Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2 204

Posted by CmdrTaco from the one-for-sam-zenpus dept.
Psinatmium writes "LinuxDevices is currently running a story about a Linux based, uncompressed high definition video DDR/Editor that I have been working on called RaveHD. The article also goes on to talk a little about how it was used at Tippett Studio in the upcoming feature "Starship Troopers 2: Hero of the Federation"."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2 More

Linux Based HD DDR used on Starship Troopers 2

Comments Filter:

  • What? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ThePlague ( 30616 ) *
    They're making a sequel to that movie?!? That has to be one of the signs of the apocalypse.

    • Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We cannot ill afford another Kandathu.
    • If I'm not mistaken, this flick will not see the silver screen and will be heading straight to video and dvd on june 1st.

      For more info:
      http://energo-system.cyberdusk.pl/ie/index. html

  • DDR? (Score:2, Funny)

    by DougMackensie ( 79440 )
    Dance Dance Revolution.

    interesting Linux development!
    • Double Data Rate

      We got to move this fast before the public realizes it crap!

    • Freaking hilarious (Score:5, Interesting)

      by bonch ( 38532 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @12:33PM (#8793349)
      This article breathlessly tries to hype the fact that Linux was used in an "upcomming feature."

      Turns out that's a complete, absolute lie--it's not a feature, it's a shitty direct-to-video release that often blue-screens unknown actors in front of footage from the first film.

      Not exactly something to be bragging about...

  • warm front? (Score:5, Funny)

    by AsimovBesterClarke ( 701529 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:41AM (#8790964)
    Nope, just the heat from Heinlein spinning in his grave again
    • So that's the source of that high-pitched whine I heard this morning. He must be topping 10,000 RPM.

    • More widespread effects... (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheOldBear ( 681288 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @10:42AM (#8791982)
      Since R.A.H. was buried at sea, the results of him spinning in his grave effect the angular momentum of the Earth, and can be directly measured by changes in the length of the day and year. Since the original movie was perpetrated, the standards bodies have not needed to add any 'leap seconds' - indicating that the system has gained angular momentum from some external influence.

  • Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dr. Manhattan ( 29720 ) <(moc.liamg) (ta) (171rorecros)> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:41AM (#8790965) Homepage
    Whether or not you liked the book, or agreed with its (ostensible) politics, it's clear the movie totally screwed it up.

    Best example: In one scene, a trooper asks why they are training with knives when the military has nukes.

    • In the book, the instructor explains that the "Mobile Infantry" is designed to apply force in a controlled manner, to 'spank' an opponent when feasible rather than 'cut their heads off'. (Whether or not the invasion of Iraq was a good idea, it would have been an even worse idea to nuke Bagdhad.)
    • In the movie, the instructor throws a knife and pins the questioner's hand to a wall, and says, "Hard to push a nuke button now, eh?"

    Please, spare us a sequel to that!

    • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      oh please!!!

      The book's politics have dated and the film did a fantastic job of satirising them and the whole GungHo marine infantry thang you Americans have going.

      • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by j0nb0y ( 107699 ) <jonboy300NO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:54AM (#8791040) Homepage
        Did you read the book? Did you watch the movie? The movie was nothing but a strawman attack on the book. Even if you disagree with the book, the movie is not a good satire of it.

        Even worse, it wasn't even a good movie.

        • I have not read the book (yet, it's on the stack).

          I absolutely love the movie. It's a biting sarcastic attack on societies that worship war and the military, very well executed. War looks like an episode of 90210 mixed with an infomercial, just like it does on Fox.

          My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc. So Verhoeven used the book to make a statement that says the opposite. Which I think he did rather well.

          That doesn't mean I t

          • My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc.

            The book may have idolized (sp?) the military, but the vote was granted to anyone who performed Federal service, of which only a small percentage were military. Any civil service job was sufficient, IIRC, and there is a (sarcastic) comment that one could volunteer to be a test subject for medical research if not qualified for anything else.

            IMHO, the movie was lame.

          • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:5, Interesting)

            by reverendG ( 602408 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:17AM (#8792381) Homepage
            I have not read the book...

            ...My view of the book...

