Hacker Cinema
Mission: Impossible
1996 · Film · 111 min
Part of Mission: Impossible Collection
Directed by Brian De Palma
When Ethan Hunt, the leader of a crack espionage team whose perilous operation has gone awry with no explanation, discovers that a mole has penetrated the CIA, he's surprised to learn that he's the prime suspect. To clear his name, Hunt now must ferret out the real double agent and, in the process, even the score.
11 positive14 negative71 neutralfrom 96 commenters
Where to watch
No streaming data for this title.
99 comments on Hacker News
https://opper.ai/ai-roundtable/questions/22ff5b36-409
"collinmcnulty 1 minute ago | parent | next [–]
"Is this a deepfake video call" is a major plot point in a pretty big movie currently in theaters, so I think this is getting into the broader zeitgeist."
Which movie is discussed?
Resulted in claude naming the Mission Impossible as a possibility.
It was hilarious when I checked the movie listings for this week and found Greenland 2 in its opening run.
So I went to YouTube and rented Greenland (2010). It was a hoot! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_(film)
I wrote "it's the second funniest rom-com I've ever seen". But seriously, it was filmed in close collaboration with the United States Air Force. (Much like Mission: Impossible was a collab between US Gov and US Mil units.)
It is kind of a fun ride if you're willing to suspend that much disbelief.
But I just found it hilarious that a pair of films named and set in Greenland should be produced in this way, while the actual country is in our news cycle now. I almost feel like it's a "PR buzz campaign".
The article suggests Larry thinks his son has demonstrated brilliance as a media executive:
Their relationship grew warmer as David Ellison achieved professional success, they said. Larry Ellison has always considered himself wise about Hollywood, and one of his best friends, Steve Jobs, mentored the son about the business as well.
Larry Ellison was initially skeptical of Skydance, the Hollywood company that his son started and that bought Paramount. But he has told friends in recent years that he considers his son to be one of the smartest people in the business world, trusts his judgment and tends to agree with him on corporate matters, several people with knowledge of the Ellisons said.
Is Skydance/Paramount under Ellison ahead of other Hollywood firms in terms of successful development of profitable film/streaming properties? A quick look at the list of successes shows IP that was initially developed outside of Skydance ... Mission Impossible, Terminator, Star Trek, etc.
I have seen tons of great movies made after 2010, but must admit I’m having trouble thinking of any blockbuster-type movies that stand up to the best of the 70s, 80s, and 90s.
Does Fury Road count? I dunno. The closest I can get aside from that are a couple Tarantino movies. Jurassic Park, the first Mission Impossible movie, Aliens, Jaws, hell even Independence Day. Nothing’s quite up there. Lots that are a kind of janky B-movie sort of good, but nothing as solid as those. Almost all are marred by lots of CG that might look ok at the time but seem dodgy and very distracting within 5 years max, for one thing (to be fair, Jurassic Park suffers from that in a couple scenes, too)
I don't think there is anything wrong with liking popular things and tbh this attitude that somehow you are better because you like more niche things is very close to snobbery. I am not saying that is your intention, but it can come off that way.
There are plenty of popular franchises that I've liked in the past. There are plenty of "slop" movies that I enjoy, I really like Mission Impossible movies, Fast and Furious movies. I've also liked some of the Call of Duty games. There is room for both.
No, they are different things. Physicists of today are technically much better than those of 50 years ago; basketball players, soccer players, musicians, they are all better, on average, than their colleagues of decades ago, for obvious reasons.
I was imprecise when using the term "creativity"--what I wanted to say is that the human experience is varied but not infinite. How many more Mission Impossible, special agent, whatever, can be perceived as "original"? The interesting part of the James Bond movie is who is the next Bond, the costume, maybe the Bond-girl or the location, but the plot is of very little interest; it is all already watched.
I have seen 2,000 kidnappings in movies, one million people dying in all sorts of ways (and never seen a shooting irl), I don't know how many affairs, failed marriages, aliens coming and going I have watched; it becomes increasingly difficult over time to propose plots and ways of narrating that don't evoke a "already seen" feeling.
After the peplum films of the 1950s, there was a hiatus in terms of ancient Rome settings. Then came Gladiator, Rome, and Spartacus, which were exciting. Now, when you watch Gladiator 2, it feels like you've seen it before, at least to me. Maybe if they stopped making these films for a couple of decades, they would become novel again.
I reject that, it's a product of familiarity being more comfortable.
24fps was not a deliberate choice that was made a century after we previously had high frame-rate. It was a limitation at the time.
Impressionism was a deliberate choice, it came centuries after more detailed paintings were being done. And there were indeed many critics of the movement at the time.
24fps in movies is just banking on the comfortable, the familiar. It isn't art, it's giving people what they expect and not challenging people. It has about as much artistic merit as the N'th Mission impossible movie or MCU movie.
In the new Mission: Impossible film they're tasked with making an 8" disk drive from scratch. That should be his next video :)
I’m sat in premium economy now, with plenty of legroom (39” pitch I believe) and width (2-4-2 rather than 3-4-3). Feels similar to the first class seat ton cruise was in in the first mission impossible film. Except without the smoking, and far cheaper.
Business class gives me a bed to sleep on, and first class is beyond that. That don’t exist in the 80s let alone 60s
Looks like they make pretty dashboards for action movies like Mission Impossible.
Drilling the lock is literally what emergency locksmiths do. This isn't a Mission Impossible movie. Bet you don't forget your key now.
RISC Mac? Why am I reminded of the original Mission Impossible movie?
We considered Mission Impossible as well. Glad we didn't. I will probably never watch another movie again if this is what movies are.
> The whole movie felt like "reels" stitched together, with no scene lasting longer than 5 minutes.
I felt the same way about the first hour of the new mission impossible movie. It was so annoying to me that I left after that, so maybe it got better in hour two.
I went to see Mission Impossible the other day. It was the first movie I'd seen in theaters in a long time, and honestly it was underwhelming. I have a projector at home and don't generally care about seeing the latest movies (it used to matter to me but no longer does). I don't know when I'll be back, it was that mediocre of an experience.
My sound system isn't as good, but it seems like a better investment to add a couple rear speakers to my Sonos setup instead of continuing to see movies in theaters (at nearly 20/person!). Adding speakers would also make music and TV sound better, not just the movies.
Leaving outside the ethical part of it - which is huge, this kills innovation.
The problem I see is that when everything is iterative, and you kill sustainable incentives for new views, innovation disappears.
Is like the movies. We will get all budget towards remakes and reboots, and little new would show up.
Being an 80s guy, I remember many new movies coming out every year, and when they stretched beyond 2 or 3 films, people frowned.
