I happen to agree about movies having insane and unnecessary budgets these days, and that they lead to too much interference. That's why I'm so worried about Batman 3. Get out while you can, Nolan. Don't go down the same path Raimi did.

And to the kids credit, they liked the film; but I think they liked '2010' (a better piece of pure entertainment) much more.

There was a lot of input from a lot of different people - people like Francis Ford Coppola, Steven Spielberg, Brian DePalma, Martin Scorsese, John Milius, Gloria Katz and Willard Huyck - that helped shape his script. Even his wife helped him write it!

That movie was Star Wars.

The phenomenal success that followed meant that the filmmaking community that spawned it soon went their separate ways and a "Golden Era" of movies came to an end.

You were trying to make a point that "too many cooks" tend to spoil modern films - I just wanted to point out that historically, the approach actually led to some pretty decent films - while having carte blanche to do the film his own way with no input from anyone else can lead a director to produce something more along the lines of The Phantom Menace...

I'm worried about them going for a world wide virus epidemic, but maybe that isn't so bad, maybe the virus is so Flynn can expand the grids world or the reality of it, by sucking off of the memory of the world servers for a few seconds. Since Programs live in a world of microseconds. Time is not the same there. If there was a way to take all the information stored on the world servers- A way to actualize that stuff. To make it Tangent in the Grid world. Then Reality on the grid would be equal to or greater than Reality here.

They could spin that angle. But I don't think they need a virus to do that. What they need is a program that can understand what it is seeing even if it's just a fragment of that object- Like we can. We can look at an embroidered letter- not even the entire letter on what looks like the hat- We assume it's a hat because in the image it has that button thats on the top of a hat. We can see that and know what we are looking at, and maybe even from our own experience in the world - even if the Word the letters contained in isn't fully in view- We might know exactly what that word is on that hat. An example: Seeing only a portion of a RedSoxs hat. We know what it is because we are familiar with the logo and what a hat looks like. We can do that almost instantly, but computers can not. They don't have analytical skills like that yet.

Maybe Flynn's trying to teach a program how to do that, and it needs all the input it can get to pull it off. It has to suck down all the images and text information on the net to develop that ability, and once it has it. It can bring any object imagined into reality. Just like the first film only instead of taking real objects and pulling them in. It can take digital representations of the those objects and realize them truthfully. Giving Flynn his heaven if you will, his place to escape death, a reality not unlike our own.

Think of how fustraiting it would be to explain wanting a burger to something and you can't have it because, well they don't understand what a burger is or how to realize it for you.

So the virus could be a a massive data collection routine sent across the planet to digest as much information as it can, problem is it needs to stay involved with the worlds servers to keep this information constantly streaming. You could call it a virus that can't be removed. This is one you have to live with, unless you can replace all the harddrives in the world. It is not erasable. Writing Zeros to the drive doesn't work. The sector where it imbeds itself as data is protected.

Dr. Walter Gibbs: Interesting! Interesting! You hear what you just said? "Here goes nothing."

Dr. Lora Baines: Well, I meant—

Dr. Walter Gibbs: "Whereas what we propose to do is to turn something into nothing, and back again. So you might just as well have said "Here goes something, and here comes nothing!"

Well the next logical step is create something from nothing. All you need is an image or several million images of something too pull it off. I wonder where you can find several million images of one particular thing just by typing it in?

Hahahahahahahahahah ha. Yep. That woulda made it cheaper, sure... (wipes tear from eye).

Or were you talking about the scared producer's (because you sure do talk like one) version where it wouldn't have been the SAME film at all, just a cut-down, amputated version. It's not the pre-90s man. If you can write it you CAN actually imagine it. Someone takes ADVANTAGE of that to finally make the live-action cartoon everyone's been talking about for aeons, and you want to send things back a few decades. The original was silly and over-the-top, and they completely honoured it. You used a very bad example. So tell me exactly how much they would have saved on the multiple concurrent units shooting in all those locations or just a couple of units dragging around the world for months on end, and just the sheer redundancy of all that entails for a non-photoreal aesthetic... And if I had a dollar for every forest-for-the-trees twit who marked it down for "realism" and "believable physics"...

