revenge of the Sith" is closer to a good film than many SF movies, since we can actually see WHY Annakin goes to the dark side. When he tells Obi-Wan, "To me, you are evil," we can understand him. In that one film (even without Episodes I & II), we have the emotional experience of seeing how a hero doesn't fall, but rather decides to take a path he sees as right while the rest of us see it as wrong. (I'm not saying it is a great film, just that it comes closer than most SF films.)
Another point is that at least Terminator was used as an example, rather than T2. Terminator was a stronger movie, whie T2 was basically a showcase of fx and glitz.
There are some excellent SF films out there (you've mentioned some), even including old ones like "Metropolis". It's just that they're few and far between. (Would you classify "The Cabnet of Dr. Caligari" as sf?) One I've wanted to see for years is a short called "La Jetee". Twelve Monkeys was roughly based on it.
I have to agree that GWTW is watchable, or at least more watchable, than the Titanic. I've never found myself eager to see either one.
I'd have to give a lot of thought to The Princess Bride. There were some comedies on the list. Ninochka (I always spell it wrong, so that's probably wrong), for one, and City Lights, even though the ending is so powerful, is basically a comedy. I don't remember what other ones were there. I'd give serious thought to the original To Be or Not To Be with Jack Benny, though.
I can understand someone calling GWTW a masterpiece. As for Titanic...
When a film emphasises technical effects, a historically perfect timeline, and recreation of a ship that is so well documented we know what all the little parts looked like over things like character development, I find it hard to call it a masterpiece.
Yes, they were well made. But that does not make them masterpieces. Terminator 2 was well made, but I'd never call it a masterpiece.
As for holding a dick with pride -- I was stating an opinion. Is there some reason you felt a need to bring in so much anger and sarcasm? I re-read my post, and saw nothing to trigger so much anger and sarcasm. Unless maybe you're the one with a need to hold up your genitalia high with pride?
Or go to the real film source -- at least for American films: American Film Institute. While it will be focused more on American films (which leaves out many of my favorites), at least you're talking about films that have proved themselves based on merit, as opposed to being picked because they're fun, had a sexy actress, or some other shallow reason.
Re:Ridiculous list - no Terminator, Aliens, Matrix
on
Time Picks Top 100 Films
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The Sci Fi genre has been particularly badly served
I suppose it never occured to you that the reverse could be true. We like to think that SF is mind expanding and, in some ways, it is. But in terms of the quality of films, most SF films are crap (although that's changing since we're past the days of every SF film needing a monster in it). Terminator comes from a time where suspense is created by chases and fights, not from situations. Compare it to a film like "Notorious", where the last scene (I won't spoil it for anyone) is edge-of-the-seat suspense, but it is that way because the writer and actors have created excellent characters and Hitchcock has done such a great job of setting up the direction. The entire point of the scene is that we don't know what one of the characters will do until the scene is over. No car chase, no fight, just great acting, writing, and directing. If that film were re-made today, it would have had to have a car chase with lots of explosions following that scene to create what we now think passes for suspense.
While the movies you mention are definitely a cut above most SF, and while they represent the best of SF (and, btw, thank you for mentioning Terminator instead of T2), they are great examples that the best of SF is nowhere near the best of film.
In "8 1/2", a wonderful film that made the list, there is a line, something close to, "You're script is a perfect example of how film is at least 50 years behind the other arts." Unfortunately, that is true about SF -- except there's no time issue. The best SF, unfortunately, is rarely as good as real, solid, great filmmaking.
It is just plain wrong, though, that 2001 was not included on the list.
Crap, Time, very Crap.
That's what I'd say, unfortunately, about most SF. Even written SF. I remember Joe Straczynski commenting on how "The Stars, My Destination" was such a great classic of the genre. I read it at home, while I was reading a novel a friend recommended to me at the gym, while on the elipticals. The other book wasn't even considered a classic of any type, just a well written novel. It blew "The Stars..." to dust in terms of quality writing, character development, and the ability to create a setting. That, to me, dramatized more than anything else, how weak most SF is when compared to real film and literature.
