Hollywood Movie - Sphere



  • How come all date from ship in future have two digit year?



  • If the year portion of the shipping date says "12" do you believe that it might mean 1912?



  • The book is better.



  •  I liked Sphere.



  • Michael Crichton's stuff is pretty... well, on the one hand you get Westworld, The Andromeda Strain, The 13th Warrior, and Jurassic Park. On the other hand, you get Congo, Sphere and Jurassic Park 2: The Lost World. Hm. But not to rag on the guy; he has a much better track record than Stephen King.

    The funny thing is that if you read his novels, I think Congo and Sphere are two of his best works. But they're all good, and generally speaking better than the movies based on them (except perhaps Jurassic Park.) The only exception is The Lost World, which was: 1) an obvious cash-in sequel he didn't give a shit about, and 2) probably written only to provide material for a second movie, considering it reads like a freakin' screenplay.

    Anyway, Sphere wasn't terrible, it wasn't nearly as bad as Congo, but it was still what I would call "not good".



  • @El_Heffe said:

    If the year portion of the shipping date says "12" do you believe that it might mean 1912?

    Isn't he talking about the dates displayed in the movie iteself? I have neither seen the movie nor read the book.



  • @Nagesh said:

    How come all date from ship in future have two digit year?

    Why do you think the ship crashed?



  • @Nagesh said:

    How come all date from ship in future have two digit year?

    Because using just one digit would be confusing.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @Nagesh said:

    How come all date from ship in future have two digit year?

    Because using just one digit would be confusing.

     

    Reporter:  Why are there 3 guitar players in your band?

    Musician:  Because 4 would be stupid

     



  • @dhromed said:

     I liked Sphere.

    I watch Sphere in Hindi dub version. All popular movie make dub version in India. We get dub Hindi and also get to see English sub-title on screen. UTV Action channel is best. I got it recent from Hathway Cable.

    I like comment on ship crash. Maybe Alex should start website on Movie WTFs. So many movies and so much WTF's, it is guaranteed to attract several people.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    The funny thing is that if you read his novels, I think Congo and Sphere are two of his best works. But they're all good, and generally speaking better than the movies based on them (except perhaps Jurassic Park.) The only exception is The Lost World, which was: 1) an obvious cash-in sequel he didn't give a shit about, and 2) probably written only to provide material for a second movie, considering it reads like a freakin' screenplay.

    Interesting. To me TLW read more like he'd gotten a bunch of negative feedback on Jurassic Park, pointing out the massive plot holes and accusing him of sexism (I'd guess because of the characterisation of the children particularly), so he wrote TLW as an answer, way overcompensated on the sexism thing, and chucked in a bunch of gratuitous inconsistencies. And why he felt he had to bring Ian Malcolm back from the dead I shall never know. But the weirdest bit for me was the way he named a bunch of characters and things in TLW after the principal characters of Conan Doyle's book of the same name.

    Anyway, Sphere wasn't terrible, it wasn't nearly as bad as Congo, but it was still what I would call "not good".
    I only know the book, which is good by Crichton's standards (it's only stupid in a few places). And I agree that the book of Congo is very good. I'll make a note not to watch the movie. :) Of course, not watching movies made from books is a fairly good general principle...


  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    Interesting. To me TLW read more like he'd gotten a bunch of negative feedback on Jurassic Park, pointing out the massive plot holes and accusing him of sexism (I'd guess because of the characterisation of the children particularly), so he wrote TLW as an answer, way overcompensated on the sexism thing, and chucked in a bunch of gratuitous inconsistencies. And why he felt he had to bring Ian Malcolm back from the dead I shall never know. But the weirdest bit for me was the way he named a bunch of characters and things in TLW after the principal characters of Conan Doyle's book of the same name.

    ... all of those things translate into "quick money grab" to me. I don't know what plothole it was you think he sealed, but considered the "staging" island was never mentioned in Jurassic Park, I think it's safe to assume he didn't invent the concept until he needed a second island full of dinosaurs to use for a quick cash-in sequel.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    ... all of those things translate into "quick money grab" to me.

    No argument from me there.