            Spare us, please, until you have read the book. Heinlein had an extremely romanticized view of honor and obligation, and imagined a military where honor and obligation superceded the ideals of glory and profit. Typical Heinlein.

            Minus the hot nubile incestuous women.
          • I have not read the book
            Please do. You may very likely reconsider what you said below. And if you have even a slightly open mind, it will challenge many of the assumptions that you may have made about the purpose of violent conflict in human societies.

            My view of the book was always that it made idols of the military, only giving the right to vote to the military, etc.
            The point here was that if you are not willing to give service to your nation; in its defense, or in some other way, then you should ha
            • But if you think as I, that it's axiomatic that you must be ready, willing, and able to soundly defeat aggressors and then be willing to help them change for the better,

              Ahhh, you see, that thinking is out of vogue now. People here prefer nuance, not Manichean worldviews; there is no "evil" - or if there is, it's really our fault. See, what'd really happen in today's world is that after the bugs smashed Buenos Aires, we'd be holding symposiums examining the effects of pseudoarachnophobia and human bigotr

            • The point here was that if you are not willing to give service to your nation; in its defense, or in some other way, then you should have no say in the allocation of resources. I view paying taxes the same way. Why should someone who didn't contribute have any say in how the money is used?

              I agree with you, if you're saying that paying taxes is giving service to your nation.

              But if you think as I, that it's axiomatic that you must be ready, willing, and able to soundly defeat aggressors and then be willi

          • "I have not read the book"

            "My view of the book"

            "I'll still read it and then I'll judge."

            You see no contradiction here?

            • No. My view of the book is based on what I read about it (in discussions like these, mostly...). I didn't say it was a bad book, did I? I do have an idea what it's about, though.

      • odd - I felt it satirised people's commentries on the book. To pick one example, people have made a lot of the "right thinking white American" hero. Unfortunately the hero was actually a Philipino (a Tagalog speaker) with relatives in Argentina.

        The trouble is the book is more commented on than read. There's a lot in there that I do disagree with - but I think it's worth disagreeing with what's there not what you would like to be there.

        It's also worth noting that in the book soldiers could refuse a medic

    • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      My, yes, that warrants an "informative".

      The movie, my lad, was ironic. Verhoeven lived with fascism when he was young, and could see it all too clearly in the book. Hence the brilliant satire that is Starship Troopers.

      But hey - I won't be seeing it unless Paul H. is at the helm. Only the Master Of Excess could top the original.


      • > Hence the brilliant satire that is Starship Troopers.

        Satire, maybe... brilliant, no.

        You can't make suckage go away by labeling it "satire" any more than you can by labeling it "prequel".

      • The movie, my lad, was ironic.

        No kidding? Really? I would never have guessed.

        Satire's one thing. The problem is, the movie was incompetent satire, not "brilliant". Others have done it much better [infinityplus.co.uk].

        • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Alaska Jack ( 679307 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @03:17PM (#8795433) Journal
          Doc -

          I'm commenting on this topic late, so no one will ever read this except maybe you. But it is gratifying to know that at least one other person can look at the movie and say "Taken at face value, it sucks. Oh, it's satire, you say? Well as satire, it *also* sucks."

          It has been noted many times that a work of satire cannot be too close to the thing it is satirizing, or it will simple *become* that thing. As far as I am concerned, Exhibit A would be this movie.

          In fact, the last time I saw it, I remember thinking "I honestly cannot remember a movie that was more of a sneering insult from the director to his audience."

          - Alaska Jack
      • I've read the book after seeing the movie, and they are clearly at odds, from my point of view and what we know about Heinlein and Verhoeven.

        I think that the movie was ironic, in a very subtle and interesting way.

        However, I have first hand evidence that many people perceived Starship Troopers as a nice action flick with some patriotic background. Clearly I found this disturbing. It seems so obvious to me that the movie was a satire of the "Shoot first, ask questions later" doctrine that many Americans see
        • Verhoeven's a hard director to like (but I do).

          Clearly talented, he does have a streaky track record. Consistently as he uses trashy, gratuitous sex and violence to criticize it and the audience that likes, he also likes it himself. Revels in it even. He knows it appeals. It muddies a lot of attempts to define him.

