Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Movies Media Entertainment Your Rights Online

WarGames Sequel Now Filming 439

Posted by kdawson
from the lights-camera-domain-grab dept.
iluvcapra writes "This news is a little late, but on November 20th WarGames 2: The Dead Code began filming in Montreal. (I only became aware of the new production when I read that MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com for his domain name.) The film will be produced and distributed by MGM — distributor of the original WarGames — and directed by Stewart Gillard, director of such gems as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes, the team behind the original film, are not involved. The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WarGames Sequel Now Filming

Comments Filter:
  • Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TPIRman (142895) * on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:13PM (#17305002)
    I can think of no better way to kick off the marketing campaign for WarGames 2 than by filing an outrageous lawsuit that will piss off the very geek fanbase who'd potentially be interested in the film. Well done, MGM. Because wargames-movie.com just wouldn't be good enough, would it?

    The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      actually to make geeks happy they should save DNS space and put it at: www.mgm.com/wargames2

      James
      • by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:27PM (#17305290) Homepage Journal
        save DNS space

        Is this what new age ecowarrior 2.0 looks like?

        Next thing you will be telling me not to turn off my servers.

        Think of the domain forests.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by IgLou (732042)
        You know what, you're absolutely correct. MGM, is the commercial entity WarGames2 is just a project. But the reality is TLD's are given out like riddilin to school kids and everyone wants a .com and no one cares if you're valid using .com TLD when you should have a .net. Well, at least no one with money cares. I just don't know how something like this gets fixed.

        But for those who feel like doing something, just fire an email to MGM tell them you don't like this and then boycott their films and bette
      • Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)

        by 1u3hr (530656) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @09:13PM (#17307982)
        actually to make geeks happy they should save DNS space and put it at: www.mgm.com/wargames2

        A true geek would use wargames2.mgm.com.

        Too bad the concept of subdomainms seems beyond most companies. And registrars and the like actively promote the proliferation of separate .com domains for every purpose, that often after a year or so are neglected and end up as phishing or porn sites, where subdomains cost nothing and last as long as the parent domain.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kreyg (103130)
          A true geek would use wargames2.mgm.com.

          Now that you mention it... I wonder why they don't do that? Studio logos and name always get top billing in any film, obviously they believe that studio/brand awareness is important. What could be better than associating the film with the studio right in the URL? It gives a level of authenticity to the site as well, making it obvious it is the official site.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Moridineas (213502)
          Beyond most _companies_?

          Maybe it's just me, but so often people I talk to have trouble dealing with sites that don't start with "www".

          As one example, I setup a number of years ago an intranet for a small company, that had a "home.theirdomain.com" internal site.

          me: "ok, the server address is home.theirdomain.com"
          them *typing*: "ok, www dot home dot ..."
          me: "you don't need the www"
          them: "????"

          I don't get it!
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Fred_A (10934)

            Maybe it's just me, but so often people I talk to have trouble dealing with sites that don't start with "www".

            This is a very common problem, mostly with the "Internet == Web == IE" crowd. Basically because nobody ever explained the structure of a URL to them. They don't know what a host name, a domain name, a TLD or a path are. And don't even get started with the protocol bit at the start. It might all be written in runes for all the good it does.

            On a related note my domains are in the .org or .net TLDs

    • by FatSean (18753) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:18PM (#17305104) Homepage Journal
      It's for scaredy-cat non-geeks who want to be terrified by what those mysterious boxes can do in the wrong hands.

