Discussion:
Best Movie About The Future
(too old to reply)
The Blue Perkie
2007-07-16 11:24:29 UTC
Permalink
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.

LOL stupid film makers.
DeadWalrus
2007-07-16 11:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Matt Clara
2007-07-16 22:57:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadWalrus
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.

--
www.mattclara.com
Bill Becker
2007-07-16 23:11:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
I thought he played Ned Kelly in....Ned Kelly.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Derek Janssen
2007-07-16 23:18:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Death Race 2000
(Stop and think:
The next time you dodge a pedestrian while driving and joke "50
points"...just where DID the expression come from, anyway?)
Post by Matt Clara
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
Er...noooo..... 0_o?
You're probably thinking of "Performance".

(Or "Bent."
Or "Ned Kelly".
Or "Faerie Tale Theater".
Or "Man From Elysian Fields".
Or that crappy Emilio Estevez thing that Roger Corman didn't produce.)

Derek Janssen (ow!...Can I stop smart-slapping him now, my hands are
starting to hurt?)
***@comcast.net
Matt Clara
2007-07-17 01:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Derek Janssen
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Death Race 2000
The next time you dodge a pedestrian while driving and joke "50
points"...just where DID the expression come from, anyway?)
Post by Matt Clara
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
Er...noooo..... 0_o?
You're probably thinking of "Performance".
(Or "Bent."
Or "Ned Kelly".
Or "Faerie Tale Theater".
Or "Man From Elysian Fields".
Or that crappy Emilio Estevez thing that Roger Corman didn't produce.)
Derek Janssen (ow!...Can I stop smart-slapping him now, my hands are
starting to hurt?)
Nope it was "Freejack"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104299/

--
www.mattclara.com
Wull
2007-07-17 01:12:36 UTC
Permalink
I seem to recall that my favorite futuristic movie was a TV movie called
"Murder and the Android", it starred Rip Torn and Kevin McCarthy if I
remember correctly. IT was a long time ago.

Wull
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Derek Janssen
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Death Race 2000
The next time you dodge a pedestrian while driving and joke "50
points"...just where DID the expression come from, anyway?)
Post by Matt Clara
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
Er...noooo..... 0_o?
You're probably thinking of "Performance".
(Or "Bent."
Or "Ned Kelly".
Or "Faerie Tale Theater".
Or "Man From Elysian Fields".
Or that crappy Emilio Estevez thing that Roger Corman didn't produce.)
Derek Janssen (ow!...Can I stop smart-slapping him now, my hands are
starting to hurt?)
Nope it was "Freejack"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0104299/
--
www.mattclara.com
David E. Powell
2007-07-17 07:27:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
--www.mattclara.com
I thought Mick was in Freejack....
Matt Frisch
2007-07-17 08:17:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by DeadWalrus
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
If he was in it (I have no idea) it certainly wasn't his only. He was in
"Freejack"...not exactly the finest movie ever made.
Unique
2007-07-18 20:36:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Wasn't that Mick Jagger's one and only film appearance? Man, that was
really bad.
He played a transvestite club owner in wartime Berlin in "Bent"
--
DVDs for sale: http://unique-dvd.com
165 Banned Cartoons, The Unknown War, Centennial Miniseries,
Holocaust, Pearl, Amerika, Space, George Washington, Anzacs,
Marco Polo, Captains and the Kings, Peter the Great, Noble House,
and more...
Clell Harmon
2007-07-17 01:39:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by DeadWalrus
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Death Race 2000
Stalone at his best.
Grendel
2007-07-16 14:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Most Optomistic Movie About the Future: "Bicentinial Man"

Most Pessimistic Movie About the Future: "Silent Running"

Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"

Best Movie Series About the Future: "Mad Max, Road Warrior, Mad Max:
Beyond Thunderdome"

Best Cult Movie About the Future: "Deathrace 2000"

Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Klaatu, Barada, Nickto"
rwa2play (Lost mode on)
2007-07-16 15:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grendel
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Most Optomistic Movie About the Future: "Bicentinial Man"
Most Pessimistic Movie About the Future: "Silent Running"
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Beyond Thunderdome"
Best Cult Movie About the Future: "Deathrace 2000"
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
"Klaatu, Barada, Nickto"
Most Probably Realistic Series about the Future: Ghost in The Shell:
Stand Alone Complex.
Howard Brazee
2007-07-16 23:13:37 UTC
Permalink
How about something like _A Christmas Carol_?
Lincoln Spector
2007-07-16 21:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
What I liked about The Fifth Element, despite the stupid story, was that it
presented the future as neither a utopia nor a dystopia. It was simply our
world with cooler technology.

Lincoln
~consul
2007-07-16 23:28:43 UTC
Permalink
and thus Lincoln Spector inscribed ...
Post by Lincoln Spector
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
What I liked about The Fifth Element, despite the stupid story, was that it
presented the future as neither a utopia nor a dystopia. It was simply our
world with cooler technology.
Too many colours. :(
--
"... respect, all good works are not done by only good folk. For here, at the end of all things, we shall do what needs to be done."
--till next time, Jameson Stalanthas Yu -x- <<poetry.dolphins-cove.com>>
Grendel
2007-07-16 23:37:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by ~consul
and thus Lincoln Spector inscribed ...
Post by Lincoln Spector
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
What I liked about The Fifth Element, despite the stupid story, was that it
presented the future as neither a utopia nor a dystopia. It was simply our
world with cooler technology.
Too many colours. :(
I don't think so. It just goes to prove that, even in the future,
human beings can be tacky. After all, all goudy costumes in "The
Fifth Element" put together are not anywhere near as tacky as Dayglo
Skirts, Swatches and Parachute Pants from the 80's.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.

