Truly, you have a dizzying intellect when it comes to this show.:) If it were up to me, you'd be on the Heroes writing staff in a heartbeat - it'd be a match made in heaven...
Apart from your point about Suresh's torture session (I'll take your word for it; it's still a tenuous scene - Suresh seems to be taking a massive risk if Sylar loses 'control' of his considerable powers, don't ya think? His telekinesis could have ripped the room apart, but hey it's genius because Suresh managed to make all of Sylar's powers uncontrollable in a very precise plot convenient way - but forgivable), the rest of your comments demonstrate a wonderful ability to do the writer's jobs for them. I have to conclude that the only rational explanation for Claire is that she is actually retarded - if you had said that, I might have bought it. But no, you're right, after all of those things I listed (there may be more!), she still has good reason to doubt. Really. And Sylar, powerful as he is, chooses to keep close to him the two 'Heroes' who have the best chance of inadvertently exposing him, counting on no stray thoughts, the cop never reading his mind (just curious, when was Sylar's mental discipline demonstrated - and does he also think in another language like Claire's dad, which would certainly arouse at least curiosity if not suspicion, and why would the cop, who is a wanker in this future, not try to probe for thoughts and not be curious as to how Nathan has the mental prowess to block his powers), and the Haitian never using his ability within a given radius? (remember, his power affects an entire floor of a building - a power that presumably goes through walls but not floors and ceilings, though I suppose it's possible he can only project it along a horizontal plane [sarcasm there, he could still bend over to get it through the floor, though perhaps the concrete used for floors is different from walls and prevents power nullification field penetration. Heck, since it's a 2D power, why didn't super Peter Petrelli simply walk underneath each room and just poke his head through till he found the Haitian and then rip the floor out from under him? Oh yeah, the Haitian may have bent over!]) And the cop and the Haitian never once questioned the motives of the man who is mercilessly rounding up all of the other 'Heroes'?
Also, nice job cherry picking the plot holes you can creatively conjure up explanations for. Where's your explanation for why Hiro doesn't tell Ando about his training, why Suresh doesn't kill Sylar when he gets the chance (having already proven he was willing to do so), why the ruthless Sylar doesn't kill Claire's dad when he gets the chance but instead locks him up and goes and has tea with her mother. Character consistency right there.
The characters already know this, it's been well established already - Peter already died and came back to life after getting a big chunk of glass stuck in his brain. Claire also knew that Peter had her power, and the extent of her power is well known to her, as the show ably demonstrated time and time again by having her needlessly maimed - you know, like when she got bumped by someone on the football field, fell to the ground and her head did a comical 180? Or when she DIED BY IMPALEMENT? Or when she was walked out of a burning building with her skin growing back instantaneously? Or when she hurled herself to her death from a considerable height MULTIPLE TIMES? Or when she crashed her car at high speed? I think Sylar 'killed' her in the locker room as well in one episode. Heck, the cop shot her at the behest of her father who knew full well that she'd live, and so she knows mere bullets can't kill her! How can you possibly claim that she doesn't know the extent of her powers, and by extension, Peter's, who, I remind you again, also came back to life in front of her very eyes? That's just ludicrous! I would not criticize this point if I believed there was a reason for the characters to have doubts.
The fact is, the writers just don't have a clue, and it beggars belief that you can't see that. Remember the time Suresh tortures Sylar while hooking him up to some chemical that supposedly nullifies his powers, and then proceeds to torture him with a tuning fork (a comical scene in and of itself), a torture method that would only work if Sylar's powers were still working! (Of course, Sylar's powers were actually still working, but Suresh wasn't supposed to know that). What about the episode in the future (which was actually quite cool) where Sylar was the president in disguise, and yet he manages to hide this fact from both the power nullifying Haitian and the mind reading cop even though the cop is now head of Homeland Security and the Haitian is his right hand man! I suppose you're going to tell me that they were just too decent to use their powers around the President. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Whatever plot holes there are in Lost - and yeah, there are some - are small potatoes compared to Heroes. "Random changes occur to plot and characters"? Much of what has been revealed is pretty consistent. Granted, they can still drop the ball by the end, but the storytelling to get there has been stellar thus far. Lost is better written, acted, directed, edited, photographed, and probably catered than Heroes. Oh, and good writing doesn't only refer to plotting - there are also those little things like dialogue, tone, characterization, metaphor, thematic depth, pacing, and story structure in there as well, all areas where Heroes drops the ball. And for what it's worth, Lost isn't as well written as some of the cable shows I mentioned.
