The Imitation Game Fails Test of Inspiring the Next Turings 194
reifman writes In 'The Imitation Game': Can This Big Fat Cliche Win Best Picture?, reviewer Monica Guzman blasts the film for distorting history and missing the opportunity to inspire today's tech savvy, highly surveilled generation to follow in Turing's path: Instead of an inventor, it shows a stereotype. Instead of inspiring us to follow in the footsteps of a person who shaped technology, the film inspires us only to get out of the way of the next genius who can. The Imitation Game changed aspects of the real Alan Turing's personality to conform more closely to our idea of the solitary nerd. It falls in line with the tired idea that only outcasts could love computers...As for explaining the science behind Turing's code-breaking machine, the movie doesn't bother. if invention doesn't deserve top billing in this story, where the technology at its heart is not only historically significant but hugely resonant in our lives today, then I don't know where it would. The message of the movie is that the uncommon man can do amazing things, but the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world.
common man (Score:5, Insightful)
the message we need is that the common man, woman, anybody can and should tinker with the technology that manages our whole world.
Why ? One genius can do more on his own than a thousand mediocre people together.
Re:common man (Score:5, Funny)
There's no such thing as a mediocre human being.
Re:common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes there is-- we elect them all the time.
Some people are stronger than others, some are smarter, some have a fundamental understanding of computation (Turing) or electricity (Tesla) that the rest of us simply do not have-- This idea that we all *HAVE* to be equal is insane-- we should recognize, and celebrate, our differences. I would no more want Stephen Hawking to build my next house than I would want Usain Bolt to design a CPU for my next computer.
Humans are genuinely an amazing animal... but to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math, and humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
but to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math, and humanity.
Except in Lake Wobegone.
Re:common man (Score:5, Insightful)
What are you talking about? The vast majority of politicians are highly-educated, often with many academic awards, and also usually wealthy (many times by their own efforts).
They may seem mediocre because of the specious reasoning they give for their policies. This is an illusion created by your own credulity: you believe they are motivated by a statesman-like desire to serve the greater good. In fact, they are motivated by a very selfish desire to acquire and exercise power, and also to acquire great wealth (while empowering their political allies to do the same). They often lie in order to justify policies that accomplish this.
And they are very good at it.
Re: (Score:2)
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
Turing was very intelligent, but so was Reinhardt Heydrich. Intelligence doesn't itself guarantee virtue or necessity. By a lot of standards the US is overrun by redundant, overeducated peopl
Re: (Score:2)
See, I didn't say everyone was above average. Tagging something as "mediocre" implies not just that it's average, but that it's inadequate or redundant.
You might as well stop arguing there, and update your lexicon file. It's broken. Mediocrity is the state of being unremarkable, ordinary, etc...
Not to mention that, even using your incorrect definition, your claim that there are no "inadequate or redundant" human beings is still ridiculous.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's your values, I guess I can't argue with that.
Re: (Score:2)
You use a lot of florid prose to try to make yourself look smarter than you are, which doesn't change the fact that your entire premise hinges on the fact that you believe in ghosts. I expect I won't lose much sleep over your opinion of my "advancement."
Re: (Score:2)
But billions will lose the opportunity for self-realization thanks the rigid attitude you espouse. Sleep tight; may the bedbugs bite.
Re: (Score:2)
Billions? Apparently I'm Ming the fucking Merciless. Sweet.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just a mediocre adherent of the "business as usual" view, but your ilk control the destinies of so many.
Re: (Score:3)
"to claim that all humans are above average is to demonstrate a fundamental lack of awareness of both math"
Simpson's Paradox [wikipedia.org] means that everyone can bat lower than one guy for years, but still have a higher average than that one guy. So math allows situations where you can be above average while consistently scoring below average.
Re: (Score:3)
Nearly everyone is above average at something though. And Turing and every other genius are below average at many things.
