To phenix717; We have already discussed this movie quite a bit and have ended up agreeing to disagree.
I know you focus on the poetry in the story and the visuals.
And that your suspension of disbelief is maintained.
If we begin talking past each other, the best option is to again agree to disagree.
"Kinda how one may wonder how there can be poor suburbs in big cities not far from huge technologically advanced corporations. Progress is hardly ever geographically consistent."
- Your positive feelings for this movie are not going to lead to the specific knowledge I am talking about.
- Secondly, I live in the US (where much of the film's story takes place). And that leads to specific knowledge that I'm discussing.
"Interstellar" is partly about a group of US farmers (in the future) who live within a few hours driving distance of Colorado Springs, Colorado (where the NORAD facility is located).
NASA facility inside former NORAD HQ in Colorado
(And the time of the movie is in 2067.)
http://interstellarfilm.wikia.com/wiki/Timeline_of_InterstellarThe location of NASA puts the farms around Eastern Colorado near or just over the border of Kansas or Nebraska. (Considering the flat terrain, with mountains in the far distance and yes I know the actual filming was done in Alberta Canada but that does not matter.)
- What are pertinent facts about houses and farm houses in the US today?
1. About 2/3 of US homes have central air conditioning.
2. Eastern Colorado / Western Kansas - Nebraska is hot and humid in the summer.
An area where air conditioning would be common.
3. US farmers have an average total household income of over $70,000 per year.
The farmers in this area would almost certainly have central air conditioning.
4. Central air conditioning means insulated homes (walls, windows).
This home insulation would also make sense in the cold winters in these areas.
*** To sum up; in our world farmer homes in this area have modern upgrades with walls and windows.
* Now look at the movie; there are still cars, trucks, tractors and other farm equipment.
But the upgraded houses have disappeared.
Instead in the movie, like some time machine; houses which are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction from the 1930s have been transported into the future and have replaced the insulated US farm houses of today.
"Also, the tech isn't a thousand years more advanced, you're grossly exagerrating."
Some of it definitely is.
- A space ship with a centrifuge gravity design? Nothing like that is even planned by any space program today. Hundreds of years in the future is a fair estimate of that happening.
- A shuttle which can take off from the gravity of an earth like planet (plus the gravity of a black hole) on its own. A thousand years in the future is a fair guess about that level of tech.
"The big difference, by the end of the movie, is that they have solved an equation that we haven't in the real world,"
That anti-gravity equation has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
The tech I mentioned above was created before the anti-gravity equation was put into effect.
As for the space station;
Cooper says this;
"This entire facility is a centrifuge. Some kind of vehicle? A Space Station?"
And Professor Brand says it's both.
We see what the space station (Cooper Station) looks like at the end of the movie.
What is being said and shown is that the space station or at least parts of it were being built on earth and floated into space using the anti-gravity equation.
The size the space station is roughly known from what the film shows and type of design (size needed for earth like gravity).
Those kinds of structures (O'Neil cylinder) would be massive, multiple times larger than the biggest building on earth today.
How long would it take in our world to build such a huge structure on earth?
At least a hundred years in the future.
** So, I return to my conclusion;
- Farm houses which should have modern upgrades are 80 years behind in terms of wall and window construction.
- And that is in a society which is able to build tech which is up to a thousand years more advanced than what exists in our world today.
Result for me; Suspension of disbelief is demolished.
* But that is just my view.
As before, I'm fine with just agreeing to disagree.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
BB-15
8 years ago
by SFMZone;
"That's right, Interstellar was completely unrealistic by showing out dated homes lacking insulation and air conditioners."
Completely unrealistic? No. But US farm houses which had construction that was 80 years behind our day, that did not belong; it started my reaction to the film in a negative direction.
Then the poor construction of the houses became a problem for the characters in the movie.
If only in 2067 the characters didn't have to live in 1930s level run down houses that could not keep out dust.
- Of course without those substandard houses then the survivors of the dust bowl of the 1930s would not have belonged in the film (and imo they didn't). And the farmers in the movie would have had a healthier life style and Nolan could not tug on the emotions of the audience as much.
"Because in real world, you would never see decades/even century old buildings"
The movie is about Midwest farmers in the US who in the real world, decades before the time of the movie, had high enough incomes to have houses with modern upgrades to deal with dust.
"Well let's be thankful Dave didn't have to wait a thousand years."