As for me, if I want fantasy, I'll read something like "Midsummer Night's Dream," or "The Tempest." For a ghost story, I'll try "MacBeth" or "Hamlet." Those are examples of how fantasy or SF like material can really rise above the genre and stretch one's mind.
GWTW was the Titanic of its time. Big budget, historical, overdone, and a real tear jerker. While Titanic certainly deserved some techincal oscars, neither deserved best picture or any other awards like that.
Both were manipulative stories and high-budget chick flics.
As a film buff, and someone who writes and will soon be producing films and direct-to-dvd films, I have a passion for well made films (as opposed to what I call movies or flics). There was a time when American filmmakers were focused on real film, as opposed to the latest blockbuster. That time is way past us now. I haven't read the entire list yet, but if half are made in the US, then it is skewed. When you look at masters like Fellini and Trauffaut, it is easy to see that there are a huge number of master directors that do not or did not work in the US.
On the other hand, usually when people (or fluff magazines like Time -- that USED TO BE a news magazine, but has gone for for pop news now) make lists like this, the recent films end up crowding out the top. I'm thrilled to see that silents are remembered here and that a silent film like City Lights, one of my favorites, was included.
There's 2 books left, the next one comes out this summer. This means book 6 will be out before movie 5 even starts filming. Movie 5 is due in 2007, 6 is due in 2008, so even if it takes *3* years to write her next book, it'll still be done in time to do movie 7.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting point about Elgar. I didn't know that. Thanks!
As for tweaking in the studio, Performance Today (a show on NPR) did a story on that a while back. I'd much rather have a live performance, warts and all, then a perfect performance that was a composite of a number of different takes. When I first got a CD player, back in the 1980s, the first CD I could find of Beethoven's 9th was by van Karajan. Later I got the Bernstein one in Berlin, after the fall of the wall. Bernstein's is full of excitement and life. It's just wonderful and exciting to listen to. The other, by von Karajan, is, like most of his work, a technically perfect icicle -- pretty, but not warm or exciting at all.
It's all the variety a passionate performer brings to his work that makes it interesting -- certainly far more interesting than a technically perfect recording.
Pretty much anyone who can tell you why Yasha Heifitz was great and Brittney Spears is worthless (other than as eroticism) can tell you the same thing. If you have to ask, I suggest Music Appreciation 101.
I agree that it should be appreciated. While it is easy to call it as bad as black velvet paintings of Elvis, there is a place for this.
I, for one, would be interested in hearing more performances in the style of Horowitz or Heifitz. I think it's important to bear in mind that the artists themselves, especially ones with enough stature so anyone would want to do this with their work, would have had enough freedom in recording that they likely recorded what they wanted to in the style they wanted to, so listening to a sonata Horowitz never recorded, done in his style should be taken as interesting, but NOT Horowitz.
It would be interesting to see if this process can make a piece come alive and fill it with zest the way some artists have done. If this is used in as a supplement to real performances, great. Those that care enough to know the difference between this and a real performance would easily know the difference. Anyone else likely would not care.
At least it's not something like colorizing films, where once a film is colorized it bastardizes the original intent and sometimes makes the original B&W hard to find in stores.
"Our computer" (old "My computer")
Actually, that's the next step. They get us used to just "Computer" and "Documents", then they'll change to "Our Computer" and "Our Documents" as they gradually take control of everything on the computer. Then the ultimate in simplification. You'll boot the computer and, instead of icons, you get:
All your base are belong to us.
You may be right. I'm not sure. A friend who didn't have a DVD player had borrowed a copy of the DVD from someone and wanted to see it. He asked me if he could watch it at my place, and I let him. I only saw that 1st scene (I had work to do). According to my friend, it was the sequal to CTHM, and he said it was not well distributed in the US. I'm going by what he says, and I should have said so, since he may have been wrong or worded it in such a way it confused me.
