Видео

What Arthurian adaption is this using. I LOVE the Once and Future King.

brilliant remaster , thought there were going to be a lot more stills , wish could see the missing hours

Ah, those marvellous naturalists! Starting with Émile Zola (e.g. LA BÊTE HUMAINE, THÉRÈSE RAQUIN etc.), they knew how to write heart-warming, edifying, and elevating texts😉. Or didn't they. And then a movie berserk such as Erich von Stroheim comes along and shoots this here congenial film based on American naturalist's Frank Norris' McTeague. As to LA BÊTE: Watch out for the versions with a still pretty young Jean Gabin (France) and a not so young Glen Ford (Hollywood). BTW Many thanks to the uploader!

The MGM lion's roar is out of sync with the imagery. What about the music and the rest of the film?

Asimov was not very clever. Author of pulp fiction.

Sadly they both fell into the trap of becoming neoliberal propagandists with little faith in the working class, to my knowledge at least Asimov evolved out of some of his worse hang ups but Orwell flat out forsake his anarchist roots for security of station in Britain which is unacceptable.

I'm certainly open-minded enough to entertain contrarian views, but I think Asimov missed the boat here. Thomas Pynchon's absolutely genius essay on 1984 specifically addresses the issue of making lists of what Orwell got right and what he got wrong, which in Pynchon's view was completely missing the point. He goes on to describe the difference between prediction and prophecy. By the latter criterion, 1984 is utterly brilliant and as relevant as ever. Much as I love and admire some of Asimov's work (though a lot of it is, to put it kindly, less than memorable) I have to say that Pynchon is on every conceivable level a better writer and more formidable intellect. His take on 1984 is no exception.

The Magic Christian ! 😊

Why he did not adapted his mother?

Because he didn't write it.

thank you so much for sharing this.

Ah! This makes so much sense! While rereading McTeague over the last week, there were so many parts that seemed so ahead of their time, and evoked vague memories for me of stuff I'd read before. One bit stood out for me as VERY modern writing and, yes, Stephen King-esque. It's the part where the little kindergarteners are merrily talking and playing, putting away their coats, while unbeknownst to them, just on the other side of that door is the murdered and brutalized body of Trina. I don't remember the exact wording but it was something like "And then, the children opened the door," and the chapter ended there. We never see their reaction, we just have to imagine it. We have to imagine what finding a bloody dead body AT THEIR SCHOOL would do to these tiny, innocent 5 year olds. Something about that was just SO chilling and very much like something Stephen King would do! It also reminded me of the final sentence of Apt Pupil, (paraphrasing) "It took the police 7 hours to finally take him down." Just a very simple little sentence, and the knowledge that the uncertainty and vagueness is much more terrifying than what a person could write.

In the book, the reader is made feel that there is no hope for any change. In reality, after the death of Stalin, Soviet Union turned into a much better place when it is today under Putin, even though it was never comparable to Western democracies. I am not blaming Orwell to write a propaganda book, but the cold war paranoia made it so, as well as Animal Farm, which suggests the false image that leaders in communist countries are as rich as Elon Musk or something. Not saying that everyone was equal there, but inequality was way less than in a capitalist country.

Asimov has grown more wrong as the years have passed. It takes only a dodgy flu bug or a bit of anti-immigration rioting to cause governments to slip a few steps down the icy totalitarian hill. Canada and the UK come inexorably to mind. What was Asimov thinking when he made the comment about his perceived lack of perpetual war? What did he think Korea, Vietmam, and the various proxy wars were? To say nothing of events which skated close to the edge of the cliff. Some of the history of that time remains murky. For example, Stalin seems to have permitted the Korean War after Kondrashev recruited an American code clerk codenamed "Jack", whose information let the Soviets read the American codes and learn that Korea was outside America's apparent defence perimeter.at the time. Even the glacier of the Cold War and nuclear threat could not totally contain conflict. I don't see the Party in "1984" as being Communism only. Stalinism did not arise from nothing. It reflected a template. So did the Reich. Orwell was describing this template. I fear that we are going to face 1984 long before we face a society which benefits from mathematically calculated history with occasional corrections to account for unforeseeable abberations such as The Mule, or Lyndon Johnson.