      Plus, a romantic sub-plot, a cool chase scene, and some improperly used computer terminology.
      • by rudeboy1 (516023) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305266)
        Congratulations! You have accurately defined the plot for the following movies:
        Wargames
        Hackers
        Hackers 2 (yeah they made one, believe it or not)
        The Lawnmower Man
        The Net
        Sneakers (Good movie, but still makes the list)
        Johnny Mnemonic
        Swordfish
        Tron

        Anyone see a pattern here?
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Andrew Kismet (955764)
          Pattern I see is "Films that make me cringe for their terminology, but are still worth watching" with a few anomalous points. By the way, you missed Antitrust.
          • by rudeboy1 (516023) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:36PM (#17305470)
            Son of a BITCH! How did I miss Antitrust?!? I'm going to hanf my head in shame for the rest of the day.
            By the way, I'm already kicking myself for excluding anime from the list, as most large budget anime movies seem to have this as a universal theme (Take Ghost in the Shell, though the romantic subplot is a little different... the series leads me to believe the Major is a lesbian in love with her repair-woman). Oh well. Didn't have time to make a concise list. That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by HTH NE1 (675604)
              That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.

              There's worse: having your posting buried between pages because the first post on the first page is also the first post on the second and third pages. (I prefer to read in Nested mode.)
        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by chill (34294)
          Unfortunately, Halle Barry's breasts weren't in all of them. Several could have used the boost. I know it certainly helped Swordfish.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by LiquidCoooled (634315)
      This appears to have been in the works for about 3 years.
      The current escalation from both sides (one starting a shop, the other actually making a movie) can only lead to one thing.

      This can lead to a global thermonuclear war.

      the only way to win is not to play at all.
    • by Dunbal (464142) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:25PM (#17305262)
      The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.

            Bahh, just download the torrent. That'll teach the fuckers.
    • by dave_mcmillen (250780) * on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305278)
      The only way to win . . . is not to watch.
    • by Otis2222222 (581406) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:42PM (#17305578) Homepage
      The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.

      But if you don't see the movie, you might miss out on Jean-Robert Bourdage's [imdb.com] performance as the hot dog vendor! And you know it's gonna be good, because only him and Matt Lanter have signed on to the production, according to IMDB.

      Hot Dog Vendor: Kid, you don't have what it takes to hack into a terrorism-simulation computer.
      Will Farmer: I'd like mustard and ketchup on my hotdog.
      Hot Dog Vendor: Will, it's too dangerous!
  • by Ubergrendle (531719) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:13PM (#17305024) Journal
    "Wargames 2: The only way to win is not to watch."
    • by 0xABADC0DA (867955) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:55PM (#17305766)
      WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?
      > GLOBAL WAR oN TERRORISM

      BEGIN TORTURE INSURGENTS
      INSURGENT RECRUITING INCREASE 180%
      INCREASE TORTURE
      INSURGENTS REACH CRITICAL MASS ACQUIRE NUKE
      LAUNCH FINANCIAL EMBARGO ATTACK
      INSURGENT RECRUITING INCREASE 160%
      STARVE POPULATION
      INSURGENTS REACH CRITICAL MASS ACQUIRE BIOWEAPON
      ACQUIRE NUKE
      ACQUIRE BIOWEAPON
      ACQUIRE SARIN
      ACQUIRE GREY GOO

      STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WINNING MOVE.
      IS NOT TO HATE.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by creimer (824291)
      The best part is that the movie will be available for free over the internet -- only if you have a 300 baud modem.
  • by fitten (521191) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:15PM (#17305052)
    Get that 12yo girl from Jurrasic Park.... she knows Unix!
  • Cast? (Score:5, Informative)

    by pluther (647209) <pluther.usa@net> on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:16PM (#17305064) Homepage
    No Matthew Broderick? It's gonna suck.
  • by BTWR (540147) <[moc.oohay] [ta] [3robignacirema]> on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:16PM (#17305068) Homepage Journal
    War Games 2: The Direct-to-DVD Adventure
    • More like direct-to-piratebay.org

      Now I'm not saying this movie will be a bomb, but the KKK just tried strapping an advance editing screener copy to Al Sharpton's car bumper the other day.
  • The film will be produced and distributed by MGM -- distributor of the original WarGames -- and directed by Stewart Gillard, director of such gems as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3... The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.