"Klaatu, Barada, Nicto"
OneOhEight
2007-07-17 00:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Demolition Man?
Martin Koolhoven
2007-07-17 00:42:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lincoln Spector
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
What I liked about The Fifth Element, despite the stupid story, was that it
presented the future as neither a utopia nor a dystopia. It was simply our
world with cooler technology.
....which was the basic idea for Back to the Future part 2.....


MK
Martin Koolhoven
2007-07-17 00:47:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.

--
gr,
Martin Koolhoven
look at this: http://tinyurl.com/2sryc6
Audie Murphy's Ghost
2007-07-17 02:18:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
Matt Clara
2007-07-17 03:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)

--
www.mattclara.com
Matt Frisch
2007-07-17 08:16:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
There's no shortage of people who bash other countries for supposed flaws
that their own country contains no shortage of. Martin is just being a
cliched hypocrite.
Martin Koolhoven
2007-07-17 16:30:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Frisch
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
There's no shortage of people who bash other countries for supposed flaws
that their own country contains no shortage of. Martin is just being a
cliched hypocrite.
C'mon. Where was I bashing or hypocritical? This whole patriot thing
is very American and seems a bit alien to me. I think it is comical
when somebody talks about The Postman (or any film) and saying it's
good, because it is patriotic. No, even better, saying it is patriotic
and just completely take it for granted that evrybody thinks that that
is a good thing.



And yeah, us Dutch have been real bastards as well.

--
gr,
Martin Koolhoven (who actually liked The Postman)
look at this: http://tinyurl.com/2sryc6
Clell Harmon
2007-07-17 21:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Matt Frisch
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
There's no shortage of people who bash other countries for supposed flaws
that their own country contains no shortage of. Martin is just being a
cliched hypocrite.
C'mon. Where was I bashing or hypocritical? This whole patriot thing
is very American and seems a bit alien to me. I think it is comical
when somebody talks about The Postman (or any film) and saying it's
good, because it is patriotic. No, even better, saying it is patriotic
and just completely take it for granted that evrybody thinks that that
is a good thing.
And yeah, us Dutch have been real bastards as well.
As it was pointed out in that philosophical epic "GoldMember" Everyone
hates the Dutch...
Post by Martin Koolhoven
--
gr,
Martin Koolhoven (who actually liked The Postman)
look at this: http://tinyurl.com/2sryc6
Dave in Toronto
2007-07-18 20:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Matt Frisch
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
There's no shortage of people who bash other countries for supposed flaws
that their own country contains no shortage of. Martin is just being a
cliched hypocrite.
C'mon. Where was I bashing or hypocritical? This whole patriot thing
is very American and seems a bit alien to me. I think it is comical
when somebody talks about The Postman (or any film) and saying it's
good, because it is patriotic. No, even better, saying it is patriotic
and just completely take it for granted that evrybody thinks that that
is a good thing.
And yeah, us Dutch have been real bastards as well.
--
According to this :- http://www.drkenhunt.com/cheese.html - the word
"Yankee" (It was not meant as a compliment) came from the Dutch.

Dave in Toronto
Juan F. Lara
2007-07-18 21:56:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Koolhoven
C'mon. Where was I bashing or hypocritical?
ONLY Americans would use "patriotic" as a compliment?
Post by Martin Koolhoven
This whole patriot thing is very American and seems a bit alien to me.
Then broaden your mind.
Post by Martin Koolhoven
good, because it is patriotic. No, even better, saying it is patriotic
and just completely take it for granted that evrybody thinks that that
is a good thing.
There are gradations for patriotism. It can be good within reason and
moderation and bad in excess, just like most other things. You seem to be
insisting on narrowing the definition to only the negative.
Post by Martin Koolhoven
And yeah, us Dutch have been real bastards as well.
You Pim Udenhots (?) and Theo VanGoghs love to bash those immigrants for
not living like good Dutch people...

- Juan F. Lara
Howard Brazee
2007-07-19 01:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan F. Lara
ONLY Americans would use "patriotic" as a compliment?
Not believable.

Other "isms" such as that other guy's religion, or economic system get
the same responses.
m***@gmail.com
2007-07-19 00:34:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan F. Lara
Post by Martin Koolhoven
C'mon. Where was I bashing or hypocritical?
ONLY Americans would use "patriotic" as a compliment?
I've never heard it anywhere else. Anyway, it would be hypocritical if
I would use it that way.
Post by Juan F. Lara
Post by Martin Koolhoven
good, because it is patriotic. No, even better, saying it is patriotic
and just completely take it for granted that evrybody thinks that that
is a good thing.
There are gradations for patriotism. It can be good within reason and
moderation and bad in excess, just like most other things. You seem to be
insisting on narrowing the definition to only the negative.
In this context: I think saying a film is good and the arguement being
it's patriotic is a bit over the top.
Post by Juan F. Lara
Post by Martin Koolhoven
And yeah, us Dutch have been real bastards as well.
You Pim Udenhots (?)
Guess you mean Fortuyn.


and Theo VanGoghs love to bash those immigrants for
Post by Juan F. Lara
not living like good Dutch people...
Well, you can say a lot of nasty things about Theo, but not that he
was a patriot.

