• Please review our updated Terms and Rules here

Red Sparrow the Movie

smplfyi

smplfyi

Experienced Member
Joined
Jan 31, 2007
Messages
259
Location
Warwickshire
So I just watched Red Sparrow, and in 2018 not via download but in a real Cinema

Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Sparrow

I thought I was going nuts when they started using 3.5" floppies

Now as far as I can tell the story is set in the present day, well for example all the cars were 2016 or later and although all the Russian and other Eastern European apartments looked like the seventies, it would be inconsistent with the placement of LCD screens etc in other parts of the film.

So What the Heck. Floppies? Discuss!!
 
Actually CDs would have been more appropriate - USB sticks are out - not allowed on US gov systems unless there is a "It will never happen" waiver. Very pain in the ***, I regularly burn CDs to move data from online systems to off-line system (updates, virus def, security patches and such) in fact we were forced to Windows 10 laptops recently and (at my location anyway) they won't allow USB printers or scanners to be connected - want us to only use networked printers and scanners only though we may get to use Snap-Scan scanners which is no where near as nice as my HP scanner sitting unused in my office.
 
krebizfan said:
https://www.inverse.com/article/41844-red-sparrow-floppy-disks-scene-jennifer-lawrence has the director's attempt to justify it.
Click to expand...

The director saw the 60 Minutes piece a few years ago showing the 8" floppies used to run the nuclear launch computers and thought that a lot of government operations must still do that, and also that floppy disks would be appealing in the movie. It was a stylistic choice that is not based in fact or reality. As a historian, it really rubs me the wrong way; it makes it that much harder to preserve history, much like the CSI-style police procedural shows make it hard for a court jury to understand the actual capabilities and limits of police forensic work, as they've had fake tech presented to them as reality on TV shows.

As Hollywood runs out of ideas, it is increasingly bending the rules of reality, facts, and history when it comes to pieces that are supposed to be at least somewhat factual. Fake/convenient/over-complicated technology is easy to spot (ie. the Mission Impossible series) and so that is clearly marked as fantasy. When only a single detail is (glaringly) incorrect, it slips by, and now the audience thinks that the US and Russian governments routinely pass secrets using floppy disks which is patently stupid and incorrect.
 
James0555 said:
Actually CDs would have been more appropriate - USB sticks are out - not allowed on US gov systems unless there is a "It will never happen" waiver. Very pain in the ***, I regularly burn CDs to move data from online systems to off-line system (updates, virus def, security patches and such) in fact we were forced to Windows 10 laptops recently and (at my location anyway) they won't allow USB printers or scanners to be connected - want us to only use networked printers and scanners only though we may get to use Snap-Scan scanners which is no where near as nice as my HP scanner sitting unused in my office.
Click to expand...

When they thought up USB, I don't think they thought that one could buy a $3 uP to stick on the wires and completely take over your machine, by spec. Many products use these cheap programmable processors for there USB inputs. Even a visual check of the inside of a printer is no insurance that there isn't a listening bug in the code. A thumb drive is like a master key to the system.
Dwight
 
Trixter said:
The director saw the 60 Minutes piece a few years ago showing the 8" floppies used to run the nuclear launch computers and thought that a lot of government operations must still do that, and also that floppy disks would be appealing in the movie. It was a stylistic choice that is not based in fact or reality. As a historian, it really rubs me the wrong way; it makes it that much harder to preserve history, much like the CSI-style police procedural shows make it hard for a court jury to understand the actual capabilities and limits of police forensic work, as they've had fake tech presented to them as reality on TV shows.
Click to expand...

The amount of patently absurd "facts" that creep their way into being common indisputable fact due to popularity in TV and movies is disturbing to say the least.

Take for example the "fact" that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. It was common knowledge that this had been debunked. Then Jurassic Park became a hit.
 
This had been going on for a long time. I was looking at an old 50s SciFi flick where the phrase "analyzed by computers" or something similar was used. What was shown was an 024 keypunch, an 082 sorter and 407 accounting machine. But most people didn't know the difference back then, anyway.
 
KC9UDX said:
The amount of patently absurd "facts" that creep their way into being common indisputable fact due to popularity in TV and movies is disturbing to say the least.