Blakey Rat isn't weird and picky, he's right, Heroes is one poorly written show. And this coming from someone who actually thought it was fairly enjoyable (I'll confess, I even enjoy 24!). You could write a book about the bad plotting - my favourite - Hiro buggers off to train with his dad but doesn't bother to tell his buddy outside (it would have taken all of 20 seconds!), because the writers needed him to put himself in harms way so that Hiro could bail him out. The shoddiness of the writing is indefensible. Also, they liberally stole from the seminal Watchmen comic book, while Tim Kring denies having ever read it.
"I never got the impression that they were sure no harm would come to Peter, that he was literally immortal, instead I got the impression Claire thought he would die"
This is not supported by what is actually depicted in the show. It directly contradicts everything established upto that point. She should have shot him, instead of allowing his brother to seemingly sacrifice his life for no good reason. Or they could have tried.... I dunno, knocking him out? Btw, Tim Kring's reasoning behind why Peter doesn't fly away:
Presented by TV Guide with that burning question, series creator Tim Kring pauses before saying, "You know, theoretically you're not supposed to be thinking about that."
When assured that viewers are, Kring confirms that -- as many have theorized -- radioactive Peter's other powers were "incapacitated" at that pivotal moment, and "somewhere in there is the explanation" for having Nathan grab his bro and do the "flying man!" thing. "But the real explanation is that we wanted Nathan to show up and [save the day]!"
"Yes, I will admit that there's a very tiny window of logic there," Kring continues with a laugh. "But what can I say? It's requires the proverbial suspension of disbelief."
The proverbial "we don't mind insulting our audience, because they selectively ignore the show's flaws anyway", more like.
"what TV series meets your writing standards" - Lost, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, 30 Rock, Deadwood, The Sopranos, the list goes on. Heck, Heroes makes the writing in 24 look good, and that's saying something.
I guess the point is, there's nothing wrong with liking the show, but please don't try and defend it as being good. There's a big difference between what you like and what is good (and no, it's not purely subjective); it's the height of fanboyism to try and justify your taste at the expense of reason. There's just no need to do so. It's OK to enjoy mindless entertainment. I do.
Whoops, I remember that one now - they did release the director's cut with a new transfer ('Remastered Edition'), but it was barebones and Warner Brothers had already announced their intention to release a superior version. From the Digital Bits review of last year's Remastered Edition:
Admittedly, this new DVD could be seen as something of a double-dip, given that Warner is currently planning to release a MUCH more elaborate, multi-disc version of Blade Runner on DVD in 2007. But you've at least got to give the studio credit for letting you know that in advance. Given how long fans like myself have waited for this film to look better on disc, the fact that Warner actually DID a new transfer to make it look better, and the fact that it's only going to set you back $20 ($15 or less on sale at many retailers), this remastered DVD is hard to beat. FYI, Warner has revealed that they're going to release this film on the new high-definition HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc formats next year too... so you'll just have to pardon me while I wipe the drool off my chin in anticipation. In the meantime, this DVD is recommended for fans of the film.
So basically, this current Final Cut release was announced beforehand, AND last year's release was barebones and not marketed in a gimicky way to fool people into buying it (like 'Explosive Edition' or 'New Unrated Edition' that has 2 mins of new footage) - it was essentially the same Director's Cut that was already out, only remastered with better picture and sound. Heck, look at the packaging, you can barely tell the 'Remastered' edition apart from the version that came out in 97, hardly a tactic to ensnare unwary shoppers! Cash in? Possibly, but if so I'd have expected them to have tried a little bit harder to hook people in to buying last year's version...
Blade Runner has only been released once on DVD, over 10 years ago; as you can imagine, that DVD isn't exactly a top of the line release anymore. If they wanted to cash in easily they could've just issued a new edition with a clean transfer and sound and a few obligatory special features. If you look at the specs for these releases, they are quite comprehensive! And from what I've read about this new release it's been in the works for some time and a lot of work has gone into it... While, obviously, the studio released a new version to make money, they seem to have done a good job with this one.
I assumed that was because Merry wasn't a man either? I can't remember if he used the sword to stab the Witch King, or the dagger given to him by Galadriel...
