What Awful Show Did I Watch? - Minority Report

[anim8rfsk]

The Amazon Prime suggested it. I knew it existed, and that Tom Cruise was in
it, and I've seen model kits of the spider ship, but that was about it.

Well. A Dreamworks film. Okay, there's never been one of those I'd go thumbs
up on.

Well. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Okay, there hasn't been one of those I'd
go thumbs up on since E.T. stunk up the screens.

So. The first hour or so, while we find out about the system of catching
killers in advance, is interesting enough. They abruptly it turns into a
terrible chase movie, with bad CGI, obvious stunt doubles, indestructible
people, and some of the worst physics I've ever seen on screen. It makes the
Mission: Impossible movies seem positively realistic by comparison.

The law of conservation of characters made it obvious who the bad guy was,
but I never figured out his motives, although it was nice that he was able to
put together a frame scenario that should have taken weeks over the lunch
hour. Also since they didn't have any extra precogs, how would the system
ever go nationwide?

Why would you give somebody a ceremonial Civil War era pistol with gold
bullets that were *functional*!?

It's nice to know that even with the murders stopped, Washington D.C. is
still a shithole of a city.

As is usual with Spielberg fodder, you can see the strings on everything.
Stuff happens for no onscreen reason at all, but you can imagine the meeting
that took place to spawn this segment.

Why does the precog keep talking about the kid growing up with his family in
the wife's house and how full of love it was, when not only did none of it
happen, but that's where the wife moved *after* the kid was killed! Assuming
the kid *was* killed - they never made that clear either.

By the end I was saying the dialog ahead of them. "I never said she was
drowned!!" I was also screaming DON'T POSSIBLY BE SO FREAKING STUPID AS TO
SAY "I never said she was drowned!!" right before she was so freaking stupid
as to say "I never said she was drowned!!"

Did somebody rip this off or did they make a TV show of it? I'm sure I've
seen the precog in the milk set up before ...

And it's really hard to take Damian Dahrke seriously as a good guy

Jessica Harper looked horrible 17 years ago? I haz a sad. :(

--
Join your old RAT friends at
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1688985234647266/

[Michael OConnor]

I remember watching it on cable when it first came out, and as soon as I saw Max Von Sydow's name in the opening credits, I said, "He's the bad guy." I should have quit while I was ahead, because even I knew at the time I'd never get those two-plus hours of my life back again.

There were a lot of points in the movie that really strained credulity as I remember, such as Tom Cruise having to purchase a black market set of eyes and he carried his original eyes around with him in a ziploc baggie at room temperature, because that's a great way to transport human organs without them quickly degrading.

There were the vertical roads that went up the sides of buildings, which would be awful if you lived or worked in one of those buildings and your apartment or office was on the opposite side of the wall from the road and you had cars running up and down the outside of your walls all day long. I'm sure that wouldn't be annoying at all.

One futuristic thing in the movie they did get sorta right is when you walk into a store and an automated voice says "Hi, Phil, how are you today, what can I do for you?" or whatever your name is. It won't be eye scans that they'll use to determine your identity, it will be facial recognition technology and having information on everything you've bought due to your debit card and or those grocery reward cards. They're closing in on that kind of technology. Thanks Google and Facebook.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>The Amazon Prime suggested it. I knew it existed, and that Tom Cruise was in
>it, and I've seen model kits of the spider ship, but that was about it.

>Well. A Dreamworks film. Okay, there's never been one of those I'd go thumbs
>up on.

Uh, what's the rule about Philip K. Dick adaptations? The brilliant
stories are mostly thrown away and the adaptations have nearly nothing
to do with the original story. In this case, the character played by Tom
Cruise is a hell of a lot younger than the one in the story.

Read the original.

I thought you were going to say you watched the Fox tv series from fall
2015, which was somewhat interesting with a poorly thought out story
arch and, of course, no ending.

It has some merit and a few enjoyable scenes. Agatha (Samantha Morton)
is a good character and it's a fine performance. My favorite scene is
the umbrella scene in the mall.

>Well. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Okay, there hasn't been one of those I'd
>go thumbs up on since E.T. stunk up the screens.

In 40 years, I've never seen it.

The eye replacement scene makes no sense and is about the worst part of
the movie, plus the fact that Max Von Sydow never took Anderton's
original iris scans out of the security system.

But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.

>. . .

>The law of conservation of characters made it obvious who the bad guy was,
>but I never figured out his motives, although it was nice that he was able to
>put together a frame scenario that should have taken weeks over the lunch
>hour. Also since they didn't have any extra precogs, how would the system
>ever go nationwide?

You owe Rober Ebert ice cream.

>Did somebody rip this off or did they make a TV show of it? I'm sure I've
>seen the precog in the milk set up before ...

See above.

>. . .

[anim8rfsk]

Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:47:20 -0700 Michael OConnor<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

> I remember watching it on cable when it first came out, and as soon as I saw
> Max Von Sydow's name in the opening credits, I said, "He's the bad guy." I
> should have quit while I was ahead, because even I knew at the time I'd never
> get those two-plus hours of my life back again.
>
> There were a lot of points in the movie that really strained credulity as I
> remember, such as Tom Cruise having to purchase a black market set of eyes
> and he carried his original eyes around with him in a ziploc baggie at room
> temperature, because that's a great way to transport human organs without
> them quickly degrading.

I kept waiting for the surgeon, who had a LOT of exposition, to say that the
baggie was full of eye preserving flippity-goop, just *something* to
acknowledge the problem.
Also, wasn't it nice that they didn't have anything sticking off the back so
you could roll them like golf balls?

> There were the vertical roads that went up the sides of buildings, which
> would be awful if you lived or worked in one of those buildings and your
> apartment or office was on the opposite side of the wall from the road and
> you had cars running up and down the outside of your walls all day long. I'm
> sure that wouldn't be annoying at all.

Sigh. And they don't have gravity control or inertial dampeners, so you'd
constantly be upside down and sideways and backwards and smushed into the
breakable glass windows. God help you if you brought a Big Gulp!

> One futuristic thing in the movie they did get sorta right is when you walk
> into a store and an automated voice says "Hi, Phil, how are you today, what
> can I do for you?" or whatever your name is. It won't be eye scans that
> they'll use to determine your identity, it will be facial recognition
> technology and having information on everything you've bought due to your
> debit card and or those grocery reward cards. They're closing in on that kind
> of technology. Thanks Google and Facebook.

It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the advertising
robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?

