list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around Armageddon on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/Armageddon/114669/default.aspx Title: Armageddon
Year: 1998
Director: Michael Bay
Plot: Michael Bay (The Rock) directed this science fiction action thriller in the When Worlds Collide tradition. After astronomy students discover a comet-asteroid collision, an asteroid fragment "the size of the Super Dome" threatens. It's destroyed by a secret USA defense in space, but a large chunk veers off toward Singapore. With another asteroid "the size of Texas" en route, a plan is devised to send oil drillers to land on the asteroid and drop a nuclear device down a 1000-foot shaft, a scheme calculated to crack the asteroid into two halves, saving Earth. NASA begins a crash program to train beer-besotted oil roughnecks for the mission. During a stopover to refuel at the Mir Station, the space station is accidentally destroyed, so a Russian cosmonaut also joins the team. Produced by Bay, Jerry Bruckheimer (Con Air), and Gale Anne Hurd (The Relic, The Abyss). ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 74
Number of Lists: 78
Number of blog posts: 13
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:12:13 GMTArmageddon1998Michael Bay<a href="/players/P___203853/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Michael Bay</a> (<a href=/films/93513/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Rock</a>) directed this science fiction action thriller in the <a href=/films/38049/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>When Worlds Collide</a> tradition. After astronomy students discover a comet-asteroid collision, an asteroid fragment "the size of the Super Dome" threatens. It's destroyed by a secret USA defense in space, but a large chunk veers off toward Singapore. With another asteroid "the size of Texas" en route, a plan is devised to send oil drillers to land on the asteroid and drop a nuclear device down a 1000-foot shaft, a scheme calculated to crack the asteroid into two halves, saving Earth. NASA begins a crash program to train beer-besotted oil roughnecks for the mission. During a stopover to refuel at the Mir Station, the space station is accidentally destroyed, so a Russian cosmonaut also joins the team. Produced by Bay, <a href="/players/P____83309/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jerry Bruckheimer</a> (<a href=/films/111011/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Con Air</a>), and <a href="/players/P____95228/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Gale Anne Hurd</a> (The Relic, <a href=/films/338/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>The Abyss</a>). ~ Bhob Stewart, All Movie Guide74Tag Target (>10)781363http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t61174nsbjq.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/Armageddon/114669/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Re_Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39162/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: pippin06
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/6/2009 4:31:27 PM
Body: [quote user="csprague"] I have seen a lot of disaster movies, some more likely to happen than others. For example, Armageddon, was, in my opinion, ridiculous. But then again, so is anything directed by Michael Bay. Others have seemed more probable, such as Deep Impact, although the acting left something to be desired. Oh well, what disaster movies do you think are more probable than others? [/quote] Dude! This is only semi-related to this discussion, but while waiting in the auto shop for my car to get fixed yesterday, I was forced to watch the History Channel, and they're running a week long series about the apocalypse, and the whole program I was watching focused on whether the prophecies in Revelation (the Bible) are possibly coming true and examining faith versus science in a very cursory, non-controversial type way as to the end of the world. I already have the heebee jeebies because of that, and now we have to consider what might destroy the world? :-) Well, the History Channel program and its interviewed scientists said that it is a statistical probability that a large asteroid will hit the Earth in this geological age and forever change its climate (possibly trigger another geological age) and/or destroy huge chunks of life, so Deep Impact (at least) and Armageddon (at laughable worst minus the improbable rescue attempt) is all quite possible. I vote for giant crash-landing asteroid.
]]>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:31:27 GMTpippin06DOOMSDAY1/6/2009 4:31:27 PM[quote user="csprague"] I have seen a lot of disaster movies, some more likely to happen than others. For example, Armageddon, was, in my opinion, ridiculous. But then again, so is anything directed by Michael Bay. Others have seemed more probable, such as Deep Impact, although the acting left something to be desired. Oh well, what disaster movies do you think are more probable than others? [/quote] Dude! This is only semi-related to this discussion, but while waiting in the auto shop for my car to get fixed yesterday, I was forced to watch the History Channel, and they're running a week long series about the apocalypse, and the whole program I was watching focused on whether the prophecies in Revelation (the Bible) are possibly coming true and examining faith versus science in a very cursory, non-controversial type way as to the end of the world. I already have the heebee jeebies because of that, and now we have to consider what might destroy the world? :-) Well, the History Channel program and its interviewed scientists said that it is a statistical probability that a large asteroid will hit the Earth in this geological age and forever change its climate (possibly trigger another geological age) and/or destroy huge chunks of life, so Deep Impact (at least) and Armageddon (at laughable worst minus the improbable rescue attempt) is all quite possible. I vote for giant crash-landing asteroid. http://www.spout.com/groups/DOOMSDAY/Disaster_Most_Likely_to_End_the_World/612/39159/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: csprague
Post To: DOOMSDAY
Post Date: 1/6/2009 4:13:39 PM
Body: I have seen a lot of disaster movies, some more likely to happen than others. For example, Armageddon, was, in my opinion, ridiculous. But then again, so is anything directed by Michael Bay. Others have seemed more probable, such as Deep Impact, although the acting left something to be desired. Oh well, what disaster movies do you think are more probable than others?
]]>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:13:39 GMTcspragueDOOMSDAY1/6/2009 4:13:39 PMI have seen a lot of disaster movies, some more likely to happen than others. For example, Armageddon, was, in my opinion, ridiculous. But then again, so is anything directed by Michael Bay. Others have seemed more probable, such as Deep Impact, although the acting left something to be desired. Oh well, what disaster movies do you think are more probable than others? http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/4/36940.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM
Body: Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 04 Nov 2008 17:01:19 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/4/2008 12:01:19 PM Before you go to the polls today, you need to understand where the candidates stand on the really big issues. No, I don’t mean silly stuff like the economy. I mean the issues that threaten to plunge the world into an era of scorched, apocalyptic savagery. Sure, an ongoing war in the Middle East and gradual climate change are kind of scary, but how will Obama and McCain respond to the threats that can wipe out 99% of humanity overnight? These are dire times, and doomsday cinema has made one thing clear: this will probably be our last president before Armageddon sweeps from sea to shining see, so we’d better choose wisely. After the jump we look at where the candidates stand on the issues, from Alien Invasion to Zombie Plague. Near Earth Object Collision The possibility of a near Earth object (such as a huge comet or meteor) striking Earth and wiping out all life has been used films like Deep Impact and Armageddon, and it’s actually quite possible. It’s unlikely to happen in the next four years, but over the next several millennia, a devastating impact event is very likely. It doesn’t hurt to be prepared. Under which administration would we be least likely to be burned to a crisp when the big one hits? Obama: BarackObama.com has a .PDF available for download describing the candidate’s positions on issues pertaining to science and innovation. It’s pretty hard to find, the document is filed under the “Additional Issues” section of the website. There’s plenty of good stuff in there, but NASA, the organization most likely to be watching out for huge rocks in the sky, is only mentioned in a very small paragraph on the second to last page. The points are rather general, along the lines of “make it better.” McCain: JohnMcCain.com is much more explicit in outlining the candidate’s policies on space. While he doesn’t mention detection of near Earth objects, he does set aside a paragraph to explain why expensive and dangerous manned space missions are important. He says they exhibit courage and are illustrative of America’s status as a superpower. Who comes out on top? I’d have to say McCain. Preventing human extinction in the event of an interstellar impact requires two things: One, preparedness in the form of early warnings and sufficient response technology. And two, the balls to do something about it. While Obama’s commitment to increase basic research funding over the next ten years will help us be prepared, McCain’s fighter pilot instincts and commitment to put men aboard insanely suicidal space missions is essential. Both Deep Impact and Armageddon feature astronauts (who are often just exceptional fighter pilots) making the ultimate sacrifice to save innocent lives. Biological Terrorism Remember that scene in 12 Monkeys where the crazy scientist/terrorist is going through airport security with vials of a super-virus he engineered to wipe out the human race, and the security guard seems only mildly curious before letting him pass? While the TSA seems mostly useless, a biological attack certainly wouldn’t be that easy now. That said, we’re still not even close to being safe from the threat of viruses that melt flesh, turn people into savage killers, or transform humanity into flesh-hungry zombies. What are the candidates going to do to protect us from these threats? Obama: In the aforementioned .PDF on science policy, Obama laments that under the Bush administration “DARPA has retreated from its traditional commitment to invest in long-term, high-risk, high-return research.” Translation: let’s put money into technology that will protect us from far-out, freaky, sci-fi shit. This includes “microsystems, nanotechnology, … synthetic biology, and advanced manufacturing.” So not only will we be prepared for a biological strike, we’ll have a garrison of mech warriors up and running by 2012. McCain: National security is seen as a strong issue for McCain. Indeed, his ideas about tightening border security seem practical and effective, especially keeping a closer eye on the contents of the millions of shipping containers that enter our ports every year. He also has an interesting, and very Republican, idea about involving the private sector in disaster response. True, FedEx is better at tracking shipments than FEMA, but in the event of a contagious zombie plague, the last place you’ll want to go is WalMart, unless you’re planning on looting chainsaws, shotguns, and football pads. Who comes out on top? I may be going against conventional wisdom here, but I’ve got to say Obama. Super secret DARPA funding will lead to technologies that will not only save us, but will totally kick ass. In all seriousness, though, Obama’s willingness to actually talk to the people who are mad at us convinces me he’ll be more effective at stopping terrorism. Alien Invasion A staple of science fiction for well over a century, an attack from outer space would be the ultimate test for a president. The goal here is to be like Bill Pullman’s inspiring President Whitmore from Independence Day, and nothing like Jack Nicholson’s corrupt President Dale from Mars Attacks!. Obama: Obama’s increased funding of science research and DARPA, as mentioned above, would be helpful. But his charisma and diplomatic tact will have little affect on a superior race that views humanity as little more than a colony of pests. McCain: McCain’s strength on defense and his priority on manned space missions would make militarized space flight a reality within a few short years. Unlike terrestrial conflicts, we might benefit from the Republican shoot first, ask questions later defense policy. A full-scale invasion of Earth would take a considerable amount of planning. Under a McCain administration, those flying saucers performing reconnaissance missions would be quickly destroyed, sending a powerful message back to Alpha Centuri: Don’t mess with us. Who comes out on top? McCain, hands down. Bill Pullman’s President Whitmore practically is John McCain. They’re both decorated fighter pilots from Vietnam. And I’m sure McCain would jump back in the cockpit if humanity needed him. Environmental Calamity From The Day After Tomorrow to Wall-E, environmental disasters are common in film. An essential element in these tales is hubris on the part of the world leaders, who don’t act until it’s far too late. Since Al Gore is not running this year, which candidate is better prepared to prevent the world from filling up with trash and toxic gas? Obama: I’ve got to give Obama credit because his environmental policies actually deal with something beyond climate change and energy independence, issues like mercury, air pollution, and water shortages. Of course curbing greenhouse gas emissions is the big enchilada, and his plan seems pretty good. It’s also almost identical to McCain’s plan, at least that’s my impression after perusing each candidate’s website. McCain: McCain’s cap and trade plan to address greenhouse gases looks pretty good (which, considering the record of his party, is a tremendous compliment). One discrepancy is that McCain seems more willing to offer free carbon credits to certain industries that could be stifled by a cap and trade system (like big oil). Neither site is very clear on how such exceptions would be granted. Who comes out on top? Obama, but in a way, it’s a shame. The Democrats pretty much always have a leg up on the Republicans when it comes to the environment, and that’s never been truer than in the last eight years. But this is one issue where McCain’s claim that he would be nothing like Bush is totally legit. As far as Republicans go, McCain is actually pretty green, but Obama still edges him out. Hopefully McCain represents a new kind of Republican, because preventing an ecological apocalypse will require bipartisan effort. If not, we’d better start building a huge spaceship and an adorable little robot to clean up after us. Conclusion: Well, it looks like a tie. Whichever candidate wins, things are looking up in my opinion. Now all we need to do is stave off World War III until January 20. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/9/30/35719.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 9/30/2008 2:00:37 PM
