|
Zogo posted:According to wikipedia it was the other way around. Originally a 2.5 hour movie. edit: [stupidity removed] there's: original movie tv series director's cut Schweinhund fucked around with this message at 00:36 on May 21, 2010 |
#
?
May 21, 2010 00:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
SubG posted:[About Sunshine] The Icarus and Icarus 2 were built as disaster response. It was literally that clutch scientific moment: someone notices that they're being rapidly cooled and the sun is the cause, now go! It's like the original space race amped up by putting your hair on fire (or more appropriately dipping your balls in ice water). They launch with an unproven "best guess" payload. The second time they even launch with a crew that clearly never worked together before and include the scientist who built the bomb because they have no idea if the problem was with the bomb or something else. Think of how many failures and even deaths occurred during the space race. Or catastrophic failures in "late to the game" proto-space nations right now? How about during near-production on huge-lifecycle military systems that should be nearly perfect after decades of development and billions of dollars in R&D and prototypes and simulations. How about if there's a disaster epic of an oil spill launching millions of gallons into a key source of environmental stability? You'd think their solution would work, right? That there should be a catastrophic failure when the ship is moved outside of the protective shield and exposed to the sun and radiation directly shouldn't be a surprise. Failsafes against off-mission crew actions aren't going to be there. Robust software that does anything but do exactly what the mission requires would be a miracle, most likely it would require constant crew tampering to overcome any bugs or erratic behavior. It's like people compaining that there aren't security systems preventing unauthorized access. That's got to be so far down the development team's list that it didn't even get added on. Stuff is going to fail. It's why they built two ships. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 01:14 on May 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
So I haven't seen Metropolis yet(I know, I'm a plebian neophyte). It's on my netflix queue but I was wondering, is it worth tracking down a copy that has the score done by Queen or would whatever netflix gives me be just as good?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:How about if there's a disaster epic of an oil spill launching millions of gallons into a key source of environmental stability? So I guess the analogy I'd make with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill would be if all of the Coast Guard vessels in the area suddenly started sinking because none of them had working bilge pumps and none of them were designed with bulkheads. Even if we had to design new, special-purpose ships to deal with the spill those aren't the sorts of problems we'd expect to have on them. I mean you can retcon any sort of rationalisation you want onto the narrative and since the narrative doesn't specifically give us an analysis of any of the (many) failures nobody can say your suppositions are wrong. I'm just saying that they're not real-world plausible, which was the original claim.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 01:39
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:So I haven't seen Metropolis yet(I know, I'm a plebian neophyte). It's on my netflix queue but I was wondering, is it worth tracking down a copy that has the score done by Queen or would whatever netflix gives me be just as good? Wait for the restored version coming out soon on Blu-Ray.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 02:02
|
|
|
SubG posted:[About Sunshine] The difference between in orbit around the earth and free of the gravity well of the Earth is huge. Shooting things to orbit is one thing, shooting things out of the gravity well of the Earth is another. Operating with ground support is one thing, operating with absolute hard limits on your supplies is another. You have to have recycling systems for everything: pee, water, poop, CO2, O2 for travel away from the earth. The recent NASA planning and research are what brought the oxygen graden concept to Science Fiction. Science Fiction did not invent this idea. A scientist did. Two pounds of O2 is light. The tank needed to carry two pounds of o2 is heavy. (Apollo 1 burning up.) Add the soda sorb. Then add all the food that the crew needs to eat for a four year mission. If you have poop O2 and Co2 recycling, you save enormous amounts of fuel. ANd you waste none of it. If you eat a dwindling supply of food then you waste all the energy launching poop (in the poop life cycle, the larval stage is food). ISS wants to have constantly shuttling back and forth, missions outside the Earths gravity well will have no such support system. The film called it an oxygen garden, because calling a "poop, pee, O2 and CO2 recycling station and O2 and CO2 partial pressure regulation system, and food supply" gets people worried about the wrong things (They are drinking their pee? They are eating food grown with their poop? Eeeeew gross!) It's like when you give movies and TV shows a pass when they call it oxygen in tanks for diving. People who do it for a living know that's not what it is, but everyone thinks that what it is so you just call it that in the film/tv show. The reason plants would be part of a life support system in space is for the same reason they are our life support system on earth. Without them we die, period. We cannot create oxygen or rid ourselves of co2. Plants can. We cannot manufacture food. Plants can. All energy* comes from the sun, but the only process capable of making that sunlight into calories for our survival is photosynthesis. Almost Every bit of energy we use comes from photosynthesis. Certanly all of our food energy does. Notice how the movie even mentions that they took evey bit of fissionable material from the earth. Because without sunlight, and the plant ability to turn that sunlight into energy, we would not be. Sunshine did not invent this; it was following NASA's research into the matter. I loved the movies in spite of it's silliness. Bombs to re-start the sun? Who cares? It's an amazing film. But this one thing, the oxygen garden, has its source in NASA research, unlike the other things you pointed out. If I built a space ship everything would be next to each other, the computer would do the flight calcuations, etc. Everything else you mentioned. But the oxygen garden concept is straight out of NASA's research. Of course the word is the NASA guys got the inspiration from Silent Running, but. kapalama fucked around with this message at 03:45 on May 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 03:35
|
|
EVERYTHING I SAY ABOUT JAPAN OR LIVING IN JAPAN IS COMPLETELY WRONG, BUT YOU BETTER BELIEVE I'LL 
ABOUT IT.
