list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Matrix 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/The_Matrix/132089/default.aspx Title: The Matrix
Year: 1999
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Plot: What if virtual reality wasn't just for fun, but was being used to imprison you? That's the dilemma that faces mild-mannered computer jockey Thomas Anderson (Keanu Reeves) in The Matrix. It's the year 1999, and Anderson (hacker alias: Neo) works in a cubicle, manning a computer and doing a little hacking on the side. It's through this latter activity that Thomas makes the acquaintance of Morpheus (Laurence Fishburne), who has some interesting news for Mr. Anderson -- none of what's going on around him is real. The year is actually closer to 2199, and it seems Thomas, like most people, is a victim of The Matrix, a massive artificial intelligence system that has tapped into people's minds and created the illusion of a real world, while using their brains and bodies for energy, tossing them away like spent batteries when they're through. Morpheus, however, is convinced Neo is "The One" who can crack open The Matrix and bring his people to both physical and psychological freedom. The Matrix is the second feature film from the sibling writer/director team of Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski, who made an impressive debut with the stylish erotic crime thriller Bound. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 124
Number of Lists: 218
Number of blog posts: 32
Number of discussion threads: 32
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Fri, 14 Aug 2009 04:41:19 GMTThe Matrix1999Andy Wachowski, Larry WachowskiWhat if virtual reality wasn't just for fun, but was being used to imprison you? That's the dilemma that faces mild-mannered computer jockey Thomas Anderson (<a href="/players/P____59355/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Keanu Reeves</a>) in The Matrix. It's the year 1999, and Anderson (hacker alias: Neo) works in a cubicle, manning a computer and doing a little hacking on the side. It's through this latter activity that Thomas makes the acquaintance of Morpheus (<a href="/players/P____23625/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laurence Fishburne</a>), who has some interesting news for Mr. Anderson -- none of what's going on around him is real. The year is actually closer to 2199, and it seems Thomas, like most people, is a victim of The Matrix, a massive artificial intelligence system that has tapped into people's minds and created the illusion of a real world, while using their brains and bodies for energy, tossing them away like spent batteries when they're through. Morpheus, however, is convinced Neo is "The One" who can crack open The Matrix and bring his people to both physical and psychological freedom. The Matrix is the second feature film from the sibling writer/director team of <a href="/players/P___203462/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Andy Wachowski</a> and <a href="/players/P___203463/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Larry Wachowski</a>, who made an impressive debut with the stylish erotic crime thriller <a href=/films/92781/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Bound</a>. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide124Tag Target (>10)21832324http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u38274zte6f.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Matrix/132089/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2009/9/22/43972.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 9/22/2009 11:19:39 AM
Body: This is the first film I've seen by director Yuen Woo-ping Jui kuen (Drunken Master) The film that really boosted Jackie Chan's career into super stardom level, at least on his native continent. There's nothing too profound here (not that there is in any of his movies I've seen) but it's a lot of fun and there is LOTS of fighting. Lots of impressive and interesting fighting too. The plot holds just enough to keep instigating the many fight scenes. If you have only seen Jackie Chan's somewhat more recent, bigger budget and mostly modern urban setting films, check this one out and see what you think. I find it a bit more pure for some reason. And I personally find the "drunken" style to be one of the most entertaining to watch in kung fu films. Also it would be a chance to see one of the first efforts by director Yuen Woo-ping who many people may recognize as the name of the fellow shipped over to Hollywood to do the fight choreography for The Matrix. Although in Drunken Master you won't see any special effects like that for the most part, or even any of what they call "wire work" I believe. This is pretty much all the strength and skill of the actors, and the long takes show it's real. You really can feel a lot of the physical pain Jackie went through in making this! Rating: 9/10
]]>Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:19:39 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog9/22/2009 11:19:39 AMThis is the first film I've seen by director Yuen Woo-ping Jui kuen (Drunken Master) The film that really boosted Jackie Chan's career into super stardom level, at least on his native continent. There's nothing too profound here (not that there is in any of his movies I've seen) but it's a lot of fun and there is LOTS of fighting. Lots of impressive and interesting fighting too. The plot holds just enough to keep instigating the many fight scenes. If you have only seen Jackie Chan's somewhat more recent, bigger budget and mostly modern urban setting films, check this one out and see what you think. I find it a bit more pure for some reason. And I personally find the "drunken" style to be one of the most entertaining to watch in kung fu films. Also it would be a chance to see one of the first efforts by director Yuen Woo-ping who many people may recognize as the name of the fellow shipped over to Hollywood to do the fight choreography for The Matrix. Although in Drunken Master you won't see any special effects like that for the most part, or even any of what they call "wire work" I believe. This is pretty much all the strength and skill of the actors, and the long takes show it's real. You really can feel a lot of the physical pain Jackie went through in making this! Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/blogs/tallquasimodo/archive/2009/9/10/43848.aspx Post By: tallquasimodo
Post To: tallquasimodo Blog
Post Date: 9/10/2009 7:56:44 AM
Body: Sleep dealer is above all an interesting film. It is a truism that the best science fiction is usually that which tells a story about people, rather than whatever new gadget or idea forces it into a genre (sometimes rightfully) looked down upon as little better f tits and lazers. While Sleep Dealer treads ground that has been seen before in films like Blade Runner(1982) and The Matrix(1999) it would be unfair to compare it to either. What sleep dealer has and the above do not, are normal people. There are no Hard Boiled Deckards or Messianic Neos here, just people trying to get by, and maybe make thier world a little more bearable. As a novice director, Alex Rivera is one to watch in the future. While the Sleep Dealer is long on interesting imagery, it comes up a bit short on confidence in showing it. With a surer hand on his next feature he could be a big name in his chosen corner of the film world
]]>Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:56:44 GMTtallquasimodotallquasimodo Blog9/10/2009 7:56:44 AMSleep dealer is above all an interesting film. It is a truism that the best science fiction is usually that which tells a story about people, rather than whatever new gadget or idea forces it into a genre (sometimes rightfully) looked down upon as little better f tits and lazers. While Sleep Dealer treads ground that has been seen before in films like Blade Runner(1982) and The Matrix(1999) it would be unfair to compare it to either. What sleep dealer has and the above do not, are normal people. There are no Hard Boiled Deckards or Messianic Neos here, just people trying to get by, and maybe make thier world a little more bearable. As a novice director, Alex Rivera is one to watch in the future. While the Sleep Dealer is long on interesting imagery, it comes up a bit short on confidence in showing it. With a surer hand on his next feature he could be a big name in his chosen corner of the film world http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/7/42129.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/7/2009 7:21:49 PM
