> I don't know WHY, but I keep wondering how I would go about explaining a computer to Benjamin Franklin, if I went back in time, grabbed him, and brought him back here. I'm sure I'd work "This piece of machinery is your fault" in there somewhere.
>
> I'm posting about this because I'd like to hear what everyone else has to say (either about how they'd go about doing this themselves or about the thought itself, which, by the way, has been annoying me for MORE THAN TWO YEARS) and to see if it somehow chases the thought out of my head. Hey, it could work.

Benjamin Franklin was a bright guy. I'm sure if you explained it the same way you'd explain it to anybody, he'd get it. He's got the electricity thing down, so then you just explain that very small amounts of electricity are routed through semiconductors, and then you define what that means, and then you talk about logic gates, and everything else is just a fall out from those basic building blocks.

I haven't thought of this specific scenario before, but I've done far too much daydreaming about what would it be like to bring arts and entertainment back in time. Would punk rock even *sound* like music to flappers of the 1920s or, worse, the opera-goers of the 17th century?

The definitive film adaptation of "Frankenstein" was made in 1931. A scene of the monster throwing a girl into a river (in ignorance; he wasn't doing it maliciously) was deemed too intense for audiences of the day and consequently cut before its theatrical release. I've seen the restored version, and it's *tame*. It was probably tame forty years ago, let alone today. Well, I want to go back to 1931 and show these guys Jurassic Park.

I can't figure out what the dominant reaction would be, because I imagine there would have to be a few different conflicting but *intense* reactions at play. One, mind-blowing technology. Nobody'd ever figure out how the dinosaurs were made, and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it started a widespread belief that actual dinosaurs were found and filmed. It's not that the people of 1931 were all gullible; it's just that the ability to put such realistic images on screen was so far removed from even the *conceptions* of filmmakers and filmgoers of the time.

Two, it would terrify them out of their minds, which may or may not be looked upon favorably in retrospect. I'm sure a great many would have dinosaur-inspired nightmares for decades to come. Considering the mentality of the times, women would undoubtedly be denied from seeing it, and most of them wouldn't think it a fit thing for a lady to see in the first place. Not only would children be disallowed from seeing it, but a parent who permitted a child to see it would likely be charged with neglect. (I'm merrily ignoring the probable fact that no studio would dare release it as is anyway, even though the Hays bureau [read: censorship office] wouldn't be established for another couple of years.)

Three, the occasional swear words in the movie would be unconscionable. Eight years later, audiences were shocked and appalled that Rhett Butler said "damn." A public screening of Pulp Fiction would have probably resulted in capital punishment.

Four, how wonderfully imaginative the computer scenes ("It's a UNIX system!") would be cherished as a vision of the future! But I wonder if the computer system's role in the plot would even be understood.

But even disregarding the controversy that the violence and (now mild) language would cause, there is still the question of whether the unprecedented suspense and special effects would be welcomed and cherished as just the biggest breakthrough of anything ever, or if the intensity would be deemed outright immoral, or close to it, and shunned. Even if it were accepted by society at large, I can't imagine that there wouldn't be huge factions who would protest against it on moral grounds.

S "turning all forum threads into movie discussions, eventually" am