"The cost of media and packaging isn't really that high. At least not high enough to justify a significant price break."
Hang on a sec, you're saying that the cost of manufacturing DVDs...
Manufacturing -> This entails all costs associated with manufacturing - raw materials, labour, utilities (electricity) - for the discs, packaging, and other materials (e.g. booklets)
Shipping (from the factories to retailers all over the world
Warehousing
...is not that different to the cost of hosting digital files on servers? Is this true? In any case, if they are using BitTorrent the cost of hosting will be borne by the customers of the service, meaning there will be virtually no cost borne by the studio in distributing these files. And what about the markup that is added by the retailer for physical DVDs, which is also inapplicable in this scenario? Shouldn't all of these things be deducted from the price of the digital download?
So, despite being presented with a ridiculously cut down product that can only be played on one computer, that must be downloaded and distributed by the customer using his or her own bandwidth, that doesn't come with any special features (seemingly), and that costs the studio less to produce and distribute than a physical product, the customer is expected to pay nearly the same amount as for a regular DVD?
Best graphics of the lot - probably, but this is still up in the air given the volume of pre-rendered material they've shown.
Hi-def - this is something the 360 has as well. The benefit of this for the masses is questionable, given the expensive televisions necessary to take full advantage. Still, it's 'future proofed' - HD should be somewhat established when the PS3 reaches its dying days, which will allow it to age gracefully in the eyes of most users.
Blu-Ray support - How much of a benefit this ends up being depends on how the format wars turn out. Even if Blu-Ray wins, the benefits of the drive are still questionable - see my point about HD support above, the same logic applies.
Massive back catalog of PS1 and PS2 games - this will be a major hook for existing PS owners. Still, it's a safe bet that the PS2 itself will be around for at least a couple more years to play the old games on while people wait for that price to fall.
Cons
Expensive - By far the biggest drawback. The cheaper version costs more than the higher-priced 360 package! It's safe to assume Microsoft will slash prices come Christmas, making that gap even more pronounced. Wii will be below $300 as well. Add in the cost of peripherals and the PS3 looks like a jihad against your bank account.
Lack of games - The selection looks quite sparse so far, and the games themselves haven't really been blowing people away. At least, that's the impression I'm getting from everyone, particularly the Slashdot crowd. Also, there are all the rumours about the Cell processor being hard to program.
Lack of innovation - Is there anything particularly new here? An online strategy that's lagging behind Microsoft's successful one, and a controller that's cribbing ideas from the Wii (motion detection) and implementing them in a seemingly half-assed manner. Don't be surprised to find the controller idea to end up being a curious gimmick. Although, I suppose it could allow for porting Wii games to PS3?
Anything I've missed? The pros are not all that impressive or unique (and are dependant on other factors). The cons on the other hand are like a punch to the solar plexus.
I concur, my experience with VLC has been that it's quite a clunky player for performing all the basic tasks you'd expect a media player to perform. It has a plethora of options for fine-tuning and what not, but when it comes to media players, most people want something that just works with minimal fuss.
It's also, as danpsmith says, buggy and prone to lock ups (the Windows version at any rate). Perhaps there're configuration changes that can be made...
I remember reading an interview with Ralph Baer in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly several years ago. In it Baer asserted that he had created the game and patented it before Bushnell, and that Bushnell copied his concept.
The Wikipedia entry covers pretty much everything said in that interview:
"In 1966, Ralph Baer, then working for Sanders Associates, made a design for running simple computer games over a television set. His ideas were patented, and he created a game resembling Pong proper, except with slightly more complex controls. In 1970, Baer demonstrated his video game system to corporate heads at Magnavox, who became convinced that such a device would help sell more Magnavox television sets. Magnavox and Sanders Associates joined forces, with Baer and his patents at the epicenter, to develop a stand-alone unit called the Odyssey 1TL200 to be sold to consumers for use in the home."
"... Two weeks later, Magnavox learned of Pong, and notified Atari that they already had a patent on the concept. The two companies went to court. Magnavox was able to produce witnesses who had seen Nolan playing the Odyssey's ping-pong game, and they had a guestbook from the event which Nolan had signed. The judge found in favor of Magnavox, and Atari had to pay $700,000 for use of the patents."