Did it occur to you even once that maybe the film they wanted to make WAS cheaper this way? Even in the digital world they could have used much more 'convincing' techniques and more complicated methodologies, but they didn't. A lot of the background stuff was just a Quicktime vr! WHY was that again?

And "his exact words" and "from rumoured inside information" is an oxymoron, the way you've written it.

2001 is probably the clearest example of Kubrick cutting to the quick. YOU know people aren't unfeeling. HE knows it. And for all the moronic bleating about it being 'boring' he actually gets ON with things rather than dwell on soap-opera stuff that is beside the thrust of the film - and you complain because he's NOT patronising you? And the parts that showed the tedium of space travel (this HADN'T been shown before, remember) were BORING? What a moronic and redundant thing to say - all of you! 2001 IS the work of a true artist - who didn't think it necessary to simplify and pander to one side or the other of the human condition. There are plenty of movies that are about people being lovey-dovey. Why would he patronise the audience by shoehorning sentiment into a story where it doesn't belong? People ignorantly call Kubrick cold because he actually shows the other sides of humanity without watering it down, uncomfortable (NOT unsympathetic) or not. Eyes Wide Shut is a typical example of poeple missing the point. The sunshine and roses stuff has already happened. That film is about later on when things get complicated. And it's a lot more honest and to the point than other films about the same thing with their histrionics and Oscar-baiting. I think people will look at that one differently when time has passed. Maybe another decade. Clockwork Orange fits the same thing - what happens when and after the shit goes down/everything goes to pot. Seeing how we got there is sometimes beside the point.

2001 was based on a Clarke short story named "the sentinel". Then he wrote the novel and the screenplay while working with Kubrick. And as for "additional information that helped it make sense" both Clarke and Kubrick were in complete agreement that space and aliens are not only "stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we CAN imagine" and also agreed that literally showing an alien was redundant (and if you know Clarke's writing, 2001 the movie is VERY true to his style). Everyone misunderstands the monoliths too. They're likewise SYMBOLS. That's why they're devoid of detail, a hole through which consciousness enters and comes out/away changed, every time it happens in the film. The literal interpretation of new/alien concepts. It's that shape because it's a visual pun on perfection - the mathematical golden formula/proportions. It's not necessarily supposed to BE anything. They're signposts, symbols, literal manifestations of symbolic markers/stepping stones.

I humbly think though that he stumbled a bit with the film's most admired shot - the jumpcut between the bone and the satelite. We get the whole audacious leap in terms of evolution/technology and so on so yes it works, but what everyone misses (including me) is that it's not a geosynchronous satellite (Clarke's famous concept/invention), it's a BOMB. Which makes the cut still work, but with an incredible level of irony, showing the leap form one weapon to another. Much more powerful, again both literally and figuratively. Maybe they shoulda stuck a little nuclear or laser symbol on there to make it clearer...

I could start a drinking game here for every time someone says something inane about 2001. I'd be plastered in no time and ironically in the same mental state as the rest of you.

How much MORE fucked-up would fanboy minds be?!

Oh and I guess you've read that SW making of book and seen some docos- I love the cheeky nod in Apocalypse of Harrison Ford's character being called Lucas. Although fanboys would rip it a new one these days for its indulgence (despite the irony)...

Oh and I meant modern TV animation (60s through 80s at the time of the quote from memory). Sorry.

And if you wanna talk financial responsibility, let's chat about how it's LESS financially responsible now often to NOT do things digitally rather than practical. Don't get Favreau's commitment to the old-fashioned stuff (which I do love) mixed up with arguments about his budget-mindedness, for fuck's sake. Commitment to quality OVER commitment to a 'responsible' budget is another thing you keep confusing. Sure He committed to that budget, but you can't argue that budget would have been millions LESS without so much practical stuff. And it WOULD NOT be the other way around for Speed Racer. Make up your mind, for God's sake. It's also part of the reason they only made a simplified resin replica of one full robot in Transformers.