Body: "Thomas Anderson" (Keanu Reeves) is a computer programmer who leaves a double life as a computer hacker known as "Neo". He has been getting messages asking him what "The Matrix" is. When at work the next day, he gets a mysterious phone call on his cell phone informing him that the police and plain clothes agents just coming out of the elevator are after him. The voice on the other end of the line tries, but fails to help him escape. Shortly after, "Anderson" meets with a mysterious man who goes by the name "Morpheus" (Laurence Fishburn), who offers to show him what "The Matrix" is. During his explanation, he says that it is actually 200 years later than what "Anderson" believes it to be, and that intelligent machines have taken over Earth. He then explains that the machines are using the humans, which they now cultivate, as batteries, and that "The Matrix" is a computer program designed to keep the minds of the humans functioning. "Morpheus" then explains that he and his group of rebels are trying to save mankind. Now known as his hacker name, "Neo" he joins the resistance to fight the machines, and to save humanity from "The Matrix". The firt thing you will notice is that their is a lot of shadow in this movie. The only light you will see is in the outdoor scenes when the characters are in the "Matrix" created city. Not only is the scenery dark, but so is the majority of wardrobes. If you like action films, this movie. The hand-to-hand battles are fast paced, but become a little hokey when the characters begin to use their knowledge of "The Matrix" begin to jump around bending the laws of physics. Just by their postures while jumping, it is quite obvious that they are in a harness. In my opinion, that was the weakest special effect in the entire movie. On the other hand, the CGI machines are simply amazing, and are blended into the real sets and with the human performers wonderfully. I am not sure if it was intentional, but the performances are quite stiff. Not one of the performers steal any scenes, nor do they stand out from the rest of the cast. There was no depth in any of the performances at all. The plot itself can be quite confusing. There are just way too many plot twists and turns, which may mean you might have to sit through multiple viewings to understand what the plot is all about. This is not the best sci-fi out there, but it's worthy to check out as a strong second choice the next time you want to rent a movie if your first choice is unavailable.
]]>Thu, 07 May 2009 23:21:49 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/7/2009 7:21:49 PM"Thomas Anderson" (Keanu Reeves) is a computer programmer who leaves a double life as a computer hacker known as "Neo". He has been getting messages asking him what "The Matrix" is. When at work the next day, he gets a mysterious phone call on his cell phone informing him that the police and plain clothes agents just coming out of the elevator are after him. The voice on the other end of the line tries, but fails to help him escape. Shortly after, "Anderson" meets with a mysterious man who goes by the name "Morpheus" (Laurence Fishburn), who offers to show him what "The Matrix" is. During his explanation, he says that it is actually 200 years later than what "Anderson" believes it to be, and that intelligent machines have taken over Earth. He then explains that the machines are using the humans, which they now cultivate, as batteries, and that "The Matrix" is a computer program designed to keep the minds of the humans functioning. "Morpheus" then explains that he and his group of rebels are trying to save mankind. Now known as his hacker name, "Neo" he joins the resistance to fight the machines, and to save humanity from "The Matrix". The firt thing you will notice is that their is a lot of shadow in this movie. The only light you will see is in the outdoor scenes when the characters are in the "Matrix" created city. Not only is the scenery dark, but so is the majority of wardrobes. If you like action films, this movie. The hand-to-hand battles are fast paced, but become a little hokey when the characters begin to use their knowledge of "The Matrix" begin to jump around bending the laws of physics. Just by their postures while jumping, it is quite obvious that they are in a harness. In my opinion, that was the weakest special effect in the entire movie. On the other hand, the CGI machines are simply amazing, and are blended into the real sets and with the human performers wonderfully. I am not sure if it was intentional, but the performances are quite stiff. Not one of the performers steal any scenes, nor do they stand out from the rest of the cast. There was no depth in any of the performances at all. The plot itself can be quite confusing. There are just way too many plot twists and turns, which may mean you might have to sit through multiple viewings to understand what the plot is all about. This is not the best sci-fi out there, but it's worthy to check out as a strong second choice the next time you want to rent a movie if your first choice is unavailable. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2009/3/5/40839.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 3/5/2009 10:00:20 AM
Body: Many smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:00:20 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com3/5/2009 10:00:20 AMMany smart cinephiles and comic book geeks will avoid watching Watchmen this weekend. Not to avoid the crowds of opening weekend, and not to patiently await word of mouth from friends and reactions from critics. No, these bright few will ignore the out-of-season blockbuster event because there is absolutely no reason to see this movie. They recognize that any Watchmen adaptation (particularly this one that’s been made) is completely unnecessary. Well, for anyone not out to profit from it, anyway. Of course, even Warner Bros. might have been better off not producing the thing, since the studio won’t be making as much money as it had initially envisioned thanks to that profit-participation settlement with Fox. The point of this post is not to call Watchmen watchers stupid. Rather, our list of five reasons the film is unnecessary is to help moviegoers get smart. After reading this, though, if any of you are still determined to waste your time sitting through almost 3 hours of redundant, rehashed, irrelevant, ridiculous and inescapably disappointing superhero cinema, we’ll be left with no choice but to consider you mindless sheep, the kind that deserve to be duped. And if Dr. Manhattan chooses to vaporize us (or fans choose to curse us out in the comments section) for exposing the truth about this enterprise of excess, then so be it. We believe we’ve served justice here. 1. Faithful adaptations of graphic novels are redundant Comic books and movies, though both visual and (for the most part) processive forms of storytelling, are certainly different mediums. Yet there is good reason for people to believe film adaptations of graphic novels are easy, particularly when they’re meant to be faithful reproductions. Recreating a comic panel exactly and then giving it motion isn’t necessarily a simple process, but it is a pointless one. In the past, such redundancy has been fully evident in the sinfully unnecessary movie Sin City, and now Watchmen is furthermore putting the super in superfluous with its attempt to mostly please fans of the classic comic by meticulously replicating Alan Moore’s script and Dave Gibbons and John Higgins’ artwork for the big screen. But in addition to indulging the narrowly satisfied fanatics, a movie as resembling of its source material as Watchmen is may be accepted as substitute and partly render the graphic novel obsolete to newcomers. This is of course a problem with adaptations in general, regardless of the type of medium being adapted. Yet it’s all the more potentially displacing when the film is both based on a visual work and intended to be as precise an imitation as possible. Recently, writing for ThePlaylist, Christopher R. Adams pointed out that, “the best comic book films (”The Dark Knight”, “X-Men 2″ and Iron Man) were not adapted word-for-word and panel-for-panel to the screen. They weren’t even culled from one single story!” So why would anyone think it a good idea to make an exact copy of a graphic novel? Well, defenders of both Sin City and Watchmen will undoubtedly argue that it’s “neat” to see the two-dimensional and relatively static images from the book given the added depth and movement, but then so is it similarly curious to see what happens when you drive a car into a wall. So, devout Watchmen readers, why not simply honor the graphic novel by letting it stand alone and experiencing it in its intended medium? 2. So many movies satirizing and subverting superheroes already exist Watchmen may or may not have been the first subversive twist on superhero comics, but the movie is hardly the first of its kind. From the really lame (Superhero Movie) to the really great (The Incredibles), films making fun of or merely playing on the concept of superheroes have been around for about as long as the Watchmen graphic novel has been in print. And so, like our list of movies that made the recent Get Smart obsolete, it would be quite easy to name examples of movies and TV shows that, whether or not they were directly influenced by the Watchmen comics in the first place, have seemingly superseded the Watchmen story and therefore made its film adaptation a stale, or at least surplus, endeavor. Why should anyone unfamiliar with the graphic novel need to see Watchmen after experiencing Hancock, Mystery Men, The Tick, The Dark Knight, Iron Man, Hellboy, Unbreakable, The Specials, Sky High, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, The Meteor Man, Blankman, et al.? Well, there may be those superhero movie completists who will see any example of the genre, but such people are likely to be the most unimpressed with a story as seemingly dated and done before as Watchmen’s. Really, in a way, The Incredibles was the best possible movie to come out of the graphic novel’s wake, and The Dark Knight was the darkest and most realistic. Comparatively, even a decently made Watchmen adaptation should seem a pale wannabe. That’s why it’s easy to side with IMDb user Richard Brunton’s concern from years ago: “There is so much similarity to The Watchmen that those who haven’t read the graphic novel will be saying ‘That’s the Incredibles movie’ when Watchmen finally comes to fruition.” And already someone made the mashup trailer to encourage such a concern. 