Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:40431 rec.arts.movies:24043
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!pete
From: pete@violet.berkeley.edu (Pete Goodeve)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,rec.arts.movies
Subject: Re: A minor point
Message-ID: <1989Sep22.062927.26429@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 22 Sep 89 06:29:27 GMT
References: <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu> <58150@aerospace.AERO.ORG>
Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44)
Distribution: na
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 49


Scott "TCB" Turner, in article <58150@aerospace.AERO.ORG> replies to
my posting in article <1989Sep18.090550.2459@agate.berkeley.edu>:

I wrote:
|| Watching Siskel and Ebert this evening, I was amused to note that one of the
|| movies they reviewed ("The Rachel Papers") apparently features an Amiga
|| ...
|| What amused me even more -- and annoyed me intensely at the same time --
|| was Ebert's "minor point" that one of the many bad features of the movie
|| was that the computer display "didn't look like any REAL computer...

Scott replies:
> I think you both have a point.  The graphics and interface shown in
> the movie are certainly possible on an Amiga (or a Mac II or VGA
> machine) but they aren't used in a reasonable way.

Very probably -- like I said, it was just a five-second clip I saw.
It was just his concept of what a *COMPUTER* OUGHT to look like that
got to me.

> For instance, when the protaganist erases the file containing information
> about Rachel, the computer puts a color picture of her up on the
> "screen, melts" it to the bottom of the screen and then centers a
> flashing "File Deleted" title.  Wonder what OS that is?  :-)

Gee -- that sounds JUST like some of the Amiga hacks I know... (;-))
Actually -- again with the caveat that I haven't seen the movie (and don't
really propose to) so I don't know the context -- it doesn't seem too
fanciful to imagine a flashy program that would do that.  My guess is he'd
be working from some kind of database program anyway, rather than directly
with the OS.


> BTW, I think Ebert may be mistaken about what type of computer it is.
> The film was shot in London, and I assumed that it was one of the
> English computers that we don't see over here.  Certainly nothing
> about it said "Amiga" to me, though I'm no Amiga expert.

I'm sure ol' Roger has NO idea what computer it is.  However the familiar
logo was clearly visible in the close-up shown in the program, so there's
no doubt as to the brand.

> Anyway, a minor point all around.  There are deeper problems with the
> movie than the computer.

So I am given to understand... (:-))  Episode concluded.

                                        -- Pete --