WarGames Sequel Now Filming 439
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."
Brilliant (Score:5, Insightful)
The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
James
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
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:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Google cached copy [google.com] of blog entry.
Brilliant indeed (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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, Funny)
Re:Brilliant (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
.org or .net TLDs
On a related note my domains are in the
This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:5, Insightful)
Plus, a romantic sub-plot, a cool chase scene, and some improperly used computer terminology.
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:4, Interesting)
Or to get rid of the 100 post/page limit (I've heard whining from other forum administrators about bandwidth, but it's BS: what takes more bandwidth, 1 page with 300 posts and a header and a footer, or 3 separate HTTP requests of 100 posts each, each with a header and footer?).
I love nested view, it's the only reasonable way to read a forum and understand the flow of discussion, yet slashcode isn't alone in their broken implementation. Just about every piece of forum software out there treats it like their red-headed stepchild. Until something is done about it, I'll just end up in threaded mode for stories over 100 comments, even though I can only see one level of replies at a time.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The new disscussion system [slashdot.org] doesn't have the discussions split across multiple pages, and appears to thread fully. You toggle the view of comments on and off purely by the power of your browser, and /. scores!
You're right about forums with threading. The best threading I've seen is usenet, when combined with a good client (I did strangly like Netscape 4's usenet client!). Email can thread too, with client support, though usenet is built for threaded discussions. I wonder if there is a web based forum sof
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now, admittedly, if she was eating toast in my bed, and got crumbs everywhere, I'd have to consider my options. But really, c'mon...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:5, Funny)
No one can be told what Slashdot is. You have to read it for yourself.
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
That's actually about the only natural and realistic plot device there is.
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:4, Funny)
"Good, bad -- I'm the guy with the gun."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course you have to define evil first..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, I'll bite (Score:5, Funny)
Name me one person in the real world who is completely evil, other than Hitler.
Easy. Bob Saget [imdb.com].
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (Score:4, Insightful)
I see this as a classic example of good vs. evil.
What you're describing is a conflict between doing what you know to be right ("principled") even though it's very difficult ("impractical") and doing what you know to be wrong ("unprincipled", though really it's just a different set of principles) because it's easier.
And that right there is exactly what the struggle between good and evil is. It happens every day, in our own choices, and in the choices of the people we interact with.
Stories, especially stories that illustrate fundamental principles, are often simpler and clearer than real life. This is usually a good thing; it gives us a chance to look at the fundamental principles, apart from the confusion of the real world.
Fairy tales are true, not because they tell us that dragons really exist, but because they tell us that dragons can really be defeated.
Sure, the dragons don't appear in real life as they do on the Hollywood screen; sometimes, they're just a private idea or temptation of our own. But look at the world around you. Can you honestly tell me that the struggle between good and evil isn't a constant factor in all our affairs?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The best stories don't answer deep philosophical questions,
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Bahh, just download the torrent. That'll teach the fuckers.
Re:Brilliant (Score:5, Funny)
Count me in! (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:Count me in! (Score:5, Interesting)
And you could actually record the tones of the coin drop from the remote end (it filtered out on the payphone end) by calling your friend and having a tape on the line. Then you just drop 2 or 3 bucks in various coins down the chute and when you're done you hit the coin return and get it all back. Of course, then they started cutting the transmitter part of the phone until you dropped at least one coin in, so you had to spend a minimum of a nickel.
Oh, and you could modify a radio shack tone dialer to generate the tones with a 6.565mhz crystal, then you used the "*" on speed dial to represent a nickel. 2 * for a dime and 5 * for a quarter.
I still have it around here somewhere. It doesn't work anymore, of course.
my proposed slogan for the new film (Score:5, Funny)
Re:my proposed slogan for the new film (Score:4, Funny)
> 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, Interesting)
Uhmm. I don't even know where to begin with this one.
Iran's (democraticaly elected) hard-line government (which has only been in power for a couple of years) was dealt [bbc.co.uk] a pretty severe blow yesterday in --- democratic elections in which moderate conservatives took the majority.
The US is also entirely responsible for the present government in Iran. Go read up on the 1979 revolution if you want the full gory details. The government w
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:my proposed slogan for the new film (Score:4, Insightful)
Liberals under-reacted. Based on what has actually happened, they should have reacted much more. If you think we aren't torturing people, would you mind if I cam over and waterboarded you? Are you really equating Clinton's fuck-ups with Bush's? Not that Clinton did the right thing, but they are orders of magnitude apart. Plus, Clinton admitted he did the wrong thing and apologized, which Bush is incapable of doing. The majority of Democrats were LIED TO BY BUSH! Finally, the last statement reveals the true depths of your ignorance and bigotry. Who attacked us? Shiite or Sunni? Do you even know the difference? What country were they from? Do you even care? Or is it all just evil brown heathens to you?