As I recall, Baer also invented a boatload of other things, but didn't make much off of them because the patents were owned by the company he worked for at the time. (Memory is fuzzy on the details)
Erm... Dernholm Elliot was only a stuttering buffoon in the Last Crusade. In the first Indy he seemed quite lucid and full of vigour, and it was implied that he may have once been something of an adventurer. He says that he would have gone after the Ark of the Covenant himself had he been younger, or something to that effect.
The Last Crusade is a great film, but it screwed over the characters of both Marcus Brody and Sallah - Sallah was a wily and resourceful fellow in the first film, but in Last Crusade I seem to recall him running around gathering camels or something equally degrading.
Hopefully, this trend won't continue into the forthcoming film. Given that Harrison Ford won't be as physically active as he was 20 years ago, he too may be relegated to bumbling around in the film. OK, Indy IS the film so maybe it won't be quite that bad, but even a few moments of senelity or incompetence of that nature will ruin the film. They have to find a way to make him age gracefully...
There're too many great, classic films to whittle it down to just 100. Since so many have already mentioned other classics, I won't bother to list out any more. I think we can all agree, though, that there are no bad films here. These 100 are almost certainly worthy of merit and worth seeing.
At the end of the day any such list will be subjective, and if we all made our own lists they'd be different. But the odds are if we all pooled our lists together we'd have a kick-ass mega list of great films (and maybe a few crap ones selected by crazy people). Anyway, the list has sparked a bit of debate and there seem to be plenty of recommendations that I should add to my "must see" list...
How often do you pay attention to sounds in trailers and cross-reference them with the actual movie afterwards?
Heh heh... actually, I used to watch trailers quite a bit at one point, when I was addicted to downloading and watching 'em! And yeah I have noticed line readings and sound clips change, but that's most likely because of ADR (additional dialog recording) done after the trailer is put together or because they wanted to tone down the dialogue being spoken specifically for the trailer. Although I've noticed special effects shots and the 'look' of the film being different from the trailer, I can't recall any distinctive sound effects changes... As for scenes not making the final cut, that happens quite often as well, but even they usually have the sound mixed in before being deleted.
Then again, there are lots of generic sound effects that might go unnoticed in trailers, so I can't say with any certainty that they're all the same. Sounds being dropped from the trailer, however, is something I've never noticed! As far as I'm aware, these clips are passed on from the filmmakers in a fairly complete state for inclusion in the trailers (minus score, which is added towards the end); assuming I'm correct on that point, that would mean the folks behind the trailer added sounds to those scenes. If so, has Whedon mentioned anything about it?
As for it being experimental, I stand by that point. 2001 was an exception, and it was more of an 'arty' film in any case. Given that this is being positioned as a conventional studio flick, the rules that applied to the tv series might not necessarily apply here - no sound in space is still a rarity on the big screen. Oh, and Episode II most certainly did have sound in space... except for that one sequence with the space mines dropped by Jango's ship, where the sound went dead for a few moments before the explosion. I believe that was done for dramatic effect (and not realism), because there was sound everywhere else!
Anyway, I hope there is no sound in the space sequences. If they gave Whedon free reign, that's fantastic. If not, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio insisted on something asinine like including sounds...
I think there's a fair chance the sounds WILL be in the final film. I see your point about making the trailer more flashy than the film itself, but I can't think of any films where the trailer added sounds from outside the film's sound mix just for the trailer.
They probably had to make some concessions to the studio in order to bring Firefly to the big screen. I doubt that the suits would have been eager to try something as experimental as taking out sound from space battles. And let's face it, most people in the audience will think something's wrong with the sound or the film's budget was stretched too thin to include good sound effects! Hollywood has programmed viewers to expect sound in space, so that's the norm. I'd love to be proven wrong though...
I agree, I was skeptical when I heard about the remake. But if you look at it, they've taken the best things about the original - the overall concept of civilization being wiped out, the rag-tag fleet, and the memorable characters - and wrapped it all up in a layer of realism that the original lacked. Yeah yeah, I know it's sci-fi; by realism I mean verisimilitude... The characters are flawed and actually change over time (look at how Roslin goes from a 'school teacher' to a cold and calculating politician), the logistical problems of the fleet are addressed, etc...
The show's really in a class of its own...