gr,
Martin Koolhoven (knew him personally)
look at this: http://tinyurl.com/2sryc6
RogerM
2007-07-17 14:11:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Matt Clara
2007-07-18 02:07:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by Matt Clara
Post by Audie Murphy's Ghost
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by Grendel
Most Probably Realistic Movie About the Future: "Bladerunner"
Not only was it a great movie, but I think "Gattaca" is a far more
realistic prediction of our future than a movie about highly
intelligent humanoid robots and flying cars.
Neah. It just played highly on the irrational fear of genetic
knowledge.
Best post-apocalyptic: The Postman (I know many will disagree with me,
but I found this movie very patriotic and inspiring)
Funny, only an American could say something was patriotic and mean
that as a complement.
Yeah, except for the Brits and the French and just about everybody else.
What's with all the generalizations against Americans these days? Has GW
Bush made the rest of the world stupid, too?
;-)
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
Again, a generalization. Most of us voted against him the first time, and
only a little more than half of voters voted for him the second time. Plus,
if we're still talking about "an American" you're attributing the qualities
of some of the people to all of the people. Finally, Canadians have had
their share of bad leaders, too, they simply have never had any power to
sway the world outside of Canada. That's more as it should be, I think.
Too much power is not a good thing.

--
www.mattclara.com
Calvin
2007-07-18 18:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
I voted for him twice, and was mighty proud to do it.
RogerM
2007-07-18 21:46:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
I voted for him twice, and was mighty proud to do it.
That's the last word from you then, Calvin.
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Clell Harmon
2007-07-19 00:02:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by Calvin
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
I voted for him twice, and was mighty proud to do it.
That's the last word from you then, Calvin.
Be nice. GW has his good points. Look at what he's done for Dan
Quayle's rep
Calvin
2007-07-19 15:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by Calvin
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
I voted for him twice, and was mighty proud to do it.
That's the last word from you then, Calvin.
Not at all. I hope to vote for Giuliani in 2008.
trotsky
2007-07-19 01:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
I voted for him twice, and was mighty proud to do it.
Calvin, do you wear one of those "I'm with stupid" t-shirts that has the
arrow pointing up?
Undecided
2007-07-19 02:11:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by trotsky
Calvin, do you wear one of those "I'm with stupid" t-shirts that has the
arrow pointing up?
I have a snapshot I found of Calvin right here. It was taken during a
counter-demonstration in support of the regime.

Loading Image...
--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
http://tremonius.blogspot.com/
trotsky
2007-07-19 12:16:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Undecided
Post by trotsky
Calvin, do you wear one of those "I'm with stupid" t-shirts that has
the arrow pointing up?
I have a snapshot I found of Calvin right here. It was taken during a
counter-demonstration in support of the regime.
http://www.ntxe-news.com/artman/uploads/1111morans.jpg
Thanks--that adds nicely to the Calvin legacy.
Juan F. Lara
2007-07-18 21:58:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
You deserve Stephen Harper.

- Juan F. Lara
RogerM
2007-07-18 23:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Juan F. Lara
Post by RogerM
Not stupid enough to elect him - twice.
You deserve Stephen Harper.
Not me personally, but you have a point. We're not above electing an
idiot, either. He's still far less dangerous than Bush, of course.
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
TBerk
2007-07-17 00:20:57 UTC
Permalink
On Jul 16, 7:11 am, Grendel <***@bellsouth.net> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
And then there is 'Soylent Green'....


TBerk
(Just wanted to mention these two)
Clell Harmon
2007-07-17 01:44:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by TBerk
<snip>
Post by Grendel
Best 'The Way I'd Really Like It To Be" Movie About the Future: "The
Fifth Element"
Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
And then there is 'Soylent Green'....
Now with retsin!
tomcervo
2007-07-17 04:26:10 UTC
Permalink
"Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
because it was about his present time. "Idiocracy" is supposed to 500
years in the future but it's really more like 5, and in some ways it's
present day.
imtrv.com
2007-07-17 08:21:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
"Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
because it was about his present time. "Idiocracy" is supposed to 500
years in the future but it's really more like 5, and in some ways it's
present day.
If we forget about the technology, genetics and computers, I think The
Day After Tomorrow states a good point about what we may have in the
future too, although I found the scenes and movie quite stupid.

Internet Movie Triva,
http://www.imtrv.com
w***@bellsouth.net
2007-07-18 03:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by imtrv.com
Post by tomcervo
"Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
because it was about his present time. "Idiocracy" is supposed to 500
years in the future but it's really more like 5, and in some ways it's
present day.
If we forget about the technology, genetics and computers, I think The
Day After Tomorrow states a good point about what we may have in the
future too, although I found the scenes and movie quite stupid.
Yes, the scenes and the movie were quite stupid. And if you throw out
all the bullshit 'science', you'd have a movie that was 5 minutes
long.

Yol Bolsun,
Grendel.
Richard Schultz
2007-07-17 08:47:45 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films tomcervo <***@aol.com> wrote:

: "Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
: because it was about his present time.

I would like to see a reference for that statement. My understanding was
that he originally intended to call it _The Last Man in Europe_ (a phrase
that appears in the novel), but changed his mind, and got the title by
exchanging the last two digits of the year in which he wrote it.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Howard Brazee
2007-07-17 19:17:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by tomcervo
"Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
because it was about his present time. "Idiocracy" is supposed to 500
years in the future but it's really more like 5, and in some ways it's
present day.
SF that gets praised by the literate is even more about "now" than the
SF that SF fans (such as myself) like. Certainly Jonathan Swift's SF
was about his English centric world. SF allows for some extreme
exaggeration to make the point obvious.

