MovieChat Forums > WarGames: The Dead Code (2008) Discussion > Why isn't this genre appealing anymore?

Why isn't this genre appealing anymore?

posted 16 years ago by mats-81
18 replies | jump to latest

In the 80's the soviets was possibly much more powerful than the west was. This was a fact that hollywood did it´s best to frustrate. But in reality we didn´t know. Which made this kind of movies very intriguing. The world today dosen´t look a bit like this. The enemy today may, at it´s best crash into buildings with air planes. I.e. the threat isn´t really present at the same level.

In the 80´s an object known as computers became available to the public population, or at least known to it. what was so freighting with this was that it seemed to be so powerful that it would cause unemploymency for us all! All it needed was somebody to program it or at least us it. And seriously who is afraid of technology now a days?

The world is much different today from what it was. I find it hard to belive that anyone would make silent films now. That is for a reason, leave it where it should be, left in the archives.

[–] pyrohk 16 years ago

well, I would say the threat of technology is much more prevalent nowadays compared to the 80s, especially since everything is done with PCs today. In addition to this there is much more emphisis on the internet and interconnecting perphirals. What is different is that nowadays people understand the technology (to a fairly reasonable degree for most anyway, as you say).
Though the difference is not the subject matter but the technology (with regard to silent films), since technology has moved on, no more stock, its all digital.
The problem was that the movie script was just plain *beep* there was so much potential to what they could have done with it and keep in spirit with wargames.

In the 80s america was far, far, far, far, far, etc. more powerful then the soviets - this is in regard to just about everything, hell, thats why the union fell, they just could not keep up with the military spending that washington did, not to mention the US had at least twice the nukes that the soviets had.

apologies for the structure, I cant be bothered to edit it.

[–] mikexx 16 years ago

> In the 80s america was far, far, far, far, far, etc.
> more powerful then the soviets

No they weren't. Just richer. "Power" is a matter of applying *willpower* to what you do have. Between running away from Vietnam and Ollie North equipping the Contras, America basically did nothing at all while the Soviets trooped all over the world doing whatever they liked.

> thats why the union fell, they just could not keep up with
> the military spending that washington did

Nonsense. Did the communist Chinese government also fall? No. Why not? Because the Chinese communist government remembered what Gorbachev forgot: Brutality, which they demonstrated with the Tiananmen Square Massacre, is a requirement to maintaining a dictatorship.

> not to mention the US had at least twice the nukes that the soviets had.

Again, it's not how many you have, it's whether or not you're willing to use them. (That insane lunatic running Iran may soon have *one*, and the whole world ought to be scared.) Russian military strategy at the time planned for surviving nuclear wars -- what, you think that crazy? Wrong. They gobbled up as much of the world as they did in the 1960s and 1970s precisely because of their knowledge, in the wake of Vietnam, that America would wuss out.

In fact, the movie "Wargames" promotes one of the cleverest bits of Soviet propaganda of all time: the spurious "fact" that a nuclear war would end all life, or at least civilization at any rate. Reality: The first fission devices were inefficient and therefore remarkably "dirty" in terms of particulate radiation (fusion devices, while considerably more powerful, do not produce more "fall-out") -- you've all seen the horrible pictures from the aftermath of Hiroshima with people suffering their skin falling off. But humanity is an adaptable species, and breeds like bunnies: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quickly rebuilt, temporary elevated cancer chances be damned.

[–] thomas_joh89 16 years ago

It is a fact that the West was much more powerful in the 80ies. The Soviet Union was in caos and on the brink of collaps. It was litteraly bankrupt as it couldn't in the long run keep up with the arms- and space-race.

"Russian military strategy at the time planned for surviving nuclear wars"

And you don't think the US military was planing the exact same thing? Infact the majority of the worlds governments and militaries was planing for the survival of their state in the case of a nuclear war.

The military commands around the world have all sorts of plans for all sorts of situations from terriorst attacks to flooding to nuclear, chemical, biological attacks. Infact I'm sure there even exists plans incase of an alien invasion.

"Again, it's not how many you have, it's whether or not you're willing to use them. (That insane lunatic running Iran may soon have *one*, and the whole world ought to be scared.)"

This I agree on, The US and the Russians still sit on massive amounts of nuclear weapons but they are not the ones one should be afraid of today (well maybe the Russians as seem to be going backwards and with that "crazy" man putin still in charge) it is if an terrorist organisation or an "rough" state (like Iran, or North Korea) get their hand on one you should be afraid.

[–] king_freddie 15 years ago

*beep* in 1985 ussr had dubble the amout of warheads the US had.... they surpassed them in 1978. check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_and_USSR_nuclear_stockpiles.svg

[–] satansfist 12 years ago

upvoted for "dubble"

[–] ChefC 16 years ago

I think you will find that the West was decidedly more powerful than the Soviets in the 80's, although it did not matter much as either the U.S or the U.S.S.R could have destroyed the other with the amount of nuclear potential they had available.