Slashdot Mirror
Truly, you have a dizzying intellect when it comes to this show. :) If it were up to me, you'd be on the Heroes writing staff in a heartbeat - it'd be a match made in heaven...
Apart from your point about Suresh's torture session (I'll take your word for it; it's still a tenuous scene - Suresh seems to be taking a massive risk if Sylar loses 'control' of his considerable powers, don't ya think? His telekinesis could have ripped the room apart, but hey it's genius because Suresh managed to make all of Sylar's powers uncontrollable in a very precise plot convenient way - but forgivable), the rest of your comments demonstrate a wonderful ability to do the writer's jobs for them. I have to conclude that the only rational explanation for Claire is that she is actually retarded - if you had said that, I might have bought it. But no, you're right, after all of those things I listed (there may be more!), she still has good reason to doubt. Really. And Sylar, powerful as he is, chooses to keep close to him the two 'Heroes' who have the best chance of inadvertently exposing him, counting on no stray thoughts, the cop never reading his mind (just curious, when was Sylar's mental discipline demonstrated - and does he also think in another language like Claire's dad, which would certainly arouse at least curiosity if not suspicion, and why would the cop, who is a wanker in this future, not try to probe for thoughts and not be curious as to how Nathan has the mental prowess to block his powers), and the Haitian never using his ability within a given radius? (remember, his power affects an entire floor of a building - a power that presumably goes through walls but not floors and ceilings, though I suppose it's possible he can only project it along a horizontal plane [sarcasm there, he could still bend over to get it through the floor, though perhaps the concrete used for floors is different from walls and prevents power nullification field penetration. Heck, since it's a 2D power, why didn't super Peter Petrelli simply walk underneath each room and just poke his head through till he found the Haitian and then rip the floor out from under him? Oh yeah, the Haitian may have bent over!]) And the cop and the Haitian never once questioned the motives of the man who is mercilessly rounding up all of the other 'Heroes'?
Also, nice job cherry picking the plot holes you can creatively conjure up explanations for. Where's your explanation for why Hiro doesn't tell Ando about his training, why Suresh doesn't kill Sylar when he gets the chance (having already proven he was willing to do so), why the ruthless Sylar doesn't kill Claire's dad when he gets the chance but instead locks him up and goes and has tea with her mother. Character consistency right there.
The characters already know this, it's been well established already - Peter already died and came back to life after getting a big chunk of glass stuck in his brain. Claire also knew that Peter had her power, and the extent of her power is well known to her, as the show ably demonstrated time and time again by having her needlessly maimed - you know, like when she got bumped by someone on the football field, fell to the ground and her head did a comical 180? Or when she DIED BY IMPALEMENT? Or when she was walked out of a burning building with her skin growing back instantaneously? Or when she hurled herself to her death from a considerable height MULTIPLE TIMES? Or when she crashed her car at high speed? I think Sylar 'killed' her in the locker room as well in one episode. Heck, the cop shot her at the behest of her father who knew full well that she'd live, and so she knows mere bullets can't kill her! How can you possibly claim that she doesn't know the extent of her powers, and by extension, Peter's, who, I remind you again, also came back to life in front of her very eyes? That's just ludicrous! I would not criticize this point if I believed there was a reason for the characters to have doubts.
The fact is, the writers just don't have a clue, and it beggars belief that you can't see that. Remember the time Suresh tortures Sylar while hooking him up to some chemical that supposedly nullifies his powers, and then proceeds to torture him with a tuning fork (a comical scene in and of itself), a torture method that would only work if Sylar's powers were still working! (Of course, Sylar's powers were actually still working, but Suresh wasn't supposed to know that). What about the episode in the future (which was actually quite cool) where Sylar was the president in disguise, and yet he manages to hide this fact from both the power nullifying Haitian and the mind reading cop even though the cop is now head of Homeland Security and the Haitian is his right hand man! I suppose you're going to tell me that they were just too decent to use their powers around the President. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
Whatever plot holes there are in Lost - and yeah, there are some - are small potatoes compared to Heroes. "Random changes occur to plot and characters"? Much of what has been revealed is pretty consistent. Granted, they can still drop the ball by the end, but the storytelling to get there has been stellar thus far. Lost is better written, acted, directed, edited, photographed, and probably catered than Heroes. Oh, and good writing doesn't only refer to plotting - there are also those little things like dialogue, tone, characterization, metaphor, thematic depth, pacing, and story structure in there as well, all areas where Heroes drops the ball. And for what it's worth, Lost isn't as well written as some of the cable shows I mentioned.