Back to the future, Indy (the good years), Rambo (first 3), lethal weapon. Cool gems came up too (Last action hero?Terminator) even in loaded fields like simple action movies…. Star Wars, 3 films. Matrix. bond was the exception.
Now? mission impossible (8 films at over 2h), fast and mediocre franchise (20 movies), Marvel and DC movies (3 movies shot 30 different times), and everything else is a reboot. Almost impossible for new ideas to get through.
We are killing culture, innovation and human spark for some companies to make a billion more. We are feeding like factory pigs from generic slop, and as the factories grow they kill fertile ground for those who wanted to eat something cleaner.
The fact that is happening does not mean it’s right. It’s just we are accepting mediocrity as our guiding principle at 0.01 USD a pop…
i think the applications to spy-craft could be quite interesting here. Something for the next mission impossible movie maybe?
This is the thing about Top Gun and the mission impossible movies.
Tom Cruise still remembers that we go to the theater to be entertained. And he delivers on that above everything else.
And he knows how to give the fans what they want, all the way up to the gimmicky use of an F14 in Top Gun 2. Or seeing IceMan again.
> “For us, our biggest goal is to create enough value that yes, you would be willing to pay for [Gemini],” Google TV VP and GM Shalini Govil-Pai told the publication.
> The executive pointed to future capabilities for the Gemini-driven Google Assistant on TVs, including asking it to “suggest a movie like Jurassic Park but suitable for young children” or to show “Bollywood movies that are similar to Mission: Impossible.”
That seems so incredibly useless it reads like parody. No, I will not be willing to pay for Gemini for that.
I can’t imagine ever asking questions like those in my life... and even if one day I were drunk, high, and concussed enough to ask, I wouldn’t need to ask my TV—I could just go to claude.ai on my phone instead because I already pay for it.
> Google is also working toward having people pay a subscription fee to use Gemini on their TVs, PCWorld reported.
> “For us, our biggest goal is to create enough value that yes, you would be willing to pay for [Gemini],” Google TV VP and GM Shalini Govil-Pai told the publication.
> The executive pointed to future capabilities for the Gemini-driven Google Assistant on TVs, including asking it to “suggest a movie like Jurassic Park but suitable for young children” or to show “Bollywood movies that are similar to Mission: Impossible.”
You don't even need LLMs for a recommendation system. Just matrix factorisation is enough for a very good recommendation system. A local transformer model is enough for the Text to Speech part.
Surely is the product (Google Play TV & Movies, Youtube Premium) is selling you video content, recommending content to spend your money on is just marketing not a user facing subscription service.
Imagine Spotify wanting to charge you on top of your subscription to get music recommendations.
Sort of like how several plot points of the last Mission: Impossible movie could have been thwarted by a zipper.
It's crazy how Apple is behind in this space. Smart AR glasses were conceptualized as early as the 1990s in movies like Mission Impossible (1996) and we had consumer-ready device (Google Glass) roughly 11 years ago. Yet, Apple wants to push out a "fresh" phone every year with hogwash new features.
I tend to agree. Most people have no idea that every commercial or film, ends up dumping or destroying almost all the stuff in the video.
I remember there was a Scene in one of the more recent mission impossible movies where the director was interviewed as joking about how they budgeted to destroy 3 lamborgini's for a action sequence but ended up needing to destroy 4 of them. These were brand new, straight off the lot lambos that just got shot at, crashed, and blown up for the movie. No one cries about that, instead they marvel at the "practical effects" of the movie.
This isn't even a unique example. A lot or props that DON'T get destroyed and are just used for one quick scene, like a chello in the background, often go straight to the dump after the scene is filmed, because they just bring in a dump crew to get rid of everything.
I guess the difference is ignorance is bliss. People don't see the amount of absurd waste that happens in commercials and movies, so they can enjoy it. Strangly, even seeing it on screen (like a car blowing up) doesn't bother them. But a slow crushing of an instrument for 20 seconds does trigger them.
The amount of waste that this produced is inconsequential, not even a rounding error for the amount of waste that a warehouse up the street from anyone reading this is performing as you read this comment. And yes, there are so many of these companies creating unfathomable amounts of waste that no matter where you live, you have one probably within a few miles of your home that you never knew about.
I would tend to side with those that are triggered if these instruments were antiques that couldn't be replaced. However, these appeared to be common instruments. I actually play guitar and the guitar actually looks like a pretty cheap guitar. These get bought at Costco and returned and dumped everyday. They are commodities, they are pumped out of factories en masse in Vietnam and contain a hundred bucks of parts, wood, etc. Most of these guitars end up in the dump anyway. The upright piano is a little different because they tend to be several thousands of dollars, but again this looks like a modern, generic piano.
I am happy to have discussions about the vast amount of waste humans have, because it is truly unfathomable. Most people have no idea how bad the problem is. But watching some paints, a metronome, a single guitar and piano get destroyed is not even the beginning of the real problem. So if we want to have a discussion about waste, let's have it. It's a serious problem, but this feels like a joke that a handful of items that doesn't even equate to what an average American probably dumps when they move houses, seems like a stupid hill to die on.
I guess it's just how my mind works but I thought this will make a great part of some stories I'm working on, only adapted for cat burglars to figure out the optimal route on a building beforehand.
Maybe also good thing for the next Mission Impossible movie if they ever make one.
I watch movies while doing other things (cleaning the house or certain design tasks at the computer) which makes it very easy to watch them again! I go through them quickly and will tend to go back to them after about a year. I recently watched all of the Mission Impossible movies over the course of a few days.
I think that was reasonable thing to bet over a decade ago. But these days there are very few Big time movie star who can carry a movie on their back. The Last big movie star would be Tom Cruise and he also isn't a surefire way to success by how the latest Mission impossible Performed. The more reasonable thing to bet on these days is Recognizable IP which is what the Big studios have been milking for years. And that also gives more power to the Studio since people don't go to theater for Robert Pattison, they go there for Batman.
Agree with your overall point, but the Mission Impossible thing isn't that surprising to me. I think a lot of people are tired of endless reboots/sequels of action-adventure movies. Also I think Tom Cruise can have the opposite of star power these days, a lot of people feel kind of ick about him.
On the competition aspect, I think it's also important to look at the consumer side. For me it was wild knowing Mission Impossible struggled at the box office because of Barbie/Oppenheimer, especially because it was such a big budget film and it was actually my favorite of the three. The reality is that most people would maybe go once a month to the cinema, so they have to prioritize what to watch.
To make matters worse, you are also competing with all of history. If you want to read 12 books this year, when are you going to get to the small creators with years-worth of classics to go through?
They'll also benefit from the boom on the graphics side as well.