And you give yourself away with the stuff about redressing classic cars or 'experimental prototypes' (generally they're just called concept cars) and retired race cars. Basically you have a subjective point of view, which was that Speed Racer should have been a 'heightened' version of a regular car movie (I'm stretching your words there but hopefully you get my point), - NOT this type of movie, which for once followed a clear concept of what it would be from start to completion. The whole idea of this film was exactly that it WASN'T a regular car/action movie with effects bolted on. If you don't enjoy that, i respect your point of view. But you can't say it's a failure or inconsistent; in that it was entirely successful in accomplishing what IT/the filmmakers set out to do and being the type of film THEY wanted it to be.

I guess where disagreement comes in is that you don't think it's faithful to the ORIGINAL cartoon and I emphatically do (like Lord of the Rings, 'true' to the source rather than being a literal-minded failure like say, the 1st Harry Potter film). I also think that the most important part - the story - was successful in that it honoured the pitch and tone (and fun) of the original (you're upset they had weapons but not machine guns - really?!). I guess you wanted complete literalism. For a film based on a cartoon! Again, if you want to talk semantics, I could say it WAS. Anyway...

You're lecturing on even second/multiple units going on location and redressing being cheaper than two or three guys with a quicktime vr setup (the best way to accomplish the requirements for the simple/stylised background plates) and comping the drivers on back at the (cheaper) stage or in post??? You are too funny. And didn't notice how MANY locations they used for interiors and exteriors, even DURING say, a single race. Again, your rationale for it being a DIFFERENT film is getting in the way of 'solutions' to achieve THIS type of film. It was always meant to be more Sin City, not McQueen's Le Mans. They also shot in Germany for budget. You certainly can't say that they weren't financially responsible in terms of getting the most bang for the buck in the complete service of the film THEY were making. We don't live in the seventies anymore, and SHOULD take advantage of the tools available to get MORE artistic intent (story, visuals etc) for the agreed budget). At the end of the day all of your arguments are reductive and don't serve the core creative filmmakers - even producers have that as their goal! You're thinking like a suit, who wants to change and reduce things DESPITE the filmmakers' intent.

"3 minutes lap dissolved montage"! Oh boy. The different mood and effect that technique would achieve in the context of that film would be both a failure in terms of relaying the intent of those sequences (they would TRIVIALISE the tedium and regimented grind by compacting and abstracting it) - and conversely, 3 MINUTES of montage ("we need a fucking montage" indeed!), would actually through the length EXTEND the perception of time passed making it seem MORE interminable than what you argue against! Please, enough with your armchair criticism on film technique - thinking it didn't work for you is one thing, actually giving an awful example of WHY AND HOW THAT DOESN'T actually WORK AND lecturing Kubrick of all people on appropriate techniques makes a fool of yourself. Perception of time through technique in film is not something taken lightly - especially in Kubrick's case. And you forget (even after I mentioned it) that these points would have been even MORE crucial when the film was released, and nearly no-one had ANY knowledge that this type of tedium and endless routine was a large factor in space travel. You think he should have done it just for audiences viewing it decades later rather than both types of audience? Whatever...

Of course filmmaking should be responsible. But fiscal responsibility that distorts the whole reason for film - an medium for artistic expression and intent - and the reasoning for the individual film in question - is redundant, cutting off the nose to spite the face, the tail wagging the dog etc. I'm not saying for a second you shouldn't be frugal, but you give some lousy examples that betray any actual knowledge of the process and misunderstanding of what you HAVE read and watched. Iron Man is a BAD example in budget terms. 140 to 175 depending on who you believe, but if you look at it in terms of BUDGET, it's a fairly 'small' scope movie. Look at what Transformers did with the same dough. As I said (before you get carried away), I'm talking about budget. Not figurative quality. It makes no sense for you to even tie the budget in with your argument about iron man. Once you pay for the writers, good lines or bad cost the same. Stop muddying your point. And you don't think it's strange that such a budget-minded director as Favreau went from sub 10 million dollar pics with GOOD WRITING to Zathura which was 65mil to 140-170 is a similar arc to say, Singer or even Cameron? Just so you know, I loved Iron Man. The action scenes were pretty lousy, but character/story is the most important thing, and that was great -except for completely fumbling an important character at the end. After building Pepper so well as a strong and equal person (even to the extent of having her always higher in the frame than even the SHIELD guys - heels aside), she's reduced to literally standing around saying "What's going on" and pushing a button. Not to mention the sharp ending of the movie being diluted by a weak tack-on tease after the credits that doesn't have as much to do with good film-making as satisfying comic readers with an ad. Beats are also very important to directors and it sure doesn't work from that standpoint - it's more like Avi Arad said we must have an advertisement in there for comics fans - hey! More Awesome product soon! You talk about going against the grain eh? There you go. And a LOT of people called 2001 boring and self-indulgent in 68 and a ton of fanboys roll that one out in every single talkback about it, so don't think for a second you're any sort of renegade with YOUR self-indulgent "Emperor's new clothes" garbage.