I hadn't realized Possession was so highly acclaimed. I don't keep track of such things (for example I've already forgotten what films were on the Time list we were discussing). Maybe that does change the comparison, but when I think back to much of the SF I've read, if I hold Possession as a standard, few of the SF or Fantasy books I've read would come close or surpass that standard. SF is noted for poor character development. The focus is often on cool technology instead of humanity. I can't remember the author, but I remember reading a column (I think it was in Writer's Digest) by an SF author about his story, "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" (I think that's the right title -- I've never been able to find a copy of the story). He said he named the character Nada, to stress that he went out of the way to make sure the character was not developed at all. Since then, he's had many anthologies and texts ask to include the story as an example of good SF.
I've always liked SF, but I find I'm reading it less and less and looking more and more at classical literature to hold my interest.
Good point -- about how theft can occur at that point. Thee are other times like that where the same thing can happen.
1) Someone doing that has to use the card in a physical location or have purchases sent somewhere. They still need the skills to figure out how to dodge discovery there.
2) One breakin will result in tens of thousands of numbers stolen. Compare that to one at a time being stolen at a restaraunt. People doing breakins often have wasy of automatically rotating through cards and using as much as possible on each card, so I'd still put my money on a breakin vs. a waitron.
I'm not saying you that waitrons are all safe. I know there are some involved in what you're talking about (and also in padding bills), but I cant' see counting them as the primary threat.
The real dangers in internet commerce are in the backend systems. Online merchants may be using insecure means to store cc information (like text files and easy to exploit databases) or may keep transaction logs on easily accessible web or ftp servers!
But since many merchants are being broken into and having cc numbers stolen from their systems that handle point of sale transactions, it seems that the risk of having an internet backend or a POS backend broken into are both bad. Of course, storing logs on open ftp servers is just plain stupid. I think if a firm is that careless, people should be able to sue them if their number is stolen because of such idiocy.
I replied once and it never showed up.
Why is this rated insightful when the statement is ignorant?
Just because some fraudulent transactions were made over the Internet, this poster and the person writing the original question assume (and you know the word play you can do with that word) the card info was stolen over the internet. That is not necissarily so, and likely not true -- or rather it is likely not true the card info was stolen as the result of it being used over the internet. (I can't believe that on Slashdot, of all places, this assumption has gone unchallenged.)
For example, a few weeks ago there was a news story about DSW (Discoount Shoe Warehouse). A number of credit card numbers were stolen from their system. The cards were not used over the internet (just try finding a website for them that you can order from!), but by people in line at checkout registers. I don't know if the numbers were stored while waiting to go through, or obtained as they were sent through, but it was made quite clear all the numbers were from in person transactions.
I had a problem with my number being stolen about six months ago. I found out that almost all such theft takes place when someone breaks into a merchant's computer system and takes a list of numbers, names, and expiration dates. It has nothing to do with whether you used the card in person, over the phone, through a fax order, or on the internet. The only thing that makes a difference is if your card number is in the computer someone breaks into.
So whether you use your card over the internet or not hardly matters at all. It's whether you've used it at a merchant or service that gets broken into. I'm really surprised that important fact was missed in the original question and in the parent post.
BTW, I deal with a credit union, they told me what to do, and the money was replaced almost as fast as the fraudulent charges came through.
I'm not an expert, but I hear the chances of a cc number being stolen over an open phone line are greater than it being stolen over a secure transaction on the internet. If anyone has more info on that, I'd be interested in hearing it.
I had an incident about six months ago. I bank through the state credit union. I got a call on my cell from their security company. Since I wanted to make sure it wasn't some kind of phishing scheme, I asked for their number and who they were. I also was not about to discuss credit info over a cell phone. It was late, so the next morning I called my credit union, asked about it, found out it was legit, and called the security company back. THEY had detected the fradulent charges, they warned me, and they told me what to do (go to the credit union and sign papers). The money was back in my account the next day or so.
If it's taken that long to get your bank to do anything, you're with the wrong bank. Let them know. I'd also talk to the state regulators, since they may be interested in the bank's lack of action (and it might scare the bank).
There is a fundamental misunderstanding here.