I thought they were great

Committed communists despise Orwell for giving the game away.

Nobody's perfect, I guess.

The problem with world of 1984 is that there is no room for the United States in it. Orwell disliked America and didn't know much about it, but to imagine a world where the US has embraced a rather gloomy socialism in thirty years is ridiculous (other than the bit about Airstrip One; most Americans at the time regarded Britain as little more than a combination museum/parking lot for the USAF). But Americans, especially American SF writers, were on fire for the future- an American future full of cars, televisions, atomic power and rocket ships. If you are looking for American dystopias, you're far better off looking into the consumer-driven capitalist hellholes of C.M. Kornbluth, Frederick Pohl, and others of the mid-1950s.

The Dark Tower series is the worst piece of 💩 I've ever read in my entire life. King is a mediocre writer that got lucky.

If I’m ever asked this question personally I would reply with “Ever heard of The Shawshank Redemption.” Also the Shining had an amazing ending where Jack redeems himself, but it didn’t work with Kubrick’s film because Jack was just a bad guy and not a good person with issues that was taken advantage of

Who knew Asimov had his head in the sand? Or worse, was a deliberate propagandist.

Orwell is a genius. Asimov is an idiot.

It’s simple: Asimov was a Jewish socialist, and Orwell had correctly distilled the lessons of Russian Bolshevism (Jewish socialism) into literary warnings. Thusly, to ensure his ideological project could continue forward, Asimov had to discredit Orwell.

Because Asimov is a fantasy author sold to the masses as the best sci fi author ever. There's a reason why nowadays we have stuff like 'hard' sci-fi. As time went on, bright people realized the worlds he writes about, as interesting as they may be, are unrealitic and far from practical application of physics. Authors like Orwell and Jules Verne actually, factually and unarguably predicted scientific applications that saw the light of day, a few years after. Social sciences, in the case of Orwell ofc.

1984 should not be taken literally. It is a metaphor for religion.

The two writers were coming from different directions. Asimov's works dealt with science and how we deal with it. Orwell was concerned with human nature and politics and how far things could go if we didn't stand vigil over our own freedoms.

Asimov was a sheltered academic nerd and is vastly overrated. I read many of his books as a kid but at that age was easily satisfied and lacking experience.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." -- Princess Leia Yet, Yuval Noah Harari has made some chilling suppositions about what might be possible for the dictators of the future, empowered by advanced surveillance technology and AI.

I'm sure glad there's variety and people who see things differently and use different modes of expression all get to share their creations. Orwell and Asimov both.

I cannot disagree more with Asimov's assessment of 1984. It seems as if he's taking the book as a work of non-fiction and it fails to address every issue that might come with such an event to happen, when it is a work of fiction that just considers what it might be like to live under these conditions. The novel doesn't cover the rise of Big Brother or gives much in ways of the history of how this government came to having such total control over its citizens. (There are plenty of non-fiction books one can find to fill in the gaps on this matter.) I've never had a problem with these omissions and find the story itself compelling enough to hold my interest. As far as it being "dull" I also disagree. I've read the book many times--more than any other in my life --and have never found it dull. My first time reading it I didn't fully understand it, but as my own political knowledge expanded I started to see how prophetic it was and can hear the rhetoric of the Inner Party in the dialogue (or rather monologue) of modern political figures. I only agree that the characters are a bit wooden and one dimensional, especially Julia whom we know next to nothing about (but Orwell never wrote women characters particularly well), but they are products of their repressive environment, fighting a system infinitely greater and more powerful.than themselves. I've only read I, Robot so I cannot comment what type of writer he was. The book left no great impression on me. I don't really think of 1984 (same as A Clockwork Orange)as science-fiction. Harlan Ellision often squirmed at the category and preferred "speculative fiction" as a better description. Just because a story is set in the future doesn't make it science-fiction, but everyone has their own definition of science-fiction. Asimov's criteria on judging 1984 seems very shortsighted. It's like reading Animal Farm and picking apart all the things that animals are incapable of doing and not seeing it as an allegorical fable.

