[Brave Ulysses]

I want to see Peanuts as well. It looks fun.

This review is dead on.
http://bgr.com/2015/10/23/steve-jobs-movie-review/

[Wrao]

Yeah, now that I've slept on it, I'm finding more issues popping up about it. I can say that it was at least effective drama that had me engaged in the moment, so I can't call it a terrible movie, mechanically speaking. But it was certainly a fiction masquerading as fact in that deceptively hollywood way that moviemakers do these things. I think Mossberg's reaction is also apt. Were the movie to have used entirely fake names and places and events but loosely based on or inspired by Apple/Jobs, that'd have been one thing, but couching the fiction inside a pretense of 'this is a true story' is dishonest and mostly just serves to scandalize and mythologize things more than we really should be doing. We know Steve Jobs was intense, we know he said and did some real asshole stuff, we also know he was beloved by those closest to him who will never say anything but for how good of a person he was. It's a helluva lot less plausible to me to assume the former is the 'real' man and the latter is some Stockholm syndrome irrelevancy.

But oh well. At this point people have largely made up their minds one way or another.

[psmith2.0]

Thing is, IMO it's simply too soon. There's no perspective for these things.

I think a movie about Steve Jobs in another 10-15 years might carry more impact (and spur more interest). Takes time after someone's gone to truly "miss" them and their impact/presence. All these half-assed, thrown-together, troubled productions just strike me as cash-grabs and "E! True Hollywood Story" in their haste to "get something out" (regardless of quality). Nobody wants that.

I say everyone cool their jets, let a decade or more go by (when Jobs' presence at Apple is really missed), and then produce a proper, truthful (but interesting) bio. To many, Jobs would be like Elvis or John Lennon, in that there's always going to be an automatic, built-in audience.

Even 15 years from now, when I'm 60-61, I'll look back on these days (the first decade of the 21st century) with great memories and nostalgia. By then, I might want to see something that captures what things were like in my younger days, when OS X and the iEra exploded and so much changed.

The story is there. It's quite remarkable. And it shouldn't have to be embellished and bullshitted, by Sorkin or whoever else takes another go at it down the road. Just tell the story.

But I just think right now probably isn't the time. Not enough "miss him" time has elapsed, big picture. The faithful among us don't need "reminding" or "how it happened" lessons. We already know. And the casual users don't really give a rip. Timing is always important. Let enough of it go by that the faithful want to be told and reminded, and another decade or so of perspective and looking back to where even the casual users (many of whom may only be pre-teens or so now) find themselves curious about "that dude who invented my iPhone 13s...I've been reading about him because it's coming up on the 20th anniversary of the iPhone's introduction...". This sort of thing comes/peaks in cycles. And we're just not at that peak crest of "missing Steve Jobs" yet, IMO. I think it's a hard sell right now (and, at worst, comes across as a bit ghoulish and, yes...opportunistic).

As popular and iconic as he may be now, let another 10-15 (or more) years pile on and watch what happens...

[psmith2.0]

In other words, it's a flop.

According to IMDb, its estimated budget was $30M. I would imagine marketing is another $10M or so? So $40M, minimum, for a movie that has barely made $10M (and those numbers won't be going up significantly because a) all the hardcore, truly-interested people have already seen it, and b) the casual/curious viewers won't waste their money after so many "meh" reviews (and hearing that it is an under-performing flop that plays too fast and loose with truth/reality). Just human nature. Nobody wants to prop up a turd, and these days people just won't blow money on a "maybe" as easily as before (too many other options and competition for their entertainment dollar, compared to just 5-10 years ago).

Too bad. I could've saved these people some money/hassle if they'd just gotten with me on the front end.

"Nobody gives a shit if this is the approach you insist on taking. Now probably isn't the time anyway...let it stew a few years so time and distance can work its magic. You're welcome."