After the Dawn of Man sequence, all of the human tech in "2001" is consistent.
It is all advanced at a high level. Science fiction allows for that.
But there is not a huge gap in the level of human tech in "2001" among the family members of the astronauts.
In "2001" when dad (Dr. Floyd) calls his daughter from the space station we don't hear from her;
Daughter; "Daddy, good luck on your trip. I'm dying of pneumonia because of the dust that keeps coming through the holes in the walls and through these old warped wooden windows."
Dad; "Yes, it's too bad that no one from our space program can get off their a$$ and go to your house and use plaster for the holes and put in metal windows which can keep out dust. We can build an airtight space station but we still don't know how to build houses that are better than the death traps from the 1930s US dust bowl.
Anyway, darling. I hope you and your mother have a nice funeral."
*** SFM, it's all about personal taste. I'm fine that you like "Interstellar".
Same with Phenix. I have no problem that he loves "Interstellar".
But that doesn't mean I have to like the same thing that you like.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
BB-15
8 years ago
by SMF;
"known as the member who complained his suspension of disbelief was demolished due to a farm house lacking Owens Corning insulation."
I don't mind the humor.
I own a house from the 1950s (still better than a 1930s US Midwest farm house).
I remodeled my house and had all the leaky wooden windows replaced with modern metal ones; good for heating, cooling and keeping the dust out
- Locally I've seen over 100 old houses make those kinds of upgrades.
- In the US there is a huge home improvement industry with giant store chains like Home Depot and Lowe's and a myriad of home construction contractors.
- I know what a modern Midwest US farm house should look like and those drafty, wooden relic death traps in "Interstellar" were not it.
- Laughing at my expense? Whatever; it's IMDb.
"Floyd family phone call, we hear much more dignifying, high impact plot relevant, and certainly not intended to cutesy and syrupy dialogue about birthday parties"
It's the kind of dialogue that ultra wealthy people talk about with their kids.
Surface / shallow chat which fits the uber bureaucrat dad, Dr. Floyd, who can calmly lie while smiling.
"I can't muster an interest for a second viewing of Interstellar."
With all the comments here in just a few hours, I missed understanding that (I thought you were talking about "2001"). Oops! Sorry.
I also haven't been able watch "Interstellar" again even on free streaming. And I seriously tried a couple of times but stopped after a few minutes for reasons I've explained with my comments in this thread.
"I hope that resolves that misunderstanding."
No problem. I've enjoyed the exchange.
BB ;-)
PS. I just read the recent comment by tieman64 to you below. And that comment summarizes the tech issues and their uncomfortable meaning (imo) very well.
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
BB-15
8 years ago
by SMF;
"You wanted to talk about the upgrades to your humble abode!"
Only to this extent. If people are dying due to low quality air, (which is part of the plight of the farmers), then imo characters should immediately try to do something about it.
- Simple mitigation can be done easily (insulated houses, wearing dust blocking face masks).
- And as I mentioned in a comment below to tieman about tech consistency; the tech in the film's society would allow for structures on earth that could completely block the effects of the blight.
- There is nothing in the film which says that this technology could not be used as I described.
* I apply available tech to the entire story in the film based on; where it takes place, the highest level of tech in the story and logically seeing what this society could do considering the level of tech that they have.
"still haven't done a second viewing. Maybe tonight."
Good luck.
I still can't watch "Interstellar" again (and it continues to be on Amazon Prime streaming which is free for me).
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
hafeez112233-1
8 years ago
I still can't watch "Interstellar" again (and it continues to be on Amazon Prime streaming which is free for me).
I did get through it twice and the mild enjoyment on first viewing was completely gone; instead one is left to ponder all those little and big annoyances.
2001, by start contrast, rewards multiple viewings, one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision.
So stark is this contrast that comparisons are really unwarranted, it is not even apples and oranges, but ambrosia and cotton candy...
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
reply
share
aaahmemories
8 years ago
one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision
I expect I've told you before, but a great friend of mine from college (in 1970, horror of horrors) actually thought Interstellar was competition for 2001. For a while. He's since revised his opinion...BIG time.