    At the rate they're going, why don't they just get Uwe Boll to direct?
    • They tried to get Uwe, but he didn't like the way the producers were looking at him, so he punched them out.
    • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305286) Homepage Journal
      hello yes i am UWE BOLL teh well-loved great DIRECTOR and now am making a new sequel to good movie WARGAMES which i never actuly see but i know I MAKE GOOD MOVIE if it from a game like BLOODRAYNE. now i tell you my GRATE PLAN for movie is not same hacekrs from first WARGAMES is new hackre is played by MAN FROM RESORVIR DOGS who name i never member but also MEATLLOAF is in movie with some more REAL ROMANIAN PORSTITUTS and resorver dogs man was drunk and meatloaf was drucnk and teh porstitues were drank heroin and meth too. and the hackres are also fighting with nazis and warewulfs and also a wizzrd who is maybe play by man with beards. is good movie you all love i am GREATEST DERCTIR MOVIES EVAR. if you not like i fite you but not rly. -- xo UWE BOLL
  • by 9mm Censor (705379) * on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:21PM (#17305160) Homepage
    The owner of wargames.com should give MGM the domain, on one condition.

    They beat him at Tic-Tac-Toe.
    • by Surt (22457)
      Surely he'd lose that contest. MGM is a huge entity, so it would either properly be represented by a team of players, or a computer.
      Either way, I'd expect him to get sufficiently tired and make a mistake before the MGM side does.
  • by jbarr (2233) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:22PM (#17305176) Homepage
    ...WarGames2.com [slashdot.org] which is really more relevant to the movie...and already registered and re-directed to another site. At least content of WarGames.com appears to have some relevance to its name.
  • meh (Score:3, Insightful)

    by haplo21112 (184264) <{haplo} {at} {epithna.com}> on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:22PM (#17305182) Homepage
    Already sounds lame, I doubt it will have the soild story line and lesson that the first had, and it already sounds like its being made by and with sub par talent.

    I am sure that it will focus to much on action sequences (for the most part the first had very few) and Technobabble/Technobuzz, that will confuse the uninitiated and make the rest of us groan. The first movie avoided most of that by not over explaining concepts and just sort of glossing over just letting the viewer assume there is a technology to make such a thing happen, and letting those in the know imagine how it might be possible.

    So far sounds I'm seeing direct to video land, as its best hope.

    Hopefully now I can be plesantly surprised, but I doubt it.
  • by Alzheimers (467217) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305270)
    This movie will be as popular as Firewall. [imdb.com]

    You know, the one with Harrison Ford. He's a network security specialist.

    HAN SOLO! INDIANA JONES! RICK DECKARD! DOING NETWORK SECURITY!

    Well, if you can't get the nerds out to watch Han freakin Solo do Network Security...
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by multiplexo (27356)
      HAN SOLO! INDIANA JONES! RICK DECKARD! DOING NETWORK SECURITY!

      Well, if you can't get the nerds out to watch Han freakin Solo do Network Security...

      The problem is that the nerds won't see it since they recut the movie and used digital SFX so that the Cisco sales rep shot first.

  • by b3x (586838)
    On the number of LCD's _the_ super computer has attached to it.
  • by richdun (672214) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305280)

    The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.

    No AWPs!

  • by CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:26PM (#17305282)
    Would you like to play a game?
    >> Y
    Game Over. Opponent has no weapons.
  • nooooooooo (Score:2, Insightful)

    by j_kenpo (571930)
    Lets see, considering Hollywoods track record with movies sincce the time period of the original Wargames, I have a feeling that they are going to make this soooo bad that it will ruin any quality the original had. This.... this is why your profits are slipping, bad movies, not piracy.
  • by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:30PM (#17305356)
    Remember when you asked me to tell you when you were being rude and insensitive? You're doing it now.
  • Broken Premise? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DG (989) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:30PM (#17305366) Homepage Journal
    The premise behind the original - for those too young to remember - is (abridged) that a hacker breaks in to a NORAD computer and proceeds to run a wargame simulation of an ICBM strike on the continental US. The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched.

    That's probably not an exact synopsis of the plot, but it's close enough to make no nevermind.

