"Set at least a decade into the future, the appearance of iOS 6 in the new film seems oddly out of place"
It is actually IOS 12. Apple realized their mistake a few years after IOS 7, apologized and went back to the look and feel of IOS 6. Kind of how everyone looks back at the styles of the 80's and say "what were we thinking?"
How can you say such a thing? The 80s were the swansong of music.
Movies that take place in the future should never use current actual technology unless it's supposed to be retro. In short order, it looks ridiculously out of date. It always bothered me on the original Star Trek that all the large displays had a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. If they can make an unbelievable realistic looking ape from motion capture and CGI, it shouldn't be too hard to make a prop that looks like the future, like something with a paper thin display or that projects into the air, but is still readable.
Now in this case, once society supposedly fell apart at the end of the "Rise..." film, there probably wasn't any further technological development, so equipment consistent with whatever that date was supposed to be would actually be fine. Unless everyone at Apple, working at the completed spaceship campus (since the film supposedly takes place at least a few years into the future) was isolated enough and didn't get the virus. But even that wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have anyone to sell to.
Or..paraphrasing Bob Newhart: "You put 50 apes in a room for X years and they design: (insert your technology joke here)."
Considering we're already on iOS 7, that's a problem.
no, it isnt -- since we dont live in an ape apocalypse, clearly this film represents an alternative universe where the event did happen; starting back in 2011.
I did read the article, a few times actually, it was quite disjointed, and no, he didn't say that.
things dont have to be explicitly stated to be present. clearly this article is about technology and the arts coming together. thats the sub-text of the piece. you just didnt get it, because it wasnt spelled out for you.
bet you cant wait for the new Transformers movie, huh?
no, it isnt -- since we dont live in an ape apocalypse, clearly this film represents an alternative universe where the event did happen; starting back in 2011.
Did the previous film actually provide a date the story started?
Did the previous film actually provide a date the story started?
I always thought the first film was set in "present day" at the time. It may have taken a year or so to rise up and then spread anarchy thought the Bay Area. The iPad could have been from ground zero of the primate attack. If they were smart, they would have attacked the electrical infrastructure first.
things dont have to be explicitly stated to be present. clearly this article is about technology and the arts coming together. thats the sub-text of the piece. you just didnt get it, because it wasnt spelled out for you.
Um, yes they do, if they haven't been stated (either explicitly or non explicitly) then they don't exist, otherwise the message is up to individual interpretation (ie for me, he didn't say any like that)
bet you cant wait for the new Transformers movie, huh?
I don't go to the cinema so I didn't know there was a new one coming out, but thanks for letting me know, although not sure what that has to do with DED and his disjointed article?
Comments
Quote;
"Set at least a decade into the future, the appearance of iOS 6 in the new film seems oddly out of place"
It is actually IOS 12. Apple realized their mistake a few years after IOS 7, apologized and went back to the look and feel of IOS 6. Kind of how everyone looks back at the styles of the 80's and say "what were we thinking?"
How can you say such a thing? The 80s were the swansong of music.
The article isn't about an iPad appearing in a film. It's about the intersection of art and technology.
May I ask why you didn't say that in the article then? You could have tweeted it first so that you could quote yourself.
If you read the article and understood it, then you would have seen that he did say it.
How much was DED or AI paid for this advertisement?
And your need to toss out a negative comment on every single DED piece is getting strange.
It's because his head's out of joint due to DED cutting him one (justifiably) on another article.
I did read the article, a few times actually, it was quite disjointed, and no, he didn't say that.
I think you forgot the /s LOL
High Quality News? HA!
AI combined with the demoniacal Fireball and astounding Asymco gives godspeed!
If only there were a hipster-comment spam filter Heavens Gate would be near;-P
Movies that take place in the future should never use current actual technology unless it's supposed to be retro. In short order, it looks ridiculously out of date. It always bothered me on the original Star Trek that all the large displays had a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. If they can make an unbelievable realistic looking ape from motion capture and CGI, it shouldn't be too hard to make a prop that looks like the future, like something with a paper thin display or that projects into the air, but is still readable.
Now in this case, once society supposedly fell apart at the end of the "Rise..." film, there probably wasn't any further technological development, so equipment consistent with whatever that date was supposed to be would actually be fine. Unless everyone at Apple, working at the completed spaceship campus (since the film supposedly takes place at least a few years into the future) was isolated enough and didn't get the virus. But even that wouldn't matter because they wouldn't have anyone to sell to.
Or..paraphrasing Bob Newhart: "You put 50 apes in a room for X years and they design: (insert your technology joke here)."
Considering we're already on iOS 7, that's a problem.
no, it isnt -- since we dont live in an ape apocalypse, clearly this film represents an alternative universe where the event did happen; starting back in 2011.
I did read the article, a few times actually, it was quite disjointed, and no, he didn't say that.
things dont have to be explicitly stated to be present. clearly this article is about technology and the arts coming together. thats the sub-text of the piece. you just didnt get it, because it wasnt spelled out for you.
bet you cant wait for the new Transformers movie, huh?
no, it isnt -- since we dont live in an ape apocalypse, clearly this film represents an alternative universe where the event did happen; starting back in 2011.
Did the previous film actually provide a date the story started?
I always thought the first film was set in "present day" at the time. It may have taken a year or so to rise up and then spread anarchy thought the Bay Area. The iPad could have been from ground zero of the primate attack. If they were smart, they would have attacked the electrical infrastructure first.
Um, yes they do, if they haven't been stated (either explicitly or non explicitly) then they don't exist, otherwise the message is up to individual interpretation (ie for me, he didn't say any like that)
I don't go to the cinema so I didn't know there was a new one coming out, but thanks for letting me know, although not sure what that has to do with DED and his disjointed article?