|
I have discovered that all I really care about movies right now is that they have music I like: Moon, and Sunshine I am watching instead of listening to music. What other movies have this sort of driven by music feel to them. Prefeably with the same feel to the music?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 04:41
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Sunshine did not invent this; it was following NASA's research into the matter. If you're interested in the actual research, the current state-of-the-art in real life growing plants in space (at least in the public record) is NASA's Biomass Production System (BPS), which flew on STS-110:  And here's a shot of it in action, to give a more intuitive idea of the scale:  NASA's flack on it is on the mission pages, and you can find a short NASA film on the BPS here. The two points being that 1) this sort of system is absolutely not prone to the sort of failure we see in the film, and 2) the fundamental weight problem is still there, for the reasons I originally mentioned---in order for this to be feasible for a life support system you'd need so many of these (several hundred per person) that conventional oxygen generators would weigh less. But leaving all that aside, the weight argument is more or less moot because, as I said, from the stated design of the Icarus the weight of any oxygen generation system would be rounding error. And leaving that aside, any habitat that remains in space for an extended period would be expected to have more than one source of oxygen. The ISS does. Hell, even the loving Mir did. Even if for some reason whoever designed the Icarus II decided to use things that could die as the primary oxygen production system, do you really think it's plausible that they wouldn't include a chemical system (e.g. chlorate candles or LiClO4), an electrolysis system, a ceramic system, or something else like that as a backup? The tl;dr version of this is: yes, the general idea of using plants in space is a `real' idea, but it doesn't make sense in the context of the film, and the system presented in the film doesn't make sense as an implementation of the general idea.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 04:58
|
|
|
SubG posted:So I guess the analogy I'd make with the Deepwater Horizon oil spill would be if all of the Coast Guard vessels in the area suddenly started sinking because none of them had working bilge pumps and none of them were designed with bulkheads. Even if we had to design new, special-purpose ships to deal with the spill those aren't the sorts of problems we'd expect to have on them. If the special purpose coast guard vessels encountered a catastrophic explosion which affected key systems would you really be so totally incredulous that their bilge pump systems added to these custom built ships might encounter a failure? Let's not forget, the entire reason for the failure was damage to critical modules. This wasn't a forgotten cigarette on an oily rag that failed to engage the sprinklers. quote:And leaving that aside, any habitat that remains in space for an extended period would be expected to have more than one source of oxygen. Also, for what it's worth, the value of the indefinite life support scheme is somewhat justified by way of the Icarus I remaining stable seven years after mission "failure". That possibility doesn't even exist with finite life support. If what it takes to save the entire human race is letting the smarty physics major orbit the sun for a decade figuring something out that's probably worth it. Edit: quote:And here's a shot of it in action, to give a more intuitive idea of the scale: Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 06:40 on May 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 06:22
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:If the special purpose coast guard vessels encountered a catastrophic explosion which affected key systems would you really be so totally incredulous that their bilge pump systems added to these custom built ships might encounter a failure? Let's not forget, the entire reason for the failure was damage to critical modules. This wasn't a forgotten cigarette on an oily rag that failed to engage the sprinklers. Ape Agitator posted:Also, for what it's worth, the value of the indefinite life support scheme is somewhat justified by way of the Icarus I remaining stable seven years after mission "failure". Anyway, I'm about done arguing this because a) I really don't feel that motivated toward dissecting the design of a fictional spaceship, b) I haven't seen it since it first came out so I can't recall all the specifics, c) all of the other silliness in the script is enough to contradict the assertion that it's a good `hard science' science fiction film (in addition to everything I've already mentioned, I also remember the completely stereotypic and inaccurate portrayal of the effects of vacuum, low gravity, and so forth), and d) this is a really silly derail.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 10:58
|
|
|
Ninja Gamer posted:So I haven't seen Metropolis yet(I know, I'm a plebian neophyte). It's on my netflix queue but I was wondering, is it worth tracking down a copy that has the score done by Queen or would whatever netflix gives me be just as good? It's playing in theaters through the end of the year. With the original orchestral score and digital projection. I'm going to one of the screenings at the Cleveland (Ohio) Art Museum tomorrow. 
