Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

WarGames Sequel Now Filming

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the lights-camera-domain-grab dept.

Movies 439

iluvcapra writes "This news is a little late, but on November 20th WarGames 2: The Dead Code began filming in Montreal. (I only became aware of the new production when I read that MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com for his domain name.) The film will be produced and distributed by MGM — distributor of the original WarGames — and directed by Stewart Gillard, director of such gems as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3. Lawrence Lasker and Walter F. Parkes, the team behind the original film, are not involved. The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer."

cancel ×

439 comments

Brilliant (5, Insightful)

TPIRman (142895) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305002)

I can think of no better way to kick off the marketing campaign for WarGames 2 than by filing an outrageous lawsuit that will piss off the very geek fanbase who'd potentially be interested in the film. Well done, MGM. Because wargames-movie.com just wouldn't be good enough, would it?

The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.

Re:Brilliant (3, Interesting)

james_shoemaker (12459) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305054)

actually to make geeks happy they should save DNS space and put it at: www.mgm.com/wargames2

James

Re:Brilliant (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305290)

save DNS space

Is this what new age ecowarrior 2.0 looks like?

Next thing you will be telling me not to turn off my servers.

Think of the domain forests.

Re:Brilliant (4, Funny)

God'sDuck (837829) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305554)

Well...we sure turned off Caden's.

Google cached copy [google.com] of blog entry.

This isn't a film for geeks. (5, Insightful)

FatSean (18753) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305104)

It's for scaredy-cat non-geeks who want to be terrified by what those mysterious boxes can do in the wrong hands.

Plus, a romantic sub-plot, a cool chase scene, and some improperly used computer terminology.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (5, Insightful)

rudeboy1 (516023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305266)

Congratulations! You have accurately defined the plot for the following movies:
Wargames
Hackers
Hackers 2 (yeah they made one, believe it or not)
The Lawnmower Man
The Net
Sneakers (Good movie, but still makes the list)
Johnny Mnemonic
Swordfish
Tron

Anyone see a pattern here?

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (2, Interesting)

Andrew Kismet (955764) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305350)

Pattern I see is "Films that make me cringe for their terminology, but are still worth watching" with a few anomalous points. By the way, you missed Antitrust.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (4, Insightful)

rudeboy1 (516023) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305470)

Son of a BITCH! How did I miss Antitrust?!? I'm going to hanf my head in shame for the rest of the day.
By the way, I'm already kicking myself for excluding anime from the list, as most large budget anime movies seem to have this as a universal theme (Take Ghost in the Shell, though the romantic subplot is a little different... the series leads me to believe the Major is a lesbian in love with her repair-woman). Oh well. Didn't have time to make a concise list. That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (3, Interesting)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305798)

That's the curse of Slashdot. You can make a hurried post that will make it to the upper area of the thread, or you can spend your time making a well-thought out post, and see it wallow in obscurity at post #1990999 in the thread.

There's worse: having your posting buried between pages because the first post on the first page is also the first post on the second and third pages. (I prefer to read in Nested mode.)

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (0, Offtopic)

sesshomaru (173381) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305896)

I always got the impression that the Major was a bisexual who was in love with Batou and/or Hideo Kuze.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (1)

radarjd (931774) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305382)

Don't forget the recent Firewall -- I was embarrassed for Harrison Ford...

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305596)

You forgot The Matrix. The sequels decided to tread more philosophical ground and also made the machines not be evil demons, and yet Slashdot only likes the first movie. I guess the new Slashdot likes Ludditism.

Re: Because the truth 25 years later is depressing (2, Insightful)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305892)


For historical quaintness, and my proportionate age at the time, Wargames will always be worth watching every 5 years on my $1 copy. (1981 pricing!)

The truth is that the kid will hack in, find someone using the server to host Things Not Intended For The PG13 movie rating ...

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305542)

Don't forget that artificial plot device, the struggle between good and evil.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (1)

susano_otter (123650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305588)

Don't forget that artificial plot device, the struggle between good and evil.

That's actually about the only natural and realistic plot device there is.

Re:This isn't a film for geeks. (3, Funny)

Scott Lockwood (218839) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305700)

That's actually about the only natural and realistic plot device there is.


"Good, bad -- I'm the guy with the gun."