Also, even in *idea* SF, we tend to not change too much. Keeping
lots of the background familiar allow the story to concentrate on the
ideas.

Who believes in a Scottish accented engineer on Star Trek, in a future
as far away from now as Shakespeare, with a time of big troubles
between now and then? But the stories weren't about the setting -
the setting was just to have a familiar background.

IMHO, the greatest line in movie SF is "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy
Far, Far, Away". It set us up by telling us that this is the SF of
Lucas' youth. It's a variation of the title of Pohl's autobiography
_The Way The Future Was_.

I removed rec.sport.pro-wrestling from the cross-post.
Anim8rFSK
2007-07-18 15:06:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
Post by tomcervo
"Idiocracy", only it's like "1984", which Orwell wanted to call "1948"
because it was about his present time. "Idiocracy" is supposed to 500
years in the future but it's really more like 5, and in some ways it's
present day.
SF that gets praised by the literate is even more about "now" than the
SF that SF fans (such as myself) like. Certainly Jonathan Swift's SF
was about his English centric world. SF allows for some extreme
exaggeration to make the point obvious.
Also, even in *idea* SF, we tend to not change too much. Keeping
lots of the background familiar allow the story to concentrate on the
ideas.
Who believes in a Scottish accented engineer on Star Trek, in a future
as far away from now as Shakespeare,
Well, not really. We're more than twice as far out from Shakespeare as
real Trek was from us.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
Richard Schultz
2007-07-18 15:28:33 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

: Well, not really. We're more than twice as far out from Shakespeare as
: real Trek was from us.

I'm having trouble with the math here: Shakespeare was active around
400 years ago. "Real" Trek (by which I assume you mean ST:TOS, since the
other series bearing the title must be considered to be non-canonical by
anyone who really cares about Star Trek, and by that I mean anyone who
ever owned the AMT model of the Enterprise) is usually assumed to be
~24th century (i.e. around 300 - 400 years in the future). ST:TOS had
in its first season two mutually inconsistent direct references to the time
in which the action took place: in "The Squire of Gothos," the difference
between the 900 light years from earth on which the lonely squire is found
and the 18th century that he thinks is the "present" implies a 27th century
setting, while in "Tomorrow is Yesterday," the MP tells Kirk that he's
going to lock him up for 200 years, and Kirk says that that would be just
about right, implying a late-22d century setting. Both of these references
are generally considered to be errors on the part of the script writers
that escaped the editing process.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
Anim8rFSK
2007-07-18 19:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: Well, not really. We're more than twice as far out from Shakespeare as
: real Trek was from us.
I'm having trouble with the math here: Shakespeare was active around
400 years ago. "Real" Trek (by which I assume you mean ST:TOS, since the
Correct - since he mentioned Scottish engineers, I took it that's what
we were talking about.
Post by Richard Schultz
other series bearing the title must be considered to be non-canonical by
Indeed. Especially ENTERPRISE, but at least that turned out to be a
fictional holonovel.
Post by Richard Schultz
anyone who really cares about Star Trek, and by that I mean anyone who
ever owned the AMT model of the Enterprise) is usually assumed to be
~24th century (i.e. around 300 - 400 years in the future).
Incorrect. Real Trek was 200ish years in the future. Various
references put it in the 23rd Century, but just barely. The dates in
Mr. Scott's Guide to the Enterprise putting the TMP movie about 2220
worked out as well as could be expected.

Wrath of Khan starts with the art card "In the 23rd Century"

When TNG started, they said TNG was the beginning of the 24th Century,
and 78 years after real Trek. This fit just fine with the 2220 date as
well.

Then unfortunately they had Data give the wrong date in THE NEUTRAL ZONE
and started retconning real Trek to match TNGs mistake, finally moving
the dates that real Trek took place to be exactly 300 years after their
air dates. But honestly, the retcon TNG stuff doesn't impress me. If
TNG contradicts real Trek, then TNG is wrong.
Post by Richard Schultz
ST:TOS had
in its first season two mutually inconsistent direct references to the time
in which the action took place: in "The Squire of Gothos," the difference
between the 900 light years from earth on which the lonely squire is found
and the 18th century that he thinks is the "present" implies a 27th century
Don't forget Trelane can fly that planet around at trans light speed; no
telling where he was when he was looking at Earth. Also, whatever he
viewed Earth with let him HEAR, and see inside castles, so it sure
wasn't a telescope.
Post by Richard Schultz
setting, while in "Tomorrow is Yesterday," the MP tells Kirk that he's
going to lock him up for 200 years, and Kirk says that that would be just
about right, implying a late-22d century setting. Both of these references
are generally considered to be errors on the part of the script writers
that escaped the editing process.
I've never heard anyone state that the date in "Tomorrow is Yesterday"
is considered an error before now. It's obviously approximate, and in
"Space Seed" Kirk tells Khan, who he knows is from the 1990s, that they
estimate he's been sleeping for two centuries.

So. When it was aired, real Trek was about 250 years in the (1966)
future, and Shakespeare was about 360 years previous. Now, real trek is
about 210 years in the future, and Shakespeare is more like 400 years in
the past. Therefore my original statement: "We're more than twice as
far out from Shakespeare as real Trek was from us." is slightly
mistaken. I should have said "We're almost twice as far out from
Shakespeare as real Trek is from us."

