Who saw Life 2.0?

[Pamela Galli]

---

Ima Rang wrote:



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518809/

I'm not sure how it could be streamed and I'm also not sure that charging for viewing would not violate US Laws.  Perhaps you could contact the creator/production co. and see if they would be willing to show it inworld. 

---

After watching the interview, I would not be surprised if at some point he might be willing to show it -- he seems to be a fanboi. :smileytongue:

[Jo Yardley]

---

Ima Rang wrote:



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518809/

I'm not sure how it could be streamed and I'm also not sure that charging for viewing would not violate US Laws.  Perhaps you could contact the creator/production co. and see if they would be willing to show it inworld. 

---

Oh yes, that was my idea.

I don't understand why the production company is not showing it inside SL and charge for it.

Any other way would be illegal.

I work in the tv/movie business myself and would defenitely done that.

[Ima Rang]

---

Jo Yardley wrote:

---

Ima Rang wrote:



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1518809/

I'm not sure how it could be streamed and I'm also not sure that charging for viewing would not violate US Laws.  Perhaps you could contact the creator/production co. and see if they would be willing to show it inworld. 

---

Oh yes, that was my idea.

I don't understand why the production company is not showing it inside SL and charge for it.

Any other way would be illegal.

I work in the tv/movie business myself and would defenitely done that.

---

Maybe he plans to after the final showing on OWN.  Perhaps it was a contractual agreement or something. 

[Andy Greenstein]

I thought it was very interesting.  Although, the entire feel of the documentary was "creepy", and it was intended to be that way.  They really focused on the negative and didn't take the time to focus on why these people enjoy SL.  Mostly just how it has ruined their lives.  Either way I highly suggest watching it. 

[Chelsea Malibu]

Saw it, loved it and thought they did a great job.  I met my significant other in SL and we live together too so we could relate.

I thought my good friend Fank (the attorney) did an great job but wish they had shown more about Stroker's IP battle but oh well, I'm biased. And can someone help that girl from NY fix her hair? OMG what was up with that?

The follow up on Dr. Phil was about as weird as it can get though and I think was very biased and unfair making everyone in MMO's look like loosers.  I guess they forgot to mention that many very famous people like Curt Shilling and William Shatner as well as many productive professionals (Like me) also play.

"Successful Business Person/Attorney loves to play WoW and build in Second Life" wouldnt be a very good story I guess.

[Bandito Razor]

To be fair, dr Phill is a crock so... Life 2.0 was the only OWN aired thing I have seen and it promoted me to get back into SL, but with my eyes a bit more open then from before I quit.

[Pamela Galli]

Thanks -- I am still debating whether to see it.

When I first started in SL I was instantly hooked (making stuff), and my family let me know how much they disapproved of me becoming "a computer game addict". The SL sleaze factor did not help. (I was a teacher then.)

Now that I earn my living here, they have changed their tune -- but I don't know that I want to watch something that emphasizes the downside of SL, when it is so much more.

[Pamela Galli]

---

Chelsea Malibu wrote:

 

I thought my good friend Fank (the attorney) did an great job but wish they had shown more about Stroker's IP battle but oh well, I'm biased.

---

One of the links in a post above is about the court case and it just made my blood boil -- all that stuff ripped off and nothing is done, the avi is not even banned!  They were forced to file a lawsuit to protect their property. Not much has changed. Maybe if this new IP thingy gets out of beta.

[Megumi Yoshiyuki]

"It is strange and hilarious - just like real life"

[Pamela Galli]

Exactly -- if they made a movie like that about 1st life, a lot of ppl would pass on being born. :smileytongue:

 

Too dangerous and sleazy.

[AthenaNicole Giano]

Here's what I got out of watching the OWN channel last night:

 

Video games do not kill people, people kill people.

 

I say that because the same episode of Dr Phil ( Coping w/video game addiction ) aired before and after Life 2.0. One of the subjects profiled on his show was a young man that shot and killed himself while playing. His Mom found him dead at his pc with WoW still running.

 

Life 2.0 did point out some interesting facts. Namely the number of users and amount of money involved. The types and cost of items available in world. The big corperation's that have offices inworld. Other than that there was not one nice thing said about any company or any user in SL or the virtual world we work and play in. His comments were very interesting, but not even Philip Rosedale had anything good to say about SL or the users.

 

He did say that a virtual world can only be successful if it is ungoverned and how hard it is to think about those that call out asking to be governed. He said it would stifle the growth of SL if it was to become governed. After watching the youtube interview of the filmmaker, I'm sure he started this project with a great idea and good intentions. But his film is so unfair to SL and so unbalanced it has very little redeeming value to it at all. He really should forget about all virtual worlds and leave them and SL alone. Maybe working at Fox News would be a good place for him?

 

As far as Mr. Rosedale is concerned, he should be ashamed of himself for being a part of a film that painted SL as such a terrible addictive thing that destroys lives and kills people. Life 2.0 was sandwiched between Dr. Phils show for a reason and the message of both programs was very clear. Virtual worlds is and always will be bad, no matter what anyone else thinks. If I were the CEO of Linden Labs and he worked for me, Mr. Rosedale would have been fired first thing this morning along with any other employee that had anything to do with the making of this film.

