I almost wonder if the people putting up the money for the movies look at what is brought to them and say "Is it going to have this?" or "I love it when they do this, are you going to?" And if your butt depended on this guy giving you the $75 million, I bet you'd say "Yes sir! Right away sir!" I kinda wonder how much of the money in Hollywood is put up by people who didn't make it out of grade school, who really like the lowest common denominator ( I call it the Dumb and Dumber effect - that movie bugs me!) I guess that means the answer to all this is: one of us has to make millions, then sponsor a hacker flick, and make sure we are the technical advisors, and be damned about how it will do at the box office if it means making a "Hollywood" movie.
Here's one for you: which is worse, Hackers or The Net? Personally, I think the Net was worse. I can barely sit through that thing. Hackers may not be the best a movie could be, but when you factor in the 90 minute time limit, and the need to draw the uninformed public, I think it did an ok job. I would love for someone to do a better job, but we'll have to see on that one.
well when I posted, I had just finished checking the NASDAQ for Gateway. The stock was down something like 1.1 % for the day and there was 852,000 shares traded. If someone dropped 118,000 shares (as mentioned in the ZDNet article) that would normally cause the price to dip. Granted 1.1 % ain't much, and could have been caused by other market forces, but its a good chance that his sale had something to go with it.
After cashing out his Gateway stock ( which is selling at about $95 now, down thanks to him) why would he need to work on the "USS Vapourware" as someone else put it.
BTW, the math gives him something like $11.2 million from that stock deal.
I haven't seen BWP yet mostly for one reason: I get motion sickness, and being filmed on a handy cam I have been warned away from this movie. I have also heard of a lot of people leaving the theater with the same problem. It would be interesting to find out the number of ticket refunds for that reason.
Also on the indy side of things, what about Clerks? That wonderfully quirkly little flick that was originally done on someone's credit card (read $5000 or less) and that included buying the camera equipment. Then Sony got their hands on it, slapped a soundtrack on it, and made tons of cash off it. Personally I loved the movie and without that kind of distribution I wouldn't have seen it, or bought it.
The hi tech movies being compared to BWP may have expensive effects but are likely lacking in something else: an intelligent, sensible script. Put BWP and Matrix out at the same time and see who wins. My vote is on Matrix.
Its pretty obvious tlewis that you haven't used QNX for a project, or else you would know that it is smaller and faster (in general) than the most common OSes.
And just for the record, Canadians say "eh", but not the rest of it. Well the good mannered Canadians anyway, which is most of us.
But the old Amiga was awesome technology, ahead of its time. If it uses Linux, and any improvements it makes have to be available to the general public, where is its advantage over you getting Linux for free and running it on your home computer? Amiga won't make any money in that situation, and their great changes and improvements will stop coming
Slashdot Mirror
I almost wonder if the people putting up the money for the movies look at what is brought to them and say "Is it going to have this?" or "I love it when they do this, are you going to?" And if your butt depended on this guy giving you the $75 million, I bet you'd say "Yes sir! Right away sir!" I kinda wonder how much of the money in Hollywood is put up by people who didn't make it out of grade school, who really like the lowest common denominator ( I call it the Dumb and Dumber effect - that movie bugs me!) I guess that means the answer to all this is: one of us has to make millions, then sponsor a hacker flick, and make sure we are the technical advisors, and be damned about how it will do at the box office if it means making a "Hollywood" movie.
Here's one for you: which is worse, Hackers or The Net? Personally, I think the Net was worse. I can barely sit through that thing. Hackers may not be the best a movie could be, but when you factor in the 90 minute time limit, and the need to draw the uninformed public, I think it did an ok job. I would love for someone to do a better job, but we'll have to see on that one.
yeah!
- Trading Places
well when I posted, I had just finished checking the NASDAQ for Gateway. The stock was down something like 1.1 % for the day and there was 852,000 shares traded. If someone dropped 118,000 shares (as mentioned in the ZDNet article) that would normally cause the price to dip. Granted 1.1 % ain't much, and could have been caused by other market forces, but its a good chance that his sale had something to go with it.
After cashing out his Gateway stock ( which is selling at about $95 now, down thanks to him) why would he need to work on the "USS Vapourware" as someone else put it.
BTW, the math gives him something like $11.2 million from that stock deal.
I haven't seen BWP yet mostly for one reason: I get motion sickness, and being filmed on a handy cam I have been warned away from this movie. I have also heard of a lot of people leaving the theater with the same problem. It would be interesting to find out the number of ticket refunds for that reason.
Also on the indy side of things, what about Clerks? That wonderfully quirkly little flick that was originally done on someone's credit card (read $5000 or less) and that included buying the camera equipment. Then Sony got their hands on it, slapped a soundtrack on it, and made tons of cash off it. Personally I loved the movie and without that kind of distribution I wouldn't have seen it, or bought it.
The hi tech movies being compared to BWP may have expensive effects but are likely lacking in something else: an intelligent, sensible script. Put BWP and Matrix out at the same time and see who wins. My vote is on Matrix.
Its pretty obvious tlewis that you haven't used QNX for a project, or else you would know that it is smaller and faster (in general) than the most common OSes.
And just for the record, Canadians say "eh", but not the rest of it. Well the good mannered Canadians anyway, which is most of us.
But the old Amiga was awesome technology, ahead of its time. If it uses Linux, and any improvements it makes have to be available to the general public, where is its advantage over you getting Linux for free and running it on your home computer?
Amiga won't make any money in that situation, and their great changes and improvements will stop coming