Re:common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And what could a thousand mewling peasants hope to accomplish next to that? A thousand ditches dug? A thousand burgers served? Worthless. Every one of those pathetic normals going through their lives like automatons, without a thought in their heads for how *this* burger is just a little bit different from *that* burger and needs a shred of extra care if the custome
Re:common man (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:common man (Score:4)
You know he made some really important contributions to discrete mathematics, logic and what would eventually be called computer science. But a lot of people were able to make really important contributions to computer science and the war. What exactly makes Alan Turing a god, and not, say, Claude Shannon? Or Richard Feynman? Or Enrico Fermi?
Genius is a wondrous thing but its counterproductive to turn it into a cult.
Re: (Score:2)
Or Tommy Flowers -- the man who designed Colossus.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:common man (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, any number of mediocre people cannot match one genius. Stupidity in large numbers is just even more stupid. (And yes, the average person is limited enough in mental capabilities that "stupid" is an accurate description.)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not confident I can worship in this cult of genius. History is full of geniuses who amounted to nothing because they were either too far ahead of their time, or too irrelevant to the needs of mainstream population. The ones that end up mattering are simply in the right place at the right time, and were able to take advantage of desperation.
Turing's machine may not have been built if Hitler weren't about to destroy Britain, or if Enigma was not also exceptionally well crafted. Turing's machine probably w
Re: (Score:2)
Built by smart people and less smart people and those who work in factories. Who is to say how smart any of those people are?
It is known that those who designed it were smart. Those who built it may or may not be smart.A thousand people brute forcing it are unlikey to break a code. A couple of people who know can use a thousand people to build a machine that can.
Re: (Score:2)
They can all be smart. The one who figures it out is remembered.
Re:common man (Score:4, Interesting)
The really scary thing about all of these posts is that I can easily imagine the people making them putting a visionary like Mao Zedong in power.
Its really kind of scary what happens when you put highly intelligent asocial people in power; one longs for the company of "stupid, mewling peasants".
Re:common man (Score:5, Insightful)
The single genius can do very little without the shoulders of the thousands that do the drudgery to stand upon.
Better biopic: Theory of Everything (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some geniuses don't even need to stand on shoulders of giants:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. Of course it's not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:common man (Score:5, Insightful)
Others have failed to mention the peasants that worked the land that not only fed Mozart but kept Mozart's patrons wealthy enough to support the arts by commissioning Mozart's works, or indeed made it possible for all Mozart's spectators to enjoy arts rather than spend the day doing subsistence farming themselves. Without them, all arts we'd have would be able to sustain is the odd folk singing after a hard day's work.
Others have mentioned the craftsmen that made his instruments, but also keep in mind the folk that made and gathered paper, ink and quills he used to write his music. Or even the millions of ordinary people of his past that helped shape the language he used, without which it would be impossible to sustain human civilization.
Thus Mozart, stood on the shoulders of millions of completely ordinary folk.
The lesson here; next time you believe the bullshit of "self-made man" and "I didn't receive no help from nobody", think of what steps are actually necessary for the life we live today.
Re:common man (Score:5, Interesting)
OK, I'll bite.
I could say the same from the other point of view.
Each and any average dude uses products invented and designed by someone who was way above average, starting from fire and ending up with that "phat aiphone" in one's pocket.
The few rely on the work of the many and the many use the work of the few. Symbiosis at its best.
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree.
When you read "design" you think about the shape of a mobile phone or the ratio of a monitor, but that's only a small subset of the word's meaning.
Leonardo da Vinci, one of the greatest inventors of all time, was also a designer. And a prodigal one, to say the least. I could even say he was a designer more than an inventor. Many of his inventions only existed in design format and nothing else.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a straw man argument. Nobody is saying geniuses are self-sufficient islands. And it seems silly to conflate the ideas of "self-made man" and "genius" anyhow.
The special thing about geniuses is that they are rare. The guy who crafted the first violin that Mozart ever heard was probably a fine craftsman. But there are hundreds or thousands of other fine craftsmen who could have made just as good of a violin.