Re:Brilliant (2, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305164)

This appears to have been in the works for about 3 years.
The current escalation from both sides (one starting a shop, the other actually making a movie) can only lead to one thing.

This can lead to a global thermonuclear war.

the only way to win is not to play at all.

Re:Brilliant (5, Funny)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305262)

The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.

      Bahh, just download the torrent. That'll teach the fuckers.

Re:Brilliant (5, Funny)

dave_mcmillen (250780) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305278)

The only way to win . . . is not to watch.

Count me in! (5, Funny)

Otis2222222 (581406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305578)

The chances that I would see this movie just went from slim to none.

But if you don't see the movie, you might miss out on Jean-Robert Bourdage's [imdb.com] performance as the hot dog vendor! And you know it's gonna be good, because only him and Matt Lanter have signed on to the production, according to IMDB.

Hot Dog Vendor: Kid, you don't have what it takes to hack into a terrorism-simulation computer.
Will Farmer: I'd like mustard and ketchup on my hotdog.
Hot Dog Vendor: Will, it's too dangerous!

Re:Brilliant (1)

HTH NE1 (675604) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305708)

I thought that the real time strategy game for PC [imdb.com] was the sequel. It was distributed by MGM Interactive.

I saw it on the shelf at Best Buy, didn't buy it, probably for the best. Licensed games tend to suck.

Still, I wonder if they would release it for free download to promote the new movie or bury it and hope people forget about it.

Augh! (-1, Troll)

Kid Zero (4866) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305014)

No offense, but the first blew chunks. I don't see how this can be improved.

Re:Augh! (3, Insightful)

garcia (6573) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305088)

It was a good movie for its time IMHO. It was definitely more geeky than those "geek" movies that followed (The Net, Hackers, etc). I certainly enjoyed it then and will still sit through it if it happens to be playing on a boring Saturday afternoon.

This looks like it has nothing to do w/the first other than the stolen name for credibility.

tagging (beta): lame

Re:Augh! (4, Insightful)

mythosaz (572040) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305094)

Odd. While there were huge *glaring* technical problems with the film (acoustic modem wardialing, anyone?), it had a fairly reasonable portrial of "young hacker kid" before it was popularized. Social loner who wardials entire exchanges looking for carriers is EXACTLY how a lot of us spent our time growing up. Poking and probing new systems was always a joy.

Few other movies include the phrase, "I'd piss on a spark plug if I thought it'd help."

Re:Augh! (1)

Elphin (7066) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305400)

> (acoustic modem wardialing, anyone?)

Not sure how that was a huge technical problem, particularly as name for that technique is derived from the name of the film which popularized it :)

Re:Augh! (4, Informative)

Dun Malg (230075) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305540)

> (acoustic modem wardialing, anyone?)

Not sure how that was a huge technical problem, particularly as name for that technique is derived from the name of the film which popularized it :)

It's named after the method explained in the dialogue, not the particular visual portrayal used, which was clearly chosen by the director so as to let the lay viewer know he's "hooking the phone to the computer". The glaring technical problem is that you can't auto dial with an acoustic coupler because the computer obviously has no mechanism for pressing down the hookswitch on the damn phone to hang up between calls.

Re:Augh! (1)

rk (6314) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305886)

"The glaring technical problem is that you can't auto dial with an acoustic coupler because the computer obviously has no mechanism for pressing down the hookswitch on the damn phone to hang up between calls."

Sure ya could. You could hack a relay into the phone that would be controlled by the computer in the software. A real hacker of the early-mid 80s could wire that up and have driver done for it in an hour. Pretty simple, really.

You could even use that relay to dial the phone if the coupler didn't speak DTMF.

Re:Augh! (1)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305722)

Social loner who wardials entire exchanges looking for carriers is EXACTLY how a lot of us spent our time growing up.


I spent my time playing wargames. The kind from Avalon Hill, SPI, etc.

Re:Augh! (1)

griffjon (14945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305100)

...take...that....back...

Re:Augh! (2, Insightful)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305110)

If you saw it back in the Cold War era, it was actually a very good movie. It's hard to take serious now with the current state of technology and political climate.