Terrorism today poses just as big a threat to civilians as the threat of nuclear war did during the cold war, you say at worst they will "crash into buildings with planes" which is simply untrue, they could easily use nuclear weapons themselves, which with time have become much more accessible to individual groups, rather than during the cold war when only super powers really had the funding or knowledge to obtain them. Or even worse there is the fear today of chemical warfare. With terrorism there is not the principal of M.A.D (mutually assured destruction) to hold back any large scale attack, if a terrorist unit was to nuke New York, the U.S couldn't react with a nuclear strike of its own.

We live in just as uncertain times today as our mothers and fathers did during the cold war, nobody is truly safe, especially when you consider that the mainstay of terrorist tactics is to target civilians to spread fear.

Also, you're opinion on technology is simply wrong, everything today is done using computers, which leaves the opportunity for much more to go wrong.

As for "who seriously today is afraid of technology" I think you will find there are many people, with the power technology has supplied those in charge to eavesdrop and keep tabs on people, there are those who argue our basic human rights are being encroached upon, you cannot buy something on your credit card without it being logged somewhere, or have a conversation on your mobile phone without it being recorded and reviewed later.

You have a rather simplistic view on the world we live in today, it must be nice, as they say, ignorance is bliss!

----------
Do not pity the warrior, pity instead those who believe nothing is worth fighting for.

[–] Pases1 16 years ago

Exactly.

[–] badmofo6662004 16 years ago

OK first, this movie was the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen, and I'm very glad I didn't pay for it, lol. At the beginning, the Arabian terrorists were having a party, with half dressed chicks, WTF. These Arabian fundamentalist groups execute women for fornication. And don't get me started on all the technological inaccuracies. When people make movies, they should hire writers or consultants that know about this stuff.

As for terrorists obtaining, and then detonating nuclear weapons in the US; I don't know of any terrorists groups that could. The Arabian terrorists are poor as hell (well, relatively). They freakin' live in caves, and recruit the poorest people looking for something to live (or die) for. They certainly could not make nuclear weapons themselves, so first, they would have to find someone to sell them a nuke, with the little money they have. And, I don't know of anyone with nuclear weapons that would trust them enough to sell to them (US-backed Al Qaeda were attacking the Soviets 20 years ago.)

Ok, now that Al Qaeda has the fake nuclear bomb they bought off some drunken Russian General for $50 million; they have to find a way to get inside the US. So now they have to buy a big enough ship to get across the Atlantic (or Pacific). Then the cavemen have to use their amazing nautical skills to navigate unnoticed to, preferable, Mexico or South America. After that, it's all downhill from there. They have to obtain some kind of vehicle, depending on how big the fake nuke they bought was, preferable an SUV with valid US plates and registration, then off-road it through some unpatrolled section of the border.

Now they need a good target to send a message to all those pro-globalization, capitalist infidels that would keep them out of their affairs for good. Since they're already in Texas, the headquarters of ExxonMobil in Irving looks like a good target. Now they just drive to Irving, careful not to get pulled over by the police, park in front of ExxonMobil, press the button on their briefcase nuke... nothing happens. No they're pissed so they just ram their SUV into the building at 100mph and cause $50,000 worth of damage.

[–] ChefC 16 years ago

What about biological or chemical weapons?

You seem sure that "poor arabs" would be unable to procure a nuke, and if they even could would be unable to get it into the United States.

I bet 7 years ago you would have laughed at the idea of these stupid arabs learning how to fly passenger jets with enough accuracy to hit a target as small as, I dont know, say, the twin towers? I mean come on? how can these losers who live in caves (LOLAMIRITE) have the funds, organisational skills and expertise to hijack passenger planes, and cause such devestation, I mean come on, theres no way they could do such a thing!? let alone navigate a ship across the atlantic or pacific!! (as there are only 2 people in the whole world who can do that!!) because everybody knows that terroists are poor uneducated retards who can just about manage to pop their heads out of their caves long enough to blow themselves up.

Underestimation of these "terrorists" is what has dragged the U.S into a war it cannot win, I suggest you do not do the same.

Oh and by the way, in 1997 a former russian security adviser famously announced (in relevance to suitcase nukes) in an interview with '60 minutes' that

"I'm saying that more than a hundred weapons out of the supposed number of 250 are not under the control of the armed forces of Russia. I don't know their location. I don't know whether they have been destroyed or whether they are stored or whether they've been sold or stolen, I don't know."

Although his claimes were disputed by the russian government, can you really be sure? I mean, would the russians admit this was true if it was the case?

Just think about that.

----------
Do not pity the warrior, pity instead those who believe nothing is worth fighting for.

[–] huldu 16 years ago

Nothing wrong with the genre. Its the horrible movies that really suck bad that ruins it all. Like this movie. This movie was so stupid i dont even know where to start. It was an insult to anyone who actually used a computer.

It was an impressive gathering in that room in the end, the worlds dumbest computer along with the worlds most stupid ppl in the same room! you cant beat it.

[–] Fling_the_poo 16 years ago

Here is my idea...