"I never got the impression that they were sure no harm would come to Peter, that he was literally immortal, instead I got the impression Claire thought he would die"
This is not supported by what is actually depicted in the show. It directly contradicts everything established upto that point. She should have shot him, instead of allowing his brother to seemingly sacrifice his life for no good reason. Or they could have tried.... I dunno, knocking him out? Btw, Tim Kring's reasoning behind why Peter doesn't fly away:The proverbial "we don't mind insulting our audience, because they selectively ignore the show's flaws anyway", more like.
"what TV series meets your writing standards" - Lost, Battlestar Galactica, The Wire, 30 Rock, Deadwood, The Sopranos, the list goes on. Heck, Heroes makes the writing in 24 look good, and that's saying something.
I guess the point is, there's nothing wrong with liking the show, but please don't try and defend it as being good. There's a big difference between what you like and what is good (and no, it's not purely subjective); it's the height of fanboyism to try and justify your taste at the expense of reason. There's just no need to do so. It's OK to enjoy mindless entertainment. I do.
Blade Runner has only been released once on DVD, over 10 years ago; as you can imagine, that DVD isn't exactly a top of the line release anymore. If they wanted to cash in easily they could've just issued a new edition with a clean transfer and sound and a few obligatory special features. If you look at the specs for these releases, they are quite comprehensive! And from what I've read about this new release it's been in the works for some time and a lot of work has gone into it... While, obviously, the studio released a new version to make money, they seem to have done a good job with this one.
And in unrelated news, the title of the sequel to "The 40 Year Old Virgin" has just been announced...
I assumed that was because Merry wasn't a man either? I can't remember if he used the sword to stab the Witch King, or the dagger given to him by Galadriel...
"The cost of media and packaging isn't really that high. At least not high enough to justify a significant price break."
Hang on a sec, you're saying that the cost of manufacturing DVDs...
...is not that different to the cost of hosting digital files on servers? Is this true? In any case, if they are using BitTorrent the cost of hosting will be borne by the customers of the service, meaning there will be virtually no cost borne by the studio in distributing these files. And what about the markup that is added by the retailer for physical DVDs, which is also inapplicable in this scenario? Shouldn't all of these things be deducted from the price of the digital download?
So, despite being presented with a ridiculously cut down product that can only be played on one computer, that must be downloaded and distributed by the customer using his or her own bandwidth, that doesn't come with any special features (seemingly), and that costs the studio less to produce and distribute than a physical product, the customer is expected to pay nearly the same amount as for a regular DVD?
So let me get this straight:
PS3:Pros
Cons
Anything I've missed? The pros are not all that impressive or unique (and are dependant on other factors). The cons on the other hand are like a punch to the solar plexus.
I concur, my experience with VLC has been that it's quite a clunky player for performing all the basic tasks you'd expect a media player to perform. It has a plethora of options for fine-tuning and what not, but when it comes to media players, most people want something that just works with minimal fuss.
It's also, as danpsmith says, buggy and prone to lock ups (the Windows version at any rate). Perhaps there're configuration changes that can be made...
I remember reading an interview with Ralph Baer in an issue of Electronic Gaming Monthly several years ago. In it Baer asserted that he had created the game and patented it before Bushnell, and that Bushnell copied his concept.
The Wikipedia entry covers pretty much everything said in that interview:
"In 1966, Ralph Baer, then working for Sanders Associates, made a design for running simple computer games over a television set. His ideas were patented, and he created a game resembling Pong proper, except with slightly more complex controls. In 1970, Baer demonstrated his video game system to corporate heads at Magnavox, who became convinced that such a device would help sell more Magnavox television sets. Magnavox and Sanders Associates joined forces, with Baer and his patents at the epicenter, to develop a stand-alone unit called the Odyssey 1TL200 to be sold to consumers for use in the home."
"... Two weeks later, Magnavox learned of Pong, and notified Atari that they already had a patent on the concept. The two companies went to court. Magnavox was able to produce witnesses who had seen Nolan playing the Odyssey's ping-pong game, and they had a guestbook from the event which Nolan had signed. The judge found in favor of Magnavox, and Atari had to pay $700,000 for use of the patents."