Body: Bailout talks implode, leaving economy’s fate unresolved, Chavez reaffirms Russia alliance during visit, Pirates seize ship carrying tanks, ammo. Just click over to CNN.com or any other news site and you’ll see why post-apocalyptic and doomsday movies seem more relevant than ever.  The doomsday scenarios in movies can be pretty outlandish, but some of them are actually plausible. After all, in world where pirates have tanks, Hollywood doesn’t need to stray far from reality for a good yarn. Below the jump, we put five doomsday movie scenarios to the plausibility test. If you’ve always secretly thought Waterworld was a work of dead-on global warming prophecy, read on. 5. Waterworld The doomsday scenario: Global warming causes the complete melt of glaciers and polar ice caps, flooding nearly the entire planet. Could it really happen? No. Make no mistake, rising sea levels due to climate change are very likely to cause major problems in the the next century, but a near-total covering of the world in water is not possible. While the melting polar ice caps are destroying the habitat of the polar bear, it’s important to remember that most of the Northern ice cap is already floating in the ocean, so its contribution to sea level rise will not be as severe as Greenland or Antarctica. And even if all the ice melted off of those two land masses, the collective sea level rise would be about 67 meters, or 220 feet. That’s very bad news if you live in Amsterdam or New Orleans, but it’s certainly not enough to cover all but the highest mountains, as in the film. We also shouldn’t expect those chucks of ice to melt too fast. It will likely take a thousand years or more for them to be gone completely, so we’ll have plenty of time to hoard paper and build cool boats, or just move to Denver. 4. The Terminator/The Matrix (Separate films, similar problem) The doomsday scenario: Computers converge into one super intelligence, hell-bent on destroying the useless parasite known as humanity. Could it really happen? Probably not. In the 1980’s Vernor Vinge popularized the theory of a technological singularity. The basic idea is that computers will eventually become smart enough to think for themselves, and therefore make even smarter computers. Those computers would then make even smarter computers, and so on until the exponential growth of artificial intelligence goes far beyond human comprehension. At this point, as in The Terminator and The Matrix films, the machines would realize they no longer need humanity and seek to eliminate it. Most credible scientists doubt Vinge’s hypothesis. While it’s easy to imagine the exponential growth of computing power, as Moore’s Law does, it’s a big jump to assume that such increased power will lead to the creative thinking that would be required for self-improvement. So that’s the good news, the bad news is that if the singularity did want to destroy humanity, it wouldn’t be nearly so merciful as the machines in The Terminator and The Matrix. I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the super intelligence to master the fields of biology and nanotechnology, at which point it would engineer a super virus that would wipe out humanity in a mater of minutes. Is it really a smart use of robot-overlord resources to send mechanized assassins back in time or dispatch swarms of tentacled machines into abandoned sewer tunnels? Sure, biological warfare seems like cheating in human-on-human conflict, but I doubt the machines would be so forgiving. 3. Blindness The doomsday scenario: The entire population except for one woman goes blind almost instantly. Mass hysteria breaks out, quarantines are ineffective, the strong and brutal hoard food and commit atrocities. Could it really happen? Maybe. There is a form of infectious blindness, caused by the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis. It’s usually passed physically, through towels or by touching an infected person’s eyes. It’s most common among children in poor areas where hygiene is lacking. The up side is that it takes a while, unlike the mysterious plague in Blindness. The down side is that blindness caused by trachoma is extremely painful, as the eyelids turn inwards, scratching the surface of the eye to the point where it’s no longer transparent. In its current state, Chlamydia trachomatis could not cause instant mass blindness, but if by some fluke the bacteria became exponentially more contagious, we could be in for a dark future. 2. Children of Men The doomsday scenario: Mass infertility. In the film the cause is unknown. Not only are women unable to get pregnant, pregnancies in progress also fail when the mysterious event occurs. Could it really happen? Maybe. In the landmark 1995 book Our Stolen Future, the authors examine how chemical pollutants effect reproductive health. In short, there are an increasing number of chemicals floating around that mimic hormones. These have been shown to cause all sorts of problems including reduced puberty age, fetal defects, and reduced sperm counts. The kicker is that many of these chemicals are extremely persistent, meaning that they do not break down. So even if the junk leaching out of your Nalgene bottle is very slight, it will join the other hormone disruptors lodged in your fat cells until they gather enough friends to do some real damage, even if it takes several generations. This differs from the film in that it’s likely to be far more gradual. A steady decline in global sperm count wouldn’t effect pregnancies in progress, and we’d see it coming. 1. Armageddon The doomsday scenario: A huge asteroid strikes Earth, wiping out every living thing. Could it really happen? Yes. It nearly happened 65 million years ago, causing the extinction of most dinosaur species, and it could happen again. More recently, a meteor or comet exploded over a remote region of Siberia in 1908, detonating with the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, knocking over trees in an 830 square mile area, and on the scheme of things, that was a small one. The US government and the UN have recently begun to take the threat of asteroid collision more seriously, but that doesn’t mean we’re prepared. Many experts put this scenario at the top of their list of likely causes of human extinction. There have been several near-misses, some quite recently. As far as we know, the rock that most likely has our name on it is (29075) 1950 DA, which could spin through space in one of two ways: if it picks door number 1, it will miss us by millions of miles, if it picks door number 2, it will have a 1 in 300 chance of ruining everyones’ day. Luckily, that day won’t come until March 16, 2880. In the meantime, we can work out a reliable way to either destroy the asteroid, as they did in Armageddon, or alter its course and eliminate the threat. The latter solution is looking more reasonable at the moment, but it’s no surprise Michael Bay preferred interstellar nuclear weapons to a film about altering an asteroid’s course by a fraction of a degree using the gravitational pull of an unmanned spacecraft. The really scary part, however, is that while about 800 near-Earth objects larger than 1 km across (the really bad ones) have been accounted for, many estimate that about 200 have yet to be found. Let’s just hope they find the one heading for us in time to get Bruce Willis and his team from their offshore oil rig and into a nuke-laden space shuttle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 30 Sep 2008 18:00:37 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com9/30/2008 2:00:37 PMBailout talks implode, leaving economy’s fate unresolved, Chavez reaffirms Russia alliance during visit, Pirates seize ship carrying tanks, ammo. Just click over to CNN.com or any other news site and you’ll see why post-apocalyptic and doomsday movies seem more relevant than ever.  