          I do take his stuff as satire, the problem is, in his latter films, the straight man is audience member who doesn't get it. Starship Troopers is a bludgeoning sledgehammer if you've ever had con
          • That's very well said. I need to rewatch Robocop, I think I missed most of the message (was too young), beside the obvious 'big corp VPs==evil'.

            Clearly the US is not only country with this kind of tendency. But they do have bigger toys, which is why I'm more afraid of them.

            Anyway, I still think that Starship Troopers is kind of US-centric. Movies like Gattaca or The Cube are truely 'generic', but this one isn't.

        • I saw this movie first as a video because I wanted something that didn't make me have to think. I was on a very demanding contract away from home. Friends had said "Its just a superficial feel good movie". Geesus! What I got was a movie that sucked the audience into an obviously Nazi world as a Nazi supporter would feel. I found it absolutely creepy that intelligent people I knew didn't see it for what it was. On the other hand, it didn't resemble the original at all.

        • Verhoeven tried some kind of a double movie: In the US, Starship Troopers is just a nice action flick. In Europe (and maybe elsewhere, don't know), it is a "brilliant satire".

          Alternatively: for everyone who hadn't read the novel (which would probably be majority of the audience, no matter what continent) it was just a nice action flick, and those that had read the Heinlein's original, satire.

      • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Banner ( 17158 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @12:14PM (#8793114) Journal
        Brillant Satire? Hardly, he obviously didn't understand the book, and just as obviously sees facism under his pillow.

        Notice he made Rico a blond blue eyed WASP, instead of the Fillipino he was supposed to be. He made the soldiers out to be pretty much idiots, rather than highly trained specialists.

        The only thing that came thru in this movie about the director is that he hates the military and spared no opportunity to ridicule it and its members.
      • Uh, it's not really an upcoming feature since it's coming out STRAIGHT TO VIDEO. It's been getting absolutely horrible reviews. Basically it has nothing to do with the first.

      • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @02:23PM (#8794775) Homepage Journal
        If Verhoeven saw fascism in the book, he's a bigger idiot than I thought. Regardless of what you thought of the book's politics, it was NOT fascism.

        RAH was exploring the nature of the "franchise" (who gets to vote). Previous societies gave the franchise to the nobility, wealthy landholders, all males, dues paying party members, everyone over age 18, etc. RAH's premise was that only those who cared enough about society to volunteer for miltary service should be allowed to vote. It's a radical idea and interesting to ponder its implications, but it is NOT fascism. The society itself was quasi-libertarian.

      • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Wes Janson ( 606363 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @02:35PM (#8794904) Journal
        While I found it an ironic caricature of the book, if you watch the DVD Verhoen flatly states he never read the book, and presumably had no idea he was making a satire of anything. Sadly, it simply wound up appearing that way. I enjoyed the movie for it's unintentional irony, but do not make the mistake of thinking there was purpose there.

    • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SlashDread ( 38969 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:02AM (#8791092)
      Films do not respresent books fully. Shock. Horror.

      The book was entertaining, but not convincing. For more convincing Heinlein, I suggest "Stranger in a strange land" or "The Moon is a harsh mistress" (They should film THAT one! Throwing rocks from the moon to Earth would be, well spectacular!) or "The number of the beast".

      All three books more convincing about the social and technical issues Heinlein cares to write about, and all three far more entertaining.

      The film was entertaining IMHO, and did not even TRY to convince anybody. Such films have their entertaining merit.

      peace

      "/Dread"
      • My personal favorite is "Job: A Comedy of Justice." Deals with God, the Devil, myths alternate realities. I am surprised it is not more popular (not to discount Heinlein's other works, I just so rarely hear Job come up in conversation)
      • Films do not respresent books fully. Shock. Horror.

        You'll never hear me argue otherwise, and I'm first in line to challenge people who disapprove of e.g. Jackson's changes in LotR. But the only things that Starship Troopers the movie shares with Starship Troopers the book are the title, some character names, and the general theme of war. Given that, why bother getting the rights to the book? Some people understandably interpret that action as a nefarious plot to trick Heinlein fans into theaters.

      • Re:Oh no, not a sequel! (Score:2, Informative)

        by tbjw ( 760188 )
        It's probably not even a good idea to think of the film and the book as the same work.