[Pamela Galli]

I think your assessment is right, because I see nary a blip in concurrency today.  The message seems to have been: DANGER! STAY OUT!

How hard would it have been to spend  15 minutes showing just a tiny bit of the truly amazing creativity and generosity of spirit in SL? Not an ad for SL, but a more truthful picture.

 

[Cerebrix Absolute]

I thought it was a big waste of my time.

 

ive been here since 2005 on and off.  ive seen a lot happen in that time.  ive traveled among so many groups over the years i think its relatively certain i can say, i have a pretty good handle on the ebb and flow of residents here on the grid as a whole.

 

yes, there are some deviant groups that choose to live a certain lifestyle in here because its easier to do here than it is irl.

 

yes, cheaters are going to find a medium to support their cheating.  be it sl or any other electronic communications medium.

 

no, the people depicted in life 2.0 were not in any way shape or form representative of the general grid population.

 

polarization for the sake of an easy documentary plot is one of the most bush league forms of film making.  yeah, the producers and director got an easy payday from oprah.  GG.  Now its time for them to run off and polarize some other group or community so they can continue to make their mediocre at best filmmaking.

 

or

 

tldr;

people who make polarized documentaries are completely dishonest and should not be trusted in any way shape or form, to be a source of information for people.  they only promote the worst things in the world and do more harm than good.  This film does not in any way, promote any of the good things about second life and for that I find it kind of insulting.

 

I hope the funding for their next film falls through after theyve already spent a ton of money.  to me, that would be karma.

[Hayley Spore]

The whole thing seemed very... dated. It reminded me of 10 years ago when the Internet was still a scary place to many people and they just painted virtual worlds with a big "STAY AWAY! THERE IS NOTHING HERE FOR NORMAL PEOPLE!" sign...  *sigh*

[Kenbro Utu]

---

AthenaNicole Giano wrote:

If I were the CEO of Linden Labs and he worked for me, Mr.

Rosedale

would have been fired first thing this morning along with any other employee that had anything to do with the making of this film.

---

That would never happen.  Mr. Rosedale is the chair of Linden Lab and the founder of Second Life.  The CEO works for him.

[AthenaNicole Giano]

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

That would never happen.  Mr. Rosedale is the chair of Linden Lab and the founder of Second Life.  The CEO works for him.

---

Yes, I know that would never happen. You did not understand what I said at all and there is no way I can say it again more clearly. Maybe you will understand my meaning in the following statement:

 

Mr. Rosedale should step down as CEO and never again be involved in the management of SL, or he should sell Linden Labs. Any Linden Lab employee that was involved in the making of this film, on camera or off camera should be fired!

[Melita Magic]

---

Jo Yardley wrote:

Generally SL is not (yet) good enough to offer a quality shared video experience.

I've tried many expensvie video players and due to connection, lag, etc, half the audience is always a bit behind.

We do have 1920s movies in our cinema, lots of fun but no competition to seeing a video.

But yes, if someone has a good low lag cinema somewhere they could make a little money showing movies.

And especially with a documentary about SL, it would seem obvious to me to screen it in SL, even have a premiere there with VIPS and so on.

I can't see the OWN channel and won't buy a dvd, so it may never reach me (legally) and it is a shame that it won't reach 80% (just a guess) of people in SL who don't get US tv.

And if you charge people say $2, I am sure you make more then your tiers.

Come to think of it, LL should propbably help the documentary makers by giving them a free cinema and stream to show it.

Because in the end, this is all free PR.

---

Thanks, I meant the actual studios though, as a way to screen things, rent films/Tv and get more publicity...

Or even offering online access and rental to any and ALL shows world wide...That is far, far overdue!

Your cinema is cool and works perfectly.

[Pamela Galli]

If you don't want to watch it but want a synopsis:

 

http://cinesourcemagazine.com/index.php?/site/comments/sf_fests_big_docs_life_20_a_virtual_tour/

[Kenbro Utu]

---

AthenaNicole Giano wrote:

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

That would never happen.  Mr. Rosedale is the chair of Linden Lab and the founder of Second Life.  The CEO works for him.

---

Yes, I know that would never happen. You did not understand what I said at all and there is no way I can say it again more clearly. Maybe you will understand my meaning in the following statement:

 

Mr. Rosedale should step down as CEO and never again be involved in the management of SL, or he should sell Linden Labs. Any Linden Lab employee that was involved in the making of this film, on camera or off camera should be fired!

---

Well, he is not the CEO.  The CEO is Rodvik Linden (Ron Humble).  I understand completely what you said.  You alluded to the fact that Mr. Rosedale was an employ of LL and subject to being fired.  I simply pointed out who Mr. Rosedale was and that he could not be fired.  Now I am correcting your misinformation that he is CEO.  He is not.  I never commented on whether or not someone should be fired from the standpoint of being involved in this movie, just that it would not happen to Mr. Rosedale. Just the facts, stick with em and we'll be alright.