I just rewatched an adolescent fave of mine, The Leech Woman (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054020/?ref_=nv_sr_1), a Z film with the production values of a bargain basement and the sophistication of a 12 year-old. Yet it struck me that tedious little pot boiler is more innovative, original, and unique than ANYTHING in Nolan's multi-million dollar epic.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
reply
share
Steadybox
8 years ago
Yet it struck me that tedious little pot boiler is more innovative, original, and unique than ANYTHING in Nolan's multi-million dollar epic.
No wonder; little is needed to surpass
Interstellar in creativity. And setting all the conceptual problems aside, I really
hated (and that's not a word that I use all that often) the camera work in
Interstellar.
reply
share
aaahmemories
8 years ago
I really hated (and that's not a word that I use all that often) the camera work
Good point. It seemed remarkably wan and flat throughout. There seems to be this trend in many films made in the last decade or so, a kind of "decolorization," if you will. It seems to be a combination of deliberate quasi-sepia toning, additional grain, and a "deaf eye" to perspective shots. It's almost as if many directors are opting for a sort of "too cool to care" sort of approach. Don't know if that's a clear way of describing it, but when I compare many of today's films against work done in the 70s and 80s, the new stuff comes off as much less rich, visually.
I blame Ridley Scott!
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
by hafeez;
"2001, by start contrast, rewards multiple viewings, one sees how rich and extraordinary is the original vision."
It terms of its subtle style, philosophical depth, respect for the intelligence of the audience and speculations on evolution; "2001 ASO" is one of the greatest achievements in cinema.
I've already expressed my views about "Interstellar" here so I don't need to add to that.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
phenix717
8 years ago
Regarding the farm houses, you have more or less ignored my point about real life suburbs. No matter how far we advance, there will always be some areas that are left out. At least that's how it's always been so far in human history. So I don't see why that would be hard to believe it in Interstellar.
The two technological points you mentionned are valid, from a real life perspective. The shuttle problem has certainly been discussed a lot on those boards. But a movie is its own world. I'm not going to get worked up over how advanced we'd have to be to get that shuttle to take off in real life, because the movie is not supposed to be real life. So I'm just assuming that this is something that is not that hard to accomplish in their world with their own physical laws.
What can be bothering is internal inconsistency, because then it is just nonsensical. When two things clearly contradict each other it can take me out of the movie, but there isn't really any of that in Interstellar. Just somewhat shoddy points.
By the way, doesn't the spaceship in 2001 also have a centrifuge gravity design ? Though of course there is a big size difference. But remember they had been building that station for about a century. And had been focusing all human resources and efforts on that goal, seeing that was their only chance of survival.
Of course, life has no point. If it had, man would not be free.
reply
share
hafeez112233-1
8 years ago
Result for me; Suspension of disbelief is demolished.
Sometimes it is just a preponderance of little things which does that.
The farmhouses didn't bother me that much, though I have spent a fair amount of time in that part of the US and I do seem to remember most such places having air conditioning.
Phoenix seems to think there are no internal inconsistencies in the film; for me the greatest inconsistency is that of character, with a cast that may have well been transplanted from any of an assortment of Hollywood melodramas or tv shows...
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
by hafeez;
"for me the greatest inconsistency is that of character, with a cast that may have well been transplanted from any of an assortment of Hollywood melodramas or tv shows..."
Ah yes, the dialogue.
I've stayed on the topic started by tieman64 which was about the inconsistent tech in "Interstellar".
But now that you mention character, there is some repeated dialogue by these characters (mostly from Professor Brand and daddy Cooper) that drives me nuts.
Hammering home that Cooper is a hero felt like something from a cartoon imo. And that they have to save the families. And then they are going to die but that they are not not meant to die; and now cue in another reading of "Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night".
Later the idea that love is a force in the universe was not nearly as bad as this, still it was a momentary irritation.
To be fair; There were moments of enjoyment for me with "Interstellar", pretty much the Matt Damon character, the soundtrack and some visuals.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
hafeez112233-1
8 years ago
I've stayed on the topic started by tieman64 which was about the inconsistent tech in "Interstellar".
Which brings us back to the discussion of suspension of disbelief.
For me, it is perfectly reasonable and not too difficult to do so with such things as time travel or interstellar travel or many other science fiction "what ifs".
But once you try to explain the technology behind such speculation, and especially if you try too hard, that suspension of disbelief is continually called into question.
In that case, little things (such as the farm houses you mention) can add up and topple that house of cards.
Better to be simple.
That is where 2001 is infinitely better than Interstellar.