Does it burn knowing you are in the minority? Does it burn knowing the world does not share in your hate-fest? I certainly hope so, people like you are one of the root causes of suffering in the world. We would all be better off without you. FOAD.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Additional cast... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Additional cast... (Score:5, Funny)
Cast? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Cast? (Score:5, Funny)
I can't wait! (Score:5, Funny)
WRONG WRONG WRONG (Score:3, Funny)
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.
a better idea (Score:2)
At the rate they're going, why don't they just get Uwe Boll to direct?
They wanted Uwe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:a better idea (Score:5, Funny)
Owner should reliquish the domain (Score:5, Funny)
They beat him at Tic-Tac-Toe.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, I'd expect him to get sufficiently tired and make a mistake before the MGM side does.
You'd think they'd be more concerned with... (Score:3, Informative)
meh (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
What a truly unfortunate idea. (Score:2)
As popular as Firewall (Score:5, Funny)
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)
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.
The Over/Under is 5 (Score:2, Funny)
Source or Classic? (Score:5, Funny)
The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.
No AWPs!
They had to revise it for the times (Score:5, Funny)
>> Y
Game Over. Opponent has no weapons.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You were eaten by a grue.
nooooooooo (Score:2, Insightful)
Mr Potatohead! MR POTATOHEAD!! (Score:5, Funny)
Broken Premise? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Remember, the only way to win is not to play.
Not quite, but close (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not quite, but close (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Broken Premise? (Score:4, Informative)
The story of Stanislav Petrov [wikipedia.org] is a good account of one such instance.
Re:Broken Premise? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
Who needs MGM? (Score:5, Funny)
Plot! (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Computer Intelligence = Oxymoron (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Could be good (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be funny if...... (Score:3, Funny)
Ah yes the 'Broderick Initiative' (Score:5, Funny)
What are "reasonable rights" in holding a name? (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
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)
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?
Re:Augh! (Score:4, Insightful)
This looks like it has nothing to do w/the first other than the stolen name for credibility.
tagging (beta): lame
Re:Augh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Few other movies include the phrase, "I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd help."
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure how that was a huge technical problem, particularly as name for that technique is derived from the name of the film which popularized it
Re:Augh! (Score:5, Informative)
Not sure how that was a huge technical problem, particularly as name for that technique is derived from the name of the film which popularized it
Re:Augh! (Score:5, Interesting)
The glaring technical problem is that you can't auto dial with an acoustic coupler because the computer obviously has no mechanism for pressing down the hookswitch on the damn phone to hang up between calls.
Well now, hang on there, chief. Recall that in answer to the question, "doesn't that cost a lot of money?" he replied "There's ways around that." Clearly, he was blue-boxing. Now, correct me if I recall wrongly, but when you're blue boxing, you don't actually have to ATH1 - instead, you broadcast a 2600 Hz tone so that the trunk line appears "dead", then stop the tone and transmit the routing digits for the remote telco office now listening to the trunk line. Coincidentally enough, broadcasting a 2600 Hz tone and routing digits could be done with an accoustic coupler. Maybe the directors knew a little more than you give them credit for?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Augh! (Score:4, Informative)
On that note, one of the things they did RIGHT was they wrote a special program so that every time Matthew Broderick hit a key on the keyboard, one letter showed up on the screen. (That is, he could press any key, and the correct letter appeared.) I hate that in 99% of movies, the sounds of the keys being pressed has no relation in time, speed, or quantity to what is appearing on the screen. God damn, it was a solved problem TWO FREAKING DECADES AGO!
That said, the studio loaned him a Galaga machine to practice on while shooting--that's really him playing in the scenes that show him playing. He was sad to see it go at the end of filming.
Source: Dynamite Magazine [wikipedia.org] (anyone else remember that?) I think, in an article published way back then.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
He should have been using an AppleII
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You suck. Also, you smell funny.
Have a Merry Christmas, you ridiculous philistine!
Re:Augh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Rimmerian Nitpick: If it blew chunks, wouldn't it stand to reason that it had plenty that was improvable?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My Rights Online??!! (Score:4, Insightful)
People have the right (or ought to anyway) to keep domains that they purchase, develop, and maintain in good faith. MGM is going to try to bully him into giving it up. They will probably succeed, and if they do, it will be because they have more clout and more money (a more expensive lawyer). Ergo, his online rights are now in jeopardy of being violated.
I bet you're glad you posted anonymously now. And to the lazy moderator who gave this guy an "insightful", shame on you. Check more carefully next time. I realize it's too much of a hassle to read TFA, but please take the time to at least read the short description on Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Simon