Once gen AI gets good enough to generate high quality video games, virtual worlds, etc. in real time, that will redefine gaming and entertainment.
Why wait for the next Mission Impossible movie to come out when you can experience it...as Tom Cruise...with your own storyline with all of your friends. And get a new one every day.
The one that really yanked me out of the movie was the first tom cruise mission impossible and he does a web search for 'job'.
> 2023 had a lot of big-budget bombs. Ant-Man, Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, Transformers, The Flash, Fast X, Blue Beetle, Elemental, Shazam!, and the Marvels all underperformed somewhere on the scale from "disappointment" to "disaster".
And rightly so. The so-called special effects in those superhero movies are really getting exhausting. What's the point of having superpower yet battling like a peasant in medieval times? What's the point of having super intelligence yet making so many illogical decisions? What's the point of having the best technologies on earth yet having your tribe living in dirt and fighting with rhinos and using duet to elect your leaders? I can even tolerate such plot holes if the movies have good stories or interesting characters, but do they?
2023 had a lot of big-budget bombs. Ant-Man, Indiana Jones, Mission Impossible, Transformers, The Flash, Fast X, Blue Beetle, Elemental, Shazam!, and the Marvels all underperformed somewhere on the scale from "disappointment" to "disaster".
On the other hand, aside from the massive big-budget hits of Barbie and Mario, there were also a number of mid-budget films that did very well: John Wick 4, Sound of Freedom, Five Nights at Freddy's, Cocaine Bear and M3GAN all exceeded expectations.
So it's hard to interpret this as the "middle class" of movies disappearing. I'd say it's the opposite, in fact. People have gotten sick of the big-budget crap that follows the same formula (note how most of those bombs are superhero movies). It's really the big-budget films that are falling apart.
I remember names, I remember faces, just fine. What I miss is the ability to tie them together. Especially people I haven't smelled in a while or at all.
My wife is a bit worse; she gets names mixed up but in a deep way. So when we watch a movie she'll insist (fr example) that we're seeing Robin Williams in "Anaconda", he's the same guy was in "Mission Impossible"... or "You know, the guy that was Gimili and Sallah in Indiana Jones, Dom DeLuise."
She'll come out with something like that; I know she's talking about someone else, and can bring the face to mind; but not the name. or vice versa.
Makes for fun discussions about "what we want to watch tonight," and the occasional pause a movie to go track down who someone is and where we saw them before.
I'm going to put it out there..... if I had a trillion dollar company or whatever facebook is, then I think I would have done a better job getting Threads built.
And now its built, I'd have done a better job advertising and marketing it.
Let me ask you - when the latest Mission Impossible movie came out, when the latest Spiderman movie came out, did you see ads absolutely fucking everywhere? Yes you did - bus stops, TV, YouTube - everywhere you turned, that message was being sold to you. When the latest Apple phone came out, were you even able to escape the Apple advertising on radio, TV, YouTube, magazines, whatever? No, you were not able to escape.
Let me ask you - how many slick, stylish, compelling ads have you seen for Threads? Is the answer "absolutely everywhere", or is the answer "nowhere, never, none"? Or is the answer "damn facebook is pushing Threads down my throat".
The incompetence firstly of the technical build then secondly of the marketing is startling.
The conclusion has to be either facebook genuinely doesn't care about Threads, it's just a distraction from trying to make the metaverse, OR they genuinely care but they genuinely have no idea what they are doing, despite having all the money in the world.
I bought an licensed VHS of Mission Impossible in '96, and had to FFW through trailers for other movies made by that studio.
The defense of “you shouldn’t change anything about my beloved series” is pretty flimsy.
If you don’t change anything, then what’s the point of watching/reading/playing the same thing over and over? Doesn’t any series just get incredibly boring without variation?
Great literature, TV, and films say things. Sometimes you might not agree. But at least it makes you think. Ideally, each entry in a series should say different or evolving things. Just look at how The Wire explores different aspects of Baltimore’s crime epidemic in each season as an example.
And I’m not saying Captain Marvel is great or even good by the way. I thought it was just another boring superhero move, and a D or F tier at that. Same goes for a lot of your other examples.
But I do think even beloved series have to have room for adaptation and experimentation. Because otherwise, they stagnate and can get to a point where they’re no longer worth watching.
Just look at Mission Impossible for example. Each film is well made and has fun action. But do we really ever need another one? Doesn’t essentially the same thing happen every time? Isn’t Ethan Hunt always going to save the day and risk everything for his friends and the mission?
Smuggle people out of North Korea on a massive scale. I'm imagining scenes like a Mission Impossible movie.
This seems to be the case with virtually any profession. You have to just learn to live with it, mostly, maybe even laugh at it. It was damn near a pasttime when I was still in the Army to make fun of how the military is portrayed in film and television. Basic as fuck shit like almost no one even has a haircut that meets regulations. It also makes you doubly appreciate when someone gets it right. We all loved Band of Brothers for that. At least the first season of Mr. Robot stands out in light of so many ridiculous and shitty "hacker" portrayals. Having worked on classified projects is even worse. After working for the NRO for years, scenes of people willy-nilly taking over satellites are so silly you just have to take it as part of the way that fictional universe works, clearly unlike the real universe. The Mission Impossible movies are still pretty entertaining in spite of it.
Honestly, probably the worst thing I can recall is the first season of The Walking Dead when Rick hides inside of a tank turret. I was a tank commander back in my time. Do television writers really think there is that much space inside the turret?
FWIW I don't think it's necessarily bad that a old game franchises continue to get made.
I don't have experience with every franchise here but at lest with God of War and Call of Duty, there are lots of gameplay and graphical innovations that get made despite the game being largely the same at the 10,000 foot level.
On top of that a lot of people enjoy these games and are willing to pay for a version that works on modern platforms with higher res textures/models and quality of life improvements.
Mission Impossible and Fast and the Furious franchises are approaching 20 movie sequels between them, but people are willing to pay to see them because its fun and each movie brings something new to the table. Some Anime franchises have hundreds of episodes.
It's like ordering a burger or Mac & Cheese. You like it and you know what you're going to get, and sometimes that's what you want.
Fair enough. My experience is fairly recent but it might also be a military vs intelligence agency thing.
All the classified/SCIF systems I used were networked, though the networks were physically segmented and most of the classified systems I used did not have internet access. Whether that counts as "air gapped" in your book I dunno, but I never came across anything like the room out of the original Mission Impossible film where the machine has no network access at all. In fact I question the utility of such a machine.
I went to a theater to watch Mission: Impossible last night. It has a really long runtime (2h 48m) and, toward the end of the film, I started seeing multiple people pull out their phones for a time check; I had to stop myself from doing the same.
