Has anyone noticed how the Y2K movie this Sunday is only being questioned by industries? (banking / electric / etc.) --- While in the past the goverment has objected... it is strangely silent this time. Do you think it might be a purposeful strategy based on letting the movie motivate people to prepare without panic an offical statement might invoke? Course when has any panic occured. That was stopped with all those "It's fixed" news releases.

-- Lee Parsons (imforyou@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999

Answers

Nah, they're just really grateful it isn't Y2K: Year To Kill. I think the NBC movie as been a coordinated hype to keep attention focused on it and not on the one you can't see on t.v., on cable, or in any movie theater.

In Y2K: Year To Kill no one in his or her right mind puts money in the banks. It's just too risky and the odds of losing it high all said with practical good sense by the "good guy."

Ooh, do they want Americans focused on that NBC movie.

-- Paula (chowbabe@pacbell.net), November 17, 1999.

Actually, several groups are coming forward to plead with NBC to pull the movie. (though not the government so far)I wouldn't be a bit suprised if it gets pulled. After all, according to Art Bell's interview with David Isreal, they still have a strong international market for the movie whether we see it or not.

I think the movie sounds pretty cheesy myself, but I'll be watching it if it comes on.

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

I have no doubt that it's a typical made-for-tv "movie" (as in, "cheesy, trite, condescending, devoid of acting, directing, or technical talent -- in other words, television, only longer) of the disaster genre. That means fake tension buildup, shoddy premise, laughable plot development, and of course, Happy Ending.

Now, if it actually gets *pulled*?

If that happens, all bets are off. Panic, though, should be presumed.

By pulling it, they'd be giving creedence to everything the flick is *rumored* to be about.

-- Ron Schwarz (rs@clubvb.com.delete.this), November 18, 1999.

Pardon the tinfoil but, I wouldn't be surprised if this movie was the .gov's idea AND .gov's script! Three day storm, some problems, regional blackouts, ok in the end? Where have I heard that before? Der Slickmiester has a lot of Hollywood ties ya know! He is after all, the second most evil man around!

-- FLAME AWAY (BLehman202@aol.com), November 18, 1999.

Speaking of the ending of the movie, I was groggy when David Israel was on Art Bell, but did anybody else hear him say that the movie was going to have a special ending, like you think everything is going to be ok, then there is a twist to it? Kind of like the 6th sense.

-- Marsha (MSykes@court.co.macon.il.us), November 18, 1999.

Yes, David Isreal said he was not happy with the happy, shiny ending of this guy saving the world, so he put a twist at the end...he said he didn't want to end it without "strings attached".

Actually, from what it sounds like, the main character only saves seattle from devistation, the rest of the world is still screwed :)

-- C. Hill (pinionsmachine@hotmail.com), November 18, 1999.