The "consistency of criticism" of what appears to be "similar" technology in both films is way, way, way off base.
As tieman points out, one is supposed to be alien technology, the other human...and human in a very limited span of years.
The alien tech I can accept as is...I don't need nor care to comprehend any nuts and bolts behind it.
But the near future human tech...well, no matter how many eminent scientists may attempt to fudge the matter and make it more "realistic", in essence they just do the exact opposite.
Very often the less said the better, and I would assert this is quite often the case with "suspension of disbelief".
Tack on all the character and story problems of Interstellar, all the trite, trivial, insipid and even insidious aspects, then there is little to distract one for all those other little nagging, pesky and annoying problems with the basic premises.
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
to hafeez; With all of the comments in this thread, it's taken me some time to get to yours which imo brings up some important points in contrasting "2001" and "Interstellar".
"That is where 2001 is infinitely better than Interstellar.
The "consistency of criticism" of what appears to be "similar" technology in both films is way, way, way off base.
As tieman points out, one is supposed to be alien technology, the other human...and human in a very limited span of years."
Yes and that's very important to keep in mind.
But that brings up another point.
Serious/hard science fiction stories can bring up / illustrate basic economic (and maybe political) arrangements of societies which show differences with technology/resources among groups. It can be in films/TV episodes/books.
- For a detailed examination of this in literature see The Foundation Trilogy.
- In popular SF TV see Star Trek especially the original series and Next Generation.
* After the Dawn of Man; "2001 ASO" has two almost completely separate societies.
Because of that separation, the technology cannot be inconsistent even though the space aliens who use monoliths as tools or markers are much more advanced than the modern society on earth.
* Result; because of the logic and rationality of how the societies in "2001" are portrayed, my suspension of disbelief is maintained.
** "Interstellar" is a completely different situation.
1. The NASA staff live in a facility which builds air tight structures which have air without the blight. NASA can not only do this in space ships, a Star Trek level shuttle but also in an entire space station being built underground.
- In the NASA facility the dust problem and the blight problem have been solved.
2. A couple hundred miles away are farmers who live in 1930s level farm houses with holes in the walls and leaky windows which cannot keep out dust.
The farmers do not wear air filtering face masks.
The farmers are dying of dust and their crops are failing because the air is poisoned with the blight.
** These two groups are in one society yet their tech is vastly inconsistent; one group is stuck in the 1930s and the other is hundreds to 1,000 years more advanced compared with our world.
- When there are two groups in one society which have very different levels of tech / standards of living, the story should provide an explanation.
The classic example in SF literature would be H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine" with the Eloi and Morlock.
- Any rational explanations for this difference within the "Interstellar" story? None that I can find.
A. Are NASA greedy/elite capitalists? No. NASA is not looking for economic gain. Their motivation is socialist; they want to save the farmers for no charge.
B. Is NASA made up of elite totalitarians as in "1984"? No.
C. Are NASA the masters and are the farmers slaves? No evidence of slavery.
D. Is NASA made up of an exclusive ethnic/racial group compared with the farmers? No.
* Result; because of the way I approach SF, expecting rationality within the story, my suspension of disbelief cannot be maintained.
"The alien tech I can accept as is...I don't need nor care to comprehend any nuts and bolts behind it."
Same here. The space aliens are an abstract concept at some ultimately advanced level.
How advanced can space aliens become? That's as much about philosophy as SF.
It's an interesting premise.
My view is similar about the advanced transdimensional humans in "Interstellar" who we don't see and who can only communicate using gravity. Interesting idea and I don't need to know the nuts and bolts details about how they can do things.
"But the near future human tech...well, no matter how many eminent scientists may attempt to fudge the matter and make it more "realistic", in essence they just do the exact opposite.
Very often the less said the better, and I would assert this is quite often the case with "suspension of disbelief"."
How the modern humans got their tech is not my problem with either of these two movies.
My question with "Interstellar was; in a society with Star Trek level tech, why are people living in houses which are death traps because they have 1930s tech?
And that kind of question is often a basic premise in a Star Trek episode.
The Enterprise crew will land on a planet and see groups of haves and have nots. And the crew will wonder; why are some people suffering and others are thriving?
There can be an answer to this question that has some rationale within the story. Star Trek always provides that.
My problem is that "Interstellar" did not provide that rational answer.