[anim8rfsk]

Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > The Amazon Prime suggested it. I knew it existed, and that Tom Cruise was in
> > it, and I've seen model kits of the spider ship, but that was about it.
>
> > Well. A Dreamworks film. Okay, there's never been one of those I'd go thumbs
> > up on.
>
> Uh, what's the rule about Philip K. Dick adaptations? The brilliant
> stories are mostly thrown away and the adaptations have nearly nothing
> to do with the original story. In this case, the character played by Tom
> Cruise is a hell of a lot younger than the one in the story.
>
> Read the original.
>
> I thought you were going to say you watched the Fox tv series from fall
> 2015, which was somewhat interesting with a poorly thought out story
> arch and, of course, no ending.

That's on The Amazon, but it's not free, and I wasn't about to pay for it, at
least not in more than time and suffering.

> It has some merit and a few enjoyable scenes. Agatha (Samantha Morton)
> is a good character and it's a fine performance. My favorite scene is
> the umbrella scene in the mall.

You mean balloons? Where all the cops chasing him bunch together so all of
them can't see him at the same time?

> > Well. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Okay, there hasn't been one of those I'd
> > go thumbs up on since E.T. stunk up the screens.
>
> In 40 years, I've never seen it.

Mom wanted to, but it was hard to schedule around Dad. As their neighborhood
aged out of trick or treating, she'd come over to my place and hand out
candy, and given that big hunks of E.T. take place on Halloween, this seemed
thematically appropriate. So I bought the laser disc (!) and we watched
between doorbell rings. After it was over, she asked very tentatively what I
thought. I told her I hated it, and she let out a huge sigh of relief, 'cause
she thought it was awful, but was afraid to say anything. :D

E.T. is full of moments where you're asking stuff like "why is he taking
Reese's Pieces to point B to feed the creature, when the only thing he knows
the creature likes is pizza, and the only place he's ever seen evidence the
creature eats is point A, which is, for Christ's sake, closer to home!?" The
answers are of course 1) endorsement deal and 2) he needs to run into
somebody for plot advancement purposes.

> The eye replacement scene makes no sense and is about the worst part of
> the movie, plus the fact that Max Von Sydow never took Anderton's
> original iris scans out of the security system.

Or have them trigger an alarm.

> But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
> interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
> being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.

Or people had just become immune to it.

I sort of wondered why they had big billboards for opaque glasses and yet
nobody wore them ...

> > The law of conservation of characters made it obvious who the bad guy was,
> > but I never figured out his motives, although it was nice that he was able
> > to
> > put together a frame scenario that should have taken weeks over the lunch
> > hour. Also since they didn't have any extra precogs, how would the system
> > ever go nationwide?
>
> You owe Rober Ebert ice cream.

Poor Roger

> > Did somebody rip this off or did they make a TV show of it? I'm sure I've
> > seen the precog in the milk set up before ...
>
> See above

Ditto

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>. . .

>>It has some merit and a few enjoyable scenes. Agatha (Samantha Morton)
>>is a good character and it's a fine performance. My favorite scene is
>>the umbrella scene in the mall.

>You mean balloons? Where all the cops chasing him bunch together so all of
>them can't see him at the same time?

Thanks for the correction.

>>>Well. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Okay, there hasn't been one of those I'd
>>>go thumbs up on since E.T. stunk up the screens.

>>In 40 years, I've never seen it.

>Mom wanted to, . . .

Spielberg wore out his welcome for me Close Encounters of the Third
Kind. I liked Richard Dreyfuss's obsessive performance, particularly
building the Devil's Tower model in his living room, and I liked Teri
Garr, but was bored out of my mind by the first third and the final
third. And years later, when I read that Francois Truffaut, who couldn't
act and couldn't speak English, was in the movie because Spielberg
wouldn't stop nagging him to be in the movie, I came to understand how
very self indulgent Spielberg can be to the detriment of his movie and
audience.

I haven't seen most of the movies he's directed. Glancing at IMDb, I've
seen the Night Gallery segment, the Columbo episode, and the tv movie
Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark (but not the sequels), Jurassic Park,
Schindler's List, A.I. (which I really liked until the final third and
that vicious ending, oh my gawd), Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln (forgot
he directed that but does Daniel Day-Lewis require direction?), and
Bridge of Spies. I haven't even seen the rest of them on tv.

I feel the opposite about Steven Spielberg as Dawson Leery.

>>. . .

>>But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
>>interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
>>being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.

>Or people had just become immune to it.

That's not what I meant. All the advertising retina scans did was say
the person's name. It didn't link to a massive database or analytics
about the shopper's habits and wasn't at all sophisticated. At the time,
marketers used algorithms to select names for mailing lists with
particular demographics to encourage buying. Now, some catalog
distribution was hit or miss, but sometimes, they just got things right
dead on, like insurance solicitations and predicting with some accuracy
that a coupled married so long in a given area with a specific income,
the wife would get knocked up by a year and three months into the
marriage and it's time to send baby catalogs.

I remember noticing that the young pregnant wife in the upstairs was
receiving baby catalogs. It was beyond creepy how they did that.

By 2054 A.D., the marketers should be able to count the number of
heartbeats and function of all internal organs and glands to predict
exactly what images, sounds, and smells to use to get someone to buy
some crap.

>. . .

[anim8rfsk]

Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:12:32 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> > > anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > > > . . .
>
> > > It has some merit and a few enjoyable scenes. Agatha (Samantha Morton)
> > > is a good character and it's a fine performance. My favorite scene is
> > > the umbrella scene in the mall.
>
> > You mean balloons? Where all the cops chasing him bunch together so all of
> > them can't see him at the same time?
>
> Thanks for the correction.

Thank you for not making me go back and rewatch to see if I missed something!

> > > > Well. Directed by Steven Spielberg. Okay, there hasn't been one of those
> > > > I'd
> > > > go thumbs up on since E.T. stunk up the screens.
>
> > > In 40 years, I've never seen it.
>
> > Mom wanted to, . . .
>
> Spielberg wore out his welcome for me Close Encounters of the Third
> Kind. I liked Richard Dreyfuss's obsessive performance, particularly
> building the Devil's Tower model in his living room, and I liked Teri
> Garr, but was bored out of my mind by the first third and the final
> third. And years later, when I read that Francois Truffaut, who couldn't
> act and couldn't speak English, was in the movie because Spielberg
> wouldn't stop nagging him to be in the movie, I came to understand how
> very self indulgent Spielberg can be to the detriment of his movie and
> audience.

Oh, yeah, Truffaut was the weakest link there.

I really liked the original movie, but hated the special editions. Terri Garr
goes from somebody who sticks with Dreyfuss to someone who bails at the first
sign of ensuing wackiness. This changed Dreyfuss from somebody with a great
family to somebody with not a Hell of a lot to lose if he goes off with the
aliens.

> I haven't seen most of the movies he's directed. Glancing at IMDb, I've
> seen the Night Gallery segment, the Columbo episode, and the tv movie
> Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark (but not the sequels), Jurassic Park,
> Schindler's List, A.I. (which I really liked until the final third and
> that vicious ending, oh my gawd), Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln (forgot
> he directed that but does Daniel Day-Lewis require direction?), and
> Bridge of Spies. I haven't even seen the rest of them on tv.