 

[AthenaNicole Giano]

---

---

 

---

Well, he is not the CEO.  The CEO is Rodvik Linden (Ron Humble).  I understand completely what you said.  You alluded to the fact that Mr. Rosedale was an employ of LL and subject to being fired.  I simply pointed out who Mr. Rosedale was and that he could not be fired.  Now I am correcting your misinformation that he is CEO.  He is not.  I never commented on whether or not someone should be fired from the standpoint of being involved in this movie, just that it would not happen to Mr. Rosedale. Just the facts, stick with em and we'll be alright.

 

---

 

Sure, I'll be more than happy to stick to the facts. Lets start with the first one. I never alluded to anything. I presented a hypothetical situation that you failed to comprehend. Now, as far as the who's who of Linden Lab goes I don't track such things. Rosedale was the CEO in the beginning, then turned that spot over to someone else for a year or two I think. I don't recall the name, it means nothing to me. Rosedale then came back temporarily and has now handed it over to Ron Humble? I really don't care who is in charge or who owns what. I was simply going by the information offered in the film. All I know is that when the film showed Rosedale they also showed at the bottom of the screen his name followed by the title "CEO Linden Labs". For all I know he is back again. Like I said, I don't track such things. Have you watched the film at all? I do hope so and that you understand that there is no misinformation in my post that requires correcting.

You seem like the kind of guy that will insist on setting this striaght so let me help you out. The person resposible for listing Rosedale as CEO in the film is Jason Spingarn-Koff. You can contact him here:

http://web.mac.com/jskoff/jason/Bio.html

Good luck in your quest!

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

Cerebrix Absolute wrote in part:

 

yes, cheaters are going to find a medium to support their cheating.  be it sl or any other electronic communications medium.

 

---

How can you say that! Before the advent of virtual worlds, people never cheated on their spouses, divorces were unheard of, all married couples lived happily ever after, nobody ever stole anything, shut-ins and recluses were unheard of, and there were no sexual deviants either. It's all Second Life's fault.

ETA: No, I didn't see Life 2.0, I just read about it. It appears that this documentary covers all the bases of moral outrage: Cybersex and infidelity, internet addiction and social withdrawal, cybercrime / copybotting, and child avatars.

[Ishtara Rothschild]

---

AthenaNicole Giano wrote:

---

Kenbro Utu wrote:

---

That would never happen.  Mr. Rosedale is the chair of Linden Lab and the founder of Second Life.  The CEO works for him.

---

Yes, I know that would never happen. You did not understand what I said at all and there is no way I can say it again more clearly. Maybe you will understand my meaning in the following statement:

 

Mr. Rosedale should step down as CEO and never again be involved in the management of SL, or he should sell Linden Labs. Any Linden Lab employee that was involved in the making of this film, on camera or off camera should be fired!

---

Philip Linden is a salesperson. He knows that all publicity is good publicity.

[Kenbro Utu]

You need to go back and look at the year the film covers.  Sure I watched it.  Speaking to your original point, I saw nothing anyone should be fired for.  You can relax now. 

[Pamela Galli]

We just need to turn the internet off!  :smileymad:

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/barbara-schroeder/and-you-thought-your-moth_b_542100.html

[Persephone Emerald]

Warning: spoilers

 

 

 

 

 I was a first angry at the obvious stereotypes that the producers of this documentary chose to portray: 1.Two married people (who must be having other problems in their marriages) find a virtual romance, break up with their spouses, & then find out real life isn't the same as fantasy. 2.) People who look attractive & successful in SL may be overweight & messed-up in RL. 3.) Some of the people in SL are really weird & messed up.

However, after watching  the whole show, I decided it wasn't that bad. 1. The cheating couple were not unattractive or total losers. They were just regular people looking for an escape from their unhappy marriages. 2. The creator was bringing in a 3-digit income that was supporting her parents & she had the freedom to live her life as she wanted because she's talented & hard-working. (Funny how when a thin person says they spend 14+ hour days working on an online business, they're thought of as hard-working (i.e.. Stroker Serpentine in an earlier TV show), but when an overweight person does the same thing, they're thought of as a lazy slob.) 3.) The child avatar guy came to important psychological realizations about himself & his life. (It's not fair to blame SL for his break-up with his fiance, since she obviously couldn't accept his gender identity issues or try to understand what he was going through.)

 

 

 

(End Spoiler)

 

In each story told,  the producers chose to show some things & leave out others, so we're left with only a partial explanation of what really happened.  They didn't show the depth of relationship problems all the couples were probably having.  They didn't show what kinds of health problems the creator had that may have made it difficult for her to have a regular job.  They didn't show if the guy with the child avatar was seeing a therapist.

With any real life story portrayed in print or on film, there are always some aspects played up & some aspects left out, which leaves the audience with a skewed perspective.  This is especially true when the story is about a fringe subculture. Producers frequently look for angles that their audience will be able to relate to, and such angles for fringe subcultures tend to be very biased & unfair.