    I don't know what plothole it was you think he sealed, but considered the "staging" island was never mentioned in Jurassic Park, I think it's safe to assume he didn't invent the concept until he needed a second island full of dinosaurs to use for a quick cash-in sequel.
    TLW specifically pointed out some things in JP as plot holes; for instance, the "producing a dinosaur" workflow going from "piece together the DNA sequence" straight to "and now we have eggs incubating", and I think unrealistic success rates was another. I'm pretty sure there were a few more, but I can't recall them off-hand.

    On the other hand, even considering how bad TLW was, it was still better than the movie version. *sigh*



  • @Scarlet Manuka said:

    On the other hand, even considering how bad TLW was, it was still better than the movie version. sigh

    Come on, having a T-Rex accidentally transported to San Diego and then rampaging around the city was a completely intelligent and explicable direction for the plot to take. I actually didn't mind the novel so much, but it was one of the first novels I'd ever read.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Scarlet Manuka said:
    On the other hand, even considering how bad TLW was, it was still better than the movie version. sigh

    Come on, having a T-Rex accidentally transported to San Diego and then rampaging around the city was a completely intelligent and explicable direction for the plot to take. I actually didn't mind the novel so much, but it was one of the first novels I'd ever read.

    I actually agree, the last half hour was by far the best bit of the movie.

    The most notable thing about the rest of the movie is that all the deaths are caused by the "heroes", and yet the movie never points this out or ever re-frames them as anything less than heroic. Even though they're the only ones who killed people.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    I actually agree, the last half hour was by far the best bit of the movie.

    I was being sarcastic. Although I guess it was "good" in an ironic way.



  • This thread prompted me to remember that they made King's "Thinner" into a movie. I wish that would have stayed forgotten.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @blakeyrat said:
    I actually agree, the last half hour was by far the best bit of the movie.

    I was being sarcastic. Although I guess it was "good" in an ironic way.

    I thought it was pretty funny. I'm also 95% sure the T-rex in suburbia stuff wasn't in the novel. Like the film crew was, "look, we made this stupid film based on this even dumber novel where these guys have a giant articulated RV fall "around" them (yeah right), we fulfilled the contract of 'make a stupid sequel', can we actually do something fun now?" So bam, they parody their own lawyer-eating scene with a DOG, they have the scared japanese guys running away from it, it was pretty funny stuff. Genuinely.

    @frits said:

    This thread prompted me to remember that they made King's "Thinner" into a movie. I wish that would have stayed forgotten.

    All Stephen King movies are shit. Except his prison movies, and The Green Mile still contains a lot of shit. Oh, and except for the first The Shining, but Stephen King hated it. Because he's an idiot.

    He TV movies are like what happens when you get shit, and add filler to make it bigger shit, then shit on it again. The only saving grace there is sometimes the actors get drunk and put in amazing performances, like "scaring the LITTLE GIRL!?? LADY!!!"



  • @blakeyrat said:

    All Stephen King movies are shit. Except his prison movies, and The Green Mile still contains a lot of shit. Oh, and except for the first The Shining, but Stephen King hated it. Because he's an idiot.

    I thought "Pet Sematary" was pretty good.  Although, I saw that a loooooong time ago and don't know how it would hold up now.

    Also, don't forget "Stand By Me", which is arguably a classic American film at this point.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    All Stephen King movies are shit. Except his prison movies, and The Green Mile still contains a lot of shit. Oh, and except for the first The Shining, but Stephen King hated it. Because he's an idiot.

    I thought Green Mile was a great film, but after reading the books can see how some was missed out.

    @frits said:

    I thought "Pet Sematary" was pretty good.  Although, I saw that a loooooong time ago and don't know how it would hold up now.

    Also, don't forget "Stand By Me", which is arguably a classic American film at this point.

    "Stand By Me" was good (Teenage Fuck Machine played a good part). "Running Man" wasn't a bad film (beer and pizza - don't expect Chaucer), but pretty different to the book.

    I liked Carrie, but again I saw the film before reading the book.

    I read (and enjoyed) It, Tommyknockers, Pet Sem, Christine, Shining and Stand before seeing the movies.