Why is it that movies, can be about midgets walking a ring accross a country filled with EVIL dead zombified creatures so they can stop the giant Eye from controlling the world. And no one complains that its unrealistic.

Yet EVERYTIME a hacker movie comes out and either A. Dumbs down technology or B. Makes it able to do ridiculous tasks that are no where near what is possible now.

People FREAK.

Movies are fake guys...

Now i'm not saying this movie was GREAT. cause it certainly wasnt, The dialogue was some of the worst i've seen in a long time. And the acting was bad, and yeah, the idea that just because you overload a computer, its going to shut down, and Not just continue with its plans once someone wins the money and all those users log off. IS kind of dumb.

This movie had potential, and had entertaining parts.

[–] Strazdamonas 16 years ago

the idea that just because you overload a computer, its going to shut down,

Infact, if you overload a supercomputer or systemserver its either A. Going to stop responding. B. Explode or C. going to restart himself to fix the problem.
So i guess that the computer tried to fix the problem.

[–] kastjones1 16 years ago

the answer to that one is simple, The Lord of the Rings - and films of that genre - is a fantasy film, that is a clear fact which means anything the writer imagines is possible, in a hacker movie - or something similar - the story is based in true life, and therefore should be believable, either in terms of present technology or in what might conceivably developed in the future.
Take a look at 20,000 leagues under the sea some time, it was written well over a hundred years ago yet the concept is fantastic because although it wasn't true at the time it is now something that is scientifically possible.
The original Wargames is a classic film and is so great, even now, because it was possible that a hacker who gained access to a central computer controlling all of the USA's nuclear weapons might accidentally trigger a nuclear war.
A story needs to be one of two things in order to work, either they need to be realistic and believable or they need to make it clear that the story is distanced from realism.

[–] albertgiordino 16 years ago

i assume the low budget didnt help the process of making a movie that grasp and keep your attention/emotions to a certain level, i also noticed that for some genres (i.e. computers/sharks/motorcycles) its hard to reproduce the same adrenalize they actually gives in the reality, this movie was very average, by all means, didnt leave me any sign (managed to pause it like 5/6 times), and i tend to agree that technology totally changed our way of living, i personally never feel comfortable to talk over the phone

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] brifitz1980 12 years ago

The big problem with lots of these hacker films and doomsday A.I. films is that computers are too familiar to the audience for the audience to believe that they can do the kinds of stuff that they do in those movies.

When computers were still a new thing that most people didn't have experience with many found them scary. People thought we might really have some HAL9000, Skynet, W.O.P.R. computer system that everything is integrated through and could turn on us.

Now that everybody has some sort of a computer they're not that scary to most people. These days a smart phone has more computing power than that IMSAI 8080 that David used to almost start World War III. People's Grandma's have computers that they use to see pics of the grand kids on facebook. People aren't afraid that we'll end up with some malevolent AI that will take the initiative and try to take over national defense.

[–] Crentapa 8 years ago

Oh come on you idiot.

The reason these films aren't appealing is because the majority of the impossibly stupid public believe computers haven't changed society in any way shape or form... they've always been there, and always will be.

Look at how society has changed due to the introduction of computers, especially with social networking causing a fundamental shift in how close we maintain relationships and the importance we place on quantity over quality. As we change due to our interfacing with technology, our reliance on it becomes more profound and the possibility of it being used to influence our decisions through misinformation becomes greater.

Google, in fact, routinely practices this by modifying your search results based on your search history; an attempt to influence your choices by manipulating what islands in the sea of the web you can navigate to. Note even that Google has, on multiple occasions, been found guilty of exploiting their services to spy on their customers. Android had even at one time collected "non-personally identifying audio samples for creation of future technologies" and people actually cheered Google on because they believed Google's spying would yield technological advancements.

The REALITY is that the dirt stupid public hasn't a clue what breakthroughs we're making here. They don't even bat an eye at what SIRI actually accomplished (fyi, SIRI is a neural network which is actually a primitive version of A.I. Multiple advances have occurred since then and given neural network programming is actually quite big right now, you can't really claim it won't happen in your lifetime. Neural networks aren't programmed, they're trained, they learn desired actions and responses in much the same way you or I would).

You can find mind-machine interfaces, you can find bioelectronics getting major funding... you can find Top Secret defense projects creating fully autonomous combat drones; and you think you understand what it is doing? PLEASE.

The REALITY is that the public is TOO STUPID to understand what is really out there so Hollywood has to keep A.I. as faulted concept which dirt stupid humans can beat.

"We are humans, we only do what we're programmed to do, either genetically or from the summation of our past experiences" isn't a popular motto, but it is accurate. In our atheist society, we could at least shut the hell up about the human soul and admit that with contemporary programming, we really don't know why it works only that it does work, and that as we make our "neural networks" more "human" in terms of self-correction, self-learning, even using "human ingenuity" to rationally solve problems the system has never seen before we are actually CREATING REAL (not artificial) LIFE.

Oh you have no idea what is out there, and how very close the visions of the 80's are to being the reality of today.