> I haven't seen the movie. Is that message typed out on the screen, complete with teletype noises? That has to be one of the weirdest anachronisms ever adopted as a trope.
Lots of video games do that for dialog if it's just printed on the screen and there's no voice track.
> I haven't seen the movie. Is that message typed out on the screen, complete with teletype noises?
It is. I think it's necessary in this case - it's used as a mechanism to distinguish it from the credits, which are being displayed at the same time (e.g. [1] from the next shot). The typing noise and animation causes the audience to pay attention to it, even if they weren't paying attention to the credits.
In most other cases, it's just foley - audiences expect to hear futuristic computer-clicky noises to accompany their space-text, so it feels weirder to leave it out than to leave it in.
> I have a hard time watching most modern films, it is the dialog, the dialog just sounds bad
I read somewhere that the problem is the trend of actors whispering their lines or talking under their breath for dramatic effect, and that the audio has to be heavily amplified to make it audible, but in that process, fidelity is lost and so the dialog is hard to understand.
I know I'm not the only person who watches movies and TV with subtitles on these days. Watching a movie at a theater is awful because the difficult to understand audio is made worse by being in a large room.
> The really weird thing is how actual technology in movies from the 80's and 90's looks so much worse to people in 2017 than technology in moves from the 50's and 60's looked to people in the late 90's.
On the other hand though, I still feel like the analog computers they used back in the day are technologies from the future, not from the past.
> Guess why the Sonic movies don't have almost any soundtracks or sound effects from the game? According to the Directors, it wasn't a thematic choice, but a legal one.
Why is this a thing? I've heard of game studios having a movie studio make a movie, but then not allow them to use certain elements from the game. It ruins the movie, IMO, and I've never understood why game studios knee-cap movie adaptations like that.
> if I as an audio engineer create a mix where you can't legibly hear dialogue you'd walk out of the theater in anger.
Tenet? No one I know in the US could watch that film, but my international friends liked it, presumably because they had subtitles.. the theater had to blast the sound to make the audio vaguely discernible
> Wargames is a great hacking movie. The ending is a little meh, but the old-school tech is fantastic.
There were a few great things about that movie: the technology was grounded in reality, rather than fantasy (except for the WOPR); the hacking was plausible, rather than magical; not only was there commentary on the geopolitical situation of the time, but it was plausible.
The end was incredibly disappointing, but I do not know how I would improve upon it since it is pretty much the consequence of the fantastical WOPR. It would have been a much darker movie if the WOPR was replaced with a more realistic computer.
> Miyazaki is pretty old school and tends to be against technology for his personal use while working.
Miyazaki has a half century history of producing one groundbreaking speculative warning piece after another about the intersection of technology with human sin.
You make it sound like the guy wants a secretary to print his email for him.
(But FWIW: he's wrong here, that zombie thing was amazing -- creepy is the whole point, and the fact that the AI was unconstrained by human priors about how to move makes it even better.)
> It’s a technology movie that still isn’t outdated even though it was released 20 years ago and features cradle modems.
This is a great point. I guess it's because they kept it realistic. Except for the box itself (of course) and maybe the voice-activated mantrap, there wasn't really any crazy futuristic spy tech. It was all plausible for the time, so it hasn't been invalidated by the actual future.
> I think we can all agree that the interface of this prospective future is incredible and desirable, but if we drill into it, what’s its most amazing aspect?
This had to make me laugh a little bit. Jaron Lanier actually designed this UI to intentionally be unusable and bad, because the film was described to him at the time as a Dystopian film, so he designed a computer interface to be equally dystopian. Yet, the effects look so cool, that people actually thought it was a good idea
> Have you actually watched Jodorowskys movies? Because if you go and watch one, you know that his Dune would be have been an absolutely incomprehensible nightmare.
I have seen one of his movies, and it's the only movie I've ever walked out of. Now, granted, it was a midnight showing where the theater would show older movies, but man alive was whatever movie it was an incomprehensible trainwreck.
Lots of video games do that for dialog if it's just printed on the screen and there's no voice track.
reply