He's a homeboy (same high school, I know a lot of people that worked with
him, I've nodded to him at stop lights, but never met) so I saw a lot of his
stuff, especially early on. Night Gallery, Columbo, Duel ... Jaws (which I
like a lot except for the added gore head sequence they shot later in
somebody's swimming pool), CE3K, 1941 (hey, I have a friend in there!),
Raiders (which I still like a lot), Temple of Doom (which I despise - I said
in the theater that he must have had the hots for Capshaw because he was
throwing the movie away to feature her), Last Crusade (way better than Doom
even if it is a remake of Raiders), Always (that was awful - Ebert pointed
out that he cast two of the best talkers in the business, Dreyfuss and Holly
Hunter, in a film structured such that THEY NEVER TALK TO EACH OTHER), Hook
(awful again, including that whole bit with Tinkerbell that was stuff in
because Roberts wanted to act with some of the others), Jurassic Park (I'd
read the book 7 times and had high hopes and put together a group to go
opening night and ... it was just wretched), Lost World (hey, look, he
managed to make a wildly worse movie!), AI (which I'm sure I've seen but it
didn't stick with me at all), War of the Worlds (absolutely wretched),
Crystal Skull (gah! and why does anybody think LaBoof brings something to the
table?), and by then I was avoiding his stuff.

> I feel the opposite about Steven Spielberg as Dawson Leery.

Whoosh?

> > > . . .
>
> > > But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
> > > interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
> > > being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.
>
> > Or people had just become immune to it.
>
> That's not what I meant. All the advertising retina scans did was say
> the person's name. It didn't link to a massive database or analytics
> about the shopper's habits and wasn't at all sophisticated.

It's hard to make out, but I'm pretty sure the voices are saying "HEY ADAM
KERMAN HOW about a nice Versace suit" and the video displays are showing
such, but there's so much overlap and audio fade after the name that the
audience doesn't really get it.

> At the time,
> marketers used algorithms to select names for mailing lists with
> particular demographics to encourage buying. Now, some catalog
> distribution was hit or miss, but sometimes, they just got things right
> dead on, like insurance solicitations and predicting with some accuracy
> that a coupled married so long in a given area with a specific income,
> the wife would get knocked up by a year and three months into the
> marriage and it's time to send baby catalogs.
>
> I remember noticing that the young pregnant wife in the upstairs was
> receiving baby catalogs. It was beyond creepy how they did that.

I was mostly wondering if that place was really not supposed to have a roof
...

> By 2054 A.D., the marketers should be able to count the number of
> heartbeats and function of all internal organs and glands to predict
> exactly what images, sounds, and smells to use to get someone to buy
> some crap.

heh

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:12:32 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>It has some merit and a few enjoyable scenes. Agatha (Samantha Morton)
>>>>is a good character and it's a fine performance. My favorite scene is
>>>>the umbrella scene in the mall.

>>>You mean balloons? Where all the cops chasing him bunch together so all of
>>>them can't see him at the same time?

>>Thanks for the correction.

>Thank you for not making me go back and rewatch to see if I missed something!

I don't think you're appreciating the irony of discussing how very
fallible memory is with regard to adaptations of Philip K. Dick stories.

However, if I spot that movie on tv, I do rewatch this scene.

>>>. . .

>>Spielberg wore out his welcome for me Close Encounters of the Third
>>Kind. I liked Richard Dreyfuss's obsessive performance, particularly
>>building the Devil's Tower model in his living room, and I liked Teri
>>Garr, but was bored out of my mind by the first third and the final
>>third. And years later, when I read that Francois Truffaut, who couldn't
>>act and couldn't speak English, was in the movie because Spielberg
>>wouldn't stop nagging him to be in the movie, I came to understand how
>>very self indulgent Spielberg can be to the detriment of his movie and
>>audience.

>Oh, yeah, Truffaut was the weakest link there.

It's not his fault! He couldn't speak English and he wasn't an actor.
You don't cast someone like that in a critical supporting role in a
major Hollywood movie just to indulge yourself by forcing a friend of
yours to act in your movie! I wonder if they remained friends after.

>I really liked the original movie, but hated the special editions. Terri Garr
>goes from somebody who sticks with Dreyfuss to someone who bails at the first
>sign of ensuing wackiness. This changed Dreyfuss from somebody with a great
>family to somebody with not a Hell of a lot to lose if he goes off with the
>aliens.

Exactly. This is why I despise the last third of the movie. We're
supposed to really like the Teri Garr character, but suddenly, she
vanishes without a trace from the movie. We're supposed to admire the
Richard Dreyfuss character, but he abandons his wife and children. It's
rather an unusual character for the hero of a Spielberg movie.

>>I haven't seen most of the movies he's directed. Glancing at IMDb, I've
>>seen the Night Gallery segment, the Columbo episode, and the tv movie
>>Duel, Raiders of the Lost Ark (but not the sequels), Jurassic Park,
>>Schindler's List, A.I. (which I really liked until the final third and
>>that vicious ending, oh my gawd), Catch Me If You Can, Lincoln (forgot
>>he directed that but does Daniel Day-Lewis require direction?), and
>>Bridge of Spies. I haven't even seen the rest of them on tv.

>He's a homeboy (same high school, I know a lot of people that worked with
>him, I've nodded to him at stop lights, but never met) so I saw a lot of his
>stuff, especially early on. Night Gallery, Columbo, Duel ... Jaws (which I
>like a lot except for the added gore head sequence they shot later in
>somebody's swimming pool),

I've seen scenes from Jaws but I've never watched it all the way
through. I did read the Peter Benchley novel.

>CE3K, 1941 (hey, I have a friend in there!),

Cool

>Raiders (which I still like a lot),

Me too. It's just meant to be a glorious, nostalgic tribute to action
serials and it's great fun with the emphasis on entertainment.

>Temple of Doom (which I despise - I said
>in the theater that he must have had the hots for Capshaw because he was
>throwing the movie away to feature her), Last Crusade (way better than Doom
>even if it is a remake of Raiders), Always (that was awful - Ebert pointed
>out that he cast two of the best talkers in the business, Dreyfuss and Holly
>Hunter, in a film structured such that THEY NEVER TALK TO EACH OTHER), Hook
>(awful again, including that whole bit with Tinkerbell that was stuff in
>because Roberts wanted to act with some of the others),

>Jurassic Park (I'd read the book 7 times and had high hopes and put
>together a group to go opening night and ... it was just wretched),

Michael Crichton was an excellent writer for creating scenarios and
puzzles to solve with science and technology, but the characters were
cardboard. We've discussed many many times what was wrong with the
adaptation and how every change made things worse. Nevertheless, the
velociraptors were scary.