Just because the fraudulent transactions were done over the internet doesn't mean the card numbers were stolen from an internet transaction. Many of the stories of credit card number theft are about institutions that did not secure their computers and had been broken into by someone on the internet. For example, locally, we had a warning about DSW (Discount Shoe Warehouse). Their computer was broken into and many card numbers were taken, but those numbers were ones used by people who shopped in person, not who charged over the internet. I don't know the details, and don't see why they'd need to keep the numbers once the transaction was charged, so it may be someone was able to monitor transactions and steal card numbers as they were sent through, but the stolen numbers were not used by the original card holders over the internet.
I'm no expert, but I've been told that if you use a card through a secure connection, the odds of it being intercepted are less than it being intercepted over an open phone line.
The novel was "Possession". I never saw the movie, since I heard it was piss poor. I also couldn't see turning it into a movie since so much of it has to do with what the characters wrote. Part of what fascinated me about it was that I had recently finished a 3 hour film script (which I'll be shooting one day) that had a main plotline in modern times that was closely intertwined with one from the 1920's, and Possession had a similar situation.
Also, comparing fantasy novels to Shakespeare just isn't fair.
Why not? Shakespeare was writing for an audience he needed to keep interested. He was competing with other plays going on at the same time and often had to write plays that met certain criteria (Hamlet was written to compete with another play with many of the same elements). In other words, he had to write to meet deadlines, to compete for ratings of a type, and to appeal to the masses as well as the more educated. Modern writers have had Shakespeare to learn from, and have many more resources than Shakespeare had, like word processors to make writing easier, climate control so they don't have to write in sweltering heat or freezine cold, and they have not only Shakespeare to read (to learn from), but hundreds of poets, playwrights, screenwriters, novelists, essayists, and other types of writers to help them learn about style, setting, character development, and the like.
So what is unfair about comparing modern writers to Shakespeare? He worked with what he had, and they have much more than he did. If they don't want to see farther, then they have chosen to NOT be a dwarf standing on a giant's shoulders. While that is a valid choice, it's no excuse to keep them from being compared to any writer in history.
Yes, T2 was fun, but there's a big difference between a work being fun and being great. For example, when I get stressed and need an escape, I'll re-read the John Carter of Mars books by Edgar Rice Burroughs. They're a lot of fun, but there is no way I'd ever classify them as great novels or as works of literary note.
Yes, I agree. Technically The Matrix is fascinating. I've watched Trinity's bullet-time kick, Neo's rooftop bullet dodging, and his "resurrection" after being shot a number of times just because it is so well done, but a few cool scenes do not replace good writing and good acting matched with good cinematography. (Am I the only person in the world that thinks Keanu just walked through all three movies with very little acting?)
Anyhow, remember not all geeks are film geeks.
You're right. What I find irritating is that a really smart geek would realize that film, like any art or field of study, will have its own standards and criteria in determining what is great, average, and barely premeditated. There are many topics that come up here that I don't know much about, and I'm not about to jump in, presume I'm an expert and able to make judgements better than those closely involved with the subject. I guess I wish all here would have similar standards and realize that while they may love The Matrix, those who are making lists of films may have different standards they use in evaluating whether a film is great.
BTW, you also mentioned a couple films I had either forgotten or didn't know about, so thanks! They're on my "to buy" list, but it'll be a while before I get to them.
More good examples. Notice, though, that yours and the examples in another response are NOT the "typical" ones cited in this topic. I've seen a huge number of people citing The Matrix as a great example. As geeks, many of us pride ourselves on our intellectual development and discernment, so I think it's quite sad that so many can hold up The Matrix as an example of something that should be one of the 100 greatest films of all time. It says that many of us geeks think we're developing our brains, but aren't and are just too easily fooled by things that look deep, but are nothing more than dime-store philosophy.
You make an excellent point when you say you also need to create. That, to me, is a major point. Often a SF flic is great at creating a new world, or providing a unique point of view of our world, but doesn't do the also part -- it doesn't start with good dialog and direction and go from there. It merely does something that pretends to be different and those behind it think that is enough, and don't bother with good writing as a foundation. In my book, a good SF film must first be a good film. Few do that.