The farmers who grew the food that Mozart ate were good, hard working people. But there wer
Re: (Score:2)
What if the genius is trapped into thinking he's a common man by silly movies that emphasize his social commonness?
Re: (Score:2)
Can you cite an example of a popular entertainment that does this? Seriously asking.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Bang Theory: If you're not an arrogant egotistical prick, you can't be a scientist.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the genius has the disdain for the "commoner" that so far 80% of this discussion thread has shown?
Oh, thats right, we get visionaries like Pol Pot and Mao Zedong.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think this is true. Most importantly, just because one's performance at something is not among the best doesn't mean one cannot find enjoyment in it (not to mention the people that are just good, good enough for employment in it, or even especially bad at it compared to others). And in life finding the things that are most enjoyable is probably the one of the most worthwhile things you can d
Re: (Score:2)
I guess what he meant as the message was that any common man can be an uncommon man, through access to technology.
like, you don't need to be an european king to afford a computer...
however about the movie.. why the fuck would anyone want to go in the footsteps that lead to such misery for the hero? it's a tragic tale and turning it into pocahontas would have been crappery. I mean, there's plenty of more of inspiring figures in the world along the same subject lines some of who are still alive and who did ju
It is about gay right and acceptance. (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie is from start to finish is to show how gay people suffered in history, and breaking the gay stereotype of being "Fabulous". They weren't taking the nerd rights at all.
Re:It is about gay right and acceptance. (Score:5, Interesting)
This. It was a relationship movie, about how some are persecuted for their relationship preferences.
I found it enjoyable and my wife, who was familiar with the name, did not know how it was going to end. And it really bothered her.
Her reaction was the movie fulfilling its intended goal in terms of getting someone to think about persecution. The historical perspective or "tech" was largely irrelevant in my opinion, it was a movie about how one person can be incredible, in the face of increasingly difficult odds, and then be destroyed by the same people after proving effective at being a genius.
It's almost like everyone except him was guilty of "not thinking well enough" while he alone (mostly) was guilty of "thinking/feeling wrong".
I haven't seen it, but I'm expecting Boyhood to win. It should have a lot of support on the concept and execution alone (it's a grander project than Lord of the Rings in my opinion, given the time frame during which it was produced - and a lack of CGI...).
Be realistic (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, move audiences are really chomping at the bit for a probing discussion of the Halting Problem and the Turing-Church correspondence.
It's a complicated topic, mainly because his work for GCHQ was only tangentially related to his work on universal computing machines or his theoretical mathematics, they never actually built a Turing-complete computing system to defeat Enigma (with bombes) or the Fish cipher (Colossi) -- and even this distinction between the two fundamentally different problems is lost to the film.
The movie isn't about computers, it's not even really about codebreaking. The movie is about a recluse with a dark secret, who, despite not fitting in and being generally weird, finds a purpose for himself and a way to make a contribution to the war, only to see his greatest accomplishments hidden from view and perverted by the security state. The movie is basically a retelling of A Man for All Seasons.
Re:Be realistic (Score:5, Interesting)
Have you seen Particle Fever [particlefever.com]? It's possible to make a movie about technically complex topics that's also accessible to a wider audience [wired.com]. Human drama is probably the most important element in any successful movie, but you can also surround that drama with technical information. People become more receptive to it that way, rather than eyes glazing over.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt like the drama in Particle Fever was really manufactured, these people really didn't have much on each other and they sorta made it in editing. Also to be honest I thought the technical treatment of the material was really glib.
Also it's a documentary that was released directly to on-demand and probably didn't cost a million bucks.
Re:Be realistic (Score:4, Informative)
Ratings on IMDB:
Hmmm.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Be realistic (Score:5, Interesting)
The movie is about a recluse with a dark secret, who, despite not fitting in and being generally weird, finds a purpose for himself and a way to make a contribution to the war, only to see his greatest accomplishments hidden from view and perverted by the security state.