"Tack on all the character and story problems of Interstellar, all the trite, trivial, insipid and even insidious aspects, then there is little to distract one for all those other little nagging, pesky and annoying problems with the basic premises."
Yes, it is all combined into one glob of problems which repels me from being able to watch "Interstellar" again.
Too bad because there were a few moments in the film which I enjoyed.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
tieman64
8 years ago
My question with "Interstellar was; in a society with Star Trek level tech, why are people living in houses which are death traps because they have 1930s tech?
And that kind of question is often a basic premise in a Star Trek episode.
The Enterprise crew will land on a planet and see groups of haves and have nots. And the crew will wonder; why are some people suffering and others are thriving?
There can be an answer to this question that has some rationale within the story.
"Star Trek" was a product of hippies, the counterculture and tried to be socially conscious. It was basically communists in a spaceship, albeit one captained by an intergalactic pimp.
"Interstellar's" a product of different times: a little bit of Hollywood apoliticism mixed with a little bit of the usual action movie fascism.
I mean, we're talking about a director who literally made a "Batman" movie in which free energy exists, but in which people "shouldn't have it" and should "remain poor" because it may (and does) fall in the hands of sneaky "environmentalist/terrorist women" who want to "destroy society" and turn it over to "crazy anarchists" who are led by "vaguely Oriental/Arabic" supervillains who hate good, wire-tapping, international-law-breaking, spandex-wearing rich dudes with their own private militaries.
So Nolan went full Trump long ago.
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
aaahmemories
8 years ago
the more I think about Interstellar, the less and less I see in it...
IMO, this is the most appropriate epitaph for all of Nolan's films. He's sort of the Baz Luhrmann of sci-fi/action films...lots of superficial razzle-dazzle with practically no substance. You admire his grasp of film technique and his striking immediate impact. But when you peel away the layers of (considerable) technical polish, there's nothing much underlying it. It's like cinematic cocaine...an intense rush which evaporates into nothing.
In a sense, he's the spiritual descendant of Ridley Scott, another director with impressive visual style, but almost uniformly vapid content.
Religion is like a rocking chair -- a lot of work to get nowhere.
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
Imo the guru directors who led the march towards CGI loaded vapid content would not include Ridley Scott in my top 5 list which is;
1. George Lucas after Last Crusade; the richest film maker. Who not only slid through the 90s to today making commodity movies for every demographic and to sell merchandise. But as a producer turned his back on artistic projects and even opposed the film preservation of his earlier good films and instead promoted his CGI stuffed newer versions.
2. James Cameron; he knows how to make money. He's the king of the world at that. But the pioneer of unrelenting action and paper thin characters has spread his influence far and wide.
3. Roland Emnerich; some people make disaster movies. Roland created the disaster porn movie where hours of destruction for its own sake became an excuse for entertainment. The new Independence Day has arrived and it will make loads of money.
4. Michael Bay; isn't the audience only made up of teenage boys? That's what Michael Bay thinks. From the racial jokes to the pee jokes to the red neck shooting neighbors / friends jokes; to oil drillers in space; to toys becoming action heroes in one bloated film after another.
5. Adam Sandler; need I say more.
Look closely at these pioneers and then see what they have wrought; the worst Amazing Spider-Mans; the never ending Fast & Furious epics and the worst comic book film schlock. Comedy? How about Jack and Jill or a Hangover sequel?
Considering that 10 year old level torture; I actually longingly anticipate a new Ridley Scott movie.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
CremersAlex
8 years ago
Considering that 10 year old level torture; I actually longingly anticipate a new Ridley Scott movie.
Or a new Nolan non sci-fi movie. The Prestige and the Batman movies are fine popcorn flicks.
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
Alex; to me Nolan is one of the most talented film makers I have seen in terms of technique.
And when he can get the story tight and logical, like in "Memento" and "The Prestige", he can produce excellent movies imo.
Even with "Inception", in the middle of all of the action, there was a kernel of a heart felt tale of tragic loss beautifully told.
But it's hard for me to trust Nolan after "The Dark Knight Rises", "Interstellar" and the story for "Man of Steel" (which he wrote).
BB ;-)
PS. I forgot "Batman Begins" my 2nd favorite Batman movie after the first one by Tim Burton.
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
hafeez112233-1
8 years ago
Look closely at these pioneers and then see what they have wrought...
I think you have just described 5 of the 9 circles of hell; one shudders to even contemplate these en masse...
