Jeffrey Edwards18 said:I can tell you’re the type who prefers to sort things out on your own terms rather than letting some "authority figure" dictate the rules to you. (It is curious, though—why hasn't anyone here stepped in to challenge your definitions of these terms, much like they did with mine?)
On another note, your classification system is quite interesting; it's clear you have a genuine passion and expertise in this field. However, I suspect your way of dividing things would be entirely impractical in a real-world application.
Why the hesitation? Don't hold back on the details... 😉
nimblemarlin17 said:Wouldn't it have been much simpler to just call Clinton and ask him to come on set and ramble at the camera for a bit? I highly doubt those were special effects. Since Kennedy was dead, they obviously had to "resurrect" him for the movie's sake.
It's special effects. 100% 😉
Do a little digging online and actually look up some info regarding the production.
steelstag4 said:👍 I don't have any major complaints about the movie. I would like to read the book, even though I am not really a huge sci-fi fan.
If you aren't a science fiction enthusiast, I wouldn't actually recommend the book. It isn't nearly as "sweetened" as the film version. It’s more of a systematic deep dive into technicalities and granular details—stuff that might not sit well with someone who doesn't already love the genre.
Rather than reading Contact, just pick up his book Cosmos. Honestly, in my opinion, it is the best thing I have ever read. It offers this romantic, magnificent perspective on the world. For me, that book is practically a bible; it covers not just outer space and astronomy, but the entire world, all delivered through the incredible narrative talent of Carl Sagan. Even those who despise these subjects will find themselves hooked. It isn't a novel, per se, but the movie is essentially more of an adaptation of the ideas found in Cosmos than of Contact itself. Everything is interconnected since they were developed around the same time.
Trust me. Find Cosmos and read it. It is absolute enlightenment for the human mind. You will truly feel happy after finishing that book. And yet, it only tells us what we have always known...
Lisa Wilson49 said:I think you’re oversimplifying things there, Richard Howard2. It isn't just about sticking to a budget; sometimes you run into legitimate technical hurdles that can't just be solved overnight. Especially when you've mapped everything out perfectly according to the laws of physics, chemistry, and all the other sciences, only to have the whole thing fail during testing because it doesn't work the way you imagiiiiiiiined. 🙂
In any case, that specific part of the movie felt a bit off to me too... it felt a little too "American exceptionalism" style (🙂 ), like we're just lightning-fast geniuses who can fix anything in a heartbeat.
They could have stretched that sequence out or actually shown us the complications. After all, we aren't talking about atmospheric conditions on Earth; we're talking about outer space, an environment where we don't exactly live.
🙂
I don't think they needed to obsess over those technicalities because that's not what the movie is about. The point is that they build it and head into outer space, and honestly, the attention to detail is higher than most other films in this genre—it's convincing enough. Besides, Americans (though it turns out it wasn't just Americans involved later on) were essentially handed the blueprints by aliens anyway. They just had to execute the plan.
BTW, they weren't running the machine in outer space, they were doing it on Earth. Did you even watch the movie?
nimblemarlin17 said:A movie where the director actually manages to get a real American president to play himself can't possibly be bad. Though, I suppose I'm being naive thinking they could build a machine like that so quickly...
Heh... if you feel that way, then the special effects actually worked. It really comes down to some brilliant editing, which I suspect Robert Zemeckis has been obsessed with since his days working on Forrest Gump (with the whole John F. Kennedy bit), so he just applied that same logic here... they basically spliced Bill Clinton from one of his speeches into the scene, though I honestly can't recall what he was actually talking about in the real speech.
Regarding the construction of the machine—it isn't a matter of being naive. It’s never really about how long it takes to build something—well, most things—it's always about the budget.
Technically, you can pull almost anything off in a very short timeframe—barring certain sci-fi impossibilities—provided you have the cash. The film explicitly mentions that this is the most expensive project in human history.
Back in high school, I actually wrote my senior thesis on Sci-Fi films. During that process, I developed my own idiosyncratic system for classifying the genre. Here, have a look and tell me if I've missed the mark somewhere:
(In the actual paper, this was formatted as a table, but since I can't attach files here, I'll just list it...)