Re:Augh! (1)

LWATCDR (28044) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305386)

I was in High School when it came out and went to see it with my girlfriend. We really loved it even though I couldn't understand how he had a S100 Bus system with a $20,000 graphics terminal.
He should have been using an AppleII :)

Re:Augh! (1)

Zelph (628698) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305452)

Umm.... I think the viewers of 24 will disagree.

Re:Augh! (1, Funny)

Canthros (5769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305260)

Dear Kid Zero,

You suck. Also, you smell funny.

Have a Merry Christmas, you ridiculous philistine!

My Rights Online??!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305022)

Hello???!! What does a movie sequel that's filming have to do with anybody's rights online or offline?

This YRO section is waaay too overrused, and used too incorrectly.

Re:My Rights Online??!! (2, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305154)

The rightful owner of a domain is being sued for that domain by the people behind this new movie. That's pretty damn YRO-y.

Re:My Rights Online??!! (3, Insightful)

qortra (591818) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305180)

The title is not exhaustive, but the description clearly says: "MGM is suing the rightful owner of WarGames.com [cadenhead.org] ".

People have the right (or ought to anyway) to keep domains that they purchase, develop, and maintain in good faith. MGM is going to try to bully him into giving it up. They will probably succeed, and if they do, it will be because they have more clout and more money (a more expensive lawyer). Ergo, his online rights are now in jeopardy of being violated.

I bet you're glad you posted anonymously now. And to the lazy moderator who gave this guy an "insightful", shame on you. Check more carefully next time. I realize it's too much of a hassle to read TFA, but please take the time to at least read the short description on Slashdot.

Re:My Rights Online??!! (2, Informative)

Space cowboy (13680) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305184)

That'll be the whole "MGM suing the rightful owner of the domain wargames.com" bit, that you seemed to miss in the *summary* (let alone the *story*)....

Simon

Re:My Rights Online??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305242)

I have a better question? Why would we care about this particular movie over any other that has blown this year, the first wasn't exactly epic and was a far cry from holding any kind of geek/nerd symbolic status, so why would we care now after the cold war? Who is the enemy, and why nerd/geeks like peace and then death because of technology accidents (see all sci fi)

Re:My Rights Online??!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305258)

That would be the right to own a domain name that MGM claims it has trademarked. Nevermind that Wargames.com is not infringing on the trademark in any way, it is a legitimate use of the term, and the owner legitimately owned the domain long before MGM ever had a dream about "Wargames: the sequel"

Re:My Rights Online??!! (1)

Khabok (940349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305396)

It's because of the domain-name lawsuit. Now, sure, this happens all the time. On that face, it wouldn't be news. But the fact that MGM does this to the geek community with one hand while making a geek/hacker movie with the other is what we might call "dropping the gauntlet." It's not the foul that makes it news-worthy, it's the flagrancy.

Also, IMHO, the reason why big companies can step on people this way is because they know that the worst this community can do is blog about it. More front-end organizations with legal clout might be the sollution, but between the EFF and the ACLU, it seems that slinging legal bullshit back at the legal bullshitters has been more or less useless. Frankly, it's impressive that such an old-school system of broken laws and financially repressive legal systems has managed to stymy the collective creativity of our entire community.

my proposed slogan for the new film (5, Funny)

Ubergrendle (531719) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305024)

"Wargames 2: The only way to win is not to watch."

Re:my proposed slogan for the new film (4, Funny)

0xABADC0DA (867955) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305766)

WOULD YOU LIKE TO PLAY A GAME?
> GLOBAL WAR oN TERRORISM

BEGIN TORTURE INSURGENTS
INSURGENT RECRUITING INCREASE 180%
INCREASE TORTURE
INSURGENTS REACH CRITICAL MASS ACQUIRE NUKE
LAUNCH FINANCIAL EMBARGO ATTACK
INSURGENT RECRUITING INCREASE 160%
STARVE POPULATION
INSURGENTS REACH CRITICAL MASS ACQUIRE BIOWEAPON
ACQUIRE NUKE
ACQUIRE BIOWEAPON
ACQUIRE SARIN
ACQUIRE GREY GOO

STRANGE GAME. THE ONLY WINNING MOVE.
IS NOT TO HATE.