“Your head is on the block and you worry about your whiskers?”
reply
share
BB-15
8 years ago
Well said hafeez.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
8 years ago
[deleted]
BB-15
7 years ago
to aaahmemories; Well, in the last days of IMDb, if you see this, I want to first thank you for many years of thought provoking discussion about film.
"I must guiltily admit I really enjoyed ID4 and Godzilla, though primarily for their clever assimilation of so many classic 1950s B-movie science fiction memes. That said, I would never in a million years nominate either of those two as anything but populist pap."
What I tried to bring up is the greater context of the film industry since the method of Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron took over.
- What Lucas envisioned was to take children's science fiction serials (Flash Gordon), kid Westerns, war air battles, mash that up with Kurosawa story lines and produce big budget, major special effects spectaculars mostly for teen age boys.
- That's why I mentioned Roland Emnerich and Michael Bay who have lucrative film careers based on shlock.
Take Captain America Civil War, with its nonsensical/propaganda story. What is the best part for many audience members? A character who is usually 1 inch tall can become 50 feet tall!
Who would consider this great? A teenage boy or someone who has that mentality.
As for me, I grew up.
- Please understand, I can handle certain amounts of shlock. But today's film industry is dominated by it.
That's the difference between the 70s and before compared with today's cinema.
What is left with the film industry?
- Film careers that are pretty much over? Francis Coppola, Terry Gilliam and David Lynch.
- Film makers who are thoughtful and want to survive either go for micro budgets or they go mainstream.
Scorsese has gone more mainstream but his last more artsy film "Silence" flopped.
The Coen brothers made a remake of 'True Grit"; playing it safe.
- And Tarantino is no salvation. He, like Lucas, retreads old shlock in a new package. It's the Tarantino "cool" with lots of violence.
There are moments in "Pulp Fiction" with Samuel L. Jackson which are very good I admit but there are long stretches of Tarantino movies where all he has is gratuitous violence. Tarantino cannot stick with just drama, which has thought, and let a movie just stand on that. (Except for Jackie Brown but that wasn't violent/popular enough.)
Finally, look at what Kubrick did after the Lucas revolution? "Full Metal Jacket" and "Eyes Wide Shut".
These are both play it safe films. No more "Strangelove", "2001" or "A Clockwork Orange".
As for Nolan, we'll see how well "Dunkirk" does at the box office. We'll see if Nolan can continue his career with just drama and not fall back into nonsensical, or overly sentimental stories.
** To view Ridley Scott's work requires this context of the recent film industry as a whole imo.
Same with the Coen brothers or Scorsese.
The potential of the movie industry in the 70s and before is long gone.
Imo at least, BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
BB-15
7 years ago
to aaahmemories; well we are at this point.
"It's sad (and sadly stupid) the powers that be should see fit to deny ...us ... insight in so accessible a forum."
And it was unnecessary for Amazon to do this.
If Amazon wanted to monetize IMDb more, they could have required a Facebook or Amazon username/membership and then tracked that for ad purposes.
I would have been willing to create another anonymous account for the site.
No message board system that I have found is as well designed as the IMDb boards in terms of the tracking of comments and the way that replies to comments are structured. IMDb boards are a top notch achievement of software design.
It naturally builds online communities some of which have lasted over a decade.
For a multibillion $ company to throw that all away is a terrible shame.
"now wander through the movie aisles at, say, Best Buy, and can't for the life of me stir up any enthusiasm over the available titles.'
Yes, and one of the remedies for that was IMDb.
Suggested titles from you, Eva_Yojimbo, hafeez and many others on the site brought to prominence small, interesting films (often from different countries) which otherwise would not have been found.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
aaahmemories
7 years ago
I've made private contacts with the posters you mention by name, and others. If you'll only PM me your contact info (apparently the only way we can keep in touch) I'll gladly return the favor. If not, though, I understand. The new cyberworld comes with all manner of hidden costs and challenges, and your excellent contributions to IMDb should and do mean we should respect your personal approach to those.
But I'll regret for the rest of my days losing track of you.
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
reply
share
BB-15
7 years ago
aaahmemories; I sent you a PM.
BB ;-)
it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈
reply
share
aaahmemories
7 years ago
Got it, and responded. Many thanks!
The Dumpster gives a whole new meaning to "red" states.
reply
share