Re: No Body in the Library : Spoilers


<pbowles@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:a8180d4b-0020-4b03-9c56-3faeafea2d3b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 4 Jun, 18:05, "john smith" <the_johnsm...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<pbow...@xxxxxxx> wrote in message

news:35780092-fdf9-4d76-8c87-93a33241b30a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





On 4 Jun, 15:51, Elvis Gump <elvisgump...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pbow...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 4 Jun, 15:04, Elvis Gump <elvisgump...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
pbow...@xxxxxxx wrote:
On 4 Jun, 13:36, Elvis Gump <elvisgump...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Ignis Fatuus wrote:
Apart from River Song, the other characters are mere ciphers with
nothing to do but deliver a few amusing lines and wait their turn
to
become a light snack for the flesh-eating dust. Meanwhile the
Doctor
probes around with his screwdriver in a vain attempt to find a
solution to their predicament.
Gorsh, I'm glad the Doctor never overused the screwdriver before
like that.
What is it with the screwdriver hate? He gets it out a lot, but
it's
never had a critical story role in the new series and it is mostly
used just to open doors.
The Little Girl might provide some answers, but she's stuck in a
sinister room with her sinister father and a sinister Doctor, who
tries to make sense of her sinister dreams.
The computer that thinks it's a little girl seems lifted from the
"Resident Evil" film,
Um. Resident Evil. Yeah, that's it.
You're under, say, 25 years old, aren't you? There's a certain
other
source which is somewhat better-known among sci-fi fans of a
slightly
older generation.
Phil
Actually I'm 45. What? I can't jerk off to Jokeavich fighting zombie
mutant dogs?

No, it's not about watching the film, it's about regarding it as
original source material and apparently being unaware of, say, 2001.

This "computer" is NOTHING like HAL in "2001". HAL didn't have a
psychotic break,

Who says this one did?

it was pure hubris in heuristics.

Just checked Wikipedia - it was actually 2010 that 'revealed' (i.e.
retrofitted) that HAL's behaviour was caused by conflicting
imperatives; in this case between processing data without distortion
in keeping with his prime function and keeping a secret as ordered by
the government, as a result of which he became paranoid and started
offing people. You're right, in 2001 itself he was just portrayed as
arrogant and willing to preserve himself at any cost.

It's the 2010 interpretation I was thinking of - we have a computer
whose prime function is to store data, and which has apparently
received orders to 'save' people. It's not quite a contradiction, but
a failure to understand a difference in etymology. However, it does
seem to elicit the same paranoid response - the girl doesn't want
anyone in "her Library"; she even says no one is supposed to be there.

And really, are you honestly saying you missed the fact that her
name's CAL and she sees the world through security cameras? Nope, no
link there at all.

I don't remember HAL having a daddy and an analyst either.

It's a visualisation of the conflict in her program - goodness knows
what Daddy's for, but the analyst seems to be the program giving her
the instruction to save (as in protect).

Next thing you're going to tell me she was much better in
"The Fifth Element" or something.

Ugh, what a terrible film. I'd say it was all style over substance
but, well, it didn't have any style either.

Oh sure, denigrate master thespians like Bruce Willis and Chris Tucker.

What? You mean good actors have never been in bad films (not that I
know who Chris Tucker is)? Patrick Stewart's a good actor but he was
in an appalling TV series for seven years, and several weak films
afterwards.

You do realise the fact that it's a girl is just a convenient
visualisation of its consciousness, right?

Convenient? Why can't it be conventional and the computer thinks it's a
nun in a convent?

a) People are less likely to relate to a nun in a convent, and more
importantly b) kid actors are cheap.

It was cheap, but inherently scary cliche of using a kid as demonic,
evil persona.

Except that she wasn't portrayed at all as being demonic or evil, and
when she played poltergeist she didn't know what she was doing (she
was just trying to resume contact with the Doctor, not hurl books
around). She's also keeping the people she 'saves' alive and the way
the story's going her entire madness appears to result from a
misunderstanding of her directives (of the sort a real computer might
actually plausibly make), not intentional malice. That puts her miles
outside any "possessed computer/child" story, much closer to HAL
(though he was pretty malicious).

and everything to do with " a conscious computer that's
been sent mad by conflicting commands". Sound a bit more familiar?
Phil

Yeah, and it's been done to DEATH.

"Computer, everything is say is a lie. Now, listen very carefully - I'M
LYING!"

Not at all the same thing, though - this isn't trapping a computer in
a logical error loop, but confusing it by sending it commands that
conflict with its prime directive (save people but don't "save" them?
How is your average database supposed to make sense of that?) - that's
the link between CAL and HAL.

Stanley Kubrick's ghost is incensed at your comparison. He just told me
so via Ouija board.

Um. You, uh, DO know that the story wasn't actually written by
Kubrick, right? That he created a screenplay from someone else's
story?

Phil

Actually, Kubrick co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke from his
short story "The Sentinel". And HAL doesn't feature in the story at all...

True, HAL's not in the original short story, but as I've heard it it's
Clarke's contribution that was released as the associated book, and
that includes all the basic story elements - including HAL. That's
certainly not to downplay Kubrick; the film will always be better-
remembered than the book, and probably deservedly so - so many of the
cliches it's spawned rely on the atmosphere, music and imagery of that
film - but I've always felt Clarke gets forgotten for his contribution
much too often, and I think he was the ideas man behind the actual
story.



Yeah, that's usually how it works when writers write and directors direct!

Phil


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: No Body in the Library : Spoilers
    ... I'm glad the Doctor never overused the screwdriver before ... sinister room with her sinister father and a sinister Doctor, ... "Resident Evil" film, ... Kubrick co-wrote the screenplay with Arthur C. Clarke from his ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: No Body in the Library : Spoilers
    ... I'm glad the Doctor never overused the screwdriver before ... sinister room with her sinister father and a sinister Doctor, ... "Resident Evil" film, ... misunderstanding of her directives (of the sort a real computer might ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: No Body in the Library : Spoilers
    ... I'm glad the Doctor never overused the screwdriver before like that. ... sinister room with her sinister father and a sinister Doctor, ... No, it's not about watching the film, it's about regarding it as ... crazy computer that thinks it's a crazy little girl" and everything to ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: No Body in the Library : Spoilers
    ... I'm glad the Doctor never overused the screwdriver before like that. ... No, it's not about watching the film, it's about regarding it as ... you can really interpret that as a "psychotic episode". ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: More Movie/Series 5 Speculation
    ... Tennant is not capable of carrying a film and never was. ... He was given the role of Hamlet along with Picard playing Laertes or whoever he's playing in order to milk the pockets of Doctor Who and Star Trek TNG fans. ... In any case if Doctor Who attempts to copy Mad Max it will flop big time. ... > It would lose the BBC money. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)