Depending on what point in Shakespeare's life you want to count of
course. I initially used his date of birth, but now I'm using a nice
round number of 1600.
Post by Richard Schultz
-----
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell bad."
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
Richard Schultz
2007-07-19 04:21:34 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

: Therefore my original statement: "We're more than twice as
: far out from Shakespeare as real Trek was from us." is slightly
: mistaken. I should have said "We're almost twice as far out from
: Shakespeare as real Trek is from us."

I would not have argued with that latter statement.

: Depending on what point in Shakespeare's life you want to count of
: course. I initially used his date of birth, but now I'm using a nice
: round number of 1600.

Well, since the issue was spoken language, it makes more sense to use the
dates from which we have written evidence of Shakespeare's language. 1600
would be a reasonable round date, although "400 years ago" would still
put you in the time when he was actively writing plays -- indeed, IIRC,
1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Anim8rFSK
2007-07-19 04:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
: Therefore my original statement: "We're more than twice as
: far out from Shakespeare as real Trek was from us." is slightly
: mistaken. I should have said "We're almost twice as far out from
: Shakespeare as real Trek is from us."
I would not have argued with that latter statement.
:)
Post by Richard Schultz
: Depending on what point in Shakespeare's life you want to count of
: course. I initially used his date of birth, but now I'm using a nice
: round number of 1600.
Well, since the issue was spoken language, it makes more sense to use the
dates from which we have written evidence of Shakespeare's language. 1600
would be a reasonable round date, although "400 years ago" would still
put you in the time when he was actively writing plays -- indeed, IIRC,
1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.
Wow, you lost me there. Mark Twain was about 300 years later than
Shakespeare.
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
Richard Schultz
2007-07-19 07:01:42 UTC
Permalink
In rec.arts.movies.past-films Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:

:> Well, since the issue was spoken language, it makes more sense to use the
:> dates from which we have written evidence of Shakespeare's language. 1600
:> would be a reasonable round date, although "400 years ago" would still
:> put you in the time when he was actively writing plays -- indeed, IIRC,
:> 1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
:> masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.

: Wow, you lost me there. Mark Twain was about 300 years later than
: Shakespeare.

My mistake -- I was thinking of 1601, not 1607.
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/1601/ebook-page-09.asp

(You can ignore the first 8.5 pages, which are commentary)

-----
Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Anim8rFSK
2007-07-19 12:57:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
:> Well, since the issue was spoken language, it makes more sense to use the
:> dates from which we have written evidence of Shakespeare's language. 1600
:> would be a reasonable round date, although "400 years ago" would still
:> put you in the time when he was actively writing plays -- indeed, IIRC,
:> 1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
:> masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.
: Wow, you lost me there. Mark Twain was about 300 years later than
: Shakespeare.
My mistake -- I was thinking of 1601, not 1607.
http://mark-twain.classic-literature.co.uk/1601/ebook-page-09.asp
(You can ignore the first 8.5 pages, which are commentary)
Aha. I thought you must have something clever in mind that whooshed
right over my head, and indeed you did. :)
--
"No man ever notices a woman's shoes, unless they have boobs on them."
-- Mark Nobles
George W Harris
2007-07-19 07:44:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 04:21:34 +0000 (UTC), ***@mail.biu.ack.il
(Richard Schultz) wrote:

:In rec.arts.movies.past-films Anim8rFSK <***@cox.net> wrote:
:
:: Therefore my original statement: "We're more than twice as
:: far out from Shakespeare as real Trek was from us." is slightly
:: mistaken. I should have said "We're almost twice as far out from
:: Shakespeare as real Trek is from us."
:
:I would not have argued with that latter statement.
:
:: Depending on what point in Shakespeare's life you want to count of
:: course. I initially used his date of birth, but now I'm using a nice
:: round number of 1600.
:
:Well, since the issue was spoken language, it makes more sense to use the
:dates from which we have written evidence of Shakespeare's language. 1600
:would be a reasonable round date, although "400 years ago" would still
:put you in the time when he was actively writing plays -- indeed, IIRC,
:1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
:masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.

Mark Twain was writing in the 17th century?

:-----
:Richard Schultz ***@mail.biu.ac.il
:Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
--
"If you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste more like
prunes than rhubarb does" -Groucho Marx

George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
RogerM
2007-07-19 08:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.
Huh?
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Calvin
2007-07-19 18:05:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Schultz
1607 was around the time that he was writing some of his acknowledged
masterpieces. As was, IIRC, Mark Twain.
Huh?
At least he can spell 'morons'.