>Lost World (hey, look, he managed to make a wildly worse movie!), AI
>(which I'm sure I've seen but it didn't stick with me at all), War of the
>Worlds (absolutely wretched), Crystal Skull (gah! and why does anybody
>think LaBoof brings something to the table?), and by then I was avoiding
>his stuff.

Uh, how are you avoiding his stuff? I think that's everything he
directed except that Name of the Game episode.

>>I feel the opposite about Steven Spielberg as Dawson Leery.

>Whoosh?

Dawson's Creek, the most famous Hour of Teenage Angst broadcast on The
WB. Dawson dreamed of becoming a director and worshipped Spielberg. His
bedroom was covered with posters from Spielberb movies.

>>>>. . .

>>>>But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
>>>>interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
>>>>being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.

>>>Or people had just become immune to it.

>>That's not what I meant. All the advertising retina scans did was say
>>the person's name. It didn't link to a massive database or analytics
>>about the shopper's habits and wasn't at all sophisticated.

>It's hard to make out, but I'm pretty sure the voices are saying "HEY ADAM
>KERMAN HOW about a nice Versace suit" and the video displays are showing
>such, but there's so much overlap and audio fade after the name that the
>audience doesn't really get it.

Truly sophisticated marketing would be, We know you have a hot date
tonight. If you get a new suit and haircut and make reservations at the
fine restaurant we're about to recommend, you'll get sex. We know how
you dressed the last time you had a hot date, and the evening didn't go
too well, did it. Oh, and you're out of your (2050s version of Viagra).

>>. . .

[Rhino]

The movie is based on a similarly named novel by Philip K. Dick. Having
read several of Dick's books - and enjoyed none of them - I can only say
that Dick is always kinda weird to say the very least. Movies of his
books are better than the books because they remove most of the
weirdness. But he is greatly revered by some science fiction fans and
most of the movies of his books have been fairly successful so it's not
really shocking that his books keep finding their way to the screen.

> And it's really hard to take Damian Dahrke seriously as a good guy
>
> Jessica Harper looked horrible 17 years ago? I haz a sad. :(
>


--

Rhino

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>. . .

>It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
>every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the advertising
>robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
>robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?

That's wankable: Police don't have the budget for the latest technology!

[Rhino]

On 2019-08-15 9:49 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Wed, 14 Aug 2019 22:47:20 -0700 Michael OConnor<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember watching it on cable when it first came out, and as soon as I saw
>> Max Von Sydow's name in the opening credits, I said, "He's the bad guy." I
>> should have quit while I was ahead, because even I knew at the time I'd never
>> get those two-plus hours of my life back again.
>>
>> There were a lot of points in the movie that really strained credulity as I
>> remember, such as Tom Cruise having to purchase a black market set of eyes
>> and he carried his original eyes around with him in a ziploc baggie at room
>> temperature, because that's a great way to transport human organs without
>> them quickly degrading.
>
> I kept waiting for the surgeon, who had a LOT of exposition, to say that the
> baggie was full of eye preserving flippity-goop, just *something* to
> acknowledge the problem.
> Also, wasn't it nice that they didn't have anything sticking off the back so
> you could roll them like golf balls?
>
>> There were the vertical roads that went up the sides of buildings, which
>> would be awful if you lived or worked in one of those buildings and your
>> apartment or office was on the opposite side of the wall from the road and
>> you had cars running up and down the outside of your walls all day long. I'm
>> sure that wouldn't be annoying at all.
>
> Sigh. And they don't have gravity control or inertial dampeners, so you'd
> constantly be upside down and sideways and backwards and smushed into the
> breakable glass windows. God help you if you brought a Big Gulp!
>

It's hard to picture the future having anything like a Big Gulp. Heck,
there are places in the real life here-and-now where they forbid you
from having them! Mind you, your point would be absolutely valid with a
giant kale smoothie too if you could bear to buy one....

>> One futuristic thing in the movie they did get sorta right is when you walk
>> into a store and an automated voice says "Hi, Phil, how are you today, what
>> can I do for you?" or whatever your name is. It won't be eye scans that
>> they'll use to determine your identity, it will be facial recognition
>> technology and having information on everything you've bought due to your
>> debit card and or those grocery reward cards. They're closing in on that kind
>> of technology. Thanks Google and Facebook.
>
> It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
> every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the advertising
> robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
> robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?
>

Excellent point. I assume that was done for dramatic effect. Or maybe
they just never really thought about how illogical it was.

--
Rhino

[Adam H. Kerman]

Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>The movie is based on a similarly named novel by Philip K. Dick.

No, it was a short story.

>Having read several of Dick's books - and enjoyed none of them -

Ouch. He's one of my famous science fiction authors, but I loved science
fiction from that era. The stuff he wrote late in life introducing his
religious concepts that he created himself is difficult to read.

>I can only say that Dick is always kinda weird to say the very
>least. Movies of his books are better than the books because they remove
>most of the weirdness.

Oh dear ghod no they are not. There has never been a decent adaptation
of Dick. To the extent the movies are enjoyable -- Blade Runner's famous
set and Rutger Hauer's ad libbing 'cuz the script didn't get the source
material in any way -- you have to look for something that isn't Dick in
order to enjoy it. If you don't think too hard about the plot, Total
Recall is great fun, but it ain't Dick either.

The Total Recall 2030 tv series, if the first-run syndication episodes
had been broadcast in their intended order so there was some continuity,
hinted at being set in a Philip K. Dick scenario, but it really wasn't
an adaptation, just further exploitation of licensing rights already
purchased for the movie.

Dick was a genius. He truly understood memory's key importance in
personality and explored it in fiction better than anyone else. No one
who came after Dick has gone beyond his concepts, they're just reusing
what is now familiar thanks to Dick in their own stories and movie
scripts.

>But he is greatly revered by some science fiction fans and
>most of the movies of his books have been fairly successful so it's not
>really shocking that his books keep finding their way to the screen.

Dick's life was utterly tragic and he lived in sickness and poverty most
of his short bdult life. But boy, the moment he dropped dead, did people
figure out how to exploit his genius for immense profit.

>>. . .

[Rhino]

On 2019-08-15 1:51 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>> The movie is based on a similarly named novel by Philip K. Dick.
>
> No, it was a short story.
>

I think I read it once, several years back. I thought it was
novel-length but maybe I'm misremembering.

>> Having read several of Dick's books - and enjoyed none of them -
>
> Ouch. He's one of my famous science fiction authors, but I loved science
> fiction from that era. The stuff he wrote late in life introducing his
> religious concepts that he created himself is difficult to read.
>

To each his own. If you like him, that's great. He's definitely not my
cup of tea though.

