Fox's list of sins is WAY longer than that. Back in the late-80's/early-90's they were the network that took chances with geeky, outrageous, and genre shows that the big three wouldn't touch. But by the turn of the century they were the network you went to when you wanted your show canceled as quickly as possible, and they only really stuck with reality shows and bland stuff just like the big three. In a period of about 15 years, they went from a willingness to indulge oddball shows like "Get a Life" for several seasons...to indulging shows for two seasons...to indulging them for one season...to canceling them after a few episodes. "Strange Luck," "TV Nation," "Wonderfalls," "Firefly," those are just a few of the interesting shows that never really got a chance. There for a while, Friday nights on Fox were listed in TV Guide as "8pm: doomed show, 9pm: X-files"
I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that a movie is going to get made for sure because it has an IMDB entry? If so, you really need to lay off the glass pipe.
He filmed Tropic Thunder before he hit it big again with the first Iron Man. If you look at everything he's made since then, it's all been big-budget stuff. He only did the lower-budget/indie stuff when his career was on the skids. Downey isn't a conscientious actor like a Matt Damon, who will take on a lower-budget project just for the acting challenge. He wants the big paycheck. It's just a question of whether his career is in the right place to get him that big paycheck. And right now, it definitely is.
Interesting approach. Just hire a heroin dealer to offer him free samples at his next premiere. Won't be long before he's having to slum it again in the indie world.
Trying to get anything built in New York or Boston involves bribes and corruption too (probably quite a few other cities too), but companies still build there.
Ask the libertarian if he will house a prisoner, and he will say "NO!" Ask the libertarian if he will repair his road, and he will say "NO!" Ask the libertarian if he will give up his medicare, and he will say "NO!" Ask the libertarian if he would abolish government, and he will say "YES!"
I personally don't think this movie will ever get made. The first clue that this is not a serious project is the fact that the studio is talking about Robert Downey, Jr. playing Iron Man. There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.
As far as Whedon goes, he's one of these guys that studios often bring in to write/rewrite scripts just to test the waters on early projects. His name generates some buzz, and the studio may or may not get an interesting script out of him. He also works cheap (an important consideration these days in an era of "tentpole" movies with exploding FX budgets, and multitudes of comic book franchises in the works). Though geeks think of him as an A-lister, Hollywood doesn't. If you look at the guy's financial track record, you'll see he's very small-time by Hollywood standards and has had WAY more failures than successes. At the risk of committing geek blashemy, I personally he's overrated, though he did do excellent work with the characters and dialogue in "Alien Resurrection" and "Firefly" (essentially the same set of characters, but well played with depth and wit on both counts).
I suspect the studio is just looking for a little PR. The "Robert Downey is going to play Iron Man in the Avengers" thing is probably just to get some PR for "Iron Man 2." They know that's not going to happen. Hiring Joss Whedon may be a good way to get some geek buzz, but it doesn't indicate in any way that the studio is serious about actually making this movie. Until the real money starts to flow (i.e. when they actually start filming with the A-list talent), it's just another "Superman Lives"/"Green Lantern"/"Captain America" project that could spend decades in limbo and go through many directors/writers before it actually amounts to anything (if ever).
I wasn't joking. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if these drives come loaded with something similar to what Sony did with the Sims and their infamous rootkit CD's.
They also come loaded with a DRM system that will probably function like a virus or some form of malware to not only make it impossible to watch these movies without calling into the server, but also possibly scanning your system for other Paramount movies and either deleting them or reporting you to the MPAA. They could include 100 movies and it still wouldn't be worth it to have something like that lurking around on my system.
Frankly, I would have more trust in a hard drive I bought from a sleazy-looking dude with a Russian accent hanging on my local street corner. And Sergey is not very trustworthy.
And even when they do, there are still ways for the original owners to reclaim copyright later if the property becomes worth something. This is what happened with "It's a Wonderful Life."
Yes, but he also has notoriously bad luck when it comes to actually getting his movies made. And he's way past his filmmaking prime too (his last few projects have either been abysmal failures or disappointments). He hasn't made a good film since "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and hasn't made a truly brilliant film since "12 Monkeys."
It used to be leaps and bounds ahead, but in the last few years, I'm not so sure. The GP is right, it seems like almost every kooky story about oppressive laws, internet filtering, censorship, etc. is coming out of Australia lately. Even China is starting to look more open than Australia, and that's just sad. I'm glad that Australians are trying to do something about this, but it certainly took them long enough to finally realize that their country's international reputation is starting to really suffer.
It's also been my experience that this will get you a lot of liars too. But that's easy enough to screen out at the first interview if the supervisor or senior programmer doing the interviewing actually knows anything about the languages himself. And if he doesn't, you probably shouldn't be listing them on the requirements in the first place (since your company obviously doesn't actually use them).
Slashdot Mirror
Fox's list of sins is WAY longer than that. Back in the late-80's/early-90's they were the network that took chances with geeky, outrageous, and genre shows that the big three wouldn't touch. But by the turn of the century they were the network you went to when you wanted your show canceled as quickly as possible, and they only really stuck with reality shows and bland stuff just like the big three. In a period of about 15 years, they went from a willingness to indulge oddball shows like "Get a Life" for several seasons...to indulging shows for two seasons...to indulging them for one season...to canceling them after a few episodes. "Strange Luck," "TV Nation," "Wonderfalls," "Firefly," those are just a few of the interesting shows that never really got a chance. There for a while, Friday nights on Fox were listed in TV Guide as "8pm: doomed show, 9pm: X-files"
I don't think I understand what you're saying. Are you saying that a movie is going to get made for sure because it has an IMDB entry? If so, you really need to lay off the glass pipe.