Sigh. I saw the movie and it was a well-executed film, but it was essentially about a made-up person. I agree with your summary of the fictional character, but not the man. Turing was certainly eccentric, but he had friends, was liked by his colleagues, and had a good sense of humor. As terrible as his chemical castration was, it certainly didn't ruin his mind - he did some interesting work on mathematical biology inspired by those very changes. And he died more than a year after the end of his "treatment". And it was recast as an "us-vs-them" story, which simply isn't true - thousands of people were working on breaking Enigma and made steady progress throughout the war, with the support of the entire chain of command (in particular the Commander Denniston).
He's such an interesting person with a fascinating story - it's a real damn shame they basically invented a character to give his name.
Re:Be realistic (Score:5, Interesting)
And he died more than a year after the end of his "treatment".
This. There is a good chance that Turing actually didn't commit suicide, but rather died of accidental cyanide inhalation. He had set up a chemical lab in his living space and wasn't exactly using OSHA-approved storage protocols for dangerous chemicals. His mother, at the time, said she didn't think he'd killed himself, and contemporary accounts were that he was doing pretty okay. The supposedly cyanide-poisoned apple was not tested for cyanide. None of this is conclusive.
IMO, any modern report on Turing should account for the possibility he didn't kill himself. The suicide angle makes a great story for gay rights activists, but it does a disservice to the memory of this great man to reduce him to a political talking point. The forced hormone treatment was abominable, whether or not it drove him to suicide. There's a chance it did, and a chance it did not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No one ever said it was a documentary. It's a movie meant to entertain, not inform.
Smart people are jerks? (Score:3)
when so many times, the film industry polishes up a flawed human hero in a Hollywood retelling.
Re:Smart people are jerks? (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it ironic that the movie chooses to portray Turing in an inaccurately negative light,
when so many times, the film industry polishes up a flawed human hero in a Hollywood retelling.
What I find ironic is how they manage to mention the people who actually cracked Enigma twice and only in passing. First one of those British intelligence types blurts out something about Enigma being "stolen by Polish intelligence" and a second time when Turing claims his machine is based on "an old Polish decryption device" (or something to that effect). At the time this movie is supposed to have happened the bomba kryptologiczna, which is probably what they are referring, to was about 3 years old. That may be dated technology today but by the standard of the 1930s three years was not 'old technology'. Turing achieved great things but he and his team didn't crack Enigma all on their own with British ingenuity. They stood on the shoulders of people like Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski and many others who cracked Enigma with Polish ingenuity. They were the ones who originally had the audacity to think that they could crack the world's most sophisticated cypher technology with the meagre resources the Polish cypher bureau had.
Re: (Score:2)
They stood on the shoulders of people like Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Rozycki and Henryk Zygalski and many others who cracked Enigma with Polish ingenuity. They were the ones who originally had the audacity to think that they could crack the world's most sophisticated cypher technology with the meagre resources the Polish cypher bureau had.
That's true in part, but, IIRC, the Polish break relied on the original insecure operating practice that the Germans soon removed. The operator had to choose a "random" 3 letter session key. Using the day's settings, they'd transmit that key twice in a row (presumably because they were worried that errors might creep in), before adjusting the machine rotors to the session key and encrypting the message. Transmitting the key twice was a major security flaw, which the Polish attack relied on.
IIRC, the German
The problem (Score:2)
As an aside - one thing I never read about is that not only did Turning have to crack the code, but it was all in German (and he is English) - that seems to be not recorded anywhere. So he was a not a genius, but a brilliant genius.
Re:The problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Turing was gay and he was on of the few British that actually did anything in the early computer field. That's why we hear about him, not because of his accomplishments, which were few and unimportant.
If his accomplishments were so unimportant, then why is the preeminent award in computing named for him? And why are his papers used as the foundation for much of Computer Science?
And if you think the British were little active in the early days of computing, I suggest you go and study your history better.