SCIENCE FICTION MOVIES:
1. BY ERA: - past - present - future - unknown time
2. BY SETTING: - space - planet Earth - other locations - unknown locations
3. BY FEASIBILITY: - impossible - perhaps possible - possible
4. BY SOURCE MATERIAL: - adapted from a novel - adapted from a comic book - adapted from other media (video games, etc.) - original screenplay
5. BY TONE/APPROACH: - entertainment/humorous - ironic/critical - scientific/serious
_________________________________________________
BY THEMATIC SUBJECT:
1. CLOSE ENCOUNTER
2. SPACE AND TIME TRAVEL
3. FUTURE HUMAN SOCIETY
4. MODERN SCIENTIFIC QUESTION
5. SCI-FI FANTASY
6. SUPERHERO
Essentially, the second section—which categorizes Sci-Fi by its core plot elements—is the more significant part. If I overlooked something, well, life goes on.
My only real dilemma was whether I should have included a specific category for cataclysms, though one could argue those fall under modern scientific question.
The film does a fairly decent job of capturing Sagan's "romantic" take on humanity, life, our world, and space.
One could argue that Sagan was just as much the director here as Zemeckis (they collaborated on the project until Sagan's passing in 1996, after which the film was completed and dedicated to him).
Compared to the book, the movie is stripped down to the bare essentials, yet it avoids descending into pure stupidity. It doesn't fall into that trap of typical Hollywood nonsense where the plots are so naive they couldn't even fool an infant.
The visuals and the core concept are excellent, though I feel that Robert Zemeckis's pathetic, Forrest Gump-style approach ultimately prevented this from becoming a truly extraordinary masterpiece.
In "Logan's Run," there are these massive domes surrounding the city, acting as a shield for centuries against any outside influence... though I noticed there aren't actually any robots around, except for that one lone unit tucked away in the ice cave...
I’ve been using Kazaa Lite which I managed to snag a few months back, and honestly, it does the job perfectly. It's fast, comes with that built-in accelerator, maintains a solid participation level, and so on...
Lately, though, it seems like you can't find a decent download anywhere. On www.soft32.com, they claim to have it available, but the file is completely broken... something feels off there. I suppose I should just be grateful I already have this version tucked away.
I am honestly hoping that Microsoft decides to encourage using an additional, physical HDD specifically dedicated to acting as a carrier for the Page file... 😁 otherwise, we are all absolutely screwed!
There’s some truth to what you’re saying regarding all that bloatware and unnecessary fluff, I suppose. However, the reality remains that there are specific reasons why we find ourselves stuck with Windows in so many scenarios. It exists in its current state—designed to consume every available resource, much like how gas expands to fill whatever container it happens to be in. It is likely a calculated marketing tactic, too. They constantly push you toward the idea that you need increasingly powerful hardware just to keep up. That seems to be the core logic of the entire industry.
If you grab an extra 512 MB of RAM and set your Page file to a fixed, modest value—say, 512 MB—it might help.
Furthermore, you should probably find some utility program designed to defragment memory and scrub out those lingering DLLs and other digital refuse once usage hits an unacceptable threshold—but please, ensure you choose one that actually functions!
Edward Richardson36 said:Heh, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone suggest actually killing off the page file entirely to rely solely on RAM... Personally, I just drop the paging file to a minimum of maybe 256MB—not too low, though, because then Windows starts frantically resizing it dynamically—and cap the maximum at 1.5GB. That's my setup, and I've never had an issue...
That is poor logic.
The superior approach is to set both the minimum and maximum page file values to be identical. A fixed value provides much faster response times compared to when Windows struggles to constantly resize the file on the fly. Constant resizing causes unnecessary slowdowns and leads to disk fragmentation. As for the actual size, a good rule of thumb is to set it to double your RAM capacity; anything more than that is just wasted space.
If you were running more than 1 GB of RAM, you could technically disable virtual memory altogether, provided your workload doesn't involve something heavy like editing massive images in Photoshop—say, something north of 8192x4096 pixels...😉
Burzum said:Those speakers from the link are roughly $110,000.
No. They actually run closer to $55,000. If we are talking about the absolute peak of mass production, the most expensive single speaker globally would be the Martin Luther King Jr. Statement, sitting at approximately $125,000. After that, you have Focal. Then comes the JBL at about $100,000, followed by the rest of the heavy hitters like Wilson Watt / Puppy, Avalon Eidolon Diamond, Audio Physics Kronos, and so on. Only then would one even consider mentioning the B&W Nautilus.
ironfalcon18 said:I think you're exaggerating a bit. If you're aiming for the absolute top tier, you haven't even factored in the audio Note Kegon—arguably the most expensive amplifier on the planet, priced at $833333 😁 .