He filmed Tropic Thunder before he hit it big again with the first Iron Man. If you look at everything he's made since then, it's all been big-budget stuff. He only did the lower-budget/indie stuff when his career was on the skids. Downey isn't a conscientious actor like a Matt Damon, who will take on a lower-budget project just for the acting challenge. He wants the big paycheck. It's just a question of whether his career is in the right place to get him that big paycheck. And right now, it definitely is.
Interesting approach. Just hire a heroin dealer to offer him free samples at his next premiere. Won't be long before he's having to slum it again in the indie world.
Trying to get anything built in New York or Boston involves bribes and corruption too (probably quite a few other cities too), but companies still build there.
Ask the libertarian if he will house a prisoner, and he will say "NO!"
Ask the libertarian if he will repair his road, and he will say "NO!"
Ask the libertarian if he will give up his medicare, and he will say "NO!"
Ask the libertarian if he would abolish government, and he will say "YES!"
No, I'm unrated, with bonus footage not seen in the theatrical release.
I personally don't think this movie will ever get made. The first clue that this is not a serious project is the fact that the studio is talking about Robert Downey, Jr. playing Iron Man. There is no way that a) Downey is going to agree to doing an ensemble picture as a bit player after headlining 2+ Iron Man movies, or b) That the studio is going to spring for the big money it would take to hire him, just for an ensemble role in a risky new franchise.
As far as Whedon goes, he's one of these guys that studios often bring in to write/rewrite scripts just to test the waters on early projects. His name generates some buzz, and the studio may or may not get an interesting script out of him. He also works cheap (an important consideration these days in an era of "tentpole" movies with exploding FX budgets, and multitudes of comic book franchises in the works). Though geeks think of him as an A-lister, Hollywood doesn't. If you look at the guy's financial track record, you'll see he's very small-time by Hollywood standards and has had WAY more failures than successes. At the risk of committing geek blashemy, I personally he's overrated, though he did do excellent work with the characters and dialogue in "Alien Resurrection" and "Firefly" (essentially the same set of characters, but well played with depth and wit on both counts).
I suspect the studio is just looking for a little PR. The "Robert Downey is going to play Iron Man in the Avengers" thing is probably just to get some PR for "Iron Man 2." They know that's not going to happen. Hiring Joss Whedon may be a good way to get some geek buzz, but it doesn't indicate in any way that the studio is serious about actually making this movie. Until the real money starts to flow (i.e. when they actually start filming with the A-list talent), it's just another "Superman Lives"/"Green Lantern"/"Captain America" project that could spend decades in limbo and go through many directors/writers before it actually amounts to anything (if ever).
I wasn't joking. It wouldn't surprise me a bit if these drives come loaded with something similar to what Sony did with the Sims and their infamous rootkit CD's.
Ah, nuts to this! The fix is always in with these mugs.
Oh, I know it's not free. I was just responding to a poster who seemed to think it was.
They also come loaded with a DRM system that will probably function like a virus or some form of malware to not only make it impossible to watch these movies without calling into the server, but also possibly scanning your system for other Paramount movies and either deleting them or reporting you to the MPAA. They could include 100 movies and it still wouldn't be worth it to have something like that lurking around on my system.
Frankly, I would have more trust in a hard drive I bought from a sleazy-looking dude with a Russian accent hanging on my local street corner. And Sergey is not very trustworthy.
In Soviet Russia you are free to vote for any party you wish, as long as it's a front for the official party.
Hush, you fool! Do you want to invoke the wrath of Father Steve?
But for how long? I mean, it's not like they can't just pull it anytime they want later, once some of the PR that Opera stirred up has settled down.
Like I said, disappointing. Actually, I think Dr. Parnassus was better than Tideland.
But I *liked* the heroin and potholes.
And even when they do, there are still ways for the original owners to reclaim copyright later if the property becomes worth something. This is what happened with "It's a Wonderful Life."
SNL even made a parody of this infamous product phase, touting the new "Crystal Gravy".
No, but the filmmakers could opt to spend $100,000 of their $200 million budget for a better script. But that's crazy talk.
Yes, but he also has notoriously bad luck when it comes to actually getting his movies made. And he's way past his filmmaking prime too (his last few projects have either been abysmal failures or disappointments). He hasn't made a good film since "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and hasn't made a truly brilliant film since "12 Monkeys."
It used to be leaps and bounds ahead, but in the last few years, I'm not so sure. The GP is right, it seems like almost every kooky story about oppressive laws, internet filtering, censorship, etc. is coming out of Australia lately. Even China is starting to look more open than Australia, and that's just sad. I'm glad that Australians are trying to do something about this, but it certainly took them long enough to finally realize that their country's international reputation is starting to really suffer.
It's also been my experience that this will get you a lot of liars too. But that's easy enough to screen out at the first interview if the supervisor or senior programmer doing the interviewing actually knows anything about the languages himself. And if he doesn't, you probably shouldn't be listing them on the requirements in the first place (since your company obviously doesn't actually use them).
Get a haircut, hippie!
As someone who has been coding Java for over 20 years now, I resent your implication that experience doesn't count.