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 11:55
|
|
|
kapalama posted:I have discovered that all I really care about movies right now is that they have music I like: If you haven't watched The Fountain then you'd probably like that. It's almost like a feature length music video and it's by the same composer as Moon and Requiem for a Dream(which is another that would fit your criteria, though its music has been way overplayed).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 13:56
|
|
|
This thread about an art heist in Paris got me thinking about something that's always bugged me - in The Thomas Crown Affair w. Brosnan, the scene where he takes the painting off the wall and puts it in some special folding case.. I never seem to keep up with what that folding case does. IT looks like he's putting the painting into a case that's smaller than the painting and then folding it up like a Trapper Keeper.. I've watched it a couple times and always see the same thing. Is he actually folding the painting? Doesn't it break?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 16:22
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:This thread about an art heist in Paris got me thinking about something that's always bugged me - in The Thomas Crown Affair w. Brosnan, the scene where he takes the painting off the wall and puts it in some special folding case.. I never seem to keep up with what that folding case does. IT looks like he's putting the painting into a case that's smaller than the painting and then folding it up like a Trapper Keeper.. I've watched it a couple times and always see the same thing. Is he actually folding the painting? Doesn't it break?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 16:51
|
|
|
It'll crack and most likely be ruined though. Old paintings are pretty fragile (haven't seen it either).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 17:01
|
|
|
Carthag posted:It'll crack and most likely be ruined though. Old paintings are pretty fragile (haven't seen it either).
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 17:44
|
|
|
fenix down posted:Can't be worse than what Harpo did in Animal Crackers (used a painting as a blanket) Could have wiped his arse on it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2010 18:31
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:This thread about an art heist in Paris got me thinking about something that's always bugged me - in The Thomas Crown Affair w. Brosnan, the scene where he takes the painting off the wall and puts it in some special folding case.. I never seem to keep up with what that folding case does. IT looks like he's putting the painting into a case that's smaller than the painting and then folding it up like a Trapper Keeper.. I've watched it a couple times and always see the same thing. Is he actually folding the painting? Doesn't it break? Yeah that part bothered me when I first saw the movie too. It doesn't help that he doesn't remove it from it's frame either. They just kind of handwave it away as a necessary evil to get the movie finished.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 03:10
|
|
|
muscles like this? posted:Yeah that part bothered me when I first saw the movie too. It doesn't help that he doesn't remove it from it's frame either. They just kind of handwave it away as a necessary evil to get the movie finished. I think they just do it because it looks slick. Like if the desired painting was as small as a briefcase and he just drops it in it doesn't seem mastermind-y enough. But if he strips the frame and does this strange thing it seems like a cool thing so he comes off as looking really slick and skilled.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 03:30
|
|
|
I just learned today that Dreamworks doesn't exist anymore. Considering massive successes like Shrek and Gladiator, I had no idea they had also produced a lot of crap. Though the thing i saw on TV about it traced the problems more to Spielberg's ego than anything else. Rather than giving people creative freedom, it became a playground for Spielberg's imagination. Or at least that's what the lady who wrote Those that Would be Kings or what ever the book about Dreamworks is called.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 04:02
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I just learned today that Dreamworks doesn't exist anymore. Considering massive successes like Shrek and Gladiator, I had no idea they had also produced a lot of crap. Yeah, they do exist, just not in the form they originally intended. It's essentially a glorified production company, with a distribution deal through Disney. Of course, it gets complicated with Dreamworks Animation and any Dreamworks sequels, but for the most part they are still the same company they have been. Just scaled down a bit. Once Geffen really retires from the business, that's when things will likely fall apart. But he's still there in name, so it's business as usual.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2010 04:36
|
|
|
I was wondering who was spitting out the Shrek sequels. Halloween 3 was on last night, and It made me wonder, was there any plans for the other Halloween movies that were never made? The non Michael Meyers films that were from when it was simply a Horror anthology series that would have an annual movie.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 03:40