Had they gone the "Citizen Kane" route and just created a fictionalized, thinly-disguised "based on" type of thing about a quirky, half-genius/half whackjob a-hole Bay Area tech icon (making it as outrageous, funny, etc. as they wanted - kinda like "The Wolf of Wall Street" for techies, millennials and the 140-character set) - without having to worry about troublesome little things like accuracy, facts, dates, timelines, actor/character resemblance, etc., it would've had a better shot.

If you're not interested in doing a straight, accurate bio, then create something that's more entertaining and watchable instead. Call it "Joss Stevens" and go nuts. Satirize the Bay Area tech industry and players, the smartphone/app culture, the hero worship, the event secrecy and coverage, the idea-stealing, office politics, the hypocrisy and scandals, etc. God knows the source material and inspiration to draw from is there.

[Brave Ulysses]

whether there has been too much written about SJ or too many movies is somewhat irrelevant.

It really comes down to whether or not it's a good story and a good movie. And it's not. if this was an outstanding film and told a great story it would do well.

The positive reviews for this film are just a testament to how shitty the hollywood film industry has become. I agree, it's better than most hollywood films, but the standard has been set so low that it's meaningless.

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, but this wasn't going to be it. It's made-up horseshit adapted from a pretty weak, less-than book.

Different source material, writer, approach, etc., sure...it could've been something. It isn't like the story isn't compelling and interesting.

Maybe someone will do it better one day. There's not going to be any more of this stuff for a while, though.

I still think TV miniseries may be a better medium for some things. This story may be one, I don't know.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Yeah, but this wasn't going to be it. It's made-up horseshit adapted from a pretty weak, less-than book. Different source material, writer, approach, etc., sure...it could've been something. It isn't like the story isn't compelling and interesting. Maybe someone will do it better one day. There's not going to be any more of this stuff for a while, though. I still think TV miniseries may be a better medium for some things. This story may be one, I don't know.

Interesting... you just made me think that in a few years we might see a Netflix series based on the book, Dog Fight.

http://www.amazon.com/Dogfight-Apple.../dp/B00BIV1R98

It's actually a pretty decent book... but a great story... and one that 10 years from now will make for a good dramatic miniseries.

[Luca]

Who saw The Martian? I finally caught it a couple weeks ago and I wasn't that impressed. This despite loving both Gravity and Interstellar - I'm a space fanatic and both those movies really captured my imagination.

The problem with The Martian is there was absolutely no tension. It's a very vanilla movie. In a way this actually reflects the book well, because I read it last year and felt kind of the same way.

It's reasonably entertaining but it's sort of like watching all the "problem solving" scenes from Apollo 13 on repeat, without any of the things that made it a great movie.

[Bryson]

Interesting: I saw The Martian last night and really liked it. And I didn't really like Interstellar or Gravity very much. I could have lived without the Times Square/Trafalgar Square scenes which seemed unlikely but aside from that I thought it was great.

I noticed a few tiny weirdnesses from the book>film conversion, though: cutting the dust storm and the rover flip kind of made sense, but meant the "epic" journey to the MAV was way too easy, and they kept the "cutting a hole in the top of the rover" scene, but never explained what that hole was for.

[Wrao]

Really enjoyed The Martian. I enjoyed how basically all of the protagonists were intelligent and capable adults trying to work together to solve a problem. Even the 'antagonist', insofar as there was one, was still perfectly understandable in his position and the movie communicated that very well. The movie was practically NASA/JPL propaganda, but damn if we don't need more of that.

I think I liked Interstellar more if only because it carried a more tense moodiness throughout that I found really engaging. But I'd probably recommend The Martian more easily as Interstellar is very much a 'you kind of have to be in the right mood and willing to buy into what it's selling' movie. Interstellar felt like a better *movie* to me in the classic sense of a movie hijacking your senses and taking you somewhere. But The Martian was still very enjoyable throughout and I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

Very cool that we've seen an increase in what you might regard as science-positive movies that are aiming to take science fiction and blend it with plausible science-fact. Hope the trend continues.