I don't disagree with your initial point, copyright does indeed work to allow people to make income on things they've produced in the past. I think where we disagree is on that being a bad thing.
It costs huge amounts of money to make a TV show, even one that doesn't look technically demanding. You summarise it as "gatekeeping access to already-produced digital files", when as I'm sure you know the costs here aren't the incremental cost of providing you with a copy of that file, the costs are the initial production of the contents of that file which is amortised over however many thousands or millions of people are going to watch it.
As fun as theatre can be, I don't think you'll get many people deciding they want to go and watch the live stage production of the new Mission Impossible (unless I guess every night they blow up the entire theatre, but then you have the same issues of cost).
In my opinion copyright law is overreaching now. The fact that Tolkien's children are still raking in money from his work is somewhat ridiculous to me, there should definitely be better limitations on copyright length, with work entering the public domain sooner than it does now, but I don't think the system is fundamentally broken.
>But yea, it's well designed, so it's supposed to be "hard to believe".
It's so "well designed" that it makes no sense :) Reminds me of Rick and Morty's heist plot developed by that robot. At the end of the day you can come up with endless conspiracy theories and plots if your imagination is good enough and you watched all the Mission Impossible movies, and then then when people question it you just tell them "it's so well thought out that it's hard to believe" and you win every argument.
Why is it so hard to accept that Snowden really walked out with confidential info and sent it to the press out of his own accord over his own worries of privacy violations he was in charge of? The simplest expatiation is usually the right one, no need to come up with false flag spy plots.
FFS, some teenager working for the Airforce leaked military intelligence on the war in Ukraine on some Discord server just to win an online argument. Do you think that was some false-flag op too? Intelligence blunders happen all the time, it's a wonder we don't get even more leaks.
Just as important, it's about exposure that's refined, polished, planned. If Tom Cruise was in a reality show, seeing him as his everyday self, instead of Ethan Hunt in a highly produced Mission Impossible movie that took Tom Cruise thousands of hours work, training, a large team, editing, SFX, engineers, VFX etc. Then he wouldn't be the same Tom Cruise in your mind.
Oh, it was definitely paid! As another mentioned, a year later they spent $16 million on an ad campaign for Mission: Impossible, a movie they got the PowerBook to too late and that didn’t have any of the Mac UI in the film.
But the best part was that Gil Amelio, the CEO at the time (and the third in like 36 months or something) ignored all of his lieutenants and shipped that PowerBook, even tho it had massive problems (and later, I think exploding batteries) but it shipped late so they couldn’t get it out on shelves to take advantage of the commercials and product placement.
But Amelio did get one to Whoopi Goldberg, who called about one for her nephew or something. Almost all of them were recalled, however. Amelio shared this story in his book as if he should be proud he got Whoopi Goldberg a broken computer.
Apple still does product placement in certain films and TV shows (not just Apple TV stuff) but tried to keep it on the downlow.
Apple did (and still does) a lot of paid placement. For the first Tom Cruise Mission: Impossible film around that same era, they even did an ad-spot tie in[0], which makes it pretty obvious that the usage of Macs in that movie was paid placement.
[0] https://youtu.be/c2J4Zuiakhk
The Net is a guilty pleasure of a movie
> But we don't talk enough about how improbable it would be that this elite hacker circa 1994/1995 would be using a Mac in those cursed Michael Spindler times.
Fast forward to 2011 where The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo also uses a Mac for hacking, a bit cringe but not as impossible like Mission Impossible, then in the same movie she uses Nokia 770 and that thing had some genuine superpowers compared to Nokia 9210
You know what we don't talk enough about about this movie? Angela was a Mac user -- and not a Mac user when it was cool to be a Mac user, a Mac user when it was extremely not cool to be a Mac user and a Mac would be the worst machine you could use circa 1994/1995 to hack into anything. (Mission: Impossible used a Mac too, but they didn't use the Mac OS 7 UI, meaning Ethan used a command line, which was wrong but "felt" more hackery.) They even shot the final sequence at a Macworld or something if my Mac-trivia-adled brain is remembering correctly.
Anyway, in 5th grade or whatever, we totally used to use the same names and icons that they had in "The Net" when chatting with one another using AppleTalk or whatever the networked chat system was that you could use in the Mac lab.
But we don't talk enough about how improbable it would be that this elite hacker circa 1994/1995 would be using a Mac in those cursed Michael Spindler times.
Did you read the article?
WIV collected dangerous coronavirus, mixed those virus's genetic material to make more infectious strains. They wrote scientific papers about this themselves, you can read them yourself. They tested these mixed viruses (called chimeric virus) on mice with human-like lungs to find the most dangerous and infectious ones. You can read about this in the grant funding for WIV.
Then proposed splicing in the furin cleavage site into these dangerous chimeric viruses. The US funders balked at this last step, splicing the furin cleavage site in, and didn't give a grant grant money for this proposed step. It's not proven, but it sure seems like they actually did the research, because the furin cleavage site seems to be main thing that makes COVID-19 so infectious. They proposed testing these viruses on mice with human lungs and circulatory systems.
so... do you now understand why people are talking about gain of function? Viruses like this don't exist in nature, and scientists are making them and then testing them on animals that have been genetically engineered to have human-like organs, so they can figure out how to make the most dangerous ones.
This isn't new, there is a mission impossible movie where a chimeric virus is the boogie man.
Making mice with human lungs and CRISPER is new, and then doing this level of research in place with the same level of biosafety as a dental office is a new wrinkle.
I think they likely meant closer to current technology and society. The Mission Impossible movies, for example.
Most modern day blockbusters also seem to have transparently obvious CGI. All these Marvel movies aren't even trying to hide that the visuals on-screen are all CGI. The post Infinity Wars movies are particularly egregious.
There are movies like the Mission Impossible series that use plenty of CGI but most of the time you won't even catch it.
Today? Go watch it, it might still be in cinemas, it's a fantastic movie.
(Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of Tom Cruise's movies, especially the Mission:Impossible franchise)
The Mission Impossible films have maintained high quality despite an absurd number of sequels.
I’d also compare _Everything Everywhere All at Once_ favorably against a lot of old blockbusters.
Modern technology aside, Top Gun: Maverick feels like it could have come out thirty years ago.
The list of social networks Twitter has outlasted is too long to list. It’s been 16 years; I’d say it’s no fad.
Elon and Jack’s plans sound like the plot for the next Mission Impossible movie, which is pretty scary if they can pull it off.
This is why I despise movies like James Bond and Mission Impossible and love the movie The Lives of Others. James Bond would be the worst spy ever and is unlike any spy I know. Why should we glamourize those who spy on us?
> … yes, because that worked well.