    Now in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, which relies on a massive counterstrike against the initiator BEFORE his missiles arrive at their targets, this is at least a plausible scenario - close enough to allow sufficient suspension of disbelief to allow the movie to work. It's true that these command centres were manned 24/7 watching for any sign of an incoming strike, and that the time window between detecting the strike and making the decision to initiate the counterstrike was very small. It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.

    But we aren't in that game anymore. There is no longer a 20 minute window in which someone has to decide to launch a nuclear counterstrike based on a fairly narrow band of incoming data. No terrorist group - indeed, very few nations - are capable of the "mutual" in "Mutually Assured Destruction".

    So a Homeland Security central command centre starts reporting dozens to hundreds of terrorist strikes on US Territory? So what? Response will be in the hands of local Guard units and law enforcement/emergency responders, not a remote C3S cell. The worst that could happen is that troops are mobilized needlessly - and there's time to see if the purported strikes show up on CNN.

    The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.

    That doesn't bode well for the success of the movie, methinks.

    DG
    • by Xentor (600436)
      Minor nitpick... In the original one, the whole gimmick was that they'd created a true A.I. computer to control the missile systems, so when the kid started playing "Global Thermo-Nuclear War", the computer decided to play for real, and it really WAS going to launch a nuclear attack.

      Remember, the only way to win is not to play.
    • Not quite, but close (Score:5, Informative)

      by localroger (258128) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:36PM (#17305482) Homepage
      Actually, in the opening scene of Wargames a psychological experiment reveals that many silo crews would not launch their ICBM's, there not being much point to pounding the rubble when the world is ending anyway. In order to plug this leak in our defense control of the missiles is handed directly to the WOPR supercomputer which already has the most trusted advisory role in case of an attack. And it's WOPR that Broderick hacks. And it's WOPR that doesn't realize the "game" is real, its missile control outputs having been directed to the control of real missiles. And the humans, having been removed from the decision loop, aren't in a position to stop it.
    • Re:Broken Premise? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mo (2873) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:49PM (#17305692)
      It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.

      The story of Stanislav Petrov [wikipedia.org] is a good account of one such instance.
    • Re:Broken Premise? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Junta (36770) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:49PM (#17305694)

      The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched
      I haven't seen the film in years, but I still can't imagine how someone could misremember it like that. The humans were not controlling the response, the computer was. Hence the whole 'play tic-tac-toe with itselfs'. They were watching the computer prepare to launch the strike and it wouldn't listen for some long-forgotten reason.

      The blurb is really confusing "Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid. ", wtf does that mean?

      There is a scenario I could think of that could mimic the War Games Scenario, on a somewhat reduced scale, related to the most common domestically feared terrorism attack, hijacked planes. Ripley could decide all passenger jets in the air are hijacked and control automated missile batteries to threaten all flights... Toss in some key characters on flights to bring the viewer more into it. It certainly doesn't speak to the MAD message that was central to War Games, but I doubt the studios have a particularly deep meaning in mind...

      I seriously doubt this movie will be remotely good, but there exists potential for some of the fundamentals of the first movie to play out in the terrorist context..
  • Man I Really Hope... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eno2001 (527078) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:34PM (#17305434) Homepage Journal
    ...that they recast Matthew Broderick as the erstwhile teen again. Sure he's a bit grey behind the ears, but he's still got the right composure. Right? RIGHT?
  • by flaming error (1041742) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:34PM (#17305440) Journal
    I get my mindless plot-holed terrorism fantasies from the US Govt.
  • Plot! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Enoxice (993945) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:39PM (#17305514) Journal
    The plot outline from IMDB (unedited, though it pained me): Computer hacker Will Farmer (Lanter) engages a goverment super-computer named Ripley in an online terrorist-attack simulation game. Little does Farmer know that Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid.

    So, this kid plays Counter-Strike against some bots? He's in de_dust, plants the bomb and starts thinking, "gee..terrorism sure is a bad thing, and by playing this game I'm almost condoning it. I must have been born to be a terr'ist. Better go turn myself in now...[logs off]"?

