guyton%rand-unix@sri-unix.UUCP (06/28/83)
Aw come on people, it's just a movie! There were some flaws, but not so many or so damaging as to destroy my enjoyment of the film. I'd been trying to hold back, but the last digest full of anti-Wargames msgs was just too much to let go by ... *** Flame On *** First forget the realism/non-realism stuff. Much more un-realistic films have been released and gotten rave reviews from the folks on sf-lovers. This is a science- fiction/fantasy/monster film, realism isn't the issue here. Forget also for a moment the moronic producers who will say anything they can think of to try and get more people to see the film, and the know-less-than-nothing reviewers who think the film is an accurate reflection of today's computer technology. The real issue is the negative message of the film. I do not agree with Lauren that the message is one of "Computers are Bad", but think instead that it is one of "think twice before giving up control to a computer." And ya know, I agree with that message! I've been hacking with computers for over 14 years, and I'd prefer everyone be a little suspicious of computer systems. Control once granted to a computer system is not very likely to be returned, so you might as well be nice and careful about how fast you give up control. Anything else falls under the category of blind faith in high tech. I believe that's where I differ most from the people who don't like this little film. I think the computer industry can and should be submitted to this type of attack, for if it can't refute it then something is very wrong. The nameless masses rising in arms against the monster computer has me worried not at all. But computer illiterates blindly promoting the latest computer systems (in the hope of making themselves look like heros) has me worried quite a bit. *** Flame Off *** Cheers, -- Jim Guyton p.s. It is now 2 AM, do you know what *your* computer is doing?
joe@cvl.UUCP (07/02/83)
Of course, it's just a movie. But if you're going to argue that we shouldn't critically evaluate it on the grounds that "this is a science-fiction/fantasy/monster film," well...I don't have any interest whatsoever in such films. What you really mean is it's a B-movie bug-eyed monster film. And a bunch of reviewers are going around talking about it as if it weren't. Completely disregarding the technology, there was still absolutely NOTHING believable about WarGames. The characters were one dimensional, the plot was silly, the actions had no visible motivations, and moral was subtly revealed with a sledgehammer. There's no question of "realism" here. But if you can't suspend disbelief, then what's the point in sitting through the movie? If the film was really about giving control to human beings instead of computers, then it did a poor job of demonstrating the "favored" alternative. I'm sorry, but the way the human beings in WarGames behaved, I sure hope that the computers are in charge. At least they don't do things without SOME sort of justification. Yours for a sane society, joe pallas
dwex@wxlvax.UUCP (07/03/83)
I'm really getting sick of all the cuts at WarGames. You people entirely
missed the point of the movie. Nobody ever said it was there to show how great
or how dangerous computers were. The point of the movie was that nuclear war
sucks; there is no way to win, and people should get that through their thick
heads. Needless to say, I agree with that point of view. Sure there were
inaccuracies; what movie doesn't have them? But I challenge anyone to show
me something that is strictly IMPOSSIBLE (not UNLIKELY, but IMPOSSIBLE).
I am 18 years old. Maybe the movie was aimed at my age group, and that's
whay it had such an impact on me. I don't want to see any comments saying
that I'm just a kid and that I don't know what I'm talking about. I have
been programming computers for ten years. (That's right, I started when I was
eight years old.) I am working this summer as a programmer for I.T.T., so I
know my stuff in that area. Also, when I was younger, I was very into the
military, even considering it as a career, until several years ago it dawned
on me that war is STUPID. So I know what I'm talking about in that respect
too.
I saw nothing in the movie that could NOT have been done. There was much
that was unlikely (WOPR itself, mainly), but I have seen programs that "learn".
WOPR was just an extension. There was nothing remarkable about David's
abilities, either. Given the money, I could have done the same things. And
why couldn't WOPR have had that warped personality? Dr. Falken certainly
did, and he programmed it.
I have said enough. I'm sure I will get flamed at for actually daring to
LIKE the movie. (I thought it was one of the best movies I had ever seen).
I'm not ashamed of it.
David Wexelblat
...decvax!ittvax!wxlvax!dwex
P.S. To add insult to injury, I noticed that no one else has mentioned the
two boo-boos that I picked up:
1) When David was given the option of which side to choose in the
game, his response appeared on the monitor before he typed it.
2) The fat general told SAC to scramble two F-16 fighters, and they
showed pictures of two F-15s.rb@houxn.UUCP (07/05/83)
Already was approched by a juvenile hacker who thought the MODEM program was "neat"....and proceeded to search for hundreds of "SPRINT" access codes. I warned him of the penalties if he were to be discovered... He said he'd take his chances, and meanwhile he's saving a fortune on his data calls.