Re: (Score:2)
Furthermore the Americans solved the 4-rotor problem (even harder), something the British were not able to do.
That's bullshit. The British knew exactly how to crack the four rotor problem: they needed bigger and faster bombes, but they didn't have the resources with which to build them. In fact, by using some tricks, they were able to have some success with the existing equipment, but a permanent solution was only arrived at when the USA joined the war. An agreement was reached to share cryptanalysis efforts and the Americans with their enormous resources and significant design input from the British were able
griping about historical accuracy in this case (Score:5, Interesting)
sounds more like "my agenda wasn't served by this picture"
every single historical film ever made, and ever will be made, will be inaccurate. because you can't distill someone's life or a major event into 2 hours and retain accuracy. which doesn't mean anything
because to pay homage to someone we admire, and to make more people aware of the great things they did, far, far outweighs the griping someone might have about accuracy
don't get me wrong: there is such a thing as propaganda and lies. but as long as a film remains broadly accurate we can forgive a foible here and there
for example: there are also people griping about the films "american sniper," and "selma." i'm not going to say if chris kyle did or said ugly things that were conveniently ignored, and i'm not going to say if lyndon johnson's attitudes were incorrectly conveyed. because it doesn't matter to my point in this post. what i'm going to say (i have to be careful because you can set off all sorts of pointless tangential arguments based on misunderstanding) that my *personal* belief is: getting someone interested in the history far outweighs these foibles
the movies were obviously made with care and concern, and were not made as ugly propaganda attack pieces, which also exist, and are what is worthy of ridicule and condemnation. the intentions of the people making "american sniper", "selma", and "the imitation game" were good, honorary to their subject matter, historically faithful if not 100% accurate, and were obviously not made with the intention of ignorant attack pieces. so they are all worthy films anyone should see, to get more people interested in these important topics, as we all should be, to learn from them
and if someone is more interested in the actual history, they can pursue the actual historical facts in academic treatises, documentaries, biographies, etc. which will never, ever be boiled down into 2 hour pop movies
i will say this: the controversies about lbj in "selma", and chris kyle in "american sniper", are far more substantial than these weak contrived complaints about "the imitation game"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't help the uncurious
such a person was ignorant before the movie, and ignorant after the movie
so the effect is net zero
yes, the existence of ignorance is always toxic to society, but the movie didn't add to it
meanwhile, the movie does initiate the spark of curiously in a few, those who will actually exert effort to learn the real truths
enough few of them to make the movie an overall positive effect
Re: (Score:2)
Artistic License vs Big Fat Fucking Lies (Score:2)
Sniper is full of the later, starting with the suggestion that Kyle was in Iraq was 911, which was well-debunked a decade ago. Then suggesting that if Kyle was wrong to shoot someone, he'd end up in military prison - a farce as the U.S. made the puppet government it set up agree to give American's immunity from war crimes. But even the puppets got fed up and refused to let the U.S. go on shooting Iraqis for shits and giggles without consequence. Then there's the rationalization of murdering a woman and a
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
so please educate me
what is the amazing point i am missing
*crickets*
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to admit though, you *are* pretty pissy about it.
Also: Conformation does not mean conformity. I assume that you don't care about what the words you're using actually mean, preferring instead to rant (in lower case) about how we all know perfectly well what you mean, and shouldn't worry about what a mere dictionary has to say about the matter.
You know, for someone who says that they're relaxing, you really are awfully uptight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know e e cumming's work well - possibly my favourite poet - and I can't help but think that he has earned his specific usage of capitalisation through his (often rather underrated) work. Can't speak about k.d lang, but this made me smile. [newsbiscuit.com]
I don't think that circletimessquare has earned his pissyness though - though he doubtless believes that he has.
Re: (Score:2)
We all know who 'circletimessquare' is, and I despise him/her for his strange interpretation of capitalization rules as well (and I simply scroll over his eye hurting posts, regardless how insightful they might be).