About the only thing I didn't like about The Martian was all the disco music. But I guess that's preferable to classic rock, but personally I think it would have been funnier if it was like, 2000s era power pop instead. Spice Girls or something like that. 60s, 70s and 80s pop has been done to death in movies and that little in-joke of 'ugh they like *what*?' when referring to some old style is kind of really played out, but use something slightly more recent but out-of-touch and I think it does a better job selling the joke and also throwing in a (better in my opinion) joke about the scientist being so absorbed by their work the only music they know of is whatever was popular when they were a teenager/right when they started. I know that's a pretty oblique gripe, but I'm just pretty sick of movies latching onto pre 90s pop culture for nostalgia points.

[Kickaha]

I really didn't care for Interstellar. It just left me 'meh'. The twist wasn't really much of one IMO (I can't be the only one who saw it telegraphed halfway through), and the 'hard science' was so fucking hit or miss that I was left like "Okaaaaaay, you really tried *here*, but totally didn't *there*... weird."

It was pretty, though.

I have mild optimism for The Martian.

[kscherer]

That whole "I aged twenty years while you were down on the planet for 1 hour" thing made my head spin.

[Kickaha]

Oh, that was one of the things they did get correct... kind of... maybe... lol

Differential relativistic effects at that distance delta would also have ridiculous tidal forces in effect. It would have made for, um, badly acting electronics and mechanics. I don't know that the landing craft would have operated.

[kscherer]

No one will ever convince me that a spaceship arrives at a planet, drops some folks off, and then goes on to age rapidly while the folks don't age at all while only a few hundred miles separates them.

[Kickaha]

That's the relativistic differential I was mentioning. Possible at that distance? Yes, absolutely.

Possible at that distance without the time dilation effects also causing electronics timing issues, shear force mechanical issues, etc, on the order of meters? No.

Like I said, so close, yet so far. Just enough 'hard science' to make for awesome PR, and snow most people.

Just not, y'know, physicists. :P

Hell, I'm not even sure the megawaves would work. At that height, the top would be moving more slowly than the base, by a measurable amount, and should dissipate itself.

[kscherer]

Well, the megawaves wouldn't work in that environment simply based on the depth of the water, which they were walking in (knee deep). A wave a thousand feet high with nearly vertical walls wouldn't hold up. That's not the way wave action functions. There is not enough water volume beneath the wave to generate a wave that tall. You are quite correct that the wave would collapse. Even in the deep ocean with wind-generated waves, any wave with walls that steep collapses. As a wave approaches the shore, the rising seafloor causes the wave to rise, it's top to speed up, and the wave collapses. Simply not possible without some massive wave generator capable of piling up a huge amount of water. Still, water seeks its own level and the wave would level out even if it didn't collapse.

As far as the time shift thing, I'll take your word for it. I don't buy it, but I'll take your word for it. You know better than I.

[Wrao]

I think Neil Tyson said the mega-waves *would* in fact be plausible, but I forget the reasoning behind it. Shrug. As I said above, these movies(and throw Gravity in there) aren't text books, but they are at least trying to split the difference better than most science fiction fare and to be honest, the fact that there are quibbles, in my estimation anyway, probably only does more good than not because it fosters discussion over the details. Compare that to something like Avatar or Transformers or Star Trek and you know not to even bother out the gate(not that this stops enthusiasts from rigorously debating the mechanics of those universes anyway but it's pretty pointless).

So sailing closer to that balance of "Functions as a movie first, but isn't completely irresponsible with its plausibility" is a trend I can get behind, particularly when it creates ripples in the discussion and raises awareness.

[Kickaha]

I dunno. When I'm watching ST, SW, etc, it's not SF in my book, it's just F. Space opera. Fantasy with plasma guns. Whatever. It's farcical and fantastical from the get go, my expectations are set appropriately low.

Interstellar was marketed, hyped, and sold as 'hard SF', so I expected something completely different. Imagine my disappointment.

You don't have to, actually. I was highly disappointed.