    Vaguely thought that "It" and "Tommyknockers" were close, but still preferred the books.

    Disappointed with Pet Sem, Shining, Stand films.

    Christine was shite. Completely missed the point of the book.

    Not seen "Thinner" as a movie. Much cop? Or will I be disappointed with this one also?



  • @Cassidy said:

    I thought Green Mile was a great film, but after reading the books can see how some was missed out.

    I read the books first (as they came out, actually), and still really enjoyed the movie. I find it helps if there is a long break between when you read the book and when you watch the film.

    @Cassidy said:

    Not seen "Thinner" as a movie. Much cop? Or will I be disappointed with this one also?

    From what I remember, the plot was fairly consistent with the book.  However, the movie was really badly done.  It might be enjoyable in an ironic way.

     



  • @frits said:

    @Cassidy said:

    I thought Green Mile was a great film, but after reading the books can see how some was missed out.

    I read the books first (as they came out, actually), and still really enjoyed the movie. I find it helps if there is a long break between when you read the book and when you watch the film.

    Yeah, enough time to semi-forget it so you're not making comparisons!

    Green Mile (film) typified , for me, what King books are all about: he spends a lot of time on people so you really felt for their loss. I loved The Dead Zone and found Firestarter a really sad book (the father trying his utmost to protect his young daughter), hence thought GM was as close to what King films ought to be.

    Vaguely remember Dead Zone, thought it okay. They did the unbalanced cop well.

    Just looked up Firestarter - not seen the film, else I'd remember Drew Barrymore.

    Oh.. The Mist. Enjoyed the book, didn't think the film much cop (maybe because I'm a Dead Can Dance fan)



  • @Cassidy said:

    didn't think the film much cop

    What the fuck does the word "cop" mean to you? Stop doing that unless you're going to define it. "Didn't think the film much cop" is GIBBERISH!!! GIBBERISH!!!



  •  sigh .. there ye go, Blakey

    (is the search box broken on that site?)



  • @Cassidy said:

    Not seen "Thinner" as a movie. Much cop? Or will I be disappointed with this
    one also?

    Probably the latter. My experience with books->films is that the films (usually due to time constraints) miss some/a lot out of the books. King's IT is the one I usually drag out as the exemplar for this. The book interlaced 'now' and 'then' - the 'film' (I think it was actually a TV miniseries) had the 'then' in the first part, then the 'now' in the second. They also left out quite a bit of the stuff in the book. (In one example, probably because the producers didn't fancy the film being distributed as gay porn - the bit where Beverly observes Patrick and and Henry in the landfill site)



    A more recent example is the Potter bollocks. The films started off being accurate to the books, but as Rowling tended to get more verbose in the later books, the films started missing out relevant stuff to the point where they decided to make two films out of the last book. I've yet to watch either to see what they've deleted from the books.



  • @Cassidy said:

     sigh .. there ye go, Blakey

    (is the search box broken on that site?)

    Not good enough! I want to know the meaning of the word "cop" where saying "not much cop" means "I didn't think much of that." What does the word "cop" mean in this context?



  • @PJH said:

    King's
    While I'm rambling on with this, The Stand. Crap film. Half decent book.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Cassidy said:

     sigh .. there ye go, Blakey

    (is the search box broken on that site?)

    Not good enough! I want to know the meaning of the word "cop" where saying "not much cop" means "I didn't think much of that." What does the word "cop" mean in this context

    I also had no idea what you were saying as hadn't heard that as an idiom.  I assume this is a regional thing maybe?



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @Cassidy said:

     sigh ..
    there ye go, Blakey

    (is the search box broken on that site?)

    Not good enough!
    Still being a twat I see.@blakeyrat said:
    I want to know the meaning of the word "cop" where saying "not much cop" means "I didn't think much of that." What does the word "cop" mean in this context?
    Add, possibly, the word 'idiom' to your search. I realise idiom may be 3 syllables longer than the words you are normally accustomed to, but it may enlighten you. Alternatively add 'etymology' which, at 5 syllables, is probably beyond you.