3. Watchmen has no contemporary relevance A movie of Watchmen in 2009 has a problem of relevance in two regards. One relates to the previous point about how plenty of subversive superhero movies have already been made prior to this adaptation. Yet even without the preexistence of all those titles the Watchmen movie, as it’s been made, would fail on other levels of innovation and relevance. Paul DeBenedetto of the comics blog Wednesday’s Child, writing us in defense of his decision not to bother with the movie, says, “The greatness of Watchmen (the book) lies not so much in the story as it does the storytelling. Thus a great adaptation of the book would not be a straight retelling of the story, no matter how accurate.” Indeed, when Watchmen was published it was groundbreaking in its medium, totally revolutionizing the art of superhero comics. But not just because of how it played with superhero character conventions, because it also deconstructed the superhero comic’s narrative style. True Watchmen fans, and likewise comics experts, should therefore see no purpose in a Watchmen movie that isn’t analogously cinematically groundbreaking. This Watchmen movie will unfortunately have no notable affect on the film medium, despite being helmed by an alleged “visionary director” (as the film’s marketing has labeled Zach Snyder). The other way in which a current and faithful adaptation of Watchmen is problematically irrelevant is due to its retention of the book’s setting. The book’s themes might not translate completely were the story updated, but the movie could be better off for developing its own themes, whether to modernize certain elements (Vietnam becomes Iraq; Bush is substituted for Nixon) and comment on contemporary abuses of power or to hypothesize how real-life superheroes might deflect the desire for a super-president like Barack Obama. Such a movie would barely be recognizable to fans of the book, but again, adaptation is best when not directly lifted. As the movie was in fact directly lifted, it only functions as a curiosity, like a “What If…” comic or an alternate history novel, both of which are slightly interesting though mainly dispensable works. 4. What was once intended for realism now comes off as ridiculous Considering how the Watchmen comics aimed to take superhero conventions and adapt them to see how they’d function in the real world, it’s a great shame that the Watchmen movie looks and is being criticized for being quite silly (one indirectly reported response compared the adaptation to the live-action Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles movies, while The Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt labeled it campy soap opera). But it shouldn’t be surprising that directly lifting from the pages of a dark, serious and relatively realistic comic would result in camp. Because realism on the page is hardly the same as realism on the screen. And because many literary techniques, even those working with visual cues, don’t translate well to audio and visual media. A Watchmen movie shouldn’t look as cartoonish as this one does, but due to the artificial feel of the sets, the stylish cinematographic style and the garishness of the costumes, it seems to have more in common with Joel Schumacher’s Batman movies than with Christopher Nolan’s. 5. There was only ever room for disappointment As with anything as highly anticipated as the Watchmen movie, there isn’t much room for satisfaction. Even if the Star Wars prequels weren’t as bad as they are, for instance, they’d still have been unavoidably disappointing to a majority of fans. Maybe not to the biased diehard fanatics, who will forever defend The Phantom Menace, the Matrix sequels, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, The Godfather Part III or Watchmen, but certainly to those whose expectations were so high they could only focus on whatever flaws the respective films have. Last month, Graeme McMillan wrote at io9 that only the fans will be disappointed due to how much they’ve been building the film up in their minds, and that Warner Bros. should have therefore concentrated the marketing at mainstream audiences. Yet really, for those familiar with the Watchmen comic, the movie might not be as faithful (i.e. as redundant) as hoped or it might be too faithful (i.e. irrelevant and silly looking), but they will enjoy it for the most part. However, those unfamiliar with the comic are likely to be the most disappointed, because they’re the ones going into this in response to the immense hype and recommendation that’s come with the book for more than 20 years. It’s the same reason that some of us who read the graphic novel late had a “that’s it?” response. Those bypassing the book, however, won’t get at least the benefit of reading a quality work that merely seems overrated (due to the unfortunate perspective of high expectations). And their “that’s it?” will be, to them, even more of a “that’s all it will ever be.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/23/38761.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/23/2008 12:00:52 PM
Body: Should special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 23 Dec 2008 17:00:52 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/23/2008 12:00:52 PMShould special effects only be used to service a film’s story, or is it perfectly fine for movies to feature extraneous spectacle? That’s a debate that comes up often among cineastes, but ultimately there’s room for both functions. Sometimes, in cases like Jurassic Park and The Matrix, both categories of effects may even faultlessly coexist in the same film. Yet there is one kind of effects employment that’s intolerable to all film-loving parties: the gratuitous exploitation for the sole purpose of brazen gimmickry. It’s this kind of effects work that goes beyond spectacle. It’s not so much a show as a show off. For one example of this cinematic sin check out Karina’s review of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, in which she references a scene featuring an inessential and irrelevant rocket launch in the background of an otherwise intimate moment between two lovers on a sailboat. Actually, that’s apparently only a minor citation in a “a film about the feat of its own whiz-bang, Frankensteinian digital imagery, drunk on its own accomplishment to an extent that feels quasi-ethical.” Hardly the first movie to commit such a crime, sure, but Benjamin Button seems to be the most thoroughly guilty exploiter since Forrest Gump (both films, incidentally, were scripted by Eric Roth). So, in (dis)honor of Roth’s repeat offense, let’s take a short look at the worst exploitations of special effects in the last 15 years: Forrest Gump (1994): digital erasure of Gary Sinise’s legs Only a year earlier, we had marveled at Jurassic Park’s showcase of computer effects as the ultimate in movie magic. Then, Robert Zemeckis crushed our imaginations by turning CG into a means for mere tricks. The composites were cool enough, but Zemeckis had to go one step further and flaunt Lt. Dan’s lack of legs, just because he could. Was the effect neat? Yeah, for a minute, but it was also completely unnecessary. Star Wars prequels (1999-2005): computer-generated Yoda Some people believe George Lucas’ greatest effects foul to be Jar-Jar Binks. Others cite his awful CG Jabba in the 1997 special edition of A New Hope. Both were cheap exploitations, no doubt about it, but Lucas’ worst employment of CG was turning Yoda into a digitally rendered character. This isn’t just another excuse for us to defend and celebrate Muppets, either. Rather, it’s a defense and celebration of The Empire Strikes Back, which is a perfect film and is such despite its inclusion of a puppet version of Yoda. Why didn’t Lucas go the extra yard and turn the droids and Wookies into CG characters? Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004): computer-generated werewolf One of the most hated uses of CG, particularly to horror fans, is for werewolf effects. After all, the greatest-looking werewolf of all time, from An American Werewolf in London, was achieved with makeup rather than a computer. Yet just because computer effects exist, filmmakers seemingly attempt to better Rick Baker’s Oscar-winning technique with CG werewolves in movies like Van Helsing, Cursed and this, the third installment in the Harry Potter franchise. Or, is it that computer effects are just cheaper than makeup? Because they do indeed look cheap. Prisoner of Azkaban may have been nominated for a Visual Effects Oscar, but it probably lost because of Professor Lupin’s cartoonish transformation into a werewolf. Even if you believe Azkaban to be the best film in the franchise, you have to admit it could have been all the more exceptional had Alfonso Cuaron only put David Thewlis in the makeup chair and not into the hard drive. The Day After Tomorrow (2004): computer-generated wolves If there’s one thing even lamer than using CG for werewolves, it’s using CG for wolves. The former is at least an imaginary creature that requires some kind of effects to fabricate its existence. The latter can be found at a zoo, in the wild, or through an animal wrangler. It’s not even like the three wolves in The Day After Tomorrow, which appear in one minor sequence, had to seem preternatural like the dogs in Hulk. Apparently there were actually real wolves initially used, but they weren’t acceptable to Roland Emmerich, and so digital wolves were added later in post production. But did they have to be entirely substituted for? Or was Emmerich on a computer-generated power trip? Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008): computer-generated monkeys You’re probably not shocked to see another George Lucas production here. There’s some disagreement over which was the worst part of this latest Indiana Jones film, the “nuke the fridge” sequence or the moment when Shia LaBeouf swings through the jungle with a bunch of CG monkeys. The former scene (pictured, since the internet seems to be pretending the monkey scene doesn’t exist) was certainly the downturn of the franchise, but the latter was its greatest offense. Had it not been in the film — and it truly could have been avoided — a lot of people might have forgiven Lucas and Steven Spielberg for the movie’s other faults. But as South Park bluntly put it, those guys raped their character. And they also raped and exploited the whole visual effects industry while they were at it. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/16/38455.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/16/2008 2:00:59 PM
