Stealth, the Movie

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Mordoch

No it won't.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12270942.htm

Basically mainstream Hollywood movies like this one generally drop alot in the revenue they produce the second week they are out, so this one is almost certainly going to be a huge money loser.

From what I heard, the movie was originally going to be released much earlier, I think the reschedueling of its release means Sony wrote it off as being likely to suceed in advance when they realized how much it sucked. (Even Holleywood movie execes have a certain level of perception.)

Yes, the movie was first going to be release July 8 weekend and then moved to July 29th. I don.t remember the name of the other movie that was release July 8th. Was it Batman?

[pchang]

Originally posted by Mordoch

No it won't.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/12270942.htm

Basically mainstream Hollywood movies like this one generally drop alot in the revenue they produce the second week they are out, so this one is almost certainly going to be a huge money loser.

From what I heard, the movie was originally going to be released much earlier, I think the reschedueling of its release means Sony wrote it off as being likely to suceed in advance when they realized how much it sucked. (Even Holleywood movie execes have a certain level of perception.)

Proof that many execs are dumber than dirt. I will never know how they rose to their positions over much more competent people who can't seem to get a promotion.

[loinburger]

We were going to see Stealth last weekend, but I dodged a bullet by reminding the other people going that we hadn't seen Wedding Crashers yet.

[Q Classic]

I also don't understand the title. If it's about AI planes, why the **** name it "Stealth" ?

Doesn't change my dislike for the basic foundation of the movie, which strikes me as harshly anti-technology.

2001 I don't find anti-technology, largely because by the end of the movie, we see that HAL is very human in a lot of senses; and it's clear that technology is not the enemy, what with the monolith granting transcendant powers upon Bowman.

[pchang]

Especially since it is clear that HAL only went insane because it was forced to lie by the people in charge on earth.

[GePap]

Oh, come on, with its international release and eventual DVD sales the movie should at least make the investors their money back, only in a couple of years, not one.

[Q Classic]

GePap:

Actually, I hope **** like this doesn't make their money back. Seriously. It's crap, through and through.

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
GePap:

Actually, I hope **** like this doesn't make their money back. Seriously. It's crap, through and through.

In the eye of the beholder only.

[Q Classic]

So, Joseph, are you anti-technology? Do you actually agree with the philosophy espoused in this movie?

[Q Classic]

Not to mention the gaping plot holes that you could fly one of those planes through.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
Do you actually agree with the philosophy espoused in this movie?

Re seeking philosophy in a summer movie: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...47#post3939547

[Joseph]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
So, Joseph, are you anti-technology? Do you actually agree with the philosophy espoused in this movie?

No, I want technology to go ahead. The UCAV from this movie, I have seen in pictures. So this UCAV without the computer is being consider somewhere. I would like to see them build a read model of this fighter and see if it would fly.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Re seeking philosophy in a summer movie: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...47#post3939547

DD, if a blockbuster like this were so biased against anything not technological, it would have been protested by at least a hundred citizens' action groups.

I'm sick of technology being repeatedly cast in the light of the villian. If mechanization scares people so damn much, why the **** don't they just worship the gorram unabomber and become the medieval-age rubes they so cherish?

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Joseph
No, I want technology to go ahead. The UCAV from this movie, I have seen in pictures. So this UCAV without the computer is being consider somewhere. I would like to see them build a read model of this fighter and see if it would fly.

And I'm telling you why I don't want this movie to make any money, because it sucks.

It's deliberately anti-technology. Casting technology and artificial intelligence as a villian shows a remarkably hateful bias towards progress and advancement of all mankind.

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
It's deliberately anti-technology. Casting technology and artificial intelligence as a villian shows a remarkably hateful bias towards progress and advancement of all mankind.

Oh, bull****. Everything gets cast as villain some time or other. It shows Hollywood hacking the same story around using different things for different parts. Next summer there'll be robotic dogs saving the world from Terrorists or something.

That's beside the fact that all technology should be scrutinised for villainous tendencies (a scrutiny for which fiction is a good medium). Maybe the film is crap, but the story of the AI which rebelled is the oldest in SF, and it won't go away. If the technology can't take it, then either the positive PR isn't good enough, or mankind decided that such a thing is not a progressive, advantageous, or even desirable.