As for the megawaves, if the planet was not tidal locked to the host gravitational well (i.e. black hole) then the fluid would be more prone to bunch up in a massive freaking tide. Imagine if there were no continents in the way on Earth, it'd just be a big bulge of water sun-ward and anti-sun-ward that the planet rotated under. I can see that, assuming a nearly uniform surface.

But then the gravitational differential would fark that all to hell, particularly across the diameter of the *planet*.

[Dr. Bobsky]

The megawaves phenomena might well be possible, but I'd hate to see the math on it -- given the steepness of the gravitational well owing to the proximity of the black hole, the tops of the waves would experience a different time dilation than the bottoms, and depending upon how fast the black hole is rotating this could either mean they are sheared forward or backwards due to frame dragging. All in all, it is fairly clear the result would not look as clean as it was in the movie. I will say that it is even entirely possible for the planet to have several different wave harmonics operating in concert depending upon its rate of rotation and the orbital period. As for depth of water, that's not really an issue -- eg, tsunamis retain much of their height over land, just envision there was nothing in the way, the tsunami would just keep going.

As for the movie itself: it lost me the moment Hathaway mentioned love.

[kscherer]

I'd like to see the physics behind a 1000 foot wave piling up in 2 feet of water. Under any half-way realistic circumstances, the highest it seems this wave could reach would be 4 feet (under gravitational or wind-blown circumstances), at which point there would be no more water to draw from. Wouldn't this yield a wave frequency of a few feet/seconds as opposed to a thousand and 1 hour? If the wave is a thousand feet high, where is the water coming from? The water would have to be racing toward the wave at incredible speed, which would create an environment on the surface untenable by humans.

If the black hole's gravity was so powerful to draw the water to that height, would it not also draw the people upward? And the ship and everything else? Wouldn't the wave follow the gravitational pull, and thus be stationary while the planet spins beneath it? The frequency of said waves is said to be 1 hour, so is the planet revolving once per hour? (yet, our silly humans can clearly see the back of one wave and the front of the other in the same frame, so … * ) Then, would not these waves collapse on the back side of the planet? Or at least dissipate? If a wave were rising out of 2 feet of water and then collapsing every hour, I would suspect the surface water would be quite agitated. It also seems that in such a situation, these waves would be represented by more of a "bulge" on the black hole-facing side of the planet, rather than a near vertical wall a few hundred meters thick. In such a case, the black hole-facing side of the planet might be under a thousand feet of water, while the back side might be under just 2 feet. Even spinning once per hour, this means the water would rise at a rate of about a thousand feet per half hour, which doesn't sound terribly dramatic if you're floating, but would make life on land impossible. In other words, the people could not stand in two feet of water for more than a minute or so before the water depth rose above their feeble heads. Then, the little ship lying on the "bottom" would be crushed to pudding beneath a thousand feet of water at some ridiculous amount of pressure (433.5149 lbs/in = SQUISH! ).

Back to the people: Wouldn't the people experience a massive gravitational shift as they passed through the gravity well facing the black hole? It seems that in such severe cases, if the planet can barely keep hold of its water, how does it also keep hold of humans walking about on its surface? Shouldn't they be drawn "upward" or feel "lighter"?

Wouldn't such a severe gravitational force also attract the firm ground beneath the surface? Take the moons of Jupiter, some of which are said to be in constant turmoil due to Jupiter's tremendous gravitational pull. Shouldn't this planet be suffering one titanic earthquake after another as the land is stretched and compacted by such terrible forces? I would think it couldn't possibly be flat, and would likely be constantly changing, with mountain ranges rising annually (or daily?) and then sinking to be inundated with powerful wave action driven by holy-cow crazy tides rising and falling a thousand feet every hour or so. Sounds like a great place to live!