        The film is a wonderful piece of work; the poor acting, ridiculous `futuristic' attitudes, the cliched technologies and sciences are all there, so you think this is just another trashy sci-fi movie. But then you meet the recruiting agent with one arm and no legs... and the propoganda television... and the execution of the prisoner... and what they do to the brain.

        If you don't think of this film as an anti-jingoist attack
    • The only cool part about the book was the mech suits that the mobile infantry wore. I have no idea why the film left them out. Instead they show a bunch of retards fighting with futuristic weapons and using World War One tactics. I spent most of the hour and a half yelling "Spread Out!" at the screen.

      -B
      • Yeah, that got me too. You see all these squishy humans running gung-ho into battle with nearly useless machine guns and getting ripped apart by the bugs - why the hell didn't they use tanks??
      • So you weren't the only one going "Yeah, stand right there in a big bunch so one bug will take out a squad!"

      • Me too.. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by NickRuisi ( 643726 )
        LMAO, me too. I spent a year in the real mechanized infantry (before switching into the Signal Corps) and kept thinking to myself "you could take out a whole damn platoon of these idiots with 1 grenade".

        The "spread out" thing (which is drilled into you in the infantry) is so often not represnented in military dramas.. makes for boring shots I guess.

        That said, the movie was a hateful piece of shit that had almost nothing to do with the book. The book was fantastic and rasied a lot of really good points
    • Aww, come on. What good is having a war if you can't have snappy one-liners.
    • I never read the book so I judged the movie on it's own. I found it absolutely hilarious. I was hoping there would be a sequel, but figured it would never happen since my high rating of the film seems to be quite unusual.
    • SHITE.

      The movie was a relatively entertaining way to piss away a couple of hours of ones life while drinkin a couple of beers and eating too many salty potato/corn based snackfoods.

      The book - well... its a ... Book... so its clearly Better and moraly Superior!! Even shit books are better than movies!

    • I could have sworn that the hand gets knifed in the book as well; there's just more explanation about it.

      Well, now I have an excuse to go re-read.

  • i'm so confused (Score:5, Funny)

    by XO ( 250276 ) <blade.eric@NospAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:43AM (#8790975) Homepage Journal
    I'm lost.

    What does Dance Dance Revolution have to do with Starship Troopers 2?

  • Does this mean it is good? (Score:4, Informative)

    by SnowWolf2003 ( 692561 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:47AM (#8790996)
    If you read the first review of the movie on imdb [imdb.com] you begin to wonder if this will help or hinder the opinion of the quality of RaveHD. Did they just use this to edit in the scenes from the previous movie?

    P.S - I quite enjoyed the original movie, but mostly because of Paul Verhoeven's style. Without him the sequel wont have the same feel.

  • The most versatile OS in the world (Score:5, Funny)

    by roystgnr ( 4015 ) <roy&stogners,org> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:47AM (#8790998) Homepage
    Why, Linux can be used for everything from palmtops to pissing on Heinlein's grave!
  • The first movie (while it chugged Donkey penis) at least had a semblance to Heinlein's fantastic political commentary on a society based completely on force to solve issues (at least they got some of the planet names right). But this is ridiculous, what Hollywood numb-skull thought this would be a good idea. Probably George Lucas gave this one the green light.

    • Re:For the Love of God (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd have to say you completely missed the mark regarding Heinlein's political message. Heinlein was a libertarian [theadvocates.org], and as such, an advocate for personal liberty in equal share with personal responsibility. He was an advocate of less government control in all things. As pertains to Starship Troopers, after you read the book (you have read the book, right?) recall how each cap trooper is responsible for one thing, themselves. Personal honor and a dedication to fellow soldiers is what drives them and kee

      • Well, I would disagree with your statement that there was no "universal sufferage" in the novel. There is. You just have to pay for it. The right to vote was given to only veterans of government service - and the government HAD to accept your service if you wanted to volunteer, regardless of any particular disabilities you may have. Sure, you could wind up in a very hazardous job with a high mortality rate, but they have to let you serve if you want to.