Yes, I saw the latest SW. To be honest, the first time through on a movie like that, I'm just so wowed by the visuals I don't notice things like whether Qui-Gon is looking at Jar-Jar's face, or Ahmad Best's face (under the CGI). I love being able to relish eye candy like that, and it's never the same the 2nd time, so the first time I see something like that, I turn off my critical analysis. I'll wait another week or so to see it as a story with acting and writing instead of seeing it as 2+ hours of pretty pictures.
I don't remember the exact timing. I think it was in the early 1980s, but I remember that Time and Newsweek used to try to carry serious news reporting, like Changing Times (although CT has a different focus). Then (and again, I think it was the early 1980s), both noticed their circulation numbers were going down, so they decided to popularize their content. While they still carry a few hard news stories (but not reported on as hard news), they focus more on keeping a fluff approach that doesn't get too deep or take the risk of reporting anything that might be too 'true' and offend potential subscribers.
If I remember the timing right, it was after they both wimped out that USA today came out as yet another way to dumb down the real news.
And, yes, US News & WR is a much better news mag, but what do I know? I'm one of those dirty liberals that likes NPR and PBS. I have yet to see a US news program that covers issues as well as The News Hour.
So when Time comes out with a list of the 100 best anything, I don't give it much credit, since I know it is the 100 best dumbed down anything, with a few good examples included to make people feel like they're stretching their brain. I'd be much more interested in American Film Institute's or Pauline Kale's 100 best films of all time (although you could count on AFI's list being mostly or all USA, since their focus is on American film).
You give soem good examples. I have wanted to see the original "Solaris" for years, but haven't gotten around to it. (When I was a teen, I was slave to the local movie houses, then later, when VHS came in, I wasn't into collecting and locally it was hard to find a film like that. I've seen the DVD at Barnes and Noble and it's on my "to buy" list.) I've also heard about "Abre los ojos" and would like to see that. I rarely bother with anything with Tom Cruise in it anymore. After seeing how he ruined Mission: Impossible by making the films showcases for him to act macho, I have little hope for anything he's in. He has too much star power now for him to be in a film he doesn't have major control over.
Matrix, at least, was interesting, but I was disappointed that all the groundbreaking fx were focused on violence. It really didn't even have the grace of the well done martial arts films (I'm thinking especially of the first battle, in the rain, in the sequal to Crouching Tiger, but I can't remember the title). Most of The Matrix was flash and splatter -- the stuff that impresses people who like to say, "Oh, wow," but that doesn't create an experience of any depth.
For me, one crucial point of a good film or literary work is that when I'm done with it, I feel it somehow has changed me. Either I have more insight into humanity or the nature of the Universe, or something that makes me better than I was before, or it has to make me feel like I've really been on a journey where I haven't been before. By that criteria, I'd dare to say "Revenge of the Sith" is closer to a good film than many SF movies, since we can actually see WHY Annakin goes to the dark side. When he tells Obi-Wan, "To me, you are evil," we can understand him. In that one film (even without Episodes I & II), we have the emotional experience of seeing how a hero doesn't fall, but rather decides to take a path he sees as right while the rest of us see it as wrong. (I'm not saying it is a great film, just that it comes closer than most SF films.)
Another point is that at least Terminator was used as an example, rather than T2. Terminator was a stronger movie, whie T2 was basically a showcase of fx and glitz.
There are some excellent SF films out there (you've mentioned some), even including old ones like "Metropolis". It's just that they're few and far between. (Would you classify "The Cabnet of Dr. Caligari" as sf?) One I've wanted to see for years is a short called "La Jetee". Twelve Monkeys was roughly based on it.
I have to agree that GWTW is watchable, or at least more watchable, than the Titanic. I've never found myself eager to see either one.
I'd have to give a lot of thought to The Princess Bride. There were some comedies on the list. Ninochka (I always spell it wrong, so that's probably wrong), for one, and City Lights, even though the ending is so powerful, is basically a comedy. I don't remember what other ones were there. I'd give serious thought to the original To Be or Not To Be with Jack Benny, though.
I can understand someone calling GWTW a masterpiece. As for Titanic...