Calvin
2007-07-19 01:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Howard Brazee
IMHO, the greatest line in movie SF is "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy
Far, Far, Away". It set us up by telling us that this is the SF of
Lucas' youth. It's a variation of the title of Pohl's autobiography
_The Way The Future Was_.
I've always disliked that 'galaxy far away' stuff. What's
wrong with our galaxy? We haven't explored the neighborhood
of even a single other star besides our Sun, and there are
two or three hundred billion stars in our perfectly respectable
galaxy. It's a disservice to young people to suggest that we
would have to go to other galaxies to find things different and
exotic. They will eat up anything that so-called adults like
George Lucas feed them, and he ought to be more responsible
about it, in my opinion.
Howard Brazee
2007-07-19 01:41:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by Howard Brazee
IMHO, the greatest line in movie SF is "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy
Far, Far, Away". It set us up by telling us that this is the SF of
Lucas' youth. It's a variation of the title of Pohl's autobiography
_The Way The Future Was_.
I've always disliked that 'galaxy far away' stuff. What's
wrong with our galaxy? We haven't explored the neighborhood
of even a single other star besides our Sun, and there are
two or three hundred billion stars in our perfectly respectable
galaxy. It's a disservice to young people to suggest that we
would have to go to other galaxies to find things different and
exotic. They will eat up anything that so-called adults like
George Lucas feed them, and he ought to be more responsible
about it, in my opinion.
Our galaxy and the future have to be real.
trotsky
2007-07-19 02:07:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by Howard Brazee
IMHO, the greatest line in movie SF is "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy
Far, Far, Away". It set us up by telling us that this is the SF of
Lucas' youth. It's a variation of the title of Pohl's autobiography
_The Way The Future Was_.
I've always disliked that 'galaxy far away' stuff. What's
wrong with our galaxy?
Republicans.
Potter7 Leak Clearinghouse
2007-07-19 03:34:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by Howard Brazee
IMHO, the greatest line in movie SF is "A Long Time Ago, in a Galaxy
Far, Far, Away". It set us up by telling us that this is the SF of
Lucas' youth. It's a variation of the title of Pohl's autobiography
_The Way The Future Was_.
I've always disliked that 'galaxy far away' stuff. What's
wrong with our galaxy? We haven't explored the neighborhood
of even a single other star besides our Sun, and there are
two or three hundred billion stars in our perfectly respectable
galaxy. It's a disservice to young people to suggest that we
would have to go to other galaxies to find things different and
exotic. They will eat up anything that so-called adults like
George Lucas feed them, and he ought to be more responsible
about it, in my opinion.
One should discount the "long time ago" too...
the metric system is used in SW and was invented in
the very late 18th century.
Howard Brazee
2007-07-19 11:57:30 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jul 2007 22:34:39 -0500, Potter7 Leak Clearinghouse
Post by Potter7 Leak Clearinghouse
One should discount the "long time ago" too...
the metric system is used in SW and was invented in
the very late 18th century.
When a movie has actors speaking some other language in English, the
units of measurement should be translated as well into something we
understand. I suppose SW had two common choices, but Metric is the
more common of them.
l***@my-deja.com
2007-07-16 15:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Check out THINGS TO COME (1936) which predicted WWII and that it would
last for 30-odd years. The turning point in the film comes in 1970.
When that date flashed onscreen, the audience freaked out because we
were watching it...in 1970!!!!


THE TIME MACHINE (1960) predicts a nuclear war in 1966. I saw it in
1965.
c***@yahoo.com
2007-07-16 18:54:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@my-deja.com
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Check out THINGS TO COME (1936) which predicted WWII
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).

Brandon
RogerM
2007-07-16 20:04:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Matt Clara
2007-07-17 01:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
Really? As I recall from my history class (and it has been a lot of years)
we were taught it began with the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop pact in 1939. It
was after that that the German's began to invade neighboring nations.

But thanks for the asinine generalizations.

--
www.mattclara.com
RogerM
2007-07-17 14:08:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
Really? As I recall from my history class (and it has been a lot of years)
we were taught it began with the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop pact in 1939. It
was after that that the German's began to invade neighboring nations.
But thanks for the asinine generalizations.
Ask a thousand Americans when it started. Most will say PEarl Harbour. I
admit they probably won't know the date.
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
Audie Murphy's Ghost
2007-07-17 15:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by Matt Clara
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
Really? As I recall from my history class (and it has been a lot of years)
we were taught it began with the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop pact in 1939. It
was after that that the German's began to invade neighboring nations.
But thanks for the asinine generalizations.
Ask a thousand Americans when it started. Most will say PEarl Harbour. I
admit they probably won't know the date.
But I'll bet they'd spell "Pearl Harbor" correctly.
David E. Powell
2007-07-18 20:50:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Matt Clara
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
Really? As I recall from my history class (and it has been a lot of years)
we were taught it began with the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop pact in 1939. It
was after that that the German's began to invade neighboring nations.
Czechoslovakia and Austria wnt before that. Did Russia attack Finland
before that? They tried to invade Poland in the 1920s...
Post by Matt Clara
But thanks for the asinine generalizations.
--www.mattclara.com
Matt Clara
2007-07-18 21:49:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Powell
Post by Matt Clara
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
Really? As I recall from my history class (and it has been a lot of years)
we were taught it began with the Molotov/Von Ribbentrop pact in 1939. It
was after that that the German's began to invade neighboring nations.
Czechoslovakia and Austria wnt before that. Did Russia attack Finland
before that? They tried to invade Poland in the 1920s...
It was the pact I refer to that was an agreement between Russia and Germany
to attack Poland and then not each other. You're right, though, a little
Google shows Austria and Czech/Slovakia, too.

--
www.mattclara.com
Clell Harmon
2007-07-17 01:42:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
If you ignore Eagle Squadron, The Flying Tigers, and the various Yanks
in deployed Canadian forces.
David E. Powell
2007-07-18 20:49:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Clell Harmon
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
If you ignore Eagle Squadron, The Flying Tigers, and the various Yanks
in deployed Canadian forces.
Yeah, some Americans went North to Canada to join the RAF, etc.