The doomsday scenarios in movies can be pretty outlandish, but some of them are actually plausible. After all, in world where pirates have tanks, Hollywood doesn’t need to stray far from reality for a good yarn. Below the jump, we put five doomsday movie scenarios to the plausibility test. If you’ve always secretly thought Waterworld was a work of dead-on global warming prophecy, read on. 5. Waterworld The doomsday scenario: Global warming causes the complete melt of glaciers and polar ice caps, flooding nearly the entire planet. Could it really happen? No. Make no mistake, rising sea levels due to climate change are very likely to cause major problems in the the next century, but a near-total covering of the world in water is not possible. While the melting polar ice caps are destroying the habitat of the polar bear, it’s important to remember that most of the Northern ice cap is already floating in the ocean, so its contribution to sea level rise will not be as severe as Greenland or Antarctica. And even if all the ice melted off of those two land masses, the collective sea level rise would be about 67 meters, or 220 feet. That’s very bad news if you live in Amsterdam or New Orleans, but it’s certainly not enough to cover all but the highest mountains, as in the film. We also shouldn’t expect those chucks of ice to melt too fast. It will likely take a thousand years or more for them to be gone completely, so we’ll have plenty of time to hoard paper and build cool boats, or just move to Denver. 4. The Terminator/The Matrix (Separate films, similar problem) The doomsday scenario: Computers converge into one super intelligence, hell-bent on destroying the useless parasite known as humanity. Could it really happen? Probably not. In the 1980’s Vernor Vinge popularized the theory of a technological singularity. The basic idea is that computers will eventually become smart enough to think for themselves, and therefore make even smarter computers. Those computers would then make even smarter computers, and so on until the exponential growth of artificial intelligence goes far beyond human comprehension. At this point, as in The Terminator and The Matrix films, the machines would realize they no longer need humanity and seek to eliminate it. Most credible scientists doubt Vinge’s hypothesis. While it’s easy to imagine the exponential growth of computing power, as Moore’s Law does, it’s a big jump to assume that such increased power will lead to the creative thinking that would be required for self-improvement. So that’s the good news, the bad news is that if the singularity did want to destroy humanity, it wouldn’t be nearly so merciful as the machines in The Terminator and The Matrix. I’m sure it wouldn’t take long for the super intelligence to master the fields of biology and nanotechnology, at which point it would engineer a super virus that would wipe out humanity in a mater of minutes. Is it really a smart use of robot-overlord resources to send mechanized assassins back in time or dispatch swarms of tentacled machines into abandoned sewer tunnels? Sure, biological warfare seems like cheating in human-on-human conflict, but I doubt the machines would be so forgiving. 3. Blindness The doomsday scenario: The entire population except for one woman goes blind almost instantly. Mass hysteria breaks out, quarantines are ineffective, the strong and brutal hoard food and commit atrocities. Could it really happen? Maybe. There is a form of infectious blindness, caused by the bacterium Chlamydia trachomatis. It’s usually passed physically, through towels or by touching an infected person’s eyes. It’s most common among children in poor areas where hygiene is lacking. The up side is that it takes a while, unlike the mysterious plague in Blindness. The down side is that blindness caused by trachoma is extremely painful, as the eyelids turn inwards, scratching the surface of the eye to the point where it’s no longer transparent. In its current state, Chlamydia trachomatis could not cause instant mass blindness, but if by some fluke the bacteria became exponentially more contagious, we could be in for a dark future. 2. Children of Men The doomsday scenario: Mass infertility. In the film the cause is unknown. Not only are women unable to get pregnant, pregnancies in progress also fail when the mysterious event occurs. Could it really happen? Maybe. In the landmark 1995 book Our Stolen Future, the authors examine how chemical pollutants effect reproductive health. In short, there are an increasing number of chemicals floating around that mimic hormones. These have been shown to cause all sorts of problems including reduced puberty age, fetal defects, and reduced sperm counts. The kicker is that many of these chemicals are extremely persistent, meaning that they do not break down. So even if the junk leaching out of your Nalgene bottle is very slight, it will join the other hormone disruptors lodged in your fat cells until they gather enough friends to do some real damage, even if it takes several generations. This differs from the film in that it’s likely to be far more gradual. A steady decline in global sperm count wouldn’t effect pregnancies in progress, and we’d see it coming. 1. Armageddon The doomsday scenario: A huge asteroid strikes Earth, wiping out every living thing. Could it really happen? Yes. It nearly happened 65 million years ago, causing the extinction of most dinosaur species, and it could happen again. More recently, a meteor or comet exploded over a remote region of Siberia in 1908, detonating with the force of 1,000 Hiroshima bombs, knocking over trees in an 830 square mile area, and on the scheme of things, that was a small one. The US government and the UN have recently begun to take the threat of asteroid collision more seriously, but that doesn’t mean we’re prepared. Many experts put this scenario at the top of their list of likely causes of human extinction. There have been several near-misses, some quite recently. As far as we know, the rock that most likely has our name on it is (29075) 1950 DA, which could spin through space in one of two ways: if it picks door number 1, it will miss us by millions of miles, if it picks door number 2, it will have a 1 in 300 chance of ruining everyones’ day. Luckily, that day won’t come until March 16, 2880. In the meantime, we can work out a reliable way to either destroy the asteroid, as they did in Armageddon, or alter its course and eliminate the threat. The latter solution is looking more reasonable at the moment, but it’s no surprise Michael Bay preferred interstellar nuclear weapons to a film about altering an asteroid’s course by a fraction of a degree using the gravitational pull of an unmanned spacecraft. The really scary part, however, is that while about 800 near-Earth objects larger than 1 km across (the really bad ones) have been accounted for, many estimate that about 200 have yet to be found. Let’s just hope they find the one heading for us in time to get Bruce Willis and his team from their offshore oil rig and into a nuke-laden space shuttle. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/2/32031.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/2/2008 2:01:03 PM