>> I can only say that Dick is always kinda weird to say the very
>> least. Movies of his books are better than the books because they remove
>> most of the weirdness.
>
> Oh dear ghod no they are not. There has never been a decent adaptation
> of Dick. To the extent the movies are enjoyable -- Blade Runner's famous
> set and Rutger Hauer's ad libbing 'cuz the script didn't get the source
> material in any way -- you have to look for something that isn't Dick in
> order to enjoy it. If you don't think too hard about the plot, Total
> Recall is great fun, but it ain't Dick either.
>

Again, if that's how you see it, fine. I see it the way I do because I
don't enjoy the books/stories and feel like the weirder elements are
omitted from the films, which makes them better from my point of view.
Obviously, your mileage varies.

> The Total Recall 2030 tv series, if the first-run syndication episodes
> had been broadcast in their intended order so there was some continuity,
> hinted at being set in a Philip K. Dick scenario, but it really wasn't
> an adaptation, just further exploitation of licensing rights already
> purchased for the movie.
>
> Dick was a genius. He truly understood memory's key importance in
> personality and explored it in fiction better than anyone else. No one
> who came after Dick has gone beyond his concepts, they're just reusing
> what is now familiar thanks to Dick in their own stories and movie
> scripts.
>

Genius? Not in my book....

I particularly disliked his characters. Every one of them seemed a
perpetual loser drifting through life and having no "agency" of their own.

>> But he is greatly revered by some science fiction fans and
>> most of the movies of his books have been fairly successful so it's not
>> really shocking that his books keep finding their way to the screen.
>
> Dick's life was utterly tragic and he lived in sickness and poverty most
> of his short bdult life. But boy, the moment he dropped dead, did people
> figure out how to exploit his genius for immense profit.
>

I won't dispute any of that paragraph. I know he didn't have a happy
life. Maybe, as with many authors, his characters were just alternate
versions of himself and "authentic" in that sense. I prefer my
characters to be more Heinleinesque: strong, competent and resourceful.


--
Rhino

[Dimensional Traveler]

Because with no profit motive the Government never has the latest,
coolest toys!

--
Inquiring minds want to know while minds with a self-preservation
instinct are running screaming.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>On 2019-08-15 1:51 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>Rhino <no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:

>. . .

>>>I can only say that [Phillip K.] Dick is always kinda weird to say the very

>>>least. Movies of his books are better than the books because they remove
>>>most of the weirdness.

>>Oh dear ghod no they are not. There has never been a decent adaptation
>>of Dick. To the extent the movies are enjoyable -- Blade Runner's famous
>>set and Rutger Hauer's ad libbing 'cuz the script didn't get the source
>>material in any way -- you have to look for something that isn't Dick in
>>order to enjoy it. If you don't think too hard about the plot, Total
>>Recall is great fun, but it ain't Dick either.

>Again, if that's how you see it, fine.

Rhino, this is not a matter of opinion. I've read a lot of Dick (not
all; he was prolific), but I have read all the originals these movies
were adapted from. I'm telling you for a fact that very little of the
plot of the two most famous movies -- Blade Runner and Total Recall --
is from the original. The concepts survive in part but they are
thoroughly revised. The biggest aspects of the two movies that pleased
audiences weren't from Dick.

>I see it the way I do because I don't enjoy the books/stories and feel
>like the weirder elements are omitted from the films, which makes them
>better from my point of view. Obviously, your mileage varies.

You know the old cliche: The studio bought adaptation rights to a novel
they didn't want to adapt because it liked the title. Then, the movie's
title was changed.

>>. . .

[Adam H. Kerman]

Ice cream for me, and not the crap anim wants!

[Michael OConnor]

> Michael Crichton was an excellent writer for creating scenarios and
> puzzles to solve with science and technology, but the characters were
> cardboard. We've discussed many many times what was wrong with the
> adaptation and how every change made things worse. Nevertheless, the
> velociraptors were scary.

I know I'm probably in the minority, but I've always felt the best film based on a Chricton book was his first one, 1971's "The Andromeda Strain". I're read many of his books and that is the one time I think Hollywood actually nailed it. As somebody with a strong interest in science, it is the movie which I think best follows the Scientific Method, where you see actors who look and act like real doctors and scientists slowly work their way toward the solution by creating hypotheses and testing them, learning a little more as they go. Even though it is a hypothetical alien organism, the science and research behind the search to understand what it is and how to stop it is authentic.

[anim8rfsk]

JAWS is one of the few examples of a movie that's better than the original
book in every possible aspect.

I was working off his IMDB; I literally haven't seen half of his work.

> > > I feel the opposite about Steven Spielberg as Dawson Leery.
>
> > Whoosh?
>
> Dawson's Creek, the most famous Hour of Teenage Angst broadcast on The
> WB. Dawson dreamed of becoming a director and worshipped Spielberg. His
> bedroom was covered with posters from Spielberb movies.

Ah. I don't think I've ever seen an entire ep.

> > > > > . . .
>
> > > > > But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
> > > > > interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
> > > > > being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.
>
> > > > Or people had just become immune to it.
>
> > > That's not what I meant. All the advertising retina scans did was say
> > > the person's name. It didn't link to a massive database or analytics
> > > about the shopper's habits and wasn't at all sophisticated.
>
> > It's hard to make out, but I'm pretty sure the voices are saying "HEY ADAM
> > KERMAN HOW about a nice Versace suit" and the video displays are showing
> > such, but there's so much overlap and audio fade after the name that the
> > audience doesn't really get it.
>
> Truly sophisticated marketing would be, We know you have a hot date
> tonight. If you get a new suit and haircut and make reservations at the
> fine restaurant we're about to recommend, you'll get sex. We know how
> you dressed the last time you had a hot date, and the evening didn't go
> too well, did it. Oh, and you're out of your (2050s version of Viagra).

Heh. Tom Cruise would never allow that.

[anim8rfsk]

I don't think Precrime are police, are they? And they have all the best toys
...

[anim8rfsk]

Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:41:43 -0700 Rhino<no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:

> What Awful Show Did I Watch? - Minority Report
> Rhino<no_offlin...@example.com>
> August 15, 2019 at 10:41:43 AM MST

Gah

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:37:49 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>. . .

>>>It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
>>>every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the advertising
>>>robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
>>>robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?

>>That's wankable: Police don't have the budget for the latest technology!

>I don't think Precrime are police, are they? And they have all the best toys
>...

I haven't seen the movie in a long time, but I don't recall that I had
the impression that the security state was limited to Pre Crime.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:26:00 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 09:12:32 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>Wed, 14 Aug 2019 23:34:05 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>>>. . .

>>>>>>But the idea of continuously being bombarded with advertising was
>>>>>>interesting, even though Spielberg missed that the advertising wasn't
>>>>>>being made personal enough to actually compel shopping.