As I recall, Baer also invented a boatload of other things, but didn't make much off of them because the patents were owned by the company he worked for at the time. (Memory is fuzzy on the details)
Erm... Dernholm Elliot was only a stuttering buffoon in the Last Crusade. In the first Indy he seemed quite lucid and full of vigour, and it was implied that he may have once been something of an adventurer. He says that he would have gone after the Ark of the Covenant himself had he been younger, or something to that effect.
The Last Crusade is a great film, but it screwed over the characters of both Marcus Brody and Sallah - Sallah was a wily and resourceful fellow in the first film, but in Last Crusade I seem to recall him running around gathering camels or something equally degrading.
Hopefully, this trend won't continue into the forthcoming film. Given that Harrison Ford won't be as physically active as he was 20 years ago, he too may be relegated to bumbling around in the film. OK, Indy IS the film so maybe it won't be quite that bad, but even a few moments of senelity or incompetence of that nature will ruin the film. They have to find a way to make him age gracefully...
There're too many great, classic films to whittle it down to just 100. Since so many have already mentioned other classics, I won't bother to list out any more. I think we can all agree, though, that there are no bad films here. These 100 are almost certainly worthy of merit and worth seeing.
At the end of the day any such list will be subjective, and if we all made our own lists they'd be different. But the odds are if we all pooled our lists together we'd have a kick-ass mega list of great films (and maybe a few crap ones selected by crazy people). Anyway, the list has sparked a bit of debate and there seem to be plenty of recommendations that I should add to my "must see" list...
How often do you pay attention to sounds in trailers and cross-reference them with the actual movie afterwards?
Heh heh... actually, I used to watch trailers quite a bit at one point, when I was addicted to downloading and watching 'em! And yeah I have noticed line readings and sound clips change, but that's most likely because of ADR (additional dialog recording) done after the trailer is put together or because they wanted to tone down the dialogue being spoken specifically for the trailer. Although I've noticed special effects shots and the 'look' of the film being different from the trailer, I can't recall any distinctive sound effects changes... As for scenes not making the final cut, that happens quite often as well, but even they usually have the sound mixed in before being deleted.
Then again, there are lots of generic sound effects that might go unnoticed in trailers, so I can't say with any certainty that they're all the same. Sounds being dropped from the trailer, however, is something I've never noticed! As far as I'm aware, these clips are passed on from the filmmakers in a fairly complete state for inclusion in the trailers (minus score, which is added towards the end); assuming I'm correct on that point, that would mean the folks behind the trailer added sounds to those scenes. If so, has Whedon mentioned anything about it?
As for it being experimental, I stand by that point. 2001 was an exception, and it was more of an 'arty' film in any case. Given that this is being positioned as a conventional studio flick, the rules that applied to the tv series might not necessarily apply here - no sound in space is still a rarity on the big screen. Oh, and Episode II most certainly did have sound in space... except for that one sequence with the space mines dropped by Jango's ship, where the sound went dead for a few moments before the explosion. I believe that was done for dramatic effect (and not realism), because there was sound everywhere else!
Anyway, I hope there is no sound in the space sequences. If they gave Whedon free reign, that's fantastic. If not, I wouldn't be surprised if the studio insisted on something asinine like including sounds...
I think there's a fair chance the sounds WILL be in the final film. I see your point about making the trailer more flashy than the film itself, but I can't think of any films where the trailer added sounds from outside the film's sound mix just for the trailer.
They probably had to make some concessions to the studio in order to bring Firefly to the big screen. I doubt that the suits would have been eager to try something as experimental as taking out sound from space battles. And let's face it, most people in the audience will think something's wrong with the sound or the film's budget was stretched too thin to include good sound effects! Hollywood has programmed viewers to expect sound in space, so that's the norm. I'd love to be proven wrong though...
I agree, I was skeptical when I heard about the remake. But if you look at it, they've taken the best things about the original - the overall concept of civilization being wiped out, the rag-tag fleet, and the memorable characters - and wrapped it all up in a layer of realism that the original lacked. Yeah yeah, I know it's sci-fi; by realism I mean verisimilitude... The characters are flawed and actually change over time (look at how Roslin goes from a 'school teacher' to a cold and calculating politician), the logistical problems of the fleet are addressed, etc... The show's really in a class of its own...