But ... who the fuck is 'k d lang'? Regardless of punctuation or capitalization ...
Re: (Score:2)
and yet here you are, deep in a pointless thread, talking about me
maybe you can stop thinking about me as good as you are at scrolling over my posts?
thanks, shitbag
xoxoxox
Re: (Score:2)
Ahhh, c'mon: the post you refer to most likely came from t.s.eliot.
Re: (Score:2)
damn.
Sleepyhead am I
So, in the limit as T.S. Eliot --> ee cummings, please .
sorry
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
thank you
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
everyone has an agenda
if someone tells you they have no agenda, you just met a douchebag with the biggest agenda pushing of all
but we are all capable of separating agenda seeking from a moderate understanding of truth
and as long as a movie can be watched and be seen to have merits in that regard that is apart from and greatly outweighs any agenda seeking in the movie, it has value
there is no such thing, and there never will be, a piece of media, whether film, book, slashdot comment, etc., that does not have
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This movie [youtube.com] has won movies forever. I watch it continuously on a loop and I cannot leave my computer.
Re: (Score:2)
i have no problem adhering to the spirit of the truth of the matter without a tedious hagiography of events exactly, that would put anyone to sleep
random example:
a character shot 2 times in reality, but 4 times on film
depending upon the event, this is either
1. the entire crux of the subject matter, across which all meaning depends, or
2. it is a minor detail without consequence
if you find an inaccuracy in a film, ask yourself this: does the inaccuracy change the entire meaning of the event? does it paint the
Re: (Score:3)
exactly
there is the popular opinion of the genius standing alone, advancing the world as an island
of course, every single "genius" who ever existed, merely stood on the shoulder of others
for the british wwii cryptological effort (obviously not just turing), the polish effort was the foundation on which all the british exertions proved possible:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B... [wikipedia.org]
the efforts of
Marian Rejewski
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M... [wikipedia.org]
Jerzy Róycki
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J... [wikipedia.org]
Henryk Zygalski
http:/ [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
what?
It's a movie (Score:5, Informative)
It's a movie. It's message was "Give us your money".
Any message beyond that is just to get people to give their money more readily.
The movie got four things right! (Score:5, Interesting)
1. Alen Turing was gay.
2. He was briefly engaged to his coworker lady friend.
3. He worked on Enigma.
4. He died after the war.
Besides that it was a complete fiction. "Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter" was more historically accurate.
If you want the truth, I suggest starting with wikipedia: "Marian Rejewski", then "Bombe", then "Bletchley Park", then "Coventry Blitz".
Sadly, the real story is way more interesting and moved much faster than the movie. The Poles gave Enigma cracking plans to the French and the Brits on July 24th 1939. The Brits started up Bletchley Park, brought in Turing and many others, and had a working Enigma cracking program (many machines) by the end of fall 1939!
Another interesting detail that many books on Enigma (and this movie very loosely alludes to) still get wrong has to do with the German upgrade to their code machine in 1942. David Kahn in his "The Codebreakers" book attributes the success in cracking Enigma after 1942 to capturing code books. The truth is that Alan Turing became the technical ambassador to the United States and came over the pond November 1942. He met with some engineers at NCR and developed an electronic version of the mechanical bombe, the plans were finished and approved by the US Navy in January 1943, and the first working prototypes that were 10000 faster than the British bombs were working by May. The rest of that story is at wikipedia: "United States Naval Computing Machine Laboratory".
These are the stories I want to see, not the I'm-the-misunderstood-genius-Asperger-syndrome Turning bullshit that "Imitation Game" put out there.
- Minarke
Re:The movie got four things right! (Score:4, Insightful)
"Never let the truth get in the way of a good story." - Mark Twain.
