...a malfunctioning computer on a deep space mission does not a "dystopia" make. It's the future, and a bad thing happens. But that thing is out of the ordinary: HAL was not SUPPOSED to kill them. And HAL lost. This isn't like the Forbin Project where he takes over--HAL is presented as an anomaly.

And further about the "dehumanized" people--not really. THX 118, that's about that. 1984, that's about that. These are just ordinary guys, who might be dull but that doesn't make them inhuman. And they have hobbies. Dave, for instance, likes to draw, hardly an "inhuman" pastime.

As far as the "spiritual growth" once HAL is gone--I don't think that has anything to do with HAL or not. I think that was the whole point they were called out there, which implies a hopeful view. HAL may be technology, but so's the ship that Dave goes through the stargate with(and the one he got there with too), and I don't see him abandoning that to have his spiritual experience, right?

You take Kubrick as far darker than he actually was, I think. It's a bit of a stereotype and oversimplistic. Remember when he said to Stephen King that he thought the idea of ghosts was an optimistic view. Why? Because it implies a definite afterlife.

And as far as Kubrick and Clarke: they were both total collaborators on book and film, a fact that shows up in Kubrick bios and Clarke's own words. The deal was Clarke takes credit for the book, Kubrick the film, but in fact both were part of the same project and both were deeply involved with both items.

In regard to the boomers' perception of the film, as someone remarked--that's a big thing right there. To them the world presented, with people very comfortable with high tech(well, except that toilet), calmly walking about these artificial environments as though it were normal--perhaps to them that was a nightmare, but that begs the question of why those same boomers built this world in which we're very comfortable with it ourselves. (Who do you think founded Apple?)

And to us in the modern day, looking at this film AS IT IS, without the connotations of the audience of its time, the only real horror besides HAL's murders is that space is pretty boring. Does that make DARK STAR a dystopia too? And given that astronauts were already dealing with that in that time, does that make them inhuman? No, it's just humans working with new tools. (Tools are probably the most important running theme in the film, and the first use of them--for war--is, to Kubrick, a kind of necessary progress, not exactly horrifying; consider his ambivalent feelings on the subject of war, ranging from PATHS OF GLORY lon one end and his never-finished NAPOLEON on the other)

All I can say is that if boomers think a malfunctioning computer equals dystopia, this explains their panicky reaction to crashes in offices I've worked in.

Her allegations could be perfectly true, AND she could be trying to promote her book. The two do not cancel each other out.

I have a hard time believing anyone would be so public about this if at least they, themselves, didn't believe it were so. And frankly, given what we know already about JP and his family and how the children in that family turned out(I do not understand how Chynna turned out relatively healthy), I have a hard time NOT believing it.

One reason for that is because none have any talent. Yes, that's right, none. Go ahead and argue, folks, and then tell me who, and I'll guarantee you that each of them can easily be mistaken for another.

The second? Nobody can wait for this decade to be done, and there will never be any nostalgia for the "Naughts."

Wait, you're telling me people bother to pirate network TV? Why?

On one hand: I love Polanski's films. REPULSION, FEARLESS VAMPIRE KILLERS, ROSEMARY'S BABY, THE TENANT and most of all his MACBETH...these are some of my favorite movies. His "urban paranoia" has been a huge influence upon my work.

And one must admit, this is a man who has had the luck of the damned. It's not a small thing to start out your life with your family murdered by Hitler, then eventually come to Hollywood, become successful, marry a (from everything I've heard) genuinely nice, beautiful young star(whom he did cheat on, admittedly), who becomes pregnant with your kid, only to have the freaking MANSON FAMILY kill them.

Polanski had two of the most famous monsters of the 20th century destroy his life and survived. That is something to give one perspective.

But obviously it would leave one troubled as hell.

So it's sad to me that he then chose to participate in his own destruction by raping a child. Which can't be excused by any of the above.

I can still love his films. I can empathize with the crushing loss that he has suffered, that no person should ever suffer, certainly not on that scale. (Seriously, Hitler and Manson; just thinking about it makes my head spin) But I can also hold in my mind, at the same time, sadness and contempt for his having done that.

You can recognize all these facts and not think they cancel each other out.

She was 13 years old. Unless you're in some deep woods in Appalachia, no one considers that an age of consent.

Bush no longer poses a threat to our society. I say we drop all these torture investigations and move on.

What, do you not see the logic? Well, now you know how confused your idea that it's an old case and Polanski doesn't pose a societal threat, and therefore it doesn't matter as law, is.