On Mon, Jul 02, 2001 at 12:32:23AM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> If you haven't already seen the movie you might not want to read
> the following.
>
> Brent Allsop <allsop@fc.hp.com> Wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Why would an android have to go to talk to "Dr. Know" like he did?
> >Surely he would be able to, if he didn't already have it - purchase
> >and install a direct interface into the world of all internet knowledge
>
> Unfair! If you know how to depict that on screen in a visually interesting
> manner then you're in the wrong line of work, you should be making movies.
Also, "purchase" implies "money", and I'm kind of surprised David had _any_
money. He didn't have much.
Joe should have had more... of course, Joe was on the run from the law. Bad
time to use your credit chip.
And even though Joe knew way more about the world than David did, he still
seemed oddly naive at times, by human standards.
But this is a pretty subtle point of knowledge economics to be arguing about.
Compare to:
David is vulnerable to spinach, but not saltwater.
David and Joe can sort of fly an amphibicopter -- okay, maybe the UI's a lot
better than modern helicopters.
We won't ask how the amphibicopter was moving, or why the police would have
one... general progress of cool tech for the latter, I guess. "Antigravity"
for the former? Eh.
The space-time soul thing. Let's not talk about that. Especially about it
only lasting for a day. Please let's not talk about that!
And, what got me: what is their _power_ source? When the voiceover first
saiad "oceans freezing" I was thinking "antimatter slivers". Then we find
it's only 2000 years, so I could believe plutonium or some other radioactive
-- he seemed weak when he was rescued.
But whatever his power source is, they put it in the _teddy bear_. Talk about
free energy! And they can't zap a few glaciers?
I liked the movie, BTW. I just think there are bigger flaws to pick at.
-xx- Damien X-)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:39:42 MDT