Telling such a complex story in 90 minutes is not trivial. All dramatizations require fictional mechanisms that leave certain things out and include other things. I will bet that even those wikipedia entries you describe are incomplete, self-serving, and miss the truth by varying degrees. It's OK. Stories are how we pass along meaning. An exact 1:1 match with reality is not desirable, nor does it make it more likely that the viewer will come away with understanding. And devotion to the precise truth will definitely not make for indelible absorption of meaning.
If someone saw The Imitation Game and learned of Turing and then went on to maybe read a book or look him up online, then it's done its job. People who are not curious enough to do that will probably not be harmed by being told a good story.
The message most people get out of the movie.... (Score:3)
People in general are scumbag assholes. And if you are smart and save your entire country, the assholes will beat you down anyways.
Ask Neil Degrasse Tyson how much hate mail he gets from the idiot assholes of the world. Just look at the man's twitter feed.
If you are smart, the raging morons of the world will hate you. This is a stone cold fact.
FAILURE! (Score:2)
The Imitation Game has been out almost six months and there are no new Turings yet! It has clearly failed to inspire the next Turing.
Also, the magic green beans I planted yesterday still haven't grown, so I'm gonna chalk that up as a failure, too. The subzero temperatures should not matter.
Has the internet made everyone stupid, or just headline writers?
Most socially defective peole ARE drawn to STEM (Score:2)
Its a Movie! (Score:2)
Disappointment (Score:2)
The story of a man of vast intellect and education who is a virtuoso at his craft (also maligned and misunderstood by almost everyone) filmed carefully so as to make not only his massive intellect apparent, but also managing to paint him as warm and charming within his personal limits.
And yet, for all the success of the film, we just don't have as many Hannibal Lectors as you'd think...
important question (Score:2)
Did the movie (I haven't seen it) even hint at the incessant persecution Turing suffered at the hands of the Establishment especially through his peers and superiors because of his sexuality? That would have been a MAJOR part of his life even if he was chemically castrated. Or was it like I see so many times in bopics which touch on such seemingly insignificant but fundamentally essential facets of personalities with a cattle poke and three seconds of screen time?
Yes, Turing was a genius. That should be eno
Idiotic review - pure garbage. (Score:2)
The movie was titled ":The Imitation Game", and is a feature film, with a script adapted by a person of same persuasion as Turing.
As with all feature films, that are not called flat out documentaries or biographies, there tends to be historical inaccuracies, fro dramatic effect.
It was not funded by North Korea with the title. " A Patrotic Biography that shall be used as propaganda to inspire more young patriots to become computer scientists in the service of the great leader, and which also would be pleasin
Who needs a movie? (Score:2)
What possible future genius would need a movie to get inspired and find his true calling?
That is utter bs, i don't think a thousand movies will/can do that.
Re:Reviewer totally missed the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Reviewer totally missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You get it all wrong.
As soon as it is widely known that one is gay, you can no longer black mail the gay (guy).
The reason he committed suicide was the law/attitude of the people at that time. Being gay was simply illegal. He was forced to use 'anti gay' medicals. AFAIK sex drive suppressing medicals, making him ill and becoming fat and ugly.
Re:Different Agenda (Score:4, Insightful)
Your loaded use of "Gay agenda", aside, you're actually right. The writer of this movie sees it as a much needed apology to a brilliant man (are you denying that?) who made an enormous contribution to the war effort (are you denying that?) that happend to contain the seeds of the computer revolution we now all take for granted (are you denying that?). And after all that was persecuted by his government and essentially driven to suicide. Apologies are probably in order, no?
So what's the Gay agenda here - not to torture people for who they are?
The original article bemoans the way technology is (or is not) presented in the film. And it has a point - but it's beside the point. Yes, this film was made to teach us some history (more accurate, one might argue, than the history in "American Sniper"), but mostly to elevate a man who deeply deserves to be known and appreciated. And there was some interesting history in there anyway - about the weak link in the German messages that allowed the code to be broken, and about the way the army sometimes held back on what it had intercepted (at the cost of lives) in order to keep secret what they knew. It just wasn't history of technology. Sorry - different film.