>>>>>Or people had just become immune to it.

>>>>That's not what I meant. All the advertising retina scans did was say
>>>>the person's name. It didn't link to a massive database or analytics
>>>>about the shopper's habits and wasn't at all sophisticated.

>>>It's hard to make out, but I'm pretty sure the voices are saying "HEY ADAM
>>>KERMAN HOW about a nice Versace suit" and the video displays are showing
>>>such, but there's so much overlap and audio fade after the name that the
>>>audience doesn't really get it.

>>Truly sophisticated marketing would be, We know you have a hot date
>>tonight. If you get a new suit and haircut and make reservations at the
>>fine restaurant we're about to recommend, you'll get sex. We know how
>>you dressed the last time you had a hot date, and the evening didn't go
>>too well, did it. Oh, and you're out of your (2050s version of Viagra).

>Heh. Tom Cruise would never allow that.

The only way Cruise can get a hot date is by recruiting his wimmins into
the cult of Scientology. He's already drunk the Kool-Aid.

[anim8rfsk]

I thought Wise blew several parts of Andromeda Strain, specifically the 'stun
lasers' in the Core, and the 'then it rained and everything was better' end
lifted from DAY OF THE TRIFFIDS where it was already stupid.

That said, you still may well be right. Movies based on Crichton novels tend
to be not so good. I'd argue that WESTWORLD is better than Andromeda Strain,
but it's not based on a novel.

[anim8rfsk]

The big plot point behind what's going on is that the US Attorney General
wants to take the program over (and expand it nationwide, which can't be done
because they don't have the resources, but if anybody pointed that out, the
movie would be over). My assumption is that Precrime is some sort of licensed
private company/service. I guess they're private cops, but they aren't
police. Note that they always identify themselves as 'Precrime' and not
'Police! Obey the spiders!' To that end it sort of worried me that they got
to warehouse the accused themselves; there was no due process involved at any
time.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Michael OConnor <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

>I know I'm probably in the minority, but I've always felt the best film
>based on a Chricton book was his first one, 1971's "The Andromeda
>Strain".

You are not in the minority. I suspect anyone who has read his novels
and seen the movie adaptations would agree. I watch it every couple of
years.

The changes in adaptation didn't hurt anything. The sex of one of the
scientists was changed, but Kate Reid is a good character actress and it
didn't matter a bit. The timing of how long they had to stop the
detenation was tightened further. In the novel, all the air was
automatically evacuated five minutes before detonation, which would have
killed immediately all the scientists and technicians and airmen. They
wanted to ensure a bigger nuclear blast.

The only weak moment in the adaption is Ken Swofford's wise-ass
performance as Toby, the communications technician who ignored the
message on the teletype or fax machine (I don't recall what the machine
was) because the bell didn't ring. That was actually a critical sequence
in the novel about a technician not doing a simple task because he's
given a job with nothing to do but babysit a fully-automated process,
and then highly-trained repair technicians who failed to perform proper
troubleshooting (a scrap of paper jammed the bell's clapper), instead
completely disassembling the machines. The movie failed to clarify that
they knew that communication had broken down completely and were trying
to repair things but making them worse, but everyone missed the
underlying issue that, knowing there was no communication, no one
bothered to give the missed messages to the scientists below. A courrier
would have worked in this scenario as Vandenburg A.F.B. would have had
copies of everything, at least.

For PLOT, this of course prevented them from dooming the planet.

>I're read many of his books and that is the one time I think
>Hollywood actually nailed it. As somebody with a strong interest in
>science, it is the movie which I think best follows the Scientific
>Method, where you see actors who look and act like real doctors and
>scientists slowly work their way toward the solution by creating
>hypotheses and testing them, learning a little more as they go. Even
>though it is a hypothetical alien organism, the science and research
>behind the search to understand what it is and how to stop it is
>authentic.

I absolutely agree. It's also his first, and best, novel.

[A Friend]

In article <ef6f8a16-318d-4fcb...@googlegroups.com>,

I really liked both the book and the film. I thought the film improved
on the book by changing the gender of the scientist whose epilepsy is
triggered by the warning lights. Gender might not have mattered in the
novel, but the film was better for it. (I learned from this and pulled
that same trick a long time later.)

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>That said, you still may well be right. Movies based on Crichton novels tend
>to be not so good. I'd argue that WESTWORLD is better than Andromeda Strain,
>but it's not based on a novel.

Westworld's plot problems could have been fixed readily enough in a
script rewrite, but the performances are so good that the movie is
really enjoyable. Also, Crichton never really would learn how to direct,
but it's still a lot tighter than The Great Train Robbery, adapted from
his better-written novel.

Unforgivable is the direction of the film The 13th Warrior adapted from
his enjoyable novel Eaters of the Dead. The original director was fired;
Crichton did some reshoots.

The novel Congo is probably Crichton's best novel, and clearly, the worst
movie adaptation as the fucking thing was turned into an alleged comedy.
Congo features Amy the Gorilla, the only character ever created by
Crichton with an actual personality and fully drawn.

Sphere, not a good novel, was adapted into not a good movie by someone
else.

Jurassic Park was a really fun novel.

I liked the novel Rising Sun, but P.C. murdered the movie directed by
someone else, with the Wesley Snipes character turned into a black
police officer entirely contrary to critical aspects of what Crichton
was trying to say about how the Japanese are always at war with the rest
of the world, not to mention their racism (against nearly everyone
else). Sean Connery was obviously miscast, too, but hey, it's Sean
Connery so we overlook it.

Disclosure is an interesting novel. It's not a great movie adaptation,
but damn, this was during that period in which every major movie actress
in Hollywood wanted to murder Michael Douglas. The movie has a fantastic
set which so many productions have copied. It's the only story set in
Seattle that used genuine Seattle locations. It has some merit.

I liked is novel Airframe a lot, but it's hard to picture that as a
decent movie. I didn't care for Timeline. Prey sucked. State of Fear is
what started the anti-global warming movement, which took all its
opposition from what Crichton had researched for the novel.

I never bothered with Next, or maybe I did read it an it was
forgettable. I haven't read the posthumous stuff, and I just read that
another author was hired to write a sequel to The Andromeda Strain.

[anim8rfsk]

Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:01:53 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:

> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > That said, you still may well be right. Movies based on Crichton novels tend
> > to be not so good. I'd argue that WESTWORLD is better than Andromeda Strain,
> > but it's not based on a novel.
>
> Westworld's plot problems could have been fixed readily enough in a
> script rewrite, but the performances are so good that the movie is
> really enjoyable. Also, Crichton never really would learn how to direct,
> but it's still a lot tighter than The Great Train Robbery, adapted from
> his better-written novel.

