posted
I was talking about the original Russian one. Though, come to think of it, not having seen the newer one, I'm not sure which one Monkeyboy was referring to.
And I'm not a big fan of 2001, but mostly because of the ten-minute psychedelia scene when Bowman falls through the monolith. The rest of it wasn't so bad (aside from the beginning and ending making little sense if you haven't read the book).
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
2001's ending was pretty disapointing. I'm no fan of fifteen minute orchestrated space scenes that go nowhere either. On the other hand, Sci-Fi channel is premiering it's new movie "Alien Lockdown" this week and I cant help but view the commercials with disgust, knowing that they could have made four or five episodes of farscape for the price of this terrible POS.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
I was referring to the remake. I found it to be evocative of 2001 in several respects. Overall, I thought it was quite well-done. George Clooney handled his uncharacteristically (for him) serious role surprisingly capably.
-MMoM
-------------------- The flaws we find most objectionable in others are often those we recognize in ourselves.
Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
posted
I think IMBD has it right on the nose with this comment about Solaris (2002): "But 2001 will always be the better picture [than Solaris] because that was a true meditation on space, and it wasn't an excuse to use a "second chance" romance formula on a space station."
The first thing you figure out if you really know the film 2001 is that Arthur C. Clarke clearly didn't get what Kubrick was doing. 2010 only reinforces that. Yeah, Kubrick worked with him while the film was being made, but Clarke famously kept having to rewrite the novel to match the developing film. The inverse never happened.
If you go into 2001 expecting a plot you miss the entire point. Kubrick himself said nothing import is conveyed in the dialogue. 2001 is like the most expensive art house film ever made. It's entirely an audio-visual experience, and seeing it on TV just isn't the same as seeing it on a big screen. This is a flaw to a lot of people, but I don't see it as such.
I'm not trying to convert anyone. I think it's one of those either you like it or you don't things.
As to Solaris...both versions are slow. Strangely enough, lbeit the recent Steven Soderbergh version is significantly shorter than the Tarkovsky version, it felt almost as long to me! Perhaps I have more patience than most with Tarkovsky's having seen enough other Russian cinema to be used to the sometimes glacial pacing. Plus I think the Russian version is more about its ideas and less about the love story, so probably less accessible than the American one.
-------------------- "Well, I mean, it's generally understood that, of all of the people in the world, Mike Nelson is the best." -- ULTRA MAGNUS, steadfast in curmudgeon
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:-- The MACOs use subdermal transmitters for communication. So how come Starfleet's still not using them for most circumstances two hundred years later?
Probably because like in this time period, the Government has no business knowing your business.
But, It's just a matter of time for the Sheeple.
Line forms to the right for your subdermal chip...
Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
Well...the minute someone discovers the subdermal transmitters are in use, they'll find a way to trace the signal to the users. Then your bad-ass MACO's become lame-ass sitting ducks with no way to ditch their communicators-turned homing devices.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Of course, we've never seen the twenty-third or twenty-fourth century versions of the communicators get "ditched" because they were traceable, so I'm not sure why the twenty-second century version would be any different, just because it's subdermal.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I suppose it's always possible that, just after, er, "Patterns of Force" (I think), they realised that the subdermal communicators caused cancer, so they stopped using them.
And then they cured the problem, in time for "Who Watches the Watchers", but, oh no, now they find out that the subdermal communicators causes strange hair growth on the elbows. So again, they stop using them.
That's probably it.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd say it's simply that, as a rule of thumb, people prefer their technological implements on the outside. They're also more useful this way . . . how many times have we seen the need to reconfigure the doohickey on the thingamajig? Can't very well do so if you have to cut it out first, a la "Patterns". Of course, if the thingamajig and its doohickeys are inside your skin, it does make them harder to misplace.
The Ferengi don't seem to mind it too much, though, given the civilian use of implants in "Little Green Men".
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
posted
Actually... the subdermal implant didn't send anything at all... in fact the only way that they got messages from Archer was from the camera that was in the mock-up shuttle. I'd say that it isn't as easily tracable as you are making it out to be. It seems to be a receiver only. It probably feeds neuro-electric impulses directly to the auditory nerve so that no one else could hear it even if they had their ear up to Archer's head.
It's obviously not full proof. Someone could hijack the signal, the electronics of the device might be detectable, the neuro-electric impulse might be deciferable... etc. But it doesn't seem as bad as you are making it out to be.
And, what about the Universal Translator in the future, isn't that more than likely an implant instead of just the comm badge as is commonly assumed [and aluded to in the TNG TM].
-------------------- Later, J _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ The Last Person to post in the late Voyager Forum. Bashing both Voyager, Enterprise, and "The Bun" in one glorious post.
posted
hmmmm...I agree that the translators in the future are probably subdermal.
If an enemy could hijack the sending signal, they could destroy your away team by broadcasting untrasonics or Barney the Dinosaur songs over and over..
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by J: And, what about the Universal Translator in the future, isn't that more than likely an implant instead of just the comm badge as is commonly assumed [and aluded to in the TNG TM].
Actually, I distinctly recall a scene wherein somebody refers to the UT and points to their communicator simultaneously. I think it is "The 37's"[VOY2].
I also wanna say that I remember an ep wherein someone was working on the UT and thus had the communicator badge flipped open . . . but remembering where that came from will take more work.
-------------------- . . . ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