Plus US Volunteers who went to the Spanish Civil War. (Admittedly pre
"European WW2" but still.)
Clell Harmon
2007-07-19 00:14:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by David E. Powell
Post by Clell Harmon
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
Brandon
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
If you ignore Eagle Squadron, The Flying Tigers, and the various Yanks
in deployed Canadian forces.
Yeah, some Americans went North to Canada to join the RAF, etc.
Plus US Volunteers who went to the Spanish Civil War. (Admittedly pre
"European WW2" but still.)
Which demonstrates the general wrongness of the statement I responded to.
Calvin
2007-07-19 13:54:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by RogerM
Post by c***@yahoo.com
Depending on what event you go back to, it could be argued that WWII
had already started by 1936 (Japanese "incidents" in China and the
Spanish Civil War).
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
And thanks in large part to the Americans the Axis powers
didn't win. What exactly is your complaint?
RogerM
2007-07-19 16:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Calvin
Post by RogerM
To Americans it didn't start until December 7th.
And thanks in large part to the Americans the Axis powers
didn't win. What exactly is your complaint?
Why don't you ask the French, Poles, and Brits who died before the US
decided to join in?
--
Best Online comic: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0001.html
RichA
2007-07-16 16:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
The best movie is without doubt, "Rollerball." The original one.
-Powerful corporations running the planet.
-Computers dictating human existence.
-Violent sports and amusements designed to divert attention from a
continued decrease in personal freedom.
the Bede
2007-07-16 17:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by RichA
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
The best movie is without doubt, "Rollerball." The original one.
-Powerful corporations running the planet.
-Computers dictating human existence.
-Violent sports and amusements designed to divert attention from a
continued decrease in personal freedom.
no love for Soylent Green?
a***@yahoo.com
2007-07-16 19:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by the Bede
Post by RichA
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
The best movie is without doubt, "Rollerball." The original one.
-Powerful corporations running the planet.
-Computers dictating human existence.
-Violent sports and amusements designed to divert attention from a
continued decrease in personal freedom.
no love for Soylent Green?
Soylent Green predicts that in the future, NY City will have 40
million people wearing bad 70's clothes.
the Bede
2007-07-16 19:42:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by the Bede
Post by RichA
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
The best movie is without doubt, "Rollerball." The original one.
-Powerful corporations running the planet.
-Computers dictating human existence.
-Violent sports and amusements designed to divert attention from a
continued decrease in personal freedom.
no love for Soylent Green?
Soylent Green predicts that in the future, NY City will have 40
million people wearing bad 70's clothes.
so it was only off by 27 million.
Marv Soloff
2007-07-16 16:58:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Are we forgetting Harlan Ellison's "A Boy and His Dog" (1975) ?

Marv
Martin Koolhoven
2007-07-16 17:04:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.

Now, how's stupid?


MK
The Blue Perkie
2007-07-16 18:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.
Now, how's stupid?
MK
I said it was one of my favorite movies. They just had no idea how
the year 1999 was going to be, I know this for a fact because I lived
through 1999.
b***@yahoo.com
2007-07-16 18:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.
Now, how's stupid?
MK
I said it was one of my favorite movies. They just had no idea how
the year 1999 was going to be, I know this for a fact because I lived
through 1999.
yep, we're all still waiting patiently for our flying cars.

Thank god we're not wearing spandex bodysuits though
The Blue Perkie
2007-07-16 18:53:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Post by The Blue Perkie
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.
Now, how's stupid?
MK
I said it was one of my favorite movies. They just had no idea how
the year 1999 was going to be, I know this for a fact because I lived
through 1999.
yep, we're all still waiting patiently for our flying cars.
Thank god we're not wearing spandex bodysuits though
No flying cars in Class of 1999, you're thinking of Back To The Future
Part 2.
Matt Frisch
2007-07-16 20:34:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Post by The Blue Perkie
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.
Now, how's stupid?
MK
I said it was one of my favorite movies. They just had no idea how
the year 1999 was going to be, I know this for a fact because I lived
through 1999.
yep, we're all still waiting patiently for our flying cars.
Thank god we're not wearing spandex bodysuits though
No flying cars in Class of 1999, you're thinking of Back To The Future
Part 2.
Events in Back To The Future 2 haven't happened yet. The Doc went about 30
years ahead of 1985, so that leaves us 8 years to develop flying cars.
Also, in 5 years the Cubs will win the world series for the first of a
three-peat.
David E. Powell
2007-07-16 19:56:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by b***@yahoo.com
Post by The Blue Perkie
Post by Martin Koolhoven
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
YOU watched it. THEY made money.
Now, how's stupid?
MK
I said it was one of my favorite movies. They just had no idea how
the year 1999 was going to be, I know this for a fact because I lived
through 1999.
yep, we're all still waiting patiently for our flying cars.
Thank god we're not wearing spandex bodysuits though
I agree about the cars. Supposedly some Moller guy has been trying to
build them for something like 20 years now. The bodysuits as a fashion
would depend on who wore them, in the futuristic stuff it is always
people like Gates McFadden, Marina Sirtis, Nana Visitor and Jolene
Blalock walking around in them. In our world, they'd end up on all the
300 pounders (male and female) like "Hip huggers*" and every other
"Hawt" pop culture item, while people who look normal in anything
continue to just, well, look normal-good in anything.

*There should be a law against people wearing those who have single -
never mind double - rolls hanging over each side. Besides, they break
up the curve of the hips.