Just to be clear, Mission Impossible is not a documentary.
Around here in London they always say "it's an independent film" when actually it is Mission Impossible or After Life or Downton etc.
I have no problem to defend Drive against Fugitive, Fugitive aged really bad and it feels like cheap TV movie, Drive is obviously much newer, has great cinematography, great score, atmosphere, nice action and aged really good despite being 11 years already (but I am not really some big fan of Drive, just saying it's better than Fugitive). Btw. just because something is "stupid action flick" it doesn't mean it can't be good at it, you can have good stupid action flicks and you can have bad stupid action flicks. I don't usually watch stupid action flicks (I'm more (social) drama guy), but when I do I want to watch the good ones.
I'm recently rewatching movies starting from 90s and while The Rock was still enjoyable even in 2022 (8mm or Absolute power were meh, same as already back then), I remember Fugitive being pretty bad already many years ago. Movies like Die Hard, Speed, Con Air, Mission impossible, Enemy of the state, were all better than Harrison action movies, which always felt like cheap TV movies with low production value. Meanwhile we have 2 year newer Heat, which is still for sure in top 5 best action/crime movies ever and aged amazingly and could easily beat any day any new action/crime movie. The production value and director skills are on completely different level than Harrison action movies. I just checked the most famous Harrison action movies I remember from 90s - Fugitive, Clear and Present danger, The Devil's Own and Air Force one - all 4 have different director, 3 directors nobody remembers and 4th only thanks to Das Boot.
Marvel films have cheap, lazy cinematography, for the most part, so they leave a lot on the table in the name of (I assume) saving money. Every Frame a Painting mentions this in a few videos, especially their poor use of music and failure to do anything with mood-of-setting and, relatedly, camera work and editing (match it to the mood of the scene, contrast it to mood of the scene—little of that kind of thing at all, it's just very flat).
> (I realise TG: Maverick isn't going to be everybody's taste but it's the best film I've seen at the cinema in a long time, and the first time I've walked out of a movie feeling absolutely wowed since, perhaps, The Matrix came out in 1999.)
- Everything Everywhere All at Once
- Mad Max: Fury Road
- Blade Runner 2049
- RRR if pure, audacious, crazy popcorn-munching spectacle and a movie that's constantly saying "yes, and..." does it for you.
- Dune (the new one). Watch it on the biggest screen and best sound system you can get access to. Actually, that kinda goes for all of these.
A big step down from those in quality and they're not going to give you that "wow" effect, but still action films that are better than nearly all Marvel movies:
- Any Mission Impossible movie except maybe 2.
- The John Wick movies.
- Dredd.
- The Raid 1 & 2 (which Dredd rips off pretty blatantly, but it's decent, too)
I've heard very good things about the later Planet of the Apes (remake series) movies but have only seen the first one, personally.
Painful to limit myself to action movies. There are so many good films.
Car chases are often filler like action scenes in general are filler, IMO.
It's not universally true and depends on how consequential the scenes are. If you could flash "<insert fight scene here where X gets the upper hand>" instead and not miss much, I don't want it.
Movies with top, top notch action and/or better integrated action are exceptions. The original Matrix, John Wick movies, Baby Driver, The Italian Job, Mission Impossible, etc.
Superhero movies are usually not (it feels like they paste the drama and the action together in editing and it's dreadful).
> (this sentence applies to the furious films as well, skipping the chase scenes there gives you the dumbest drama of all time)
Well, yes, and I don't watch those movies :d.
(I don't actually skip these car chases, but I do often zone out.)
>In fact, you're brain will be constantly asking itself whether what you see is real or a 3D model.
I get this in movies. Sometimes I even get this in scenes where they're using real actors and not CGI. Harsh lighting with make up can make humans look somewhat fake to me. One of the Mission Impossible movies gave me this effect.
I believe this, because of how successful TT was w infinite scroll, auto-play.
RE: Vanilla Sky
There are interesting moments to that film, (like the holographic jazz player at the fancy party) but it isn't worth sitting for to see Cruise if you haven’t already seen Top Gun, Mission Impossible, Day After Tomorrow and Minority Report.
> If that's the point, the effort is doomed. All biometrics will be able to be reproduced sooner or later. There's no way around that.
All encryption will eventually be broken therefore what’s the point is a pretty bad security posture. But like no it won’t. Even if you can fake every other metric (good luck with eyes) a fresh blood sample taken by a guard with hypothetical futuristic instant DNA sequencing will never be broken. If your threat model is someone cloning you, the you have bigger problems and they still can’t clone your fingerprints!
You’ve got revocation completely ass-backwards. If someone successfully tricks a biometric system you don’t need to revoke someone’s fingerprint, you revoke the reader! That’s the thing that actually provides all the security.
The point of the guard is that a human has absolutely no trouble determining whether they’re taking a reading of a real hand, scanning a real eyeball, to taking a real blood sample. Maybe in mission impossible movies but you’re really really overstating the resources required to make a convincing hand to someone specifically looking for fakes. Yes social engineering is a problem which is why an autonomous system with the detection quality of a human would be nigh unbeatable.
The Pulp Fiction briefcase is more of a "pure MacGuffin", where the film director / scriptwriters are playing with the concept of MacGuffin more than actually using it as its intended purpose.
After all, its a Tarantino film. He basically expects the audience to be familiar with film theory (or at minimum: expects the audience to already be familiar with "typical plotlines").
----------
Your typical action movie / popcorn movies: Raiders of the Lost Arc (The Arc of the Covenant), Mission Impossible (The Rabbit's Foot), and Men In Black (Orion's Belt), and pretty much every James Bond movie, has MacGuffins galore and are better examples of it.
The scriptwriter doesn't care about the MacGuffin. But a well written story has the __audience__ care deeply about it. Otherwise, the escalation and conflict has no purpose. Pulp Fiction / Tarantino used the briefcase as an exercise in how to make the audience care for an object, despite never really explaining why that object is the center of all this conflict.
-----------
Golden Fleece, Apples of the Hesperides (aka: Heracle's 11th task), Holy Grail. It doesn't really matter what these objects do, we just use them as storytelling devices to get the characters thrust into conflict.
> The success of Bond is all the more intriguing because Ian Fleming was such an appalling writer. He had no sense of place that scratched deeper than Sunday-supplement travel articles
Bond offered escapism to the post WWII world. When casino Royale was released there was still food rationing in the UK and bomb sites littered the cities. Bond offered international travel and excitement in the same way that the Fast and Furious or Mission Impossible movies do today.
> No customer wants to spend X on Shudder, Y on Netflix, and Z on Prime, plus Hulu, HBO, and your cable/satellite fee either. Paying 200 GBP/USD a month is utterly absurd.