Body: I haven’t seen Twilight, but from what I can tell the film only has one memorable scene. That’s the way the Twilight parodists make it seem, anyway. Everything from the puppet parody to  this new Christmas version (see below) recreates this scene, in which Bella acknowledges that Edward is a vampire and then the couple flies through the woods. It’s getting to the point where the parodies are losing their edge if only because of the familiarity. The one thing that could possibly be more tired is if someone parodied the bullet-time scene from The Matrix within a parody of Twilight. But it’s mid-December, and tis the season for humorous movie-related Christmas videos on YouTube (like “Rambo Bells”). Twilight fans already got their Christmas wish with the announcement that Twilight: New Moon will be out before Thanksgiving next year, but this is a little stocking stuffer (for that Edward-face stocking pictured, available from Amazon). And if those little goths like the idea of Santa being a vampire (how is this not the concept of another Christmas horror flick?), they can buy an unrelated Santa Vampire t-shirt here. Oh nevermind, they’re not going to have enough cash for unrelated items when there’s so much real Twilight Christmas crap to buy. [via Cinematical] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 16 Dec 2008 19:00:59 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/16/2008 2:00:59 PMI haven’t seen Twilight, but from what I can tell the film only has one memorable scene. That’s the way the Twilight parodists make it seem, anyway. Everything from the puppet parody to  this new Christmas version (see below) recreates this scene, in which Bella acknowledges that Edward is a vampire and then the couple flies through the woods. It’s getting to the point where the parodies are losing their edge if only because of the familiarity. The one thing that could possibly be more tired is if someone parodied the bullet-time scene from The Matrix within a parody of Twilight. But it’s mid-December, and tis the season for humorous movie-related Christmas videos on YouTube (like “Rambo Bells”). Twilight fans already got their Christmas wish with the announcement that Twilight: New Moon will be out before Thanksgiving next year, but this is a little stocking stuffer (for that Edward-face stocking pictured, available from Amazon). And if those little goths like the idea of Santa being a vampire (how is this not the concept of another Christmas horror flick?), they can buy an unrelated Santa Vampire t-shirt here. Oh nevermind, they’re not going to have enough cash for unrelated items when there’s so much real Twilight Christmas crap to buy. [via Cinematical] Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/19/37441.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/19/2008 1:01:04 PM
Body: Unemployment is about to get even worse now that Citigroup has announced it will cut 52,000 jobs early next year. And falsely reported news of a killing in Santa Clara, California (the shooter was fired, not laid off) only adds to the bleak atmosphere surrounding the already upsetting job market. But while desperate times may lead to desperate measures, it’s vital for us to remember what we learned from the films of the 1930s, when the Great Depression caused a nearly 25% rate of unemployment (we’re currently at 6.5%). Hopeful stories of upward mobility and implausible solutions were popular at the time, though many of them had downsides or inspired the desire for unlikely prospects. Still, there was some guidance to be found buried within the fantasies of Hollywood, and SpoutBlog has compiled this handy list to help you make the right choices during your current or imminent joblessness. Film: Little Caesar (1931) Tip: Dancing is ultimately more lucrative than crime. We learned over and over from films in the 1930s that crime doesn’t pay, and with Little Caesar we learned the additional tip that if you’re going to be a cocky, power-hungry little jerk with leadership goals, you better have the balls to back up your bite. However, the best advice acquired from Francis Edward Faragoh and Robert N. Lee’s Oscar-nominated screenplay is that life as a dancer is a much better career path than that of a gangster. Sure, there may be a few dangers if your gig is at a mob-run club or if your former best friend is your boss’ rival, a la the conflict between Joe (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) and Rico (Edward G. Robinson) in Mervyn LeRoy’s film. But unlike your old buddy, who will literally die in a gutter, you might find wealth, stardom and love. Worst-case scenario, you don’t become rich and famous but you get a job teaching little kids at a dance studio in suburbia. Whereas there’s no such thing as a crime studio. Film: Trouble in Paradise (1932) Tip: Falling for your mark, and/or your boss, is fine as long as you get a bonus out of it and then return to your true love It’s clear from the start that fellow pickpockets Gaston (Herbert Marshall) and Lily (Miriam Hopkins) are made for each other. Yet when the duo acquire jobs working for the wealthy perfumer Madame Colet (Kay Francis) in a scheme to con her out of her money, Gaston goes and complicates things by developing feelings for his new employer/mark. Fortunately, after dipping his hands into both her purses (oh the innuendo!), he comes away with the jackpot and is able to fall back into place with his equal. Getting a job where you’re partially a gigolo can be rewarding in terms of special perks, both sexual and financial, but ultimately a relationship between employee and employer is difficult, especially if there’s a real class clash involved. So get in quick, get out on top and find a nice girl with whom you’ve got more in common. Film: King Kong (1933) Tip: If you’re cast in a film, make sure it’s a local production. Tons of unemployed people turn to showbiz as a solution to their situation, and a quick glance on Craigslist reveals plenty of calls for film and TV extras. But be wary, because if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. And be suspicious of “directors” who approach you on the street offering you the role of a lifetime. It’s possible the guy’s a real Hollywood player like Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), but it’s also possible that the gig will bring you to a remote island where you’ll attract the largest stalker ever imagined. In the end, you might actually become a big star, just like Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), but by then many will have paid for your social status with their lives, and you’ll have to live with the guilt. So when answering ads looking for actors, don’t get on any boats headed to far off places. Stick to locally shot films, on which you’re likely to experience fewer dangers and meet fewer giant apes. Film: Lady for a Day (1933) Tip: Don’t lie to your family about being underemployed, because you’ll just wind up more depressed. Apple Annie (May Robson) ends up getting away with her masquerade, in which she convinces her daughter that she’s a well-to-do socialite rather than a poor fruit peddler, but at what cost? Now she’s lied to her child and, worse, given herself a taste of the good life, a high from which she must come down. And with that perspective in mind she’s surely going to hate her true social place even more. So if you’re underemployed, don’t lie about it, not even to your parents. Best circumstance, they help you out a little with your finances. Worst circumstance, you feel even more depressed about your situation and you take your own life — whether literally or, like Annie, figuratively. Plus, if your parents do end up finding out the truth, they’ll be more disappointed with you than they would have been if told the truth all along. Film: Triumph of the Will (1935) Tip: Don’t work for a mad, genocidal dictator unless you want the association to follow you to your grave. Leni Riefenstahl may have denied having full allegiance to Hitler and the Nazis, but she’ll forever be known as the director who helped propagandize the party right up until the beginning of World War II. And to many that makes her one of the bad guys. Whether she’s truly guilty by association, her kind of situation is constantly a topic of ethical debate. Maybe working for later-exposed criminals will keep you from getting elected one day. Maybe working for evil emperors will get you blown up while doing contract work on a giant space station. Either way, it’s best to do as much of a background check on your potential bosses as they’re doing on you. Film: Modern Times (1936) Tip: Don’t be a slave to the machines, or one day they’ll enslave you. That sounds like advice to be gotten from The Matrix, but that film’s dystopia is precisely the kind of future Chaplin was warning about. So much of the imagery in this film consists of workers depending on machines, either to help do the job or feed them, and workers being trapped in machines, figuratively enslaved by them. If you end up getting a job on the internet, and that’s more and more likely to be your best shot at employment these days, you’ll understand Chaplin’s fears better than he could ever have imagined. Film: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) Tip: Breaking into a rich man’s home will likely get you a job. It’s thanks to a desperate little farmer that the newly rich Deeds (Gary Cooper) decides to divvy up his millions and donate plots of land to the poor. And the gun-wielding intruder doesn’t