When a film emphasises technical effects, a historically perfect timeline, and recreation of a ship that is so well documented we know what all the little parts looked like over things like character development, I find it hard to call it a masterpiece.
Yes, they were well made. But that does not make them masterpieces. Terminator 2 was well made, but I'd never call it a masterpiece.
As for holding a dick with pride -- I was stating an opinion. Is there some reason you felt a need to bring in so much anger and sarcasm? I re-read my post, and saw nothing to trigger so much anger and sarcasm. Unless maybe you're the one with a need to hold up your genitalia high with pride?
Or go to the real film source -- at least for American films: American Film Institute. While it will be focused more on American films (which leaves out many of my favorites), at least you're talking about films that have proved themselves based on merit, as opposed to being picked because they're fun, had a sexy actress, or some other shallow reason.
The Sci Fi genre has been particularly badly served
I suppose it never occured to you that the reverse could be true. We like to think that SF is mind expanding and, in some ways, it is. But in terms of the quality of films, most SF films are crap (although that's changing since we're past the days of every SF film needing a monster in it). Terminator comes from a time where suspense is created by chases and fights, not from situations. Compare it to a film like "Notorious", where the last scene (I won't spoil it for anyone) is edge-of-the-seat suspense, but it is that way because the writer and actors have created excellent characters and Hitchcock has done such a great job of setting up the direction. The entire point of the scene is that we don't know what one of the characters will do until the scene is over. No car chase, no fight, just great acting, writing, and directing. If that film were re-made today, it would have had to have a car chase with lots of explosions following that scene to create what we now think passes for suspense.
While the movies you mention are definitely a cut above most SF, and while they represent the best of SF (and, btw, thank you for mentioning Terminator instead of T2), they are great examples that the best of SF is nowhere near the best of film.
In "8 1/2", a wonderful film that made the list, there is a line, something close to, "You're script is a perfect example of how film is at least 50 years behind the other arts." Unfortunately, that is true about SF -- except there's no time issue. The best SF, unfortunately, is rarely as good as real, solid, great filmmaking.
It is just plain wrong, though, that 2001 was not included on the list.
Crap, Time, very Crap.
That's what I'd say, unfortunately, about most SF. Even written SF. I remember Joe Straczynski commenting on how "The Stars, My Destination" was such a great classic of the genre. I read it at home, while I was reading a novel a friend recommended to me at the gym, while on the elipticals. The other book wasn't even considered a classic of any type, just a well written novel. It blew "The Stars..." to dust in terms of quality writing, character development, and the ability to create a setting. That, to me, dramatized more than anything else, how weak most SF is when compared to real film and literature.
As for me, if I want fantasy, I'll read something like "Midsummer Night's Dream," or "The Tempest." For a ghost story, I'll try "MacBeth" or "Hamlet." Those are examples of how fantasy or SF like material can really rise above the genre and stretch one's mind.
GWTW was the Titanic of its time. Big budget, historical, overdone, and a real tear jerker. While Titanic certainly deserved some techincal oscars, neither deserved best picture or any other awards like that.
Both were manipulative stories and high-budget chick flics.
As a film buff, and someone who writes and will soon be producing films and direct-to-dvd films, I have a passion for well made films (as opposed to what I call movies or flics). There was a time when American filmmakers were focused on real film, as opposed to the latest blockbuster. That time is way past us now. I haven't read the entire list yet, but if half are made in the US, then it is skewed. When you look at masters like Fellini and Trauffaut, it is easy to see that there are a huge number of master directors that do not or did not work in the US.
On the other hand, usually when people (or fluff magazines like Time -- that USED TO BE a news magazine, but has gone for for pop news now) make lists like this, the recent films end up crowding out the top. I'm thrilled to see that silents are remembered here and that a silent film like City Lights, one of my favorites, was included.
There's 2 books left, the next one comes out this summer. This means book 6 will be out before movie 5 even starts filming. Movie 5 is due in 2007, 6 is due in 2008, so even if it takes *3* years to write her next book, it'll still be done in time to do movie 7.
Oops. (I always expect a "preview" to be listed before a "submit" button -- it just seems the check should come before the action.)