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Halloween 3 was on last night, and It made me wonder, was there any plans for the other Halloween movies that were never made? The non Michael Meyers films that were from when it was simply a Horror anthology series that would have an annual movie. I used to imagine that the Die Hard series would be amazing if they gave us a different cop with each movie but I've realized that everyone wants to see the same people come back and the filmmakers don't want to risk reinventing the magic that worked the first time. Basically, the cachet that a film's title has probably reflects the characters involved in it. What you're describing would probably be more appropriately done as a "Wes Craven Presents" to link a bunch of horror movies that otherwise have no connection.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 04:28
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:I was wondering who was spitting out the Shrek sequels. I'm guessing there never were any concrete plans for what Halloween 4 would have been if they kept going with the series sans-Michael Myers since the third one was unpopular with fans and didn't do all that well at the box office. The Wikipedia articles for the movies has some decent info on their production if you are interested. Ape Agitator posted:Basically, the cachet that a film's title has probably reflects the characters involved in it. What you're describing would probably be more appropriately done as a "Wes Craven Presents" to link a bunch of horror movies that otherwise have no connection. I think it could have worked with Halloween if they did it from the beginning. Once Halloween II was a direct sequel to the original, you kind of expect the same thing from the rest of the series. Unless I'm mistaken, this was the initial idea behind the Friday the 13th films too.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 07:37
|
|
|
Factor Mystic posted:Trap sprung, the truth is that the military was 1) right 2) the good guys. You've been fooled by the ironic presentation. Right my arse. The military created the problem themselves when they made decisions like letting a janitor have keys and unsupervised access to the so-called quarantine; or their well-planned response to an outbreak being to lock all civilians in a single room with only a chain/padlock on wooden door to keep them safe. It was a stupid film.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 14:02
|
|
|
Binowru posted:But is that really the kind of movie that belongs in the Criterion Collection? Somehow it seems less "offensive" if it just look at it as an attempt to enshrine everything we've come to expect form an action blockbuster. It is remarkable how that movie manages to fit in every cliche under the sun.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2010 17:17
|
|
|
Simple question. I constantly see the movie Sunshine asked about and discussed here. I normally skip over spoilers for movies I have never seen, and I have never seen it, so I skip posts about it. But, which movie are you referring to?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 03:19
|
|
|
Hockles posted:Simple question. I constantly see the movie Sunshine asked about and discussed here. I normally skip over spoilers for movies I have never seen, and I have never seen it, so I skip posts about it. But, which movie are you referring to? I link you to the IMDB page, but just so you know, they have gotten sloppy about letting unmarked spoilers onto the front page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0448134/ It's the Danny Boyle movie made in 2007.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 03:23
|
|
|
kapalama posted:It's the Danny Boyle movie made in 2007. ok, thanks. Added to Netflix queue.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 03:27
|
|
|
I just watched Lady Snowblood because it was mentioned favorably in the Rate the Last Movie Watched thread about a month or so ago under revenge flicks (I think by FFD, so thanks for that). Good movie, but it led me to this question (which goes beyond the movie itself): how did exaggerated blood showers from severed limbs/body wounds ever become popular in Japanese cinema and why was (is?) it so prevalent?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 22:13
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Good movie, but it led me to this question (which goes beyond the movie itself): how did exaggerated blood showers from severed limbs/body wounds ever become popular in Japanese cinema and why was (is?) it so prevalent? Remember this: Japanese cinema for Japanese people does not even come close to equally what is available to you as a (presumably) American consumer. It is because horror movies cross borders easily that you saw it. Most Japanese people have never seen it. Most Japanese people have never seen what we in America think of as Japanese cinema classics, for that matter.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 23:20