get thrown in jail; he becomes one of the many who are eligible for some of that free acreage. Hollywood pipe dream, sure, but the concept also seemed to work outside of American cinema. In Renoir’s The Rules of the Game, a man (Julien Carette) is caught trespassing on a wealthy estate and he’s offered a job. However, it may not be necessary to actually commit the crime of breaking and entering to get the attention of potential beneficiaries and employers. In Renoir’s Boudu Saved From Drowning the titular bum is merely witnessed attempting suicide in the Seine (though in Paul Mazursky’s ‘80s remake, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, the bum is also an intruder). And in My Man Godfrey the titular bum is plucked out of the trash and eventually brought home and employed as a butler. Which brings up the next tip. Film: My Man Godfrey (1936) Tip: If forced to become a servant, don’t steal the boss’ daughter’s necklace, pawn it and then gamble with the money made in order to further improve your situation, because only William Powell is good enough to get away with it. You are not as smooth as William Powell; it’s just not possible. So, while he (and his character, Godfrey) is able to come out of this film on top, in the same situation you would more than likely end up back on the garbage heap (without a nightclub built on the spot, that is). Firstly, he’s able to charm the socialite Irene (Carole Lombard) enough to escape homelessness, acquire a position as her family’s butler and eventually win her heart. Secondly, when Irene’s bitter sister, Cornelia (Gail Patrick), attempts to frame him as a necklace nabber, he beats her at her game and follows through to win out even more. What he does with the jewelry, though, would still get most people arrested, even if the ends do justify the means. Never do as Powell does, because nobody can pull off anything as well as he can. Film: You Can’t Take it With You (1938) Tip: Taking up seemingly utopian residence in a commune full of oddballs will likely get you thrown in jail. Grandpa Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore) wasn’t claiming to be prophet nor did he (as far as we know) have a harem of young wives stored away somewhere in his house, but these days a freewheeling place like his might attract the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or some other government agency assigned to shutting down cults and terrorist organizations. Even then his home was suspected of being a den for treasonous plots, leading to an FBI raid and mass arrest. So, while it may seem like a dream come true to be wooed in by a jolly old man promising free living and the chance to be a toymaker, there’s actually no such thing as Santa Claus, and that man is probably doing something illegal to accommodate such a lifestyle. Film: The Grapes of Wrath (1939) Tip: Don’t settle for wages lower than is standard for the work. If you’re really hungry and desperate for work, you might think about taking only 25 cents an hour for a job you used to do for 30 cents. This happens often with competitive fields, whether it is migrant farming or blogging, but it only lowers your worth and it encourages your employers to keep decreasing the wages as long as someone is willing to settle. Eventually, either your fellow workers or the previous, underbid employees are going to be provoked by the situation and then there’s the chance of violence and further oppression. Plus, then you might be out of the job anyway. Potentially on the run, like Tom Joad (Henry Fonda), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 18:01:04 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/19/2008 1:01:04 PMUnemployment is about to get even worse now that Citigroup has announced it will cut 52,000 jobs early next year. And falsely reported news of a killing in Santa Clara, California (the shooter was fired, not laid off) only adds to the bleak atmosphere surrounding the already upsetting job market. But while desperate times may lead to desperate measures, it’s vital for us to remember what we learned from the films of the 1930s, when the Great Depression caused a nearly 25% rate of unemployment (we’re currently at 6.5%). Hopeful stories of upward mobility and implausible solutions were popular at the time, though many of them had downsides or inspired the desire for unlikely prospects. Still, there was some guidance to be found buried within the fantasies of Hollywood, and SpoutBlog has compiled this handy list to help you make the right choices during your current or imminent joblessness. Film: Little Caesar (1931) Tip: Dancing is ultimately more lucrative than crime. We learned over and over from films in the 1930s that crime doesn’t pay, and with Little Caesar we learned the additional tip that if you’re going to be a cocky, power-hungry little jerk with leadership goals, you better have the balls to back up your bite. However, the best advice acquired from Francis Edward Faragoh and Robert N. Lee’s Oscar-nominated screenplay is that life as a dancer is a much better career path than that of a gangster. Sure, there may be a few dangers if your gig is at a mob-run club or if your former best friend is your boss’ rival, a la the conflict between Joe (Douglas Fairbanks Jr.) and Rico (Edward G. Robinson) in Mervyn LeRoy’s film. But unlike your old buddy, who will literally die in a gutter, you might find wealth, stardom and love. Worst-case scenario, you don’t become rich and famous but you get a job teaching little kids at a dance studio in suburbia. Whereas there’s no such thing as a crime studio. Film: Trouble in Paradise (1932) Tip: Falling for your mark, and/or your boss, is fine as long as you get a bonus out of it and then return to your true love It’s clear from the start that fellow pickpockets Gaston (Herbert Marshall) and Lily (Miriam Hopkins) are made for each other. Yet when the duo acquire jobs working for the wealthy perfumer Madame Colet (Kay Francis) in a scheme to con her out of her money, Gaston goes and complicates things by developing feelings for his new employer/mark. Fortunately, after dipping his hands into both her purses (oh the innuendo!), he comes away with the jackpot and is able to fall back into place with his equal. Getting a job where you’re partially a gigolo can be rewarding in terms of special perks, both sexual and financial, but ultimately a relationship between employee and employer is difficult, especially if there’s a real class clash involved. So get in quick, get out on top and find a nice girl with whom you’ve got more in common. Film: King Kong (1933) Tip: If you’re cast in a film, make sure it’s a local production. Tons of unemployed people turn to showbiz as a solution to their situation, and a quick glance on Craigslist reveals plenty of calls for film and TV extras. But be wary, because if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. And be suspicious of “directors” who approach you on the street offering you the role of a lifetime. It’s possible the guy’s a real Hollywood player like Carl Denham (Robert Armstrong), but it’s also possible that the gig will bring you to a remote island where you’ll attract the largest stalker ever imagined. In the end, you might actually become a big star, just like Ann Darrow (Fay Wray), but by then many will have paid for your social status with their lives, and you’ll have to live with the guilt. So when answering ads looking for actors, don’t get on any boats headed to far off places. Stick to locally shot films, on which you’re likely to experience fewer dangers and meet fewer giant apes. Film: Lady for a Day (1933) Tip: Don’t lie to your family about being underemployed, because you’ll just wind up more depressed. Apple Annie (May Robson) ends up getting away with her masquerade, in which she convinces her daughter that she’s a well-to-do socialite rather than a poor fruit peddler, but at what cost? Now she’s lied to her child and, worse, given herself a taste of the good life, a high from which she must come down. And with that perspective in mind she’s surely going to hate her true social place even more. So if you’re underemployed, don’t lie about it, not even to your parents. Best circumstance, they help you out a little with your finances. Worst circumstance, you feel even more depressed about your situation and you take your own life — whether literally or, like Annie, figuratively. Plus, if your parents do end up finding out the truth, they’ll be more disappointed with you than they would have been if told the truth all along. Film: Triumph of the Will (1935) Tip: Don’t work for a mad, genocidal dictator unless you want the association to follow you to your grave. Leni Riefenstahl may have denied having full allegiance to Hitler and the Nazis, but she’ll forever be known as the director who helped propagandize the party right up until the beginning of World War II. And to many that makes her one of the bad guys. Whether she’s truly guilty by association, her kind of situation is constantly a topic of ethical debate. Maybe working for later-exposed criminals will keep you from getting elected one day. Maybe working for evil emperors will get you blown up while doing contract work on a giant space station. Either way, it’s best to do as much of a background check on your potential bosses as they’re doing on you. Film: Modern Times (1936) Tip: Don’t be a slave to the machines, or one day they’ll enslave you. That sounds like advice to be gotten from The Matrix, but that film’s dystopia is precisely the kind of future Chaplin was warning about. So much of the imagery in this film consists of workers depending on machines, either to help do the job or feed them, and workers being trapped in machines, figuratively enslaved by them. If you end up getting a job on the internet, and that’s