Hate the new added music, wish it had the original music

I had to read 1984 in college so I'm happy to find out Asimov thought the same as me. Awful book. Huxley also thought righfully that Brave New World was better at predicting the future. Marvel movies are more efficient at brainwashing than violence.

Funny thing is that when I think of hauntings, I always wonder if there's a common psychological condition within them. Ghosts, tha Hag, and Succubbi are examples of myths with a set of conmon details to them that suggests some kind of archetype to our thinking about hauntings. Anyways, I will have to look this film up, been awhile since I read anything by James.

Orwell wasn't trying to predict the future. He wanted to warn the world of how technology, war, mind control and propaganda could create a nightmare dystopia like that Orwell envisions in 1984. Orwell describes a world that stopped progressing from the 1950s due to atomic war, famine, civil war and violent revolution. The 1980s in Orwell's novel is the 1940s because the broken world could not move forward from the 40s. The dictatorship, or Big Brother, squanders most of Oceania's resources and money on weapons and surveillance technology. The ruling party's evil priorities are why London is decaying and the people live in squalor. Despite being set in the future and descriptions of futuristic technology, 1984 is not a science fiction. It is dystopian future fiction combined with political commentary. Asimov seems like he never understood 1984

Funny that Asimov took it upon himself to criticise Orwell's writing. Asimov's stories are pretty good - Foundation in particular - but his writing is pedestrian at best, and his 'characters' cardboard.

Fake news

Sorry Azimov - I'm team Orwell.

I would love to see Clive's real imagination as a movie, be it Weaveworld, Sacrament or Imajica, be great to see it for those who can't read, I am so sick of Marvel, Clive is brilliant

This is great, it shows that all people are inspired by others. Clive Barker was my favourite author by far when I was growing up, most favourite works are Weaveworld, Great And Secret Show, Everville & Sacrament.

So Asimov was irritated because Orwell didn't even try to predict the future. Well, what we have now is total surveillance. What we don't have now and what we will NEVER have are those roborules that protect people from robots.

A little quibble here. 1984 is a society under a SOCIALIST superstate.

Azimov: Orwell's world is not a realistic future. Also Azimov: *proceeds to depict 10 000 th century spacecraft running on oil*

1984 while inspired by Stalin I often found it is more about toletalism as a whole no matter the road to it. Orwell wad explore they ways the masses could be controlled by a goverment. How one can convince people the truth is a lie and the lie is the truth. You see some of the ways in the real world today but in slightly differnt ways. As for Asimav's view of 1984 as acience fiction I say how he's view of the genrn is too narrow to be trusted. By his narrow view writers like Philip K Dick whose novels had vary little if any interest in the future and Harry Turtledove would not be science fiction others.

I never regarded '1984' as science-fiction. It's more a political pamphlet set in the near future. It describes his worries about the present.

Asimov couldn't imagine that his beloved progressivism would develop into the very incarnation of 1984 - wokeism.

Well of Lonliness. Cough, cough.

Yeah, Asimov was cool and all, but totally disagree with his criticisms of Orwell. I think Asimov was totally jelly; sorry sideburns guy

I was under the impression that a totalitarian gov't stymies technological advancement and even deliberately keep the populace in a poor state. So not having better stuff for the people is by design or even due to the gov't not caring. Is the world at war or is that a lie? Just what the peole think. The other 2 super states are exactly the same as Oceania. Now, the novel is too nightmarish to believe people could adapt to it and one imagines a rebellion even without knowledge of how it used to be. I think a state where people belueve all is well and are lulled into a state of bliss is more likely as in Brave New World.

I love Asimov, so this is… Embarrassing.

I don't think 1984 is meant to be realistic. It's more of an idea, or an emotional experience. The exaggerations provoke stronger emotion.