        I think the fatal flaw in Heinlein's vision is tha

  • Um, you mean the "movie" (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @08:52AM (#8791029) Homepage

    That's so bad that it's being given away with the animated series DVD [chud.com]? The one that blue screens a bunch of nobodies in front of footage from Starship Troopers?

    "from time to time some poor guy the director might have picked up on the street waves a plastic-thingie shaped like a bug's limb from the side of the screen. (A friend of mine actually started calling it "Eddy" as it became his favorite character)."

    "The plot: Well... there actually is one. ...features some slimy parasites that control humans by entering them through their mouth. (That's the only new cgi, by the way!)"

    Stargate already did that one. Well, so did Alien, et al. More here. [imdb.com]

  • From what I've read [imdb.com], I'm not sure anyone would want his/her favorite hardware/software to be associated with this film. An excerpt:

    Where Starship Troopers 1 had mindblowing special effects the sequel takes a very smart turn: In order to save money ... the producers of Starship Troopers 2 just used the special effects of the first movie again. Yep, you're right. Same images.
  • A license that allows source altering but not redistribution is no different than the pre-FSF licenses of the seventies and eighties. This is how the proprietary Unix vendors operated and this is how many lisp machine vendors worked.

    It's not open source.

  • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Chili fips through the script a moment . . .

      CHILI: You know how to write one of these?
      BO CATLETT: There's nothin' to know. You have an idea, you write down what you wanna say. Then you get somebody to add in the commas and shit where they belong, if you aren't positive yourself. Maybe fix up the spelling where you have some tricky words . . . although I've seen scripts where I know words weren't spelled right and there was hardly any commas in it at all. So I don't think it's too important. Anyway, you

    • ...I bet the script was typed in Microsoft Word & the screenplay done in Powerpoint.

      ...they probably improved them, if the first movie is anything to go by. The content sucked, the acting sucked, I'm sure the formatting and presentation of the script and screenplay was one of its highlights.

      Kjella

  • Sick Feeling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bobej1977 ( 580278 ) <rejamison&yahoo,com> on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:20AM (#8791258) Homepage Journal
    I absolutely loved the book and after buying the first on DVD (never saw it in the theater) I snapped it in half. (BTW - If you've ever listened to the commentary on the first movie's DVD, you know that the director actively tried to turn the story into a political statement against everything Heinlein expoused in the book. Basically, he all but calls Heinlein a facist. It is an affront to everyone who loves RAH.)

    IMHO, this is a large setback for 'Linux Based HD DDR'. It's like a new printing press having its first major publishing run be the inaugural issue of 'Fat & Horny Magazine'.

    I know we all need to work toward using open software wherever we can, but good lord, have some taste!

  • FX (Score:5, Interesting)

    by telstar ( 236404 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:20AM (#8791260)
    I worked on some of the special effects for Starhip Troopers. While I didn't particularly like the story or acting, my biased opinion is that the film broke new ground when it came to effects. Both the bug/swarm scenes and the outer-space sequences were incredibl well done. If only they'd had a storyline that didn't involve Doogie Howser M.D. to back them up. I tend to object to straight-to-video sequels ... but I guess the die-hard fans of the first one will probably like it ... and hey, they get to reuse our special effects. If only I received royalties!
    • Perhaps you'd be a good person to ask then why there weren't any mechanized armor suits? Seriously, nothing would have made more geeks cream their pants than if they had well done power armor in that movie.