    But since you've proved yourself as a lazy bastard on here previosly when suggestions are showered on you I'll quote one result from one of the above searches:
    To cop had the meaning of 'to catch' or 'to get'. This first appeared in the English language in the early 1700s.
    I'm assuming, of course, that the only association you have with the word 'cop' is to do with law enforcement.


  • @PJH said:

    To cop had the meaning of 'to catch' or 'to get'. This first appeared in the English language in the early 1700s.
    I'm assuming, of course, that the only association you have with the word 'cop' is to do with law enforcement.

    Ah, OK so it's one of those things.  Yeah in the US (or parts of it I've lived in as blakey always points out things vary greatly depending on state/region) cop is either law enforcment or much more rarely you can cop to something which is taking the blame for it.  But neither matches up well with the idiom so it doesn't make sense to people with only those two.



  • @PJH said:

    But since you've proved yourself as a lazy bastard on here previosly when suggestions are showered on you I'll quote one result from one of the above searches:

    To cop had the meaning of 'to catch' or 'to get'. This first appeared in the English language in the early 1700s.
    I'm assuming, of course, that the only association you have with the word 'cop' is to do with law enforcement.

    Neither of those meanings fits into the phrase "not much cop". So no, you still haven't answered the fucking question, regardless of how many syllables you put in your Google string. And if you don't know the fucking answer, just fucking admit it instead of posting bullshit like this.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    Not good enough! I want to know the meaning of the word "cop" where saying "not much cop" means "I didn't think much of that." What does the word "cop" mean in this context?

    "cop" means "catch" or "get".

    Examples:

    • "you'll cop it when da gets haime" means "you're in trouble and your father will be having stern words with you upon his return home"
    • "I lamped him one - he copped it right in the kisser" = "I swung a punch at him and he caught it in the mouth"
    • "this film much cop?" = "is it worth catching it at a cinema? Should I expend effort buying/borrowing/getting/watching?"
    • "she copped on too early" ="she saw through your rather obvious deception and understood what you were trying to achieve"

    Hope that earns me a BlakeyStar. Or something.

    More Limey history: our police were founded by Robert Peel, so policemen were known as "bobbies", "rozzers" and "peelers". As they walked the beat (strolled up and down the roads, providing a calming and tranquil crime-free environment by making their presence known) they were known as "flatfeet" and "plods". When they caught you in the act, you were said to "have your collar felt" (gripped and held, particularly if you were of young age and the aforementioned bobby was much older and taller) or you "copped it", by someone who caught or got you, i.e.: a "copper".

    I know the US have inherited this last part, but I'm uncertain that they use any of the earlier phrases - I think it predated USA. However, I have heard you lot refer to them as "five-oh". Why is that?



  • @Cassidy said:

    "this film much cop?" = "is it worth catching it at a cinema? Should I expend effort buying/borrowing/getting/watching?"

    "this film much get?" "this film much catch?"

    I guess my mistake was in thinking you didn't talk like cartoon cavemen. Because that still doesn't fucking work, grammatically, at all.

    @Cassidy said:

    However, I have heard you lot refer to them as "five-oh". Why is that?

    TV. 5-0 was a (fictional) police unit in Hawaii that worked undercover and did a lot of snap-zooms to the top of tall buildings. Kind of like a proto-swat team. I guess. With snap-zooms.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    "this film much get?" "this film much catch?"

    "People called Romanes, they go, the house?" 

    @blakeyrat said:

      TV. 5-0 was a (fictional) police unit in Hawaii that worked undercover and did a lot of snap-zooms to the top of tall buildings. Kind of like a proto-swat team. I guess. With snap-zooms.

    Oh, Jesus shitting sandals in a sidecar. Would you believe I used to watch that as a kid and never made the connection?

    Book me, Danno. It's a fair cop.



  • @Cassidy said:

    Book me, Danno. It's a fair cop.

    Which movie?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:
    Book me, Danno. It's a fair cop.

    Which movie?

    The kindergarden one!



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    @Cassidy said:
    Book me, Danno. It's a fair cop.

    Which movie?

    The kindergarden one!