Body: Jonathan Levine’s crowd-pleasing (in terms of audience awards at festivals, not in terms of uplifting Hollywood endings) film The Wackness opens in limited release tomorrow. In case you haven’t noticed from the ads and the soundtrack, it takes place in the New York City of 1994, a special time for the place because Rudy Giuliani had just become mayor and was beginning to clean up the city, Goldie Wilson-stylee (OK, not really Goldie Wilson-stylee, but who doesn’t love a good BTTF reference?). NYC in the ’90s was quite special for me. It’s when I moved here. And moved here a second time (I’ve since moved here a third time), and watching The Wackness made me nostalgic for the decade. It also made me think of some of the other films from or set in that period, a number of which kind of define my experience with the city. 1990: Quick Change - It’s a bit ironic that this comedy, which features Bill Murray putting down the city non-stop, is the movie that really represents NYC on film for me. Actually, considering Tootsie was probably my first exposure to NYC on screen and Ghostbusters was the movie that made me want to visit Manhattan more often (I grew up in nearby Connecticut), I guess Murray was kind of like my ambassador to New York. My current jogging route goes through a neighborhood that’s prominently used in Quick Change, and whenever I pass the spot where I can see the Statue of Liberty across the bay, I think of the movie and have trouble believing anyone could want to get out of here as much as Murray’s character does. 1991: The Fisher King - One of my favorite spots in all of NYC is Grand Central Terminal, partially because it was my gateway to the city but mostly because of this film’s employment of the station for a fantasy waltz number in the main concourse. It’s one of my favorite scenes in film history, though I’m not quite sure if I love the scene because I already loved the station or if I fell in love with the station because of this scene. 1992: Definitely, Maybe - I can’t think of many movies that look back to NYC in the ’90s the way The Wackness does. There’s Austin Chick’s XX/XY, which I haven’t seen, and there’s this recent movie, which flashes back to 1992 and then continues through the decade. Two fun little gags I appreciated as a NYC settler are the bit about cigarettes costing so much more here and the spot-on comment about how one day suddenly everyone in the city had a cell phone, which they haven’t put down since. 1993: Manhattan Murder Mystery - Obviously there has to be a Woody Allen movie on this list. It may not be the best, but it’s Allen’s New York, it’s from 1993, and it’s got that great Cole Porter song at the beginning. 1994: Leon (The Professional) - The Wackness will now take over the 1994 spot, but the previous place holder was this action classic. It’s nice, because it has a sort of outsider’s perspective of the city — thanks to both the lead character and the director hailing from France — that I still had at the time. Much of the movie, though, lacks the strong touristy, landmark-heavy NYC that a lot of movies set here display (you can barely even make out the Twin Towers in the opening montage). And had it been made a few years later, it probably wouldn’t have even been shot here. Fortunately, it was, and I got my first cinematic introduction to the Roosevelt Island tram (years before seeing it in Spider-Man), which I’ll always be afraid of riding. 1995: Kids - I saw Larry Clark’s film a few weeks before moving to Manhattan for school, and I thought it would prepare me for the worst. But aside from seeing Chloe Sevigny around the neighborhood, I actually didn’t come in contact with a lot of kids like those featured in the movie. Of course, I was hanging out with nerdy film students, not local high schoolers. 1996: Girl 6 - I admit, I’ve never seen this, but just as with Woody, this list has to include one film from Spike Lee. And this one is at least appropriate to my experience, because my acting teacher at the time plays an acting teacher in the film. 1997: Escape from New York - Thanks to Giuliani, the NYC of ‘97 didn’t look like it did in John Carpenter’s science fiction film, which came out back in 1981. Of course, some people felt like Giuliani made Manhattan more like a prison than was depicted on screen. 1998: Godzilla - In the same summer, moviegoers saw parts of NYC destroyed in Armageddon, Deep Impact and Godzilla. So why am I including the worst one, which also made the least amount of money — also the one I actually didn’t bother seeing? Because while it was being made, there were tanks all over the part of Manhattan that I frequented, and though I eventually knew what they were there for, I never got over the surreal feeling of being in a city occupied by the U.S. military (on 9/11 the surreal actually became real, with soldiers visible everywhere, making it all the more significant in retrospect). 1999: Eyes Wide Shut - Closing out the decade is Kubrick’s final film, which he shot in England but set in NYC. Despite an attempt to make it look very accurate — I remember reading about the production’s specific import of Village Voice boxes for the occasion — it’s one of the least authentic-looking New York films of the era. At least it doesn’t feature the Rocky Mountains in the background, though. Bonus: Tour - This addition is blatant self-promotion, as the documentary features me and the ska band I was in. But it’s particularly fitting because it shows NYC in the last week of the ’90s, when we departed for a Southeastern U.S. tour, and it ends with us returning to the city mid-January 2000. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 02 Jul 2008 18:01:03 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/2/2008 2:01:03 PM Jonathan Levine’s crowd-pleasing (in terms of audience awards at festivals, not in terms of uplifting Hollywood endings) film The Wackness opens in limited release tomorrow. In case you haven’t noticed from the ads and the soundtrack, it takes place in the New York City of 1994, a special time for the place because Rudy Giuliani had just become mayor and was beginning to clean up the city, Goldie Wilson-stylee (OK, not really Goldie Wilson-stylee, but who doesn’t love a good BTTF reference?). NYC in the ’90s was quite special for me. It’s when I moved here. And moved here a second time (I’ve since moved here a third time), and watching The Wackness made me nostalgic for the decade. It also made me think of some of the other films from or set in that period, a number of which kind of define my experience with the city. 1990: Quick Change - It’s a bit ironic that this comedy, which features Bill Murray putting down the city non-stop, is the movie that really represents NYC on film for me. Actually, considering Tootsie was probably my first exposure to NYC on screen and Ghostbusters was the movie that made me want to visit Manhattan more often (I grew up in nearby Connecticut), I guess Murray was kind of like my ambassador to New York. My current jogging route goes through a neighborhood that’s prominently used in Quick Change, and whenever I pass the spot where I can see the Statue of Liberty across the bay, I think of the movie and have trouble believing anyone could want to get out of here as much as Murray’s character does. 1991: The Fisher King - One of my favorite spots in all of NYC is Grand Central Terminal, partially because it was my gateway to the city but mostly because of this film’s employment of the station for a fantasy waltz number in the main concourse. It’s one of my favorite scenes in film history, though I’m not quite sure if I love the scene because I already loved the station or if I fell in love with the station because of this scene. 