  • Courtesy of IMDB.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by His name cannot be s ( 16831 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @09:30AM (#8791352) Journal
    Some weeks ago a friend of mine brought along a movie which turned out to be the sequel to a piece of cinema I really like and have seen more than once: Starship Troopers. The moment he told me I was shaking with joy. Joy became terror, soon enough. Starship Troopers 2: "Hero of the Federation" suffers from a complete lack of quality concerning any aspect you could think of. Don't get me wrong... it's not just that I didn't *like* it. This movie truly is disgustingly bad. Where shall I start? The actors (well... the unlucky guys they paid for standing in front of the camera) move through an environment so badly done it literally screams for a budget above 5 dollars per room. Wherever you look your eyes are insulted by artificial plastic decoration in some of the most fake sets ever. Even the Power Rangers had better sets! Where Starship Troopers 1 had mindblowing special effects the sequel takes a very smart turn: In order to save money for something that must have been cut out of the final version the producers of Starship Troopers 2 just used the special effects of the first movie again. Yep, you're right. Same images. Most of fight scenes are created like this: It's dark night - Most of the time, people stand in front of a hill so you don't get to see the imaginary battlefield - In the background, some bug-attacks from the first movie are replayed while the actors run around in front of the blatantly overused bluescreen - from time to time some poor guy the director might have picked up on the street waves a plastic-thingie shaped like a bug's limb from the side of the screen. (A friend of mine actually started calling it "Eddy" as it became his favorite character). Anyway.. let's proceed to the dialog: Although I only watched the German Dub-version, I was revolted. Just to give you a picture of what I'm talking about: In one scene a soldier carries a blonde girl from the battlefield who had tragically found death between the mandibles of a bug. At the time he has reached the middle of the screen and therefor a maximum of attention he starts smiling with a grin of pure rapture and says something, that when translated to English would quite precisely read "Hey, she's indeed lighter than that dog of mine at my house!" You get the idea, I guess... The plot: Well... there actually is one. ...features some slimy parasites that control humans by entering them through their mouth. (That's the only new cgi, by the way!) The score's alright; at least it didn't disturb me.

    I'm tired now of wasting my time writing a review on this truly ridiculous joke on celluloid. Worth a rent? No. Worth buying? For the love of god, NO! Worth seeing? Not at all. If you should somehow get hold of a copy in spite of my warnings, burn it while performing ritual dances or get stoned, watch it and laugh until you're out of breath. Rating: 1.5/10 (incl. 0.5 bonus points for Eddy)

    Says enough?

    Yikes

  • A Feature is the main film at a screening, excluding the cartoons, the newsreels, the short subjects, etc. This one's never going to see the inside of a theater: according to Corona Coming attractions, it's direct to video:

    Moviehole has more brand new images from the upcoming direct-to-video sequel STARSHIP TROOPERS 2: HERO OF THE FEDERATION. Directed by FX master Phil Tippett, the sequel features a new cast of futuristic soldiers who pick up the battle against the bugs, this time on a remote outpost st

  • "Damn bugs wacked us Johnny!"

    The weird part is, the more I watch that movie, the more I like.

    • Pa-leeze! There is one thing and only one thing to like in that abomonation of a movie: the shower scene. The rest isn't fit to be flushed down my toilet.

  • Ed Neuemeir and Phil Tippett spoke at our college a few days ago. They screened the trailer for the upcoming "ST2". They mentioned that they had to work with 1/6 the budget, and the release is going straight to DVD. The previews I saw didn't excite me at all -- plenty of guns, aliens, and no plot. Plus, everything takes place at night. I never saw the first one, and after seeing the trailer, won't even bother.
  • And the first movie was ok, but i really liked the TV series. This is going to be released with the complete Roughnecks set, so i may end up getting it any way...

  • What the? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Viceice ( 462967 ) on Wednesday April 07, 2004 @11:03AM (#8792228)
    How did a thread on a piece of digital video editing gear turn into nothing but movie commentry?

    Oh wait.. this is slahdot.. carry on.

  • Here are my hopes:
    - that it's a remake, and not a sequel.
    - it's sexy supporting actresses disrobe
    - proper battle suits, damn it.
    - and maybe try and stick to the scifi theme, while they're at it.
  • The score composed for the first film was awesome. Basil Poledouris rocks, and tends to be a bit under appreciated for his work [imdb.com].

  • "To make a long story shorter, we finally decided that we had to come up with yet another open source license, called the SGOSL or

    SpectSoft General Open Source License [spectsoft.com], that would allow our customers access to the source code and allow them to alter it. However, it disallows them the ability to distribute it, thus allowing us to actually make a buck or two."

    I think it is tacky to include the words open source in your license when it isn't.

    See the The Open Source Definition [opensource.org]

    Too bad OSI failed to get Op [slashdot.org]

  • It can't top the ending of the first movie. I laugh everytime I see the three heros walking off happily arms around each other at the end.
    Never mind the fact that Denise Richards had been speared through the shoulder about 5 minutes before.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close