Hacker Cinema
Fast & Furious
2009 · Film · 107 min
Part of The Fast and the Furious Collection
Directed by Justin Lin
When a crime brings them back to L.A., fugitive ex-con Dom Toretto reignites his feud with agent Brian O'Conner. But as they are forced to confront a shared enemy, Dom and Brian must give in to an uncertain new trust if they hope to outmaneuver him. And the two men will find the best way to get revenge: push the limits of what's possible behind the wheel.
3 negative5 neutralfrom 8 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
8 comments on Hacker News
As a human, this looks terrifying. Imagine being attacked by robot dogs. Now imagine being attacked by robot dogs that have rocket launchers!
Straight out of a Fast & Furious movie. You can(!) make this shit up.
But as a person in tech, where all my values are directed towards "making a better world"... this also goes against every ideal we have. Unless you count living in a world where we have the ability to exterminate a large amount of people without proportional retaliation as a "better world", in a non-nuclear way.
We don't use biological weapons, so why use seeing robots with rockets on them? Oh yeah I forgot, we can't "catch a disease" from these robots, and they have a "limited" damage capability, unlike bio-warfare that can go out of hand and can poison lands.
Coincidentally, the second point also means that we'll have to make a lot of them, and gosh darn it we'll have to build more factories and supply jobs to people. Wait a min...
I'm really happy that less marines will be put in harms way when they try to launch missiles from their shoulders (also crazy if you think about it too much), but they did sign up for it, and they're not facing an army that can comprehend what's coming towards them.
I've got competing opinions in my head, but one thing is for sure, autonomous warfare can either be a chess game that countries play (as a proxy for all the human lives), or the final game we'll play.
I think you have a too narrow view of people’s interests.
I would describe the overlap as “people into films that are with a relatively high likelihood interesting”. Given who is directing and who is involved with both of those films that’s a relatively safe bet.
Fast & Furious in a double feature with Trolls. That’s what I would describe as double feature with little overlap. Both films have probably relatively distinct demographics that like them and the films are unlikely to be in any way interesting.
> It's just short term planning with complete disregard for the long term health of the company. How the board of directors doesn't see this is shocking.
I wonder if milking the company's reputation like this perhaps actually is the most optimal strategy for Blizzard. Innovation requires investment and luck, and it can create a great reputation for a brand. Once you have that reputation though, perhaps it's not rational to try your luck again. Maybe the expectation value is highest if you just sell out.
It's not just Blizzard, see e.g. the twelfth installment of Assassin's Creed or the eighteenth installment of Call of Duty. For that matter, it's not even just video games. Look at the tenth Fast & Furious movie or the fifteenth iPhone that are coming out soon, and will surely sell like crazy, even though they'll probably not be very innovative.
> Fast & Furious
Was the Fourth movie, in 2009. First one was The Fast and The Furious. Definite articles and no ampersand.
You're assuming that these films are made first for the USA. As an example, the last Fast & Furious made more money in China as compared to the USA, and that's with a Taiwan controversy: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/title/tt5433138/
It seems like the current movie business is mostly just a parasite on the back of 50 year old content (Marvel Silver age, Star Wars universe, Disney catalogs, Netflix 3rd party licensed content, et al.)
The long tail of good content is very long. I wouldn't be surprised if Casablanca still generates annual royalties in excess of it's entire original cost, 80 years later. A great movie is a piece of artwork and like the Mona Lisa centuries later, has a timeless aspect to it.
I don't disagree with Diller per se. In fact, "They ain't movies. They are some weird algorithmic process that has created things that last 100 minutes or so." is one of the best descriptions of modern film I've ever seen.
May it is just because of the limits of the article length, but I think it's far more about short form content and limits of human attention. I'd rather watch several 10-20 minute videos from niche Youtube creators in a week than one two hour movie most of the time, and I can't do both.
In that sense, Katzenberg /Quibli were probably onto something. You have to remember Diller created the anonymous content conglomerate of IAC and is commenting on Quibli from that perspective. He admits himself, at the end, that he's working on backing Broadway productions so he's not satisfied with the content landscape, either. Maybe someone will figure out what it means to make something that squares good content with the time/format demands of a modern viewer.
TL;DR: I'm sick of Fast & Furious and Marvel franchise spin offs. Feels like someone made the film analogue of discovering that kids like candy and will preferentially take it over healthier food when offered.
Yes, same here - I'm the star of the Bald & Beautiful in my family, but I don't want to influence my receding hair choices to them, unless you plan on landing male role in future Fast & Furious, Die Hard, or any Rock-infused movie.
Such a technology is the McGuffin in the last two Fast & Furious movies where it’s called God’s Eye (or The Devil’s Bumhole, by one character)