1992: Definitely, Maybe - I can’t think of many movies that look back to NYC in the ’90s the way The Wackness does. There’s Austin Chick’s XX/XY, which I haven’t seen, and there’s this recent movie, which flashes back to 1992 and then continues through the decade. Two fun little gags I appreciated as a NYC settler are the bit about cigarettes costing so much more here and the spot-on comment about how one day suddenly everyone in the city had a cell phone, which they haven’t put down since. 1993: Manhattan Murder Mystery - Obviously there has to be a Woody Allen movie on this list. It may not be the best, but it’s Allen’s New York, it’s from 1993, and it’s got that great Cole Porter song at the beginning. 1994: Leon (The Professional) - The Wackness will now take over the 1994 spot, but the previous place holder was this action classic. It’s nice, because it has a sort of outsider’s perspective of the city — thanks to both the lead character and the director hailing from France — that I still had at the time. Much of the movie, though, lacks the strong touristy, landmark-heavy NYC that a lot of movies set here display (you can barely even make out the Twin Towers in the opening montage). And had it been made a few years later, it probably wouldn’t have even been shot here. Fortunately, it was, and I got my first cinematic introduction to the Roosevelt Island tram (years before seeing it in Spider-Man), which I’ll always be afraid of riding. 1995: Kids - I saw Larry Clark’s film a few weeks before moving to Manhattan for school, and I thought it would prepare me for the worst. But aside from seeing Chloe Sevigny around the neighborhood, I actually didn’t come in contact with a lot of kids like those featured in the movie. Of course, I was hanging out with nerdy film students, not local high schoolers. 1996: Girl 6 - I admit, I’ve never seen this, but just as with Woody, this list has to include one film from Spike Lee. And this one is at least appropriate to my experience, because my acting teacher at the time plays an acting teacher in the film. 1997: Escape from New York - Thanks to Giuliani, the NYC of ‘97 didn’t look like it did in John Carpenter’s science fiction film, which came out back in 1981. Of course, some people felt like Giuliani made Manhattan more like a prison than was depicted on screen. 1998: Godzilla - In the same summer, moviegoers saw parts of NYC destroyed in Armageddon, Deep Impact and Godzilla. So why am I including the worst one, which also made the least amount of money — also the one I actually didn’t bother seeing? Because while it was being made, there were tanks all over the part of Manhattan that I frequented, and though I eventually knew what they were there for, I never got over the surreal feeling of being in a city occupied by the U.S. military (on 9/11 the surreal actually became real, with soldiers visible everywhere, making it all the more significant in retrospect). 1999: Eyes Wide Shut - Closing out the decade is Kubrick’s final film, which he shot in England but set in NYC. Despite an attempt to make it look very accurate — I remember reading about the production’s specific import of Village Voice boxes for the occasion — it’s one of the least authentic-looking New York films of the era. At least it doesn’t feature the Rocky Mountains in the background, though. Bonus: Tour - This addition is blatant self-promotion, as the documentary features me and the ska band I was in. But it’s particularly fitting because it shows NYC in the last week of the ’90s, when we departed for a Southeastern U.S. tour, and it ends with us returning to the city mid-January 2000. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/6/16/31276.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 6/16/2008 12:00:28 PM
Body: Last week it was announced that yet another screenwriter has been hired to pen a draft of the I Dream of Jeannie movie. This time it’s Rita Hsiao, who worked on Disney’s Mulan, Toy Story 2 and Enchanted. Reportedly there’s already been at least five writers on board, but apparently producer Sid Ganis (Duece Bigalow: Male Gigalo) wants the thing to be perfect. Well, how hard could it be to come up with a plot for the thing? Just combine the storylines from the TV movies I Dream of Jeannie: 15 Years Later and I Still Dream of Jeannie, both of which opened the series up to more drama and thrills, such as the tense outer space sequence from 15 Years Later seen in the video above. Just budget for some better effects, and that sequence could make the Jeannie movie a blockbuster comparable to Armageddon. OK, I’m joking, but only a little. The Jeannie movie really should venture into the space travel angle, putting Major Nelson and Jeannie in danger (in I Still Dream, with Nelson long gone on a mission, Jeannie finds out she can’t stay in the real world without a master). And why not also include the female astronaut that Nelson may be having an affair with? And then also have Jeannie shrug off her submissive role in order to become an empowered woman? Such a subplot may have been more relevant to the time of 15 Years Later (it aired in the mid ’80s), but there’s something still wrong about exaggerated female domestication another 20 years later. That reminds me of another plot idea: Jeannie vs. Kazaam (or Haji). In which the two genies battle over who has had it worse throughout history, women or blacks. Then in true versus-plot tradition, they finally unite in agreement that they should really be battling the greater evil: Major Nelson, the oppressive white man. One more thing: as long as I’m claiming devotion to bad ’80s TV movies and suggesting they be used as inspiration for the Jeannie script, here’s some more advice for Ganis: cast Mackenzie Astin and Nicole Eggert as Nelson and Jeannie, as nothing more than an homage to 15 Years Later. They may not be big names these days, but if there’s enough money spent on special effects, you don’t need the stars to be Will Ferrell and Cameron Diaz. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 16:00:28 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com6/16/2008 12:00:28 PM Last week it was announced that yet another screenwriter has been hired to pen a draft of the I Dream of Jeannie movie. This time it’s Rita Hsiao, who worked on Disney’s Mulan, Toy Story 2 and Enchanted. Reportedly there’s already been at least five writers on board, but apparently producer Sid Ganis (Duece Bigalow: Male Gigalo) wants the thing to be perfect. Well, how hard could it be to come up with a plot for the thing? Just combine the storylines from the TV movies I Dream of Jeannie: 15 Years Later and I Still Dream of Jeannie, both of which opened the series up to more drama and thrills, such as the tense outer space sequence from 15 Years Later seen in the video above. Just budget for some better effects, and that sequence could make the Jeannie movie a blockbuster comparable to Armageddon. OK, I’m joking, but only a little. The Jeannie movie really should venture into the space travel angle, putting Major Nelson and Jeannie in danger (in I Still Dream, with Nelson long gone on a mission, Jeannie finds out she can’t stay in the real world without a master). And why not also include the female astronaut that Nelson may be having an affair with? And then also have Jeannie shrug off her submissive role in order to become an empowered woman? Such a subplot may have been more relevant to the time of 15 Years Later (it aired in the mid ’80s), but there’s something still wrong about exaggerated female domestication another 20 years later. That reminds me of another plot idea: Jeannie vs. Kazaam (or Haji). In which the two genies battle over who has had it worse throughout history, women or blacks. Then in true versus-plot tradition, they finally unite in agreement that they should really be battling the greater evil: Major Nelson, the oppressive white man. One more thing: as long as I’m claiming devotion to bad ’80s TV movies and suggesting they be used as inspiration for the Jeannie script, here’s some more advice for Ganis: cast Mackenzie Astin and Nicole Eggert as Nelson and Jeannie, as nothing more than an homage to 15 Years Later. They may not be big names these days, but if there’s enough money spent on special effects, you don’t need the stars to be Will Ferrell and Cameron Diaz. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Re_Sci_Fi_Movies_A_Z/598/29573/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/20/2008 2:00:07 PM
Body: [quote user="lopezdash"] Armageddon [/quote] Brazil
]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 18:00:07 GMTleeroy711Movie Games5/20/2008 2:00:07 PM[quote user="lopezdash"] Armageddon [/quote] Brazil http://www.spout.com/groups/Movie_Games/Sci_Fi_Movies_A_Z/598/29572/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: lopezdash
Post To: Movie Games
Post Date: 5/20/2008 1:53:28 PM
Body: Armageddon
]]>Tue, 20 May 2008 17:53:28 GMTlopezdashMovie Games5/20/2008 1:53:28 PMArmageddon http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/10/23743.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/10/2008 5:00:35 PM
Body: Annalee Newitz looks at the five most prevalent themes in Clinton-era sci-fi. I would have thrown in a shout-out to strippers, who appear prominently in both Armageddon and Independence Day. But then, I’m usually on the lookout for chances to throw shout-outs to strippers. LIBERTAS accuses “millionaire filmmaker” Morgan Spurlock of ?????? SPOILER ALERT!! ?????? being too chicken shit to actually hunt down Osama Bin Laden and put a stake through his heart. Bob Rehak contemplates the impact the HD format wars will have/are already having on the porn industry. “How will viewers respond to the pathos and suffering at the industry???s core ??? of capitalism???s antihumanism writ large across the bodies offered up for consumers??? pleasure-at-a-distance ??? when those excesses are rendered in resolutions of 1920??1080?” NBC has decided that Access Hollywood will be the “news” division to cover the Golden Globes. Defamer mocks the ensuing outrage: “If the network had any interests but its own at heart, it would have made some attempt at incorporating the solemn ritual that usually begins each Globes ceremony–the consumption of Orson Welles’ transubstantiated body and blood in the form of filet mignon and stiff vodka-tonics–as a show of good faith.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:00:35 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/10/2008 5:00:35 PM Annalee Newitz looks at the five most prevalent themes in Clinton-era sci-fi. I would have thrown in a shout-out to strippers, who appear prominently in both Armageddon and Independence Day. But then, I’m usually on the lookout for chances to throw shout-outs to strippers. LIBERTAS accuses “millionaire filmmaker” Morgan Spurlock of ?????? SPOILER ALERT!! ?????? being too chicken shit to actually hunt down Osama Bin Laden and put a stake through his heart. Bob Rehak contemplates the impact the HD format wars will have/are already having on the porn industry. “How will viewers respond to the pathos and suffering at the industry???s core ??? of capitalism???s antihumanism writ large across the bodies offered up for consumers??? pleasure-at-a-distance ??? when those excesses are rendered in resolutions of 1920??1080?” NBC has decided that Access Hollywood will be the “news” division to cover the Golden Globes. Defamer mocks the ensuing outrage: “If the network had any interests but its own at heart, it would have made some attempt at incorporating the solemn ritual that usually begins each Globes ceremony–the consumption of Orson Welles’ transubstantiated body and blood in the form of filet mignon and stiff vodka-tonics–as a show of good faith.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/10/23742.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/10/2008 5:00:26 PM
Body: Annalee Newitz looks at the five most prevalent themes in Clinton-era sci-fi. I would have thrown in a shout-out to strippers, who appear prominently in both Armageddon and Independence Day. But then, I’m usually on the lookout for chances to throw shout-outs to strippers. LIBERTAS accuses “millionaire filmmaker” Morgan Spurlock of ?????? SPOILER ALERT!! ?????? being too chicken shit to actually hunt down Osama Bin Laden and put a stake through his heart. Bob Rehak contemplates the impact the HD format wars will have/are already having on the porn industry. “How will viewers respond to the pathos and suffering at the industry???s core ??? of capitalism???s antihumanism writ large across the bodies offered up for consumers??? pleasure-at-a-distance ??? when those excesses are rendered in resolutions of 1920??1080?” NBC has decided that Access Hollywood will be the “news” division to cover the Golden Globes. Defamer mocks the ensuing outrage: “If the network had any interests but its own at heart, it would have made some attempt at incorporating the solemn ritual that usually begins each Globes ceremony–the consumption of Orson Welles’ transubstantiated body and blood in the form of filet mignon and stiff vodka-tonics–as a show of good faith.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 10 Jan 2008 22:00:26 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/10/2008 5:00:26 PM Annalee Newitz looks at the five most prevalent themes in Clinton-era sci-fi. I would have thrown in a shout-out to strippers, who appear prominently in both Armageddon and Independence Day. But then, I’m usually on the lookout for chances to throw shout-outs to strippers. LIBERTAS accuses “millionaire filmmaker” Morgan Spurlock of ?????? SPOILER ALERT!! ?????? being too chicken shit to actually hunt down Osama Bin Laden and put a stake through his heart. Bob Rehak contemplates the impact the HD format wars will have/are already having on the porn industry. “How will viewers respond to the pathos and suffering at the industry???s core ??? of capitalism???s antihumanism writ large across the bodies offered up for consumers??? pleasure-at-a-distance ??? when those excesses are rendered in resolutions of 1920??1080?” NBC has decided that Access Hollywood will be the “news” division to cover the Golden Globes. Defamer mocks the ensuing outrage: “If the network had any interests but its own at heart, it would have made some attempt at incorporating the solemn ritual that usually begins each Globes ceremony–the consumption of Orson Welles’ transubstantiated body and blood in the form of filet mignon and stiff vodka-tonics–as a show of good faith.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/funny/MemberTagFilms.aspxfunny
Number of films tagged: 607