Re:my proposed slogan for the new film (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305912)

-1: Gay

Re:my proposed slogan for the new film (2, Funny)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305776)

The best part is that the movie will be available for free over the internet -- only if you have a 300 baud modem.

Additional cast... (4, Funny)

fitten (521191) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305052)

Get that 12yo girl from Jurrasic Park.... she knows Unix!

Re:Additional cast... (2, Funny)

mikeasu (1025283) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305394)

Better yet (for the 24 fans) Bring in Chloe O'Brian - she can break through a poison-pill firewall using a level 4 protocol!

Re:Additional cast... (1)

j00r0m4nc3r (959816) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305414)

She's like 25 now

Re:Additional cast... (4, Funny)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305522)

She's like 25 now
Is she hot?

Cast? (4, Informative)

pluther (647209) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305064)

No Matthew Broderick? It's gonna suck.

Re:Cast? (4, Funny)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305216)

Even more peculiar, this movie appears to have only 2 cast members. Thank goodness they got THIS GUY [imdb.com] cast as the Hotdog Vendor. I think he's gonna nail the part!

Re:Cast? (1)

jomama717 (779243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305246)

At least they had the good sense to cast Jean-Robert Bourdage as the Hot Dog vendor.

I can't wait! (4, Funny)

BTWR (540147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305068)

War Games 2: The Direct-to-DVD Adventure

Re:I can't wait! (1)

dr_dank (472072) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305616)

Coming soon to a landfill near you!

In the real world he'd be shot (1)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305078)

and then his family would be shipped to Gitmo.

What moron thought up this as an idea for a sequel? I love movies [seattlefilm.com] , but this smells like a desperation move by someone clueless.

Count me out.

a better idea (1)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305096)

The film will be produced and distributed by MGM -- distributor of the original WarGames -- and directed by Stewart Gillard, director of such gems as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 3... The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.

At the rate they're going, why don't they just get Uwe Boll to direct?

They wanted Uwe (2, Funny)

Lurker2288 (995635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305232)

They tried to get Uwe, but he didn't like the way the producers were looking at him, so he punched them out.

Re:a better idea (1)

andphi (899406) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305244)

He was asked, but apparently replied, "I have standards now."

Re:a better idea (4, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305286)

hello yes i am UWE BOLL teh well-loved great DIRECTOR and now am making a new sequel to good movie WARGAMES which i never actuly see but i know I MAKE GOOD MOVIE if it from a game like BLOODRAYNE. now i tell you my GRATE PLAN for movie is not same hacekrs from first WARGAMES is new hackre is played by MAN FROM RESORVIR DOGS who name i never member but also MEATLLOAF is in movie with some more REAL ROMANIAN PORSTITUTS and resorver dogs man was drunk and meatloaf was drucnk and teh porstitues were drank heroin and meth too. and the hackres are also fighting with nazis and warewulfs and also a wizzrd who is maybe play by man with beards. is good movie you all love i am GREATEST DERCTIR MOVIES EVAR. if you not like i fite you but not rly. -- xo UWE BOLL

Re:a better idea (1)

bladesjester (774793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305696)

Frighteningly enough, it would be right up Uwe's alley because they *did* make a Wargames game based on the movie.

I actually have it around here somewhere. The computer AI was awful. At one point, I found a jeep going down the river (where it wasn't even supposed to be able to get to).

Owner should reliquish the domain (5, Funny)

9mm Censor (705379) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305160)

The owner of wargames.com should give MGM the domain, on one condition.

They beat him at Tic-Tac-Toe.

Re:Owner should reliquish the domain (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305558)

Surely he'd lose that contest. MGM is a huge entity, so it would either properly be represented by a team of players, or a computer.
Either way, I'd expect him to get sufficiently tired and make a mistake before the MGM side does.

You'd think they'd be more concerned with... (2, Informative)

jbarr (2233) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305176)

...WarGames2.com [slashdot.org] which is really more relevant to the movie...and already registered and re-directed to another site. At least content of WarGames.com appears to have some relevance to its name.

meh (2, Insightful)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305182)

Already sounds lame, I doubt it will have the soild story line and lesson that the first had, and it already sounds like its being made by and with sub par talent.