When we’re done talking about the quantity of movies, let’s talk about quality.
If an awesome movie goes to the cinema, like Twilight, you’ll be able to watch Werewolf on Netflix. With abysmal plot and acting. If you type Mission Impossible, you’ll certainly get Suits.
The search is so abysmal, always suggesting the same 40 series on and on, that people exchange numeric codes which allow them to discover new categories (but half the titles will be already seen). A/B testing probably shows that after seeing a title for 6 weeks and dodging it, you end up watching it, because, there’s only that.
It’s not that I don’t want to pay $40 a month for 4 services, it’s that even at that price, I still can’t watch the quality movies.
And let’s not even start with ideology-pushing in movies.
I used to think the Mission Impossible movies were far-fetched. Apparently not:
> The thieves, as if undertaking a special-ops raid, had climbed up the sheer face of the building. From there, they scaled its pitched metal roof on a cold, wet night, cut open a fiberglass skylight, and descended inside—without tripping alarms or getting picked up by cameras ... "This is not something ordinary burglars try to accomplish."
Wow.
Ehhh. I don't think I'd rate Starship troopers in my top20, or even top 50 films I've seen.
Its kind of straightforward to me. So I'm not really going to defend it. Its neither high-brow nor low-brow... requires a bit of thinking but not really enough to keep my brain active the whole time.
A movie that was more-low brow (ie: Mission Impossible) would be better, as would a high-brow movie. Starship troopers kinda sits in an awkward spot as a film for me.
----------
I think the point that David Roth is making here however, is that we're seeing more, and more politicians make "Starship Trooper" arguments today, in 2020, to defend themselves and their actions.
Starship troopers was never a "good" or "great" film. Its more horrifying to see that the modern political discourse has leaned into Starship Troopers.
Starship Troopers was a over-the-top, almost cartoon-interpretation, of political satire. The fact that modern arguments of 2020 are looking anything like Starship Troopers is the problem.
The last Mission Impossible film cost $178 million, and SpaceX is reportedly charging $55 million per seat for a Dragon launch, so definitely affordable. Just need a good story.
There are paid promotional situations. That doesn't mean that everything is a paid promotional appearance. Sometimes the product just makes sense in the situation.
e.g. BMW occasionally sponsors their vehicle to be in a premium film (e.g. Mission Impossible), often doing in-kind marketing agreements. Yet there are many films where BMW vehicles appear with no sponsorship whatsoever because it's logically a good candidate for the car in the situation/conveys the right image. Ford Crown Vics were every film cop car despite Ford's lack of involvement with that. And iPhones appear in a lot of situations where the most likely real-world phone would be an iPhone.
And to dispute a common misnomer, it is entirely within fair use to show brand logos presuming you aren't maligning the product in some way. There is absolutely nothing stopping you from showing a villain with an iPhone presuming you don't pretend the phone is a bomb or something, beyond Apple objecting to giving you free products.
So why do films/shows sometimes occlude the brand? Usually because someone else paid them to show their brand and they don't want brand confusion.
As an aside, elsewhere someone mentioned a show saying "promotional considerations provided by Apple". That specifically means free product, and excludes monetary sponsorship.
Recalling memories of how Ethan Hunt first communicated with Max in the first Mission Impossible movie.
I recently rewatched the Mission Impossible movies. The interface groups them together, so you only rate them as one. They get sent in the correct order.
I have not tried a "TV series" yet.
What I'm curious about is if the existing contracts actors sign with movie publishers that give them the rights to use the actors likeness in perpetuity mean they can use them via deepfakes and stop actually paying the actors. I imagine that deepfake technology was not imagined when people agreed to such contracts, and that it will have to be considered in the future. It would now be trivially easy for, say, Sony Pictures to make the next Mission Impossible film by hiring low-cost actors and digitally replacing their features with Tom Cruises without involving him financially at all.
While that's all true, it doesn't necessarily inhibit a film. You wondering what's wrong with him could very well be the entire point of the role he's being played into. Body snatchers, shape-shifters, crazy people, etc. This was even a major plot device in Mission Impossible.
Call me cynical ... historians, writers and the movies seem to fabricate things up to keep people in a dream. At this point I'm pretty certain there are no "heroes" who "save" the world like Mission Impossible.
True that. Eventually satellites as powerful as the ones in that one Mission Impossible movie will be available to laypeople like you and me. Scary.
Yes. I think the issue is that mainstream "journalism" is actually entertainment in all respects other than the fact that it carries a fairly widespread credibility among its audience as not being entertainment but rather a factual, verifiable source of information - one that is beyond the audience's ability to understand. Sort of like the unquestioning acceptance that many give to doctors or lawyers because (it is assumed) neither medicine or law can be understood without them.
What I mean is, if you watch a movie, you suspend disbelief and willingly assume the context they give you to be real for the sake of the movie without questioning it. You do that because you want to be entertained. And if you took everything literally and demanded that the context be aligned with reality, it wouldn't be any fun. As such, few people walk out of something like a Mission Impossible movie believing that any of it was actually possible.
I had a discussion in online chat with co-workers in the last week or so regarding the wild fires currently burning in the US west. One lamented how sad the effects of climate change like these are. Out of curiosity, I looked at historical stats for wildland fires. Without getting in to a lot of detail, the source I found was very reliable and did not show any upward (or downward) trend in either count of fires or total acreage on an annual basis since the 1960s. I pointed this out - not as proof that climate change did not affect fires - but as a simple data point that didn't seem to match his assertion. The person was surprised and admitted that he didn't have any actual reason to believe that the occurrence or size of fires was more or less - he just assumed they were more and that the cause was climate change.
So to be clear, I'm not saying that climate change doesn't exist. Nor am I saying that wildland fires are not somehow affected by climate change. Only that people tend to take narratives that are created and repeated by journalists as facts, without questioning them, much as they would a movie.
Read the article.
> The company says the newly updated plans will include “many” major first run films from studios, wording that appears to confirm MoviePass’ plans to limit access to certain blockbusters, a trend that began with the latest Mission: Impossible film. For the time being, however, it’s agreed to suspend Peak Pricing and Ticket Verification to help appease existing users who are migrated over to the new plan.
To me it sounds they're removing peak pricing and being more conscious about restricting movies.
While they're removing most of the most negative changes ('peak pricing' and the pointless 'take a picture of your ticket stub') for people who remain subscribed (pray they don't alter it any further), they're keeping their arbitrary blackouts of popular movies, which kills it for me. If I have to drive to the theatre to then get there and discover that MoviePass has decided I'm not allowed to see Movie X then I'm going to stop using it.