And even that doesn't hit the ceiling. I remember reading about this monoblock tube amp in an old issue of T3—it’s basically crafted out of pure silver. We're talking close to a million pounds (the name escapes me). Apparently, the manufacturer claims a couple of wealthy idiots actually bought five of them just to build a home theater setup... 😁
Anyway, Ziggy, you can get a perfectly decent Hi-Fi setup for just 500 $0.00...
ironfalcon18 said:Diapason speakers are great. Within that specific price bracket, I was extremely impressed by the Yamaha Concert 8 and the Sonus Faber Electa Amator II. To be perfectly honest, the absolute pinnacle of sound I ever experienced was a Marantz model 7 preamplifier paired with a Marantz model 9 power amp, a Marantz CD-7 player, and B&W Nautilus 801 speakers. It sounded incredible. 😁 Even if this setup costs roughly $115, at least I had the chance to actually hear something like that.
Interesting. And perhaps even more interesting is the realization that you are only discussing high-end mid-range gear. Aside from the B&W Nautilus series, which truly belongs in the high-end tier, the Yamaha is merely mid-range. Sonus Faber and Marantz sit in the upper mid-range, whereas true high-end requires a significantly larger investment—we're talking amplifiers from brands like Krell, Mark Levinson, Bryston, or Burmester, paired with speakers such as the Martin Logan Statement or Focal. Then there's the JM lab Granda Utopia, Avalon Eidolon, audio Physics Kronos, and so on—you end up looking at a system costing nearly $250,000. Not to mention those exotic, hand-built limited editions. Personally, my lifelong dream is to simply not own any of that... just to sit in silence.
This is about transitioning over to digital electronics...
It is an undeniable truth that you won't find much worth having for $500, though you could certainly pick up a decent enough Sony mini-system. Now, Sony is undoubtedly the superior brand in terms of build quality, but they suffer from one unforgivable flaw—their CD players tend to fail quite prematurely. In my experience, nearly every Sony line I've encountered has been plagued by this exact issue, so perhaps it would be more prudent to consider a different manufacturer altogether. You might look toward Panasonic, or if you happen to track one down, maybe Pioneer (though I have rarely seen their mini-systems available in the local US market). As for Alvin, I wouldn't bother; I haven't heard anything particularly glowing about them.
Overall, I found the film enjoyable, though it is certainly plagued by flaws. My primary grievance lies in their failure to effectively handle the core message; they desperately attempt to hammer it home during the finale, yet the beginning and middle of the film fail to provide any meaningful anticipation for it. Furthermore, there is an irritating indecisiveness regarding the cinematography style. On one hand, we are presented with a cohesive "detective" narrative, while on the other, there is an overly ambitious push toward a music video aesthetic—a transparent attempt to manufacture a religious or New Age sentiment because they couldn't extract it naturally from the scenes themselves. The subject matter being tackled is far too complex for a film of this specific genre and energy level; frankly, it feels more suited for a documentary...
That said, the film does possess an atmosphere—forced, admittedly, but present—stemming from the score, the production design, and the camerawork. We owe much of this to Gabriel Byrne, who seems almost tailor-made for these types of roles (he was excellent in End of Days, after all), and even Patricia Arquette delivers a solid performance, bringing a non-standard character type rarely seen in the films we typically consume. At times, the movie becomes grating when it starts overdoing those repetitive droplets eighteen times throughout the runtime, but one cannot deny certain extraordinary scenes that evoke a sense of holiness, mystery, and genuine horror, leaving a powerful impact on the viewer.
The Little Mermaid isn't really one of those "old" Disney classics.
No, that wasn't even about how good the old cartoons look. I was just trying to say that the last decent Disney movie I actually sat through was The Little Mermaid. Well, maybe Beauty and the Beast too.
Even though The Lion King was arguably Disney's biggest hit ever, it basically marked the start of that whole ridiculous 90s style they leaned into—it just happened to be the first of its kind, so I guess it didn't feel quite as bad at the time...