I am sure that it will focus to much on action sequences (for the most part the first had very few) and Technobabble/Technobuzz, that will confuse the uninitiated and make the rest of us groan. The first movie avoided most of that by not over explaining concepts and just sort of glossing over just letting the viewer assume there is a technology to make such a thing happen, and letting those in the know imagine how it might be possible.

So far sounds I'm seeing direct to video land, as its best hope.

Hopefully now I can be plesantly surprised, but I doubt it.

Re:meh (1)

skam240 (789197) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305730)

I am sure that it will focus to much on action sequences (for the most part the first had very few) and Technobabble/Technobuzz, that will confuse the uninitiated and make the rest of us groan.

one of the things that i enjoyed about the original was that most of the things the main character did with phones or computers were realistic. one could really do them given the proper knowledge and tools (at least back when the film was made). I agree with the above post that given the people in charge of the movie it is likely we will not see this kind of realism in the movie.

Re:meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305902)

Hell ya, the only thing that was unrealistic about the first movie was the AI the WOPR had was far too advanced to be believable. Everything else was pretty much spot-on.

Acoustically-coupled MODEMs: check
Autodial software: check
Creepy speech synthesis: check
Nerdy main character: check
Ultranerds at the university computer room: check

This new one probably has some good looking teen heartthrob as the main character. The only ugly people in the movie might be the bad guys.. Typical Hollywood bullshit.

deadcode why not deadbeef? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305188)

LAME!
0xDE
0xAD
0xC0
0xDE

What a truly unfortunate idea. (1)

Canthros (5769) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305198)

Really, why?

As popular as Firewall (4, Funny)

Alzheimers (467217) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305270)

This movie will be as popular as Firewall. [imdb.com]

You know, the one with Harrison Ford. He's a network security specialist.

HAN SOLO! INDIANA JONES! RICK DECKARD! DOING NETWORK SECURITY!

Well, if you can't get the nerds out to watch Han freakin Solo do Network Security...

The Over/Under is 5 (3, Funny)

b3x (586838) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305272)

On the number of LCD's _the_ super computer has attached to it.

Source or Classic? (4, Funny)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305280)

The plot revolves around a hacker breaking into a terrorism-simulation computer.

No AWPs!

They had to revise it for the times (5, Funny)

CaffeineAddict2001 (518485) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305282)

Would you like to play a game?
>> Y
Game Over. Opponent has no weapons.

nooooooooo (1, Insightful)

j_kenpo (571930) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305300)

Lets see, considering Hollywoods track record with movies sincce the time period of the original Wargames, I have a feeling that they are going to make this soooo bad that it will ruin any quality the original had. This.... this is why your profits are slipping, bad movies, not piracy.

Re:nooooooooo (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305656)

If the movies sucked that badly there would be no piracy.

Re:nooooooooo (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305812)

They're bound to get the 300 baud modem wrong.

No (1)

kofox (615130) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305352)

Yeah, I'd rather play a nice game of chess than watch this piece of crap...

Mr Potatohead! MR POTATOHEAD!! (4, Funny)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305356)

Remember when you asked me to tell you when you were being rude and insensitive? You're doing it now.

Broken Premise? (5, Insightful)

DG (989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305366)

The premise behind the original - for those too young to remember - is (abridged) that a hacker breaks in to a NORAD computer and proceeds to run a wargame simulation of an ICBM strike on the continental US. The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched.

That's probably not an exact synopsis of the plot, but it's close enough to make no nevermind.

Now in the world of Mutually Assured Destruction, which relies on a massive counterstrike against the initiator BEFORE his missiles arrive at their targets, this is at least a plausible scenario - close enough to allow sufficient suspension of disbelief to allow the movie to work. It's true that these command centres were manned 24/7 watching for any sign of an incoming strike, and that the time window between detecting the strike and making the decision to initiate the counterstrike was very small. It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.

But we aren't in that game anymore. There is no longer a 20 minute window in which someone has to decide to launch a nuclear counterstrike based on a fairly narrow band of incoming data. No terrorist group - indeed, very few nations - are capable of the "mutual" in "Mutually Assured Destruction".

So a Homeland Security central command centre starts reporting dozens to hundreds of terrorist strikes on US Territory? So what? Response will be in the hands of local Guard units and law enforcement/emergency responders, not a remote C3S cell. The worst that could happen is that troops are mobilized needlessly - and there's time to see if the purported strikes show up on CNN.

The premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.

That doesn't bode well for the success of the movie, methinks.

DG

Re:Broken Premise? (1)

Xentor (600436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305448)

Minor nitpick... In the original one, the whole gimmick was that they'd created a true A.I. computer to control the missile systems, so when the kid started playing "Global Thermo-Nuclear War", the computer decided to play for real, and it really WAS going to launch a nuclear attack.

Remember, the only way to win is not to play.

Doesn't change the problem though... (1)

DG (989) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305590)

Yeah, I vaguely remember the AI "coming back to life" and playing GTNW against itself (in simulation) and losing every time, then deciding the "only way to win is not to play".

But that doesn't make any difference; the AI playing "for real" or the actual human controllers seeing the game data on their screens and assuming they were seeing a real strike - the end result is the same thing: a real counterstrike launched in response to fake (simulated) data.

And while the process to get to that point is nowhere near as facile as depicted in the film, the concept is at least plausible.

But when you change the nature of the system to a counter-terrorism, there's no longer anyone to launch missiles against - thus, no consequences for duping either real humans or a controlling AI that a strike was ongoing.

Hard for a good movie to spring from a dumb premise....

DG

Re:Doesn't change the problem though... (1)

Xentor (600436) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305878)

(I'm not arguing with you... Just clearing up the plot of the first movie)

Actually, it wasn't a real strike in response to fake data. The computer tried that, and the people noticed it wasn't real. Then the AI decided it was going to launch a pre-emptive strike, and took over the entire system, because it was going to "win" the cold war.

Cool plot, actually. They used the tic-tac-toe game to teach the AI the concept of an unwinnable situation.

Not quite, but close (5, Informative)

localroger (258128) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305482)

Actually, in the opening scene of Wargames a psychological experiment reveals that many silo crews would not launch their ICBM's, there not being much point to pounding the rubble when the world is ending anyway. In order to plug this leak in our defense control of the missiles is handed directly to the WOPR supercomputer which already has the most trusted advisory role in case of an attack. And it's WOPR that Broderick hacks. And it's WOPR that doesn't realize the "game" is real, its missile control outputs having been directed to the control of real missiles. And the humans, having been removed from the decision loop, aren't in a position to stop it.

Re:Broken Premise? (3, Informative)

mo (2873) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305692)

It's also true that in real life there were a number of "near misses" where technical failures and other issues were initially interpreted as an incoming strike and disaster only narrowly averted.

The story of Stanislav Petrov [wikipedia.org] is a good account of one such instance.

Re:Broken Premise? (3, Insightful)

Junta (36770) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305694)

The game plays out on the screens of the main command centre at NORAD and, unable to tell that what they are seeing is not real, a retaliatory strike is nearly launched
I haven't seen the film in years, but I still can't imagine how someone could misremember it like that. The humans were not controlling the response, the computer was. Hence the whole 'play tic-tac-toe with itselfs'. They were watching the computer prepare to launch the strike and it wouldn't listen for some long-forgotten reason.

The blurb is really confusing "Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid. ", wtf does that mean?

There is a scenario I could think of that could mimic the War Games Scenario, on a somewhat reduced scale, related to the most common domestically feared terrorism attack, hijacked planes. Ripley could decide all passenger jets in the air are hijacked and control automated missile batteries to threaten all flights... Toss in some key characters on flights to bring the viewer more into it. It certainly doesn't speak to the MAD message that was central to War Games, but I doubt the studios have a particularly deep meaning in mind...

I seriously doubt this movie will be remotely good, but there exists potential for some of the fundamentals of the first movie to play out in the terrorist context..

Re:Broken Premise? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305752)

the premise only works in a Cold War, MAD environment, not the modern day "ball of snakes" environment.

Yeah, but what if the ball of snakes was on a plane. A plane with nuclear weapons, a gang of convicts, a plucky pre-teen girl and her dog, and the president! Then the plane crashes in NY, and the only hope is to send in more snakes [imdb.com] ! That would be so cool.

I'm depressed now... (1)

unsupported (230678) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305374)

BLASPHEMY! BLASPHEMY! Stuart Gillard, you are raping my childhood. What next? Are you going to have your way with my mother?