more and more likely to be your best shot at employment these days, you’ll understand Chaplin’s fears better than he could ever have imagined. Film: Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936) Tip: Breaking into a rich man’s home will likely get you a job. It’s thanks to a desperate little farmer that the newly rich Deeds (Gary Cooper) decides to divvy up his millions and donate plots of land to the poor. And the gun-wielding intruder doesn’t get thrown in jail; he becomes one of the many who are eligible for some of that free acreage. Hollywood pipe dream, sure, but the concept also seemed to work outside of American cinema. In Renoir’s The Rules of the Game, a man (Julien Carette) is caught trespassing on a wealthy estate and he’s offered a job. However, it may not be necessary to actually commit the crime of breaking and entering to get the attention of potential beneficiaries and employers. In Renoir’s Boudu Saved From Drowning the titular bum is merely witnessed attempting suicide in the Seine (though in Paul Mazursky’s ‘80s remake, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, the bum is also an intruder). And in My Man Godfrey the titular bum is plucked out of the trash and eventually brought home and employed as a butler. Which brings up the next tip. Film: My Man Godfrey (1936) Tip: If forced to become a servant, don’t steal the boss’ daughter’s necklace, pawn it and then gamble with the money made in order to further improve your situation, because only William Powell is good enough to get away with it. You are not as smooth as William Powell; it’s just not possible. So, while he (and his character, Godfrey) is able to come out of this film on top, in the same situation you would more than likely end up back on the garbage heap (without a nightclub built on the spot, that is). Firstly, he’s able to charm the socialite Irene (Carole Lombard) enough to escape homelessness, acquire a position as her family’s butler and eventually win her heart. Secondly, when Irene’s bitter sister, Cornelia (Gail Patrick), attempts to frame him as a necklace nabber, he beats her at her game and follows through to win out even more. What he does with the jewelry, though, would still get most people arrested, even if the ends do justify the means. Never do as Powell does, because nobody can pull off anything as well as he can. Film: You Can’t Take it With You (1938) Tip: Taking up seemingly utopian residence in a commune full of oddballs will likely get you thrown in jail. Grandpa Vanderhof (Lionel Barrymore) wasn’t claiming to be prophet nor did he (as far as we know) have a harem of young wives stored away somewhere in his house, but these days a freewheeling place like his might attract the attention of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or some other government agency assigned to shutting down cults and terrorist organizations. Even then his home was suspected of being a den for treasonous plots, leading to an FBI raid and mass arrest. So, while it may seem like a dream come true to be wooed in by a jolly old man promising free living and the chance to be a toymaker, there’s actually no such thing as Santa Claus, and that man is probably doing something illegal to accommodate such a lifestyle. Film: The Grapes of Wrath (1939) Tip: Don’t settle for wages lower than is standard for the work. If you’re really hungry and desperate for work, you might think about taking only 25 cents an hour for a job you used to do for 30 cents. This happens often with competitive fields, whether it is migrant farming or blogging, but it only lowers your worth and it encourages your employers to keep decreasing the wages as long as someone is willing to settle. Eventually, either your fellow workers or the previous, underbid employees are going to be provoked by the situation and then there’s the chance of violence and further oppression. Plus, then you might be out of the job anyway. Potentially on the run, like Tom Joad (Henry Fonda), too. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/12/37261.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/12/2008 5:02:00 PM
Body: While Karina spends today in Mac heaven, I’m celebrating my PC. Well, maybe celebrating isn’t the right word since I’m taking humorous delight in its faults. Just as I greatly enjoy the “I’m a PC; I’m a Mac” ads, I find this parody of The Matrix hilarious, because like so many frustrated computer users, I work with Windows. I truly never thought that I’d be entertained by something involving that annoying little paper clip fellow, but that lampooning of the spoon-bending scene is priceless. This clip almost makes me grateful that I’ve experienced all of Windows’ many problems. But I’m no Microsoft defender. I’m just a cheap and lazy consumer. And I’ve had a laptop stolen by a junkie, so I’ll always be hesitant to spend a lot on a machine. But now that Netflix Watch Now works on a Mac, there’s not a whole lot other than price that’s keeping me buying a Macbook. And since my present laptop no longer plays DVDs, it might just be time to pay a visit to the Apple Store. Then again, if I stop using Windows, I might not be able to fully appreciate comedic videos like the one above. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Wed, 12 Nov 2008 22:02:00 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/12/2008 5:02:00 PM While Karina spends today in Mac heaven, I’m celebrating my PC. Well, maybe celebrating isn’t the right word since I’m taking humorous delight in its faults. Just as I greatly enjoy the “I’m a PC; I’m a Mac” ads, I find this parody of The Matrix hilarious, because like so many frustrated computer users, I work with Windows. I truly never thought that I’d be entertained by something involving that annoying little paper clip fellow, but that lampooning of the spoon-bending scene is priceless. This clip almost makes me grateful that I’ve experienced all of Windows’ many problems. But I’m no Microsoft defender. I’m just a cheap and lazy consumer. And I’ve had a laptop stolen by a junkie, so I’ll always be hesitant to spend a lot on a machine. But now that Netflix Watch Now works on a Mac, there’s not a whole lot other than price that’s keeping me buying a Macbook. And since my present laptop no longer plays DVDs, it might just be time to pay a visit to the Apple Store. Then again, if I stop using Windows, I might not be able to fully appreciate comedic videos like the one above. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/11/11/37218.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 11/11/2008 3:01:25 PM
Body: Terminator Salvation, due in May of next year, stars Christian Bale as John Conner. The film will be a quasi-reboot of the series, picking up after the machines have destroyed civilization and Conner is leading a small band of survivors in a war against the machines. The following is an open letter to McG, the director of the film. Dear McG, Lots of people have been talking about your new movie this week. Several sites have posted some leaked material featuring the work of production designer Martin Laing. Many sites had a behind the scenes featurette with Laing and a gallery of concept art, most of which were taken down at the request of the studio. One of the only ones to survive at time of this writing is on io9. Ain’t it Cool News reported that while James Cameron did not have a hear-to-heart with you, as you claimed in July, he still has high hopes for the film. When I saw you at Comic-Con in July, I was very pleased with the early footage and what you and the cast had to say about the film. One thing you said was that you were interested in what we thought about the early images and the direction the film was heading. I hope it’s not too late, because I have a few suggestions. First of all, bravo on hiring Martin Laing. This guy doesn’t have a huge list of credits, but his work on City of Ember was great, and the concepts for new the Terminators look really good. In the leaked featurette he seems very tuned in to the fact that this film takes place at a very particular time in the story line of the Terminator universe: after the nuclear holocaust, but before any machines are sent back in time to meddle with the Conners. So while the machines are really badass, they’re actually less advanced than Arnold’s T-800. Also, they have no need to be disguised as humans, so we’re treated to Terminators that take the form of motorcycles, snakes, and a huge Transformer-like behemoth called a Harvester. While the images of these new (or is it old?) Terminators have me salivating, they also raise some concerns. I’d like to know that you’re going to avoid what I call The Matrix Revolutions Problem. The first Matrix was a great movie, the second one was alright, but The Matrix Revolutions was a steaming pile of crap. There are many reasons for this, but there are three I’d like to focus on here: One, the plot felt like it was on autopilot, the conflicts previously set up were being worked out without any convincing new conflicts being introduced. Two, the battle between the humans and the machines became epic to the point of feeling bloated and silly. Three, the Matrix sequels were completely inside the rabbit hole. Rather than being about the incursion of an fantastic reality upon the real world, they were fully immersed in that fantastic reality. The first of these concerns, that the plot will feel locked in place, could be a real problem for the Terminator series because of the use of time travel. (Spoilers of the existing three Terminator films ahead.) We know that Kyle Reese has to survive up to the point where he’s sent back to save Sarah Conner and father John Conner. We also know that John Conner survives long enough to send him, that the machines will send three Terminators to kill the Conners, and that the resistance will send two Terminators to protect them. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines did show that the timeline can be altered, as Judgment Day was delayed from when it was originally predicted to happen. Also, Christian Bale’s line in the teaser trailer, “This isn’t the future my mother warned me about, I’m not sure if we can win this war,” indicates that you and the writers have realized this is a concern. My advice is this: If you have to amend the timeline, fine. The important thing is that a sense of urgency and dread permeates the film. The original films, especially the first two, succeeded because they created a tension between inevitability and resistance. The second concern, that the need to one-up previous villains will make the new film outlandish, parallels the trouble the Matrix films encountered. The set-up of the first Matrix was so cool: you’re plugged into a machine, but you can free your mind and fight, and the machines send agents after you. Simple enough. But in the second and third films, we were introduced to computer viruses and architects and all kinds of complicating crap. All of which probably looked really good on paper, but when inserted into the movies they really just distracted from what was great about the first film, namely that technology is a means of control that we have the power to resist. As much as I’m looking forward to seeing Christian Bale and Sam Worthington destroy a 50 foot tall Harvester, don’t forget what made the action sequences in the first two films work so well, a sustained feeling of desperate survival. The heroes didn’t really fight, rather they tenaciously avoided extermination like cockroaches. The third concern could be a blessing or a curse. What the first Matrix shares with all three existing Terminator films is that a fantastic reality comes into conflict with the normal worldt. The prospects that the world is an elaborate computer program or that a man who saved your life is a warrior from the future are much easier to swallow when we share in the initial disbelief of Neo or Sarah Conner, respectively. The Matrix sequels suffered because the outlandish state of the world was a given. The Terminator films, up to this point, have always been careful to include characters that are in the same frame of mind as Sarah was in the first film, unable to believe that a war with the machines is possible. This tension over the acceptance of the future is the driving force of conflict in the first three Terminator films. Sarah Conner exemplifies this in T2, she’s a prophet betrayed by those she’s trying to save. The harder she tries to convince people that the nuclear holocaust is coming, the more they think she’s crazy. Terminator Salvation can still be a great movie, McG — don’t listen to the haters. You just need to focus on the elements of the previous films that can thrive in this new premise, and let go of the ones that cannot. There’s nothing in the previous films that indicates how John’s war against the machines ultimately turns out. Godspeed, McG, and remember: “the future is not set, there is not fate but what we make for ourselves.” Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 11 Nov 2008 20:01:25 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com11/11/2008 3:01:25 PM Terminator Salvation, due in May of next year, stars Christian Bale as John Conner. The film will be a quasi-reboot of the series, picking up after the machines have destroyed civilization and Conner is leading a small band of survivors in a war against the machines. The following is an open letter to McG, the director of the film. Dear McG, Lots of people have been talking about your new movie this week. Several sites have posted some leaked material featuring the work of production designer Martin Laing. Many sites had a behind the scenes featurette with Laing and a gallery of concept art, most of which were taken down at the request of the studio. One of the only ones to survive at time of this writing is on io9. Ain’t it Cool News reported that while James Cameron did not have a hear-to-heart with you, as you claimed in July, he still has high hopes for the film. When I saw you at Comic-Con in July, I was very pleased with the early footage and what you and the cast had to say about the film. One thing you said was that you were interested in what we thought about the early images and the direction the film was heading. I hope it’s not too late, because I have a few suggestions. First of all, bravo on hiring Martin Laing. This guy doesn’t have a huge list of credits, but his work on City of Ember was great, and the concepts for new the Terminators look really good. In the leaked featurette he seems very tuned in to the fact that this film takes place at a very particular time in the story line of the Terminator universe: after the nuclear holocaust, but before any machines are sent back in time to meddle with the Conners. So while the machines are really badass, they’re actually less advanced than Arnold’s T-800. Also, they have no need to be disguised as humans, so we’re treated to Terminators that take the form of motorcycles, snakes, and a huge Transformer-like behemoth called a Harvester. While the images of these new (or is it old?) Terminators have me salivating, they also raise some concerns. I’d like to know that you’re going to avoid what I call The Matrix Revolutions Problem. The first Matrix was a great movie, the second one was alright, but The Matrix Revolutions was a steaming pile of crap. There are many reasons for this, but there are three I’d like to focus on here: One, the plot felt like it was on autopilot, the conflicts previously set up were being worked out without any convincing new conflicts being introduced. Two, the battle between the humans and the machines became epic to the point of feeling bloated and silly. Three, the Matrix sequels were completely inside the rabbit hole. Rather than being about the incursion of an fantastic reality upon the real world, they were fully immersed in that fantastic reality. The first of these concerns, that the plot will feel locked in place, could be a real problem for the Terminator series because of the use of time travel. (Spoilers of the existing three Terminator films ahead.) We know that Kyle Reese has to survive up to the point where he’s sent back to save Sarah Conner and father John Conner. We also know that John Conner survives long enough to send him, that the machines will send three Terminators to kill the Conners, and that the resistance will send two Terminators to protect them. Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines did show that the timeline can be altered, as Judgment Day was delayed from when it was originally predicted to happen. Also, Christian Bale’s line in the teaser trailer, “This isn’t the future my mother warned me about, I’m not sure if we can win this war,” indicates that you and the writers have realized this is a concern. My advice is this: If you have to amend the timeline, fine. The important thing is that a sense of urgency and dread permeates the film. The original films, especially the first two, succeeded because they created a tension between inevitability and resistance. The second concern, that the need to one-up previous villains will make the new film outlandish, parallels the trouble the Matrix films encountered. The set-up of the first Matrix was so cool: you’re plugged into a machine, but you can free your mind and fight, and the machines send agents after you. Simple enough. But in the second and third films, we were introduced to computer viruses and architects and all kinds of complicating crap. All of which probably looked really good on paper, but when inserted into the movies they really just distracted from what was great about the first film, namely that technology is a means of control that we have the power to resist. As much as I’m looking forward to seeing Christian Bale and Sam Worthington destroy a 50 foot tall Harvester, don’t forget what made the action sequences in the first two films work so well, a sustained feeling of desperate survival. The heroes didn’t really fight, rather they tenaciously avoided extermination like cockroaches. The third concern could be a blessing or a curse. What the first Matrix shares with all three existing Terminator films is that a fantastic reality comes into conflict with the normal worldt. The prospects that the world is an elaborate computer program or that a man who saved your life is a warrior from the future are much easier to swallow when we share in the initial disbelief of Neo or Sarah Conner, respectively. The Matrix sequels suffered because the outlandish state of the world was a given. The Terminator films, up to this point, have always been careful to include characters that are in the same frame of mind as Sarah was in the first film, unable to believe that a war with the machines is possible. This tension over the acceptance of the future is the driving force of conflict in the first three Terminator films. Sarah Conner exemplifies this in T2, she’s a prophet betrayed by those she’s trying to save. The harder she tries to convince people that the nuclear holocaust is coming, the more they think she’s crazy. Terminator Salvation can still be a great movie, McG — don’t listen to the haters. You just need to focus on the elements of the previous films that can thrive in this new premise, and let go of the ones that cannot. There’s nothing in the previous films that indicates how John’s war against the machines ultimately turns out. Godspeed, McG, and remember: “the future is not set, there is not fate but what we make for ourselves.” 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/members/0/tags/love/MemberTagFilms.aspxlove
Number of films tagged: 12476