Currently they implement these blackouts either nationwide (you can't see Mission Impossible on MoviePass at all) or regionally, with showtimes vanishing from the app without warning after too many people elsewhere in your region buy tickets to the movie in question.
The problem with the service is inconsistency and never knowing if you'll actually be able to see a movie or not.
Also, if you were foolish enough to buy an annual subscription, then you don't get the limitation but you still have had your deal altered with movie blackouts and stub verification.
Mission Impossible has scenes in the trailer that are not in movie.
Here's an article with some examples for you though.
http://www.denofgeek.com/uk/movies/movies/47071/41-trailer-scenes-that-didn-t-make-the-final-film
The article isn't very deep, only pointing out a phenomenon by way of examples and without too much analysis.
I'd argue that villains need power to have teeth and believability. Our definition of power changes over time- that's why we don't see too many communist rebel Che Guevara knock-offs, for example, as movie villains anymore unlike in Predator or Escape from LA. But if it wasn't tech CEOs then tinpot dictators and rogue generals always work, because they're always in power somewhere in the world. There's also the archetype of the sinister senior intelligence apparatchik or bureaucrat as highlighted in Mission: Impossible, 24, the Bourne movies, and a ton of others even before the Snowden revelations or the Iraq War, because that's another example of American conception of power.
I'd argue that tech CEOs also make for an easy target because their public personas are often defined by their idiosyncrasies (Jobs' turtleneck, Bezos' shaved head) and perceived social awkwardness. Sometimes, in the case of Upgraded, it just feels cruel to stereotypically awkward or neuroatypical nerds. But there's at least one major counter-example: Ex Machina was a great Hollywood exploration of A.I. and the Turing Test, and its genius CEO villain was played by Oscar Issac as a charismatic, or at least chummy, non-stereotypical nerd.
Probably - its an arms race after all - at this time for the stupider systems the following steps can confuse them 1 - use makeup techniques to make the nose fade into the face and don't let it get a profile view - noses are very important - a prosthetic nose probably won't help tho, cause the nose is an orientation characteristic more than an identification one
2 - eyes and the facial geometry around them are secondary, so no nose and giant movie star sunglasses adds to the machines confusion
3 - collar worn sparkle lighting directed upwards is baffling to machine - silly things keep picking up the light sparkles on the face as feature points (heh)
4 - makeup patterns based on the WW2 ship camouflage mess up geometry detection
Now, all of that will defeat a simple recognizer but if the developers had a lick of sense, the system will still pop it out as anomalous.
Mission impossible facial masks could certainly help, but pretty much everyone is removing the IR filters at this point and the facial thermography would be all messed up
Then there's all the work going on in recognizing more than just a face - I've seen some stuff on incorporating more of the body into the recognition pattern (I've always wanted to watch one of those systems misrecognize Mitch McConnell as a turtle :-) As the available horsepower continues to expand, more of the totality of the individual can be recognized (my own accidental contribution to this is that cheap stereoscopic vision makes it a lot easier/more accurater to pick out foreground from background) At the end of the day, I think Scott McNeally had it right in the '90s - "You have no privacy. Get over it" I am of mixed minds about this stuff in public spaces, the good and bad examples are evenly distributed
What a bunch of hype garbage this is. If you send something in plaintext to a server it's already game over.
If Google was serious about privacy it would pgp-encrypt everything so only the client, client-side can decrypt it, just like what protonmail does.
pfff, 'self destructing emails', what a heaping pile of razzle dazzle no-ops that is -- this is more likely subliminal advertisement for the new mission impossible movie.
To be honest it sounds like they’re describing the plot of the next mission impossible film rather than anything that exists in our reality.
First the spy/action movies are epitomized by the Bond series, and Kingsman has little to do with Bond. Sure it has gadgets, a megalomaniacal villain with a world destroying plan, and British agents. But Bond isn't a street urchin, never has a family, let alone family problems, never goes thru a recruitment or training process, rarely ever works on a team, and is entirely a governmental employee.
And it's even farther away from Mission Impossible, and the Bourne Identity series. So it can only be a parody of Bond, and not only is it far from Bond, it's not even funny. How can you parody something without being funny? It really smells like they had an idea that was more serious, then realized they couldn't make it work midway through, and pivoted to a not very funny parody.
> ... and laser-based intrusion detection systems
Huh? I thought that was exclusive to movies like Entrapment and Mission Impossible.
What is the security like in these meetings? Is any security agency taking part on these ceremonies? What is preventing a terrorist group to launch an attack against this people considering the importance of all of them? I am probably exaggerating because all this reminds me of the not-so-old movies about hacking a la "Mission: Impossible" film series. Do they say that the meeting is going to take place in one place — like in the article it says El Segundo, CA — but actually meet elsewhere? Do the key holders have security 24/7 in their respective countries to prevent stolen keys?
Again, I am misunderstanding the information here, but the keys are actually useless, even if you get your hands on all of them to attempt an incursion against the building where the KSK is, you would not be able to do anything because the security of that place is probably good enough to counter an attack like that, and supposing the attack takes place the other DNS servers would simply disconnect from the root and serve the information that they have until it gets outdated. So the only scenario that I can picture in my head is one where a terrorist attack goes against the building to disrupt the functionality of the whole system for anarchy reasons.
Great write up, I never knew about the billion dollar robbery in Moldova and had to watch a video to understand how it was done https://youtu.be/KxsylnDO15w , seemed straight out of a mission impossible movie.
You could get one of those latex masks that Tom Cruise uses in Mission Impossible.
Okay, not quite as good, but good enough to disguise yourself and not arouse suspicion if you keep your interaction with others to a minimum. (Here's an example from Penn and Teller's TV show. The effect is likely diminished if you are expecting it though: https://youtu.be/7P3B6R6Eqwc?t=1797)
Masks like these are commercially available from mask-makers like this: http://www.spfxmasks.com/ourmasks.php
That movie is more of an AR HUD.
Instead consider you won't see the actual items in the room. Polygon shapes will replace "real-space" items (coffee table, sofa, bed, doors) but can be dungeon items (for D&D) or items in an evil corporate waiting room (a la Mission Impossible or Metal Gear).
Netflix/Lovefilm, etc. are a good way to justify that you've "paid" for that thing you're downloading off bittorrent.
There are so many ways that the paid content providers just can't hang, that even if something is available from them, you'll often get better service by just downloading the equivalent torrent.
So thanks, Lovefilm for sending that Mission Impossible DVD in the mail with so much DRM that it won't play in any of the DVD players in any of my 3 machines using any of their various operating systems. No, don't trouble yourself sending out a replacement disc. I've already watched the movie (turns out there's this website you can type movie names into and simply download them in HD. Who knew?) But thanks for making the effort.