MGM, how dare you? Shame on you.. shame shame shame... everyone knows your name... I'm upset now.

0xDEADC0DE or boring? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305410)

Imagine a plot involving the AI Joshua who was ported through several generations of Unix before finally being ported to Windows NT and forgotten about. Joshua has become self aware and he doesn't much like Windows...

Oh no, never mind something vaguely imaginative, this is Hollywood and some cookie-cutter plot about terrorists in the style of 24 will be far more interesting I'm sureZZZZZzzzzzzzzz...

Re:Al Joshua? (1)

Migraineman (632203) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305676)

Al Joshua? Like the ugly step-brother to Al Jazeera? Ohhh ... that's A.I. ... damned non-serif font ... gotta get the glasses cleaned again.

Doesn't make much sense to have the propagandist news agency get all upset because they migrated from Unix to Winders.

Man I Really Hope... (2, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305434)

...that they recast Matthew Broderick as the erstwhile teen again. Sure he's a bit grey behind the ears, but he's still got the right composure. Right? RIGHT?

Re:Man I Really Hope... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17305858)

Right!

Who needs MGM? (5, Funny)

flaming error (1041742) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305440)

I get my mindless plot-holed terrorism fantasies from the US Govt.

Plot! (3, Funny)

Enoxice (993945) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305514)

The plot outline from IMDB (unedited, though it pained me): Computer hacker Will Farmer (Lanter) engages a goverment super-computer named Ripley in an online terrorist-attack simulation game. Little does Farmer know that Ripley has been designed to appeal to potential terrorists, and certain glitches have turned made him become paranoid.

So, this kid plays Counter-Strike against some bots? He's in de_dust, plants the bomb and starts thinking, "gee..terrorism sure is a bad thing, and by playing this game I'm almost condoning it. I must have been born to be a terr'ist. Better go turn myself in now...[logs off]"?

Sounds like a wonderful movie.

Could be good (1)

soft_guy (534437) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305572)

I would go see it if Mathew Broddrick were playing the father of the hacker and they had this film have continuity with the original film - i.e. bring back some of the characters who were kids then as adults now, inside jokes on the old film, etc.

Re:Could be good (1)

mbrod (19122) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305716)

Mathew Brodrick will have a cameo as an old school hacker locked up in Gitmo who the new kid talks to for advice.

Re:Could be good (1)

Anonymous Monkey (795756) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305734)

I think it would be cool if Mathew Broddrick turned into a Dr. Stephen Falken. But then again, I think it would be cooler if MGM didn't kick a dead horse.

Double Feature with Tron 2008? (1)

wardk (3037) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305604)

can't wait to miss the inevitable double feature

It would be funny if...... (2, Funny)

8127972 (73495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305622)

.... The domain that they grabbed got hijacked by some kid named David.

Ah yes the 'Broderick Initiative' (4, Funny)

Ridgelift (228977) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305756)

I'm sure they're planning to remake all of Matthew Broderick's films including "Ferris Bueller's Day Off 2 - Skippin' Work" where the now middle-aged Ferris and Cameron miss work to grow their sagging beer bellies and watch strippers all day.

Stupid Decision to Follow? (2, Informative)

multisync (218450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17305836)

One of the other arbitration cases MGM's attorney was involved in was Dell Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions over the domain name dellcomputersucks.com. From the National Arbitration Forum's finding: [adrforum.com]

9. Respondents domain name, dellcomputerssuck.com is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, DELL.


yeah, that one got me too. I was sure Dell had registered a domain to inform me of the suckiness of their products.

10. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name dellcomputerssuck.com.
... because criticizing the quality of Dell computers is the exclusive prerogative of Dell Inc.

11. Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.


This may have some merit. According to the Decision, the domain originally pointed to the respondent's site, on which he sold computers. After receiving the C&D, he pointed it to a site featuring commentary critical of Dell.

It really shouldn't matter though, as there is no way a reasonable person could confuse a site called dellcomputersucks.com with Dell's own website, thus violating their trademark. Unfortunately, Carolyn M. Johnson, Peter L. Michaelson, and Tyrus R. Atkinson, Jr. didn't see it that way:

12. The dellcomputerssuck.com domain name should be transferred to Complainant.


Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...