As for best movie about the future, it is hard to pin one down, I'll
toss out one I haven't seen mentioned in the thread yet:

Metropolis - 1926 (Set in 2026, it is intersting to watch now.)
trippy
2007-07-16 19:24:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, The
Blue Perkie took the hamburger meat, threw it on the grill, and I said
"Oh Wow"...
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Threads.
--
trippy
mhm31x9 Smeeter#29 WSD#30
sTaRShInE_mOOnBeAm aT HoTmAil dOt CoM
http://www.myspace.com/starshine_moonbeam

NP: "Goldeneye" -- Tina Turner

"What did I tell the kid. It's about how hard you can get hit,
and keep moving forward. It's about how much you can take,
and keep moving forward. Get up."

-- Sylvester Stallone "Rocky Balboa"
s***@altavista.com
2007-07-16 20:18:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future
People who haven't seen it, I presume.
Seerialmom
2007-07-16 20:23:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
A very recent movie is probably closer to the truth about the future:
Idiocracy.
m***@earthlink.net
2007-07-19 02:56:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Seerialmom
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Idiocracy.
I just rented that this weekend. Satire aside, the only way Judge's
future would happen is if the rest of the world devolved into idiocy
at the same rate as the USA. Long before Fuddruckers became
Buttfuckers, the enemies of the US would be picking over its bones.
jessica_smith_nyc
2007-07-17 02:05:56 UTC
Permalink
How about the recent movie "Children of Men"?

-------
http://www.moviesitearchive.com
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
james_powers
2007-07-17 02:42:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
THX-1138
Sleeper
Idiocracy
Americathon
Matt Clara
2007-07-17 03:04:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
Twelve Monkeys

--
www.mattclara.com
Eric Perlin
2007-07-17 14:10:59 UTC
Permalink
Some films set in the future which is now past include:

Just Imagine (Made in 1930, set in a "Jetsons"-like 1980)

Things to Come (1936)

A short film made for the 1939 World's Fair (excerpted in the documentary "The
World of Tomorrow") predicts that we will all have flying cars by the 1960's.

The Man Who Saw Tomorrow (1981) A documentary about Nostradamus predictions. The
last part of the movie contains Nostradamus' predictions for the 1980's and
1990's.
Audie Murphy's Ghost
2007-07-17 14:45:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Perlin
Just Imagine (Made in 1930, set in a "Jetsons"-like 1980)
Awful film. The first few minutes are fun, and there's a really good
joke in there at Henry Ford's expense, but then it plods along with
nonsense about a trip to Mars and so forth.
Post by Eric Perlin
Things to Come (1936)
This one's pretty interesting, especially as H.G. Wells himself fiddled
with the script. I think the silly "fashions" of 2036 hurt it, though.
Post by Eric Perlin
A short film made for the 1939 World's Fair (excerpted in the documentary "The
World of Tomorrow") predicts that we will all have flying cars by the 1960's.
I don't remember any flying cars in that film, but they did say that
autogyros would become common. The film (made for General Motors) did
successfully predict superhighways linking cities.
Marv Soloff
2007-07-17 19:53:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Perlin
Just Imagine (Made in 1930, set in a "Jetsons"-like 1980)
Things to Come (1936)
A short film made for the 1939 World's Fair (excerpted in the documentary "The
World of Tomorrow") predicts that we will all have flying cars by the 1960's.
The Man Who Saw Tomorrow (1981) A documentary about Nostradamus predictions. The
last part of the movie contains Nostradamus' predictions for the 1980's and
1990's.
The best thing about "Things to Come" is that it was directed by William
Cameron Menzies -
one of the few true cinema geniuses. His storyboards for "Gone With The
Wind" literally gave
that film its superb visual sheen. An almost forgotten film visionary.

Marv
Mr.Bolshoyhuy
2007-07-18 18:26:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
people, whats the matter with you?!
The best movie about the future is 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Man vs. Machine as the ultimate conflict.
The end of the movie is man's beginning.
Mark Debo
2007-07-19 12:19:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future,
I assume you meant BTTF 2 ??

I loved it. Sort of a soft, cartoon parody of what things could evolve into,
both the good and the bad.
Miss Glamour
2007-07-18 19:30:13 UTC
Permalink
Consider your lipstick color and finish. You'll do well with colors
that match the natural shade of your lips, opting for darker tones
that complement your overall coloring. Matte lipsticks offer a muted
finish complementary to workday makeup, while satin and gloss finishes
offer appealing evening looks.

Apply all other makeup before putting on lipstick and lip liner.

Begin by dabbing on a very small amount of lip balm or petroleum jelly
to give your lips a little moisture.

Draw a thin line along the edge of your lips with a lip liner whose
color is one shade darker than your lipstick. Start at the center of
the upper lip and work outward. Hug the very outer edges to open up
thin lips, and line well within the edges to downplay excessively full
lips.

Apply lipstick from the tube or by using a firm, small lipstick brush.
Coat the lips evenly. Pay special attention to staying within the
lips' edges.
Blot to remove any excess color and to even out the texture.

Remember to touch lips up after a meal, as lipstick easily transfers
onto coffee cups, water bottles and soda cans.
Killfile Victim #847238
2007-07-18 23:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by The Blue Perkie
A lot of people would say Back To The Future, but for me it's the
movie Class Of 1999. They really thought that the year 1999 was going
to be like that.
LOL stupid film makers.
The Running Man. Had AH-NULD and Jesse 'The Body' Ventura. What's
not to like?
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...