Too funny - the stuff about Superman. You on those sets were you? Your criticism there is entirely idiotic. I WAS on those sets, remember? And I also know that the island set might have been big, but there's a load of difference between a set that's mainly wood and styrofoam, with mold-and repeat pieces and an organic structure vs say an architectural affair. It's a helluva lot less complicated, and CHEAPER. And I guess you didn't see any shots of it with the GREENSCREEN behind it! As for the fortress, oh my God man. Not much of that was built at all. I sure don't know where you came up with that one. HTat set was half a stage in size, and nothing compared to it's scope on screen. The Daily Planet was a facade with a lot of plywood and a lot of paint weathering and texture. The trainset WAS huge (and done practically, which was entirely appropriate), but one of the reasons we go to the movies - to see the sort of things we can't see in real life. But again you take the myopic view, and don't contrast it with a James Bond-level film. You contrast it with Iron Man, which had a MUCH smaller scope. You say things about wanting to retread MORE old ground from Donner's film (are you KIDDING me? like they didn't do that enough?!) and want the plane rescue to be a CENTREPIECE when it's already a repeat of the original sequence? Anyway, there WAS a scene that would have upped the ante and showed the world why Supes was the man, but it was cut. Things YOU would have liked, like an inexpensive bit underground with lots of pipes rather than more above-ground mayhem (financially responsible, see?!) were in there to keep things down, but curiously you don't mention that stuff (which DOESN'T work). But I agree with you - for a flick called Suprman Returns, sometimes you DO need to be literal and show the place you returned from. Still don't get that one, and don't understand the rationale of Singer specifically pointing out we wouldn't even see it as an extra. And my God the DVD and Blu-rays are shitty quality, which has NOTHING to do with it being shot digitally.

Hey, I'm not going to bother defending the story or the director's intent except to say that some of your own ideas are amazingly short-sighted and don't take into account the knock-on effect or balancing and streamlining literal and thematic concerns and you keep vacillating between how they could've fixed THAT film, and your ideas about essentially a DIFFERENT film (hmmm, I see a theme here). Did I think it was a great story? Let's just say not everyone on a film chooses a project after getting to look at a script, and also that a script is generally NEVER finished before it is made. But even so, that doesn't mean they don't do the best they can and give the highest quality possible. But the point here is to address you saying moronic things about something you haven't bothered to actually think about, and making definitive-sounding statements based on hearsay rather than fact. I don't know where all the money went (and you also fail to mention they made the fiscally responsible decision to shoot it O.S. just like Speed Racer to SAVE MONEY), but it sure wasn't wasted on things like the making of the sets as you carelessly maintain. Look before you make a leap, buddy.

Finally, yeah. "More American Graffiti". I agree, and gotta admit I continually forget it was even made. Saying Coppola "stole" Apocalypse is a stretch though, considering...

Are there any browncoats around here? There's gonna be a lynchin'! In my defence I'll say one thing. Yep, there's nothing new in the world, and if you're gonna do it, do it well. So fair enough, and I have nothing against it on that level. It may be my own failing that I just can't see past the tired concept and outrageously literal interpretation of its various inspirations, but I'm definitely not speaking against an honest attempt at something Whedon was/is passionate about. And I really like Fillion.