    Sounds like a wonderful movie.
    • by mabu (178417) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @06:23PM (#17306158)
      Does anybody really think the notion of an intelligent computer is realistic any more? I mean, it's believable that a computer won't cooperate with you, but having a mind of its own and actually getting things done? It seems that the popularity of Windows OS has pretty much made such a concept pretty unbelievable among average people these days.

      Now maybe when the computer was a mysterious device that few people used, could you get away with portraying them as dubious, intelligent entities, but is that a believable plot device nowadays? This kind of premise should have been abandoned about the same time movies about high school kids building sentient robots was abandoned.

      I suspect, like most late remakes, this will fall flat.
  • I would go see it if Mathew Broddrick were playing the father of the hacker and they had this film have continuity with the original film - i.e. bring back some of the characters who were kids then as adults now, inside jokes on the old film, etc.
  • by 8127972 (73495) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:45PM (#17305622)
    .... The domain that they grabbed got hijacked by some kid named David.
  • by Ridgelift (228977) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @05:54PM (#17305756)
    I'm sure they're planning to remake all of Matthew Broderick's films including "Ferris Bueller's Day Off 2 - Skippin' Work" where the now middle-aged Ferris and Cameron miss work to grow their sagging beer bellies and watch strippers all day.
  • What are "reasonable rights" in holding a domain name? I fully support any company, big-or-small, in suing some squatter who buys up every domain name like "Spiderman-3.com" "Spiderman3.com" and "Spidey3.com," and simply puts up a ransom-note-like "this domain name for sale - $500,000!" index.html on it.

    I also see the idea of not allowing people to put up blatantly copyrighted domain names, and then holding them from the copyright owner (i.e. "cocacola.com" or buying "amazon.biz" and holding it from Amazon.com purely for profit), but something like "apple.com," while a name of a major computer manufacturer, would be perfectly valid had it been bought by a person who used it to sell bushels of apples online, or had apple-picking vacations for sale, etc. Similar to "War Games" - it is a common term. Of course, had wargames.com been squatting the site, that'd be another story.

    When the U.N. decided that famous people can sue for their domain name (juliaroberts.com was the case I remember), I assume this does not apply to some 24 year-old girl whose name is Julia Roberts from Ithaca, NY - right? Surely Erin Brockovitch has no-more right to the domain name than the nobody from upstate NY. But they both have a right to it over some squatter of course. But then again, what if someone bought that site and made a legitimate Julia Roberts fan page? Would that be valid?

    • Trademark Law (Score:4, Informative)

      by SonicSpike (242293) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @09:01PM (#17307876) Homepage Journal
      It's all about US trademark law.

      Essentially the judge will look at the case in the light of 'causing confusion in the marketplace'. In other words, the entire goal of trademarks is to PREVENT confusion in the free market. If the judge finds the current domain name to be causing confusion, then he could potentially rule that it is to be surrendered to MGM. Who knows how it will go? That's why it pays to have a good attorney that can make a convincing case before a judge.
  • Is it a sequel? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by 91degrees (207121) on Tuesday December 19, 2006 @06:31PM (#17306242) Journal
    Sounds like a remake.

    Except, Wargames was pretty good in terms of research and accuracy. The AI philosophy (learn from its mistakes) looks a bit outdated now but was pretty much what researchers were looking at at the time. The voice synthesis on every terminal in the world was a bit daft, and a few bits and pieces were a lttle hokey, but we didn't have the usual computer cliches. There was no "Running Virus" with progress bar. No 72 point lettering. No magic mechanism to break the password. Broderick's character actually had to spend ages rummaging through information just to get past the login. I'll admit that some of this was hokey but it's the least hokey computer movie ever by a long shot.

    If they can manage a similar level of realism for Wargames 2, then it would be interesting. Somehow, I doubt they'll do that. I expect to see loads of pointless explosions, a whole bunch of meaningless jargon, and lots of computer nerds totally bamboozled by the genius of some 16 year old kid.

    Is it wrong of me to judge the movie so soon?

Machines certainly can solve problems, store information, correlate, and play games -- but not with pleasure. -- Leo Rosten

Working...