Take for example the "fact" that birds are descendants of dinosaurs. It was common knowledge that this had been debunked. Then Jurassic Park became a hit.
Click to expand...

I don't recall that being debunked? It seems like the newer finds are confirming it.
Dwight
 
Dwight Elvey said:
I don't recall that being debunked? It seems like the newer finds are confirming it.
Dwight
Click to expand...

As far as I can tell the newer finds are pretty biased on "established science".

If I was home I could probably cite some articles when the bird dinosaur link was disproven. In any case it's just absurd. The only proof is that dinosaurs' reptile scales in fossils almost look like feathers in 2D. Bird anatomy is as similar to dinosaur anatomy as dogs are to dogfish.

EDIT sorry forgot the ol "Sauropods have short arms so they must be proto wings" thing..
 
Last edited:
I've read tons of (scientific) articles about birds, dinosaurs, and similarities/otherwise the last couple of decades. The 'debunking' of the dinosaur->bird theory that existed at one point was based on arguing that the 'lost' toe of birds wasn't consistent with the theory (i.e. the 'wrong' toe was lost). I found that very interesting at the time. That assumption (the wrong toe) however, turned out to be incorrect. Since then every find has been consistent with the dinosaur-bird link, to the extreme. Feathers, bones, inner structure of lungs, everything really.

I found an article about BAND (Birds Are Not Dinosaurs) just now, after some searching - it mentions the digits thingy that I recalled, but with a way better description than my 'wrong toe'. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/the-birds-are-not-dinosaurs-movement/
 
The problem is that someone writes a book. It makes some claim. People except that maybe it is right. We have people avoiding shots for horrible diseases because someone wrote a book or two.
There are still a few missing pieces on the way from dinosaurs to birds but there does not seem to be any other path.
People ( including me ) tend to believe things that are often false. It is like the guy that finds fossils of humans from the time of dinosaurs, in his back yard. I have an otherwise intelligent friend who quotes his findings as proof that evolution is wrong.
One can't argue with such stuff.
Dwight
 
"does not seem to be any other path" is exactly why it's settled science. And that's not science.
 
Belief in evolution is a truly wondrous and magical thing. Whenever something comes along and debunks the notion, as finding a perfectly preserved insect or lizard as it exists today encased in amber, they just claim that buggaboo didn't need to evolve. Problem solved. But we're supposedly to believe that brontosaurus' made that long arduous trek and became a blue jay. An amber is also wonderfully magical as it only selects those munchkins that refuse to evolve. The nerve of some species.
 
But after billions and billions of eons, things proven impossible are inevitable. At least, it can't be disproven because scientific studies can't last that long.

It amazes me how much time and money are put into things that can't be proven and have no bearing on life within our lifetimes.
 
Right. And many of the big wigs who propound these theories truly are thoughtful and talented people. Or at least ingenious. And all that brain matter wasted. How many cures for ailments and new technologies could be developed if that talent was applied meaningfully.
 
2icebitn said:
But we're supposedly to believe that brontosaurus' made that long arduous trek and became a blue jay.
Click to expand...
Are we? You'll have to back up that claim, I think. Can you point to a scientific article claiming the brontosaur (or any of the similar type of dinosaur, for that matter), evolved into blue jays? Or into birds, even?
Or did just make that up?
 
Unless you suggest the tiniest dinosaurs evolved into birds, dinosaur means any number of creatures including very large ones. people who prescribe to this stuff always attempt to get everyone tied up in minutiae, and it's really annoying to have to clarify such verbage. Was I specifically claiming that evolutionists state brontosaurus' became blue jays? No, no, no. It's just that I find it extremely difficult to accept the integrity of people that make outlandish claims, then all of a sudden retract them when it's convenient. it only stands to reason that everything is going to evolve ... some anyway. Whenever an example of some thought to be long extinct creature shows up, they have to modify the theory. Ok fair enough. But as there is no mathematical basis for evolution, as their is with theories of physics, you can modify forever and you'll just continually remind everyone of how baseless the theory is. It isn't falsifiable, not in any large sense anyway.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top