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Most Japanese people have never seen what we in America think of as Japanese cinema classics, for that matter. Short version of the answer to that question is: what you might call samurai costume dramas---the term of art for this is jidaigeki---had been popular in Japan for about as long as Japan had a native film culture. These ran the general gamut of dramatic modes---romances, character dramas, morality plays, and so forth. The typically didn't feature much in the way of action, and certainly none of the limbs-flying, blood-spraying action you're asking about. That first started showing up in post-war Japanese films. Postwar Japanese cinema is a big subject, but overall a lot of films of this era featured a rather bleak and nihilistic view of the world, and a cynical view of the hallmarks of virtue as embodied by the traditional Japanese values as presented in the earlier jidaigeki films. These films tended to feature a lot of violence (often arising quickly and spontaneously and ending gruesomely) and tended to involve characters which were a lot more morally ambiguous than the heros in most jidaigeki. The general term for this kind of film---with a lot of over-the-top swordfighting---is chanbara. In broad terms, it's more or less what you see happening between the classic era of Hollywood Westerns and the revisionist Westerns of directors like Leone. On the one hand you have a vehicle for morality plays which presents a fairly idealised version of a historical era, and on the other hand you have an intentionally darker version of the same era which explicitly questions the ideals of the earlier films. If vertov is around he could probably comment on greater length on the subject.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2010 23:44
|
|
|
kapalama posted:Most Japanese people have never seen what we in America think of as Japanese cinema classics, for that matter.  SubG posted:
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 01:44
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:Wow, thanks for all of this. Perhaps this should go in the Recommend Me thread, but since we're on this subject: Are there any suggestions for follow-up reading for a film plebe (pertaining to chanbara, which just sounds interesting) or must-see movies to watch (darker revisionism for any genre, actually)? If you're just interested in the gratuitous and over-the-top aspects, I think the Hanzo the Razor flicks are available in R1 now; they're to most chanbara the way the Django films are to spaghetti Westerns, if that makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 03:04
|
|
|
I've already seen the Kurosawa recommendations (loved 'em), and I've seen Kobayashi's Harakiri and loved it even more than the Kurosawa movies... so, I've Netflixed everything I could find from the three directors you recommended. And your comparison to spaghetti Westerns was not lost on me. I Netflixed that sucker, too.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 03:37
|
|
|
Green Crayons posted:I've already seen the Kurosawa recommendations (loved 'em), and I've seen Kobayashi's Harakiri and loved it even more than the Kurosawa movies... so, I've Netflixed everything I could find from the three directors you recommended. Do yourself a favor and check out Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy as well. It's a really engrossing saga chronicling the duels of Miyamoto Musashi, a famous Japanese swordsman who wrote The Book of Five Rings. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie is, but Mifune is brilliant and the first film in the series is one of my favorite films.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 06:10
|
|
|
codyclarke posted:Do yourself a favor and check out Inagaki's Samurai Trilogy as well. It's a really engrossing saga chronicling the duels of Miyamoto Musashi, a famous Japanese swordsman who wrote The Book of Five Rings. I have no idea how historically accurate the movie is, but Mifune is brilliant and the first film in the series is one of my favorite films.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 08:20
|
|
|
Supreme Allah posted:This thread about an art heist in Paris got me thinking about something that's always bugged me - in The Thomas Crown Affair w. Brosnan, the scene where he takes the painting off the wall and puts it in some special folding case.. I never seem to keep up with what that folding case does. IT looks like he's putting the painting into a case that's smaller than the painting and then folding it up like a Trapper Keeper.. I've watched it a couple times and always see the same thing. Is he actually folding the painting? Doesn't it break? here is the scene you are talking about I think http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-LMZ1dbO7A#t=1m49s and yes it does seem like he folds a painting that is backed with a wood frame
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 09:17
|
|
|
I'm trying to remember which Kurosawa film has an insane arterial spray in it. I know there's a good gusher in Ran, but there's an even bigger one in a black & white film. I think it's Throne of Blood.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 15:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 17:37 |
|
|
You would be thinking of the final duel in Sanjuro. It's absurdly over top in the same way that the finale of Throne of Blood is utterly ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2010 15:57
|
|