And what about the space ship? The silly humans are only on the surface for an hour, yet their companion is stuck in a spaceship orbiting the planet for 20 years. After 20 years, wouldn't his orbit decay toward the black hole? Am I to believe that the gravity on his end was somehow different? Or was he hiding in the gravity "shadow" behind the planet? As such, I didn't think you could hide from gravity by simply hiding behind something? The water is only affected differently because it is a fluid and seeks its own level, so it "flows" toward the higher gravitational pull. But the space ship should suffer from the gravitational pull. Any water on board should be pulled into a "wave" toward the gravity well, right? Just as it is on the planet? If it is immune, why? Why are the silly humans reunited and there is no mention from the ship-bound human of having to constantly correct his orbit several times each day for 20 years, thus using valuable (all?) fuel (that they were clearly short of)? What would the ISS do for fuel if they had to fire the rocket boosters 16 times a day to correct their orbit?

If said black hole's gravity is so strong, how is the planet able to sit there without being drawn in? Wouldn't it have to be orbiting the black hole at an insane speed to compensate for the gravitational pull trying to eat it? And then, how would the little space ship ever get into orbit? Wouldn't it also have to be orbiting at an insane speed? (I guess we can argue about super-gravity-strength-hyper-engines-of-the-future in a later episode.) How can light not escape, but the tiny space ship can? And why in hell's basket are humans even considering taking up residence on a planet that will (or should) be snacked on by the galaxy's most powerful gravitational force? Whenever I read/hear about black holes, there's all this talk about massive gamma ray bursts and super-gravity that would destroy anything they contact. Yet we're supposed to believe it's plausible to live within a few million miles of one?

I'll go ahead and play along with the whole super-time-shifting just for the sake of … something, but this gravity thing and the waves are leaving me a bit perplexed.

And why the hell would Matthew McConaughey risk it all to shack up with joker-mouth Jane Hathaway?

* This scenarios clearly indicates these thousand foot waves are traveling across an ocean just 2 feet deep. This is the bit where I'd like to see the physics, 'cause I think it's nothing more than Hollywood BS. If said waves were 6 inches high I could get on board, or if the water was many thousands of feet deep and the waves more mounded as opposed to vertical walls. But a two-foot deep ocean don't yield up no 1000-foot wave. EVER!

[Dr. Bobsky]

These are all excellent questions:

Depending upon the size of the planet a 1000 ft wave wouldn't be that much water; and if the waves were soliton solutions to the general wave equation set up by the various gravity and planetary rocking/rolling properties they wouldn't break or collapse. How this gets set up is a different story, but in theory, I don't see any reason why it couldn't happen, however rare (your basic premise that waves of 1000 feet cannot exist when water is shallow is clearly not the case when tsunamis have been observed to get this high in the absence of surface water. It might be better to envision these waves as giant tsunamis that cannot dissipate).

I think the scientist consulting on the movie thought the planet was mostly tidally locked -- thus the devastating tidal forces would be minimized on the solid body of the planet. It could be that the waves themselves, as Kickaha suggested are tides owing to the velocity of the orbit (as you rightly point out a planet this close to the blackhole would need to be going really really quickly), so it might be orbiting around the blackhole every 2 hours or so. There are many reasons why this would likely lead to the destruction of the planet far before the scenario develops, but you know... hollywood.

There are indeed issues with the way they setup the gravity and time dilation effects. The only solution I can envision is that the astronaut on the spacecraft isn't orbiting the planet but rather Gargantua itself -- this isn't suggested by the movie, but it is a possible means for the varying time dilations...

[psmith2.0]

Originally Posted by kscherer And why the hell would Matthew McConaughey risk it all to shack up with joker-mouth Jane Hathaway?

Because she's a supreme cutie-pie/vixen with a bod for days? What's wrong with you?



NOTE: That's the only question out of the above I'm even remotely qualified to take on.

[Luca]

Reading all this... I think it's apparent that I enjoyed Interstellar not for the sciencey aspects but because it was a gripping, interesting movie that happened to be space-themed. Almost all of this discussion went over my head. I must be easily placated by overly simplistic explanations of what was going on.