    I prefer the dog one.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    @PJH said:
    But since you've proved yourself as a lazy bastard on here previosly when suggestions are showered on you I'll quote one result from one of the above searches:

    To cop had the meaning of 'to catch' or 'to get'. This first appeared in the English language in the early 1700s.
    I'm assuming, of course, that the only association you have with the word 'cop' is to do with law enforcement.

    Neither of those meanings fits into the phrase "not much cop".

    Then, as usual, you're being normally idiotic or deliberately obtuse. Cassidy explained why.



  • @PJH said:

    Then, as usual, you're being normally idiotic or deliberately obtuse. Cassidy explained why.
    No, Cassidy's explanation makes no sense.

    @Cassidy said:

    "cop" means "catch" or "get"

    Examples:

    • "you'll
      cop it when da gets haime" means "you're in trouble and your father
      will be having stern words with you upon his return home"
    • "I lamped him one - he copped it right in the kisser" = "I swung a punch at him and he caught it in the mouth"
    • "this film much cop?" = "is it worth catching it at a cinema? Should I expend effort buying/borrowing/getting/watching?"
    • "she copped on too early" ="she saw through your rather obvious deception and understood what you were trying to achieve"

    Substitute  "get"  or "catch"  for "cop" in examples 1, 2 and 4 and they
    are perfectly reasonable and make sense.  However, example 3, which is what's being discussed here,  makes no sense.  This film much get?  You're seriously going to argue that makes sense?

     

     

     



  • @El_Heffe said:

    However, example 3, which is what's being discussed here,  makes no sense.  This film much get?  You're seriously going to argue that makes sense?

    Okay.. how about "much catch?" being short for "much of a catch?", which is loosely in the context of "much value?". So if the film is "much cop" or "much of a cop", it's "worth [getting|seeing|obtaining]".

    Rather like calling someone a "shower" when the insult is a "vaginal irrigation shower"; colloquialisms/idioms tend to drop some intermediate terms.

    Talk about out-pedanting Lawrence Logic, hell's bells...



  • @Cassidy said:

    Okay.. how about "much catch?" being short for "much of a catch?", which is loosely in the context of "much value?". So if the film is "much cop" or "much of a cop", it's "worth [getting|seeing|obtaining]".

    Once you explained it, it made sense to me.

    @Cassidy said:

    Rather like calling someone a "shower" when the insult is a "vaginal irrigation shower"; colloquialisms/idioms tend to drop some intermediate terms.

    WTF? Never heard of that one. Shower? Vaginal irrigation shower? Then again, in America we have a word "cocksucker" which doesn't mean one who imbibes chickens, not at all..



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    WTF? Never heard of that one. Shower? Vaginal irrigation shower?

    "douchebag", I believe, is the term of endearment over that side of the pond.



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    WTF? Never heard of that one. Shower? Vaginal irrigation shower?

    "douchebag", I believe, is the term of endearment over that side of the pond.

    You call a douche a "vaginal irrigation shower"? Jesus, why does your country hate women? "Cheerio, Chemist, one gross of vaginal irrigation shower pouches, toot suite!"



  •  No, it's the other way arou... oh, hell. It's just lost in translation, eh?



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    in America we have a word "cocksucker" which doesn't mean one who imbibes chickens, not at all..
     

    I suck cock all the time.

    They're so juicy on the inside.

    But you gotta roast 'em so the skin get all crusty and comes right off.



  • @dhromed said:

    Filed under: my goal is to make someone somewhere grab his crotch in agony pleasure.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:
    Filed under: my goal is to make someone somewhere grab his crotch in agony pleasure.
     

    Just "his"?

    Sexist pigs.. BOTH of you.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @dhromed said:
    Filed under: my goal is to make someone somewhere grab his crotch in agony pleasure.
     

    crunch crunch mmmmmmmm pass the gravy



  • @Cassidy said:

    Sexist pigs.. BOTH of you.
     

    Sexist? I beg your pardon?



  • @Cassidy said:

    @morbiuswilters said:

    WTF? Never heard of that one. Shower? Vaginal irrigation shower?

    "douchebag", I believe, is the term of endearment over that side of the pond.

    People using the term "douchebag" don't drop words randomly, especially works which make the sentence ungrammatical.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.