Most of my problems with it are smaller stuff like "how the Hell do bullets
that won't shoot at anything warm" work and "why can't you run a guest down
with a horse throw him out a window or cave in his skull with a chair?" but
the biggest question is "how the Hell do SWORDS that won't stab anything
warm" work? Also is there a big enough difference between Roman World and
Medieval World to matter? There had to be a better third choice.

What plot problems vex you?

> Unforgivable is the direction of the film The 13th Warrior adapted from
> his enjoyable novel Eaters of the Dead. The original director was fired;
> Crichton did some reshoots.
>
> The novel Congo is probably Crichton's best novel, and clearly, the worst
> movie adaptation as the fucking thing was turned into an alleged comedy.

I don't know *what* they were going for there.

> Congo features Amy the Gorilla, the only character ever created by
> Crichton with an actual personality and fully drawn.
>
> Sphere, not a good novel, was adapted into not a good movie by someone
> else.

Ever read about the making of it? Sharon Stone (already horribly miscast)
comes on set the first day and is telling the DP that she can only be lit by
these certain lights from certain angles and only shot from this one
direction and he's like "look, sweetheart, this is a practical set. It has
practical lighting. That means the lighting doesn't change. And the wall
don't move. So wherever you're told to stand, that's where and how you're lit
and shot."

> Jurassic Park was a really fun novel.

heh

> I liked the novel Rising Sun, but P.C. murdered the movie directed by
> someone else, with the Wesley Snipes character turned into a black
> police officer entirely contrary to critical aspects of what Crichton
> was trying to say about how the Japanese are always at war with the rest
> of the world, not to mention their racism (against nearly everyone
> else). Sean Connery was obviously miscast, too, but hey, it's Sean
> Connery so we overlook it.
>
> Disclosure is an interesting novel. It's not a great movie adaptation,
> but damn, this was during that period in which every major movie actress
> in Hollywood wanted to murder Michael Douglas. The movie has a fantastic
> set which so many productions have copied. It's the only story set in
> Seattle that used genuine Seattle locations. It has some merit.

Oh. Geez, I have seen that. It didn't stick with me at all.

> I liked is novel Airframe a lot, but it's hard to picture that as a
> decent movie. I didn't care for Timeline. Prey sucked. State of Fear is
> what started the anti-global warming movement, which took all its
> opposition from what Crichton had researched for the novel.

I think Larry Niven's Fallen Angels came first. :)

> I never bothered with Next, or maybe I did read it an it was
> forgettable. I haven't read the posthumous stuff, and I just read that
> another author was hired to write a sequel to The Andromeda Strain.

"This time it's personal"

[Michael OConnor]

> The big plot point behind what's going on is that the US Attorney General
> wants to take the program over (and expand it nationwide, which can't be done
> because they don't have the resources, but if anybody pointed that out, the
> movie would be over). My assumption is that Precrime is some sort of licensed
> private company/service. I guess they're private cops, but they aren't
> police. Note that they always identify themselves as 'Precrime' and not
> 'Police! Obey the spiders!' To that end it sort of worried me that they got
> to warehouse the accused themselves; there was no due process involved at any
> time.

Precrime was an experiment in the Washington DC area; they were real cops with the Justice Department who were testing Precrime to see if it could be rolled out nationwide, and the thing holding it back was that it had to predict all murders ahead of time and never be wrong. The Tom Cruise character realized the system was flawed when he learned the precogs did not always agree.

As for the precogs, they were the children of addicts of a futuristic drug that has since been banned IIRC, and there were a number of these potential precogs around the country who were presumably institutionalized to prevent their contact with others. If the Precrime program had gone nationwide, they would have had enough precogs to cover the country. And if memory serves, the Max Von Sydow character was going to become the US Attorney General if the Precrime program went nationwide.

[Adam H. Kerman]

anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 14:01:53 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>That said, you still may well be right. Movies based on Crichton novels tend
>>>to be not so good. I'd argue that WESTWORLD is better than Andromeda Strain,
>>>but it's not based on a novel.

>>Westworld's plot problems could have been fixed readily enough in a
>>script rewrite, but the performances are so good that the movie is
>>really enjoyable. Also, Crichton never really would learn how to direct,
>>but it's still a lot tighter than The Great Train Robbery, adapted from
>>his better-written novel.

>Most of my problems with it are smaller stuff like "how the Hell do bullets
>that won't shoot at anything warm" work and "why can't you run a guest down
>with a horse throw him out a window or cave in his skull with a chair?" but
>the biggest question is "how the Hell do SWORDS that won't stab anything
>warm" work? Also is there a big enough difference between Roman World and
>Medieval World to matter? There had to be a better third choice.

>What plot problems vex you?

The Michael Crichton technical expertise because he'd done his homework
before putting pen to paper simply wasn't there. The control room scenes
were needlessly incompetent. The main thing was the growing sentience of
the dolls was all just handwaiving, if not fantasy. I'm not sure the Yul
Brenner doll was sentient, just upgraded and adaptable.

>>. . .

>>Sphere, not a good novel, was adapted into not a good movie by someone
>>else.

>Ever read about the making of it? Sharon Stone (already horribly miscast)
>comes on set the first day and is telling the DP that she can only be lit by
>these certain lights from certain angles and only shot from this one
>direction and he's like "look, sweetheart, this is a practical set. It has
>practical lighting. That means the lighting doesn't change. And the wall
>don't move. So wherever you're told to stand, that's where and how you're lit
>and shot."

Good grief.

>>. . .

>>Disclosure is an interesting novel. It's not a great movie adaptation,
>>but damn, this was during that period in which every major movie actress
>>in Hollywood wanted to murder Michael Douglas. The movie has a fantastic
>>set which so many productions have copied. It's the only story set in
>>Seattle that used genuine Seattle locations. It has some merit.

>Oh. Geez, I have seen that. It didn't stick with me at all.

Seattle doesn't look like Vancouver at all!

>>I liked is novel Airframe a lot, but it's hard to picture that as a
>>decent movie. I didn't care for Timeline. Prey sucked. State of Fear is
>>what started the anti-global warming movement, which took all its
>>opposition from what Crichton had researched for the novel.

>I think Larry Niven's Fallen Angels came first. :)

Really. I've never read that. Maybe I'll track it down. Thanks.

>>I never bothered with Next, or maybe I did read it an it was
>>forgettable. I haven't read the posthumous stuff, and I just read that
>>another author was hired to write a sequel to The Andromeda Strain.

>"This time it's personal"

Hehehehehe

[Ian J. Ball]

I actually kind of love "Disclosure" - it's a fun ride, and one of the
better Michael Douglas movies from the "1990s Michael Douglas movies"
period IMO.