Number of people who tagged: 316

Number of times used: 940

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 00:46:10 GMT607316940Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Loved-It/MemberTagFilms.aspxLoved-It
Number of films tagged: 509

Number of people who tagged: 179

Number of times used: 921

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:56:35 GMT509179921Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/romance/MemberTagFilms.aspxromance
Number of films tagged: 7160

Number of people who tagged: 169

Number of times used: 1002

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 00:50:40 GMT71601691002Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/action/MemberTagFilms.aspxaction
Number of films tagged: 317

Number of people who tagged: 111

Number of times used: 458

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:42:37 GMT317111458Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/thriller/MemberTagFilms.aspxthriller
Number of films tagged: 199

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 244

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT19974244Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/suspense/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuspense
Number of films tagged: 129

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 189

]]>Tue, 03 Nov 2009 17:28:43 GMT12966189Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/space/MemberTagFilms.aspxspace
Number of films tagged: 494

Number of people who tagged: 54

Number of times used: 139

]]>Mon, 25 May 2009 14:36:30 GMT49454139Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sacrifice/MemberTagFilms.aspxsacrifice
Number of films tagged: 391

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 63

]]>Thu, 24 Sep 2009 00:22:01 GMT3913563Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/campy/MemberTagFilms.aspxcampy
Number of films tagged: 30

Number of people who tagged: 30

Number of times used: 34

]]>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 21:16:12 GMT303034Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dumb/MemberTagFilms.aspxdumb
Number of films tagged: 146

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 153

]]>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:20:32 GMT14628153Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/crap/MemberTagFilms.aspxcrap
Number of films tagged: 35

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 45

]]>Mon, 09 Feb 2009 21:00:17 GMT352545Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/criterion/MemberTagFilms.aspxcriterion
Number of films tagged: 396

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 407

]]>Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:08:23 GMT39617407Tag