And thanks, NFL GamePass for selling me access to all the games this year for $150, but it turns out that you'll also need to not let your Auth servers go down, say, four minutes before the game kicks off because that way I'd be able to actually watch it. But again, don't sweat it. Somebody actually cut together a nicer, higher resolution version of the same game and stuck it online.
It works out fine, actually. The studios, rightsholders, etc. all get my money like they wanted (and I wanted to give them). And I get to watch the stuff they tried their best to let me watch using their sorta broken infrastructure.
Sorted.
Arte TV is a french-german Television that broadcasts movies in both languages and with both subtitles (unfortunately teletext subs and not DVB subs). I've seen it on sat (i think on Astra 19.2) but they should have something also online.
In this precise moment they have problem on their site: http://www.arte.tv/ lol
EDIT: it's a cultural channel so don't expect to see Mission Impossible, many movies are self produced etc..
What Curebit did was more like, taking the new Mission Impossible movie by Paramount Pictures, renaming it and changing the credits. Then releasing it as their original production.
You need to convince millions of people not to watch Dark knight Rising, Transformers, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Twilight, Mission Impossible, and hundreds of other blockbusters and TV Shows, every year.
Then, the hardest part, you need to come up with something that is Waaaaaaaaaayyyy waayyyyy better than all those movies and TV shows combined -- and do it every single day.
Then, you'll kill Hollywood.
The video game industry is indeed bigger than Hollywood but that doesn't mean that it cannot become any bigger to harm Hollywood. As long as the content is engaging and fun for viewers, it will eventually eat into Hollywood's revenue pie.
I believe that currently, in order to "kill" Hollywood, the first step is to shrink the role of the middlemen by enabling content creators to distribute and market their content effectively online. In fact, the internet has provided a great way to do just that (it is the perfect distribution and marketing channel)! All of us are constantly sharing and reproducing the content and this helps expose users with all sorts of content. Now if there is a startup which focuses on "following" and "chasing" the content and sell products related to the content itself, I believe that many users will buy the products that interest them. For instance, when we watch "Mission Impossible" we may be interested in the music tracks, the movie DVD, the clothes that the characters are wearing, toys & merchandises etc. If more products are being sold, this is a reflection of the quality of the content itself. Product companies would then want to sponsor and fund for quality content creators to carry on producing content. Apart from that such a platform may allow more quality content to be placed on Youtube where users are abundant!
The next step is to make content interactive. PG mention "what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?" and I thought of the notion of having the viewers of the content to dictate the direction of the show and making the content engaging that it makes me feel like I am part of it. Currently in many games (esp rpg) I decide the route/path that the character follows and this leads to different game endings. This can be applied to movies as well. A movie can have 4 parts and after each part, the movie may request me to buy a certain choice (eg. the character has 3 roads to choose, which do you choose and this will dictate the progression of the story) or product (there are 3 guns to choose, buy 1 from your local store lol! and key in product keycode or something). This can tie in very well with the idea on paragraph 1 where product companies can help sponsor for the video production.
What do you think about these ideas? I am working on idea 1 and I would be keen for some feedback and would love for people to contribute to this startup. Hit me up!
I believe that the first step is to shrink the role of the middlemen by enabling content creators to distribute and market their content effectively online. In fact, the internet has provided a great way to do just that (it is the perfect distribution and marketing channel)! All of us are constantly sharing and reproducing the content and this helps expose users with all sorts of content. Now if there is a startup which focuses on "following" and "chasing" the content and sell products related to the content itself, I believe that many users will buy the products that interest them. For instance, when we watch "Mission Impossible" we may be interested in the music tracks, the movie DVD, the clothes that the characters are wearing, toys & merchandises etc. If more products are being sold, this is a reflection of the quality of the content itself. Product companies would then want to sponsor and fund for quality content creators to carry on producing content. Apart from that such a platform may allow more quality content to be placed on Youtube where users are abundant!
The next step is to make content interactive. PG mention "what are people going to do for fun in 20 years instead of what they do now?" and I thought of the notion of having the viewers of the content to dictate the direction of the show and making the content engaging that it makes me feel like I am part of it. Currently in many games (esp rpg) I decide the route/path that the character follows and this leads to different game endings. This can be applied to movies as well. A movie can have 4 parts and after each part, the movie may request me to buy a certain choice (eg. the character has 3 roads to choose, which do you choose and this will dictate the progression of the story) or product (there are 3 guns to choose, buy 1 from your local store lol! and key in product keycode or something). This can tie in very well with the idea on paragraph 1 where product companies can help sponsor for the video production.
What do you think about these ideas? I am working on idea 1 and I would be keen for some feedback and would love for people to contribute to this startup. Hit me up!
This article is just false comparisons and strawman arguments.
Why is Facebook's IPO anything like GroupOn's? Completely different business models.
G+'s existence is used as an excuse to compare Google with Facebook, but G+ wasn't even a thought when Google IPO'd. Again, completely different business models.
The author then makes up the particular case of an "Ivy League Northeast pet lovers" demographic and says that things like Tide, Mission Impossible, car companies don't want to market to them. This is not how targeted advertisement would ever work.
* You market Tide to demographics that are in charge of the buying decision for laundry detergent in the household (this knowledge has been around for literally decades: soap operas) - how about people who talk about doing laundry in their status messages? Or how about people who list their children on their facebook profile and don't list an employer?
* You market Mission Impossible to people who say they like Mission Impossible (and similar movies/series) in their "Stuff I like" section or by using their "likes" from sources like IMDb, etc. Maybe they also check in to movie theaters regularly - especially if they often check in with a certain group of friends. Show those friends the same ad.
* You market cars to people who seem to have the income to afford a car (using job descriptions, maybe seeing how often and where they eat out using checkin information to get some sort of estimate on disposable income) and maybe you even filter that to people who complain about their car. On top of that you could even filter by the last time the user got a vehicle - this is now an event you can add to your timeline.
Popular entertainment has tons of smart, cool people- Just none of them spend all their time with solitary, sedentary activities on a computer or in a lab. How many times do you see a 'mission impossible' type hero who goes around kicking ass for most of the movie but suddenly turns into a hacker when he gets to a computer terminal?
> Here in the UK there are actually quite good limits on that. I'm not sure you would, say, ever see Starsky and Hutch (the film) on at 4pm.
I'm from Portugal and here is quite usual to see some Mission Impossible, van Dame or Schwarzenegger movie on at 4pm. Actually, most of the movies aired at Saturday and Sunday afternoons are something like PG-13.
Since here there are only 4 broadcast conventional channels, and many people don't have cable, it is quite easy for kids to be exposed to such movies.