> I liked is novel Airframe a lot, but it's hard to picture that as a
> decent movie. I didn't care for Timeline. Prey sucked. State of Fear is
> what started the anti-global warming movement, which took all its
> opposition from what Crichton had researched for the novel.
>
> I never bothered with Next, or maybe I did read it an it was
> forgettable. I haven't read the posthumous stuff, and I just read that
> another author was hired to write a sequel to The Andromeda Strain.

--
"Three light sabers? Is that overkill? Or just the right amount
of "kill"?" - M-OC, "A Perilous Rescue" (ep. #2.9), LSW:TFA (08-10-2017)

[Adam H. Kerman]

Of course you did, and you were rooting for Demi Moore.

[anim8rfsk]

Thu, 15 Aug 2019 15:41:57 -0700 Michael OConnor<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:

>
> > The big plot point behind what's going on is that the US Attorney General
> > wants to take the program over (and expand it nationwide, which can't be
> > done
> > because they don't have the resources, but if anybody pointed that out, the
> > movie would be over). My assumption is that Precrime is some sort of
> > licensed
> > private company/service. I guess they're private cops, but they aren't
> > police. Note that they always identify themselves as 'Precrime' and not
> > 'Police! Obey the spiders!' To that end it sort of worried me that they got
> > to warehouse the accused themselves; there was no due process involved at
> > any
> > time.
>
> Precrime was an experiment in the Washington DC area; they were real cops
> with the Justice Department who were testing Precrime to see if it could be

They work under the supervision of the Justice Department, but they aren't
DCPD. I'm not sure what they are!

> rolled out nationwide, and the thing holding it back was that it had to
> predict all murders ahead of time and never be wrong.

Which is just stupid. Do they really think that a system that literally
decimates murder is going to be rejected because it's not 100%? And there
must be a *lot* of people in on the secret to have set up the way to hide it.

> The Tom Cruise
> character realized the system was flawed when he learned the precogs did not
> always agree.

To which end all they had to do was intercede in those but not lock the would
be killer away.

> As for the precogs, they were the children of addicts of a futuristic drug
> that has since been banned IIRC, and there were a number of these potential
> precogs around the country who were presumably institutionalized to prevent
> their contact with others.

I can't find anything in the transcript that supports that. If it were true,
why would Ming have to murder Jessica Harper to keep Agatha in play?

> If the Precrime program had gone nationwide, they
> would have had enough precogs to cover the country. And if memory serves, the
> Max Von Sydow character was going to become the US Attorney General if the
> Precrime program went nationwide.

No. That's why they were opposed to it; the US Attorney General wanted the
program for himself. Ming was going to retire.

"You shouldn't trust anyone. Certainly not the attorney general, who wants it
all for himself. And not the young federal agent, who wants your job. Not
even the old man who just wants to hang on to what he created. Don't trust
anyone."

[anim8rfsk]

You could say all that about Jurassic Park :)

> > > Sphere, not a good novel, was adapted into not a good movie by someone
> > > else.
>
> > Ever read about the making of it? Sharon Stone (already horribly miscast)
> > comes on set the first day and is telling the DP that she can only be lit by
> > these certain lights from certain angles and only shot from this one
> > direction and he's like "look, sweetheart, this is a practical set. It has
> > practical lighting. That means the lighting doesn't change. And the wall
> > don't move. So wherever you're told to stand, that's where and how you're
> > lit
> > and shot."
>
> Good grief.

I bet that was a fun shoot.

And, seriously, if you can't do a giant squid, don't do a movie where the
giant squid attack is the centerpiece.

> > > Disclosure is an interesting novel. It's not a great movie adaptation,
> > > but damn, this was during that period in which every major movie actress
> > > in Hollywood wanted to murder Michael Douglas. The movie has a fantastic
> > > set which so many productions have copied. It's the only story set in
> > > Seattle that used genuine Seattle locations. It has some merit.
>
> > Oh. Geez, I have seen that. It didn't stick with me at all.
>
> Seattle doesn't look like Vancouver at all!

Vancouver is the place that looks like the Kansas seaport of Metropolis,
right?

> > > I liked is novel Airframe a lot, but it's hard to picture that as a
> > > decent movie. I didn't care for Timeline. Prey sucked. State of Fear is
> > > what started the anti-global warming movement, which took all its
> > > opposition from what Crichton had researched for the novel.
>
> > I think Larry Niven's Fallen Angels came first. :)
>
> Really. I've never read that. Maybe I'll track it down. Thanks.

Sure thing.

> > > I never bothered with Next, or maybe I did read it an it was
> > > forgettable. I haven't read the posthumous stuff, and I just read that
> > > another author was hired to write a sequel to The Andromeda Strain.
>
> > "This time it's personal"
>
> Hehehehehe

:)

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 8/15/2019 12:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:37:49 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>> It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
>>> every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the advertising
>>> robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
>>> robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?
>>
>> That's wankable: Police don't have the budget for the latest technology!
>
> I don't think Precrime are police, are they? And they have all the best toys
> ...
>

They were arresting people on criminal charges, so they are "police".

[Ian J. Ball]

Nope! ;)

[anim8rfsk]

Thu, 15 Aug 2019 18:41:41 -0700 Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net>
wrote:

> On 8/15/2019 12:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> > Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:37:49 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >
> > > anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > . . .
> > >
> > > > It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye recognition
> > > > every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how come the
> > > > advertising
> > > > robots can identify you instantly from a distance, but the police spider
> > > > robots have to get up close and personal and it takes a while?
> > >
> > > That's wankable: Police don't have the budget for the latest technology!
> >
> > I don't think Precrime are police, are they? And they have all the best toys
> > ...
> They were arresting people on criminal charges, so they are "police".

So they're like Interpol deputies?

[Adam H. Kerman]

Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 8/15/2019 12:51 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>Thu, 15 Aug 2019 10:37:49 -0700 Adam H. Kerman<a...@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:

>>>>>. . .

>>>>It's hard to imagine that in a world where everyone gives eye
>>>>recognition every 5 seconds, they wouldn't just chip you. Also, how
>>>>come the advertising robots can identify you instantly from a distance,
>>>>but the police spider robots have to get up close and personal and
>>>>it takes a while?

>>>That's wankable: Police don't have the budget for the latest technology!

>>I don't think Precrime are police, are they? And they have all the best toys
>>...

>They were arresting people on criminal charges, so they are "police".

Uh, no. They'd merely committed thought crimes. Then they were gooped.

There's no defense, affirmative or otherwise, against a thought crime.

[BTR1701]

Stop it!

[anim8rfsk]

Hey! I'm serious!

[Dimensional Traveler]

The Precrime division uses Hawaiian Ways and Means to make their arrests.

[anim8rfsk]

Fri, 16 Aug 2019 05:57:40 -0700 Dimensional Traveler<dtr...@sonic.net>

Even McCarrott has to have a real cop on the team to do the arresting. Of
course, these guy run their own private prison, too.