The Martian may have been more scientifically accurate, but it wasn't a good movie to me.

Gravity falls somewhere in the middle. The science was less "out there" than Interstellar but still mostly ridiculous, and in ways that I was able to recognize on my own despite not having a Ph.D. in astrophysics. That said, I was still able to just enjoy it for what it was.

[_Ω_]

Just rewatched Requiem for a Dream, a movie with no positive redeeming features whatsoever other than a great soundtrack. I feel like I have been victimised like Jennifer Connelly. I can hardly imagine what moviegoers thought when they first saw this movie - at least I knew what I was getting myself in for when I sat down to watch this one.

I want my mummy!

[psmith2.0]

Going to go see the last matinee (4:30) showing of Spectre this afternoon (that's the plan, anyway).

I've seen the other three in the theater on opening day/weekend and enjoyed them. I really like Daniel Craig in the role.

I'm actually avoiding reviews on this and going into it quite cold (I've seen about 1-2 TV spots for it, and that's all). I know Christoph Waltz is in it, and I liked him in those two Tarantino movies. Plus, Monica Bellucci is in this as well.

That's honestly about all I know, which is kinda nice. I'm really making the decision/effort these days, for movies I really want to see (007, Star Wars, Hateful Eight, etc.) to avoid all the Internet talk, leaks, spoilers, plots, "making of" pics/video, etc. until after I see the finished product. I'm going into Spectre and The Force Awakens as cold and clueless as I can, hoping to be genuinely surprised/entertained as I see it unfold on the big screen. You know, like you're supposed to do...

[psmith2.0]

Just got back from Spectre. Kinda underwhelming. Can't quite put my finger on it, but it just didn't do much for me. I guess it was an okay spy movie, but not really much of a James Bond movie, if that makes any sense? It was packed though. And as I was leaving, the 8pm showing crowd was waiting outside, so I think it'll have a strong weekend opening.

But it was very talky and a bit convoluted and "yeah, so?" at times. Craig is good, but he kinda seemed on cruise control. And parts of it seemed almost like a by-the-book/Bond cliché-fest. I don't know...odd. Great locations and scenery, as always. These movies always make me want to travel!

I didn't like it nearly as much as Casino Royale (the first, and best, of the Craig 007 flicks, IMO). It's all connected to the first three Craig ones, so if you've not been paying attention (or you've forgotten some of the characters and events) this may be completely incomprehensible to you. Lots of references to (or outright images of) previous characters.

There's a fluffy white kittycat in this one, and someone's name turns out to be something else entirely...it's this movie's Star Trek: Into Dark/John Harrison moment.

[_Ω_]

Dammit, not what I wanted to hear as going to a sneak preview in my neck of the woods. Guess I will just have to enjoy the Bollinger instead!

[murbot]

Has anyone seen Bone Tomahawk?

After seeing Patton Oswalt tweet about it last night (and get replies from actors in it) I might have to check it out. Looks excellent, except for the feeling that after seeing the trailer, I've kind of seen the movie now. Leave some stuff for the movie, dumb dumbs!

Not sure how I didn't even know about this know until now...

[psmith2.0]

Ouch.

Jobs movie yanked from most theaters because it's an unwatchable, money-losing turd.

Maybe next time try sticking to the truth/reality a bit more? You know, the alleged reason most folks would allegedly see an alleged biopic for in the first place? They can spend their money on Spectre, Crimson Peak and Truth if they want fanciful, fictional takes on things.

Just a suggestion.

[709]

Originally Posted by murbot Has anyone seen Bone Tomahawk?

I've had it on my 'watch for it' list for a bit – ever since it came out with that beautiful poster earlier this year. I still haven't seen anything around here advertising it playing... hopefully Alamo will get it if even for a short run. Everyone seems to share your view on the trailer, though. It pretty much gives away the first 3/4 of the movie.

Whatever. Two Kurt Russell films in one year! I won't complain.


[edit]: said poster:



Gorgeous.