Number of people who tagged: 336

Number of times used: 1474

]]>Sun, 29 Nov 2009 15:38:55 GMT124763361474Tag 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/friendship/MemberTagFilms.aspxfriendship
Number of films tagged: 6790

Number of people who tagged: 154

Number of times used: 977

]]>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 18:10:03 GMT6790154977Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 216

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 374

]]>Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:04:14 GMT216102374Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/time/MemberTagFilms.aspxtime
Number of films tagged: 310

Number of people who tagged: 79

Number of times used: 101

]]>Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:27:45 GMT31079101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/escape/MemberTagFilms.aspxescape
Number of films tagged: 2868

Number of people who tagged: 76

Number of times used: 279

]]>Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:51:44 GMT286876279Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/personal-classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxpersonal-classic
Number of films tagged: 180

Number of people who tagged: 64

Number of times used: 274

]]>Thu, 09 Jul 2009 11:21:00 GMT18064274Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/favorite/MemberTagFilms.aspxfavorite
Number of films tagged: 85

Number of people who tagged: 62

Number of times used: 127

]]>Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:22:58 GMT8562127Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/redemption/MemberTagFilms.aspxredemption
Number of films tagged: 626

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 117

]]>Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:18:53 GMT62653117Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/survival/MemberTagFilms.aspxsurvival
Number of films tagged: 67

Number of people who tagged: 48

Number of times used: 98

]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:43:56 GMT674898Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/hero/MemberTagFilms.aspxhero
Number of films tagged: 638

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 141

]]>Wed, 26 Aug 2009 17:55:16 GMT63843141Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/horrible/MemberTagFilms.aspxhorrible
Number of films tagged: 72

Number of people who tagged: 42

Number of times used: 73

]]>Mon, 19 Jan 2009 21:19:31 GMT724273Tag