|
Farecoal posted:If I'm remembering correctly Sirtis once said she tried doing an action shot that her stunt double was supposed to do (fall backwards to the ground and faint) and she broke her coccyx. Actors have delicate bones This is pretty funny. But really, I'm just making fun of that one Geordi scene where he dives under a closing door that Andre the Giant could walk under.
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:This is pretty funny. Drama requires you to go big or go home. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 22:41
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:If I'm remembering correctly Sirtis once said she tried doing an action shot that her stunt double was supposed to do (fall backwards to the ground and faint) and she broke her coccyx. Actors have delicate bones Not only that, but instead of getting a closeup of the stunt, it ended up being a long shot and you couldn't tell it was her anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
Considering how bad Levar's vision was in that visor, maybe he was just legitimately surprised it was already moving.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 22:43
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Drama requires you to go big or go home. Thanks for backing me up. Phone posting here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:04
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Also a stuntperson getting a big ol knot on their forehead or a black eye or worse won't gently caress up shooting as bad as it would the actor. You've only got one Patrick Stewart to shoot around for the close up dialogue scenes, but you can put a bald cap on practically any motherfucker for a two second medium shot of him jumping behind a rock or whatever. It's also a matter of paying the actors. If a ton of the stunts that are going to be shot happen after a cut, you can shoot all those separately from the scenes the "real" actors are in and don't have to pay nearly as much to have them on set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:06
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Thanks for backing me up. Phone posting here. No problem. Trying to build up my Trek images collection.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:It's also a matter of paying the actors. If a ton of the stunts that are going to be shot happen after a cut, you can shoot all those separately from the scenes the "real" actors are in and don't have to pay nearly as much to have them on set. Yeah. Not even just for stunts, if you need a close cut-away of a pair of hands tapping on an LCARS display or a pair of feet walking down a corridor or something why bother keeping the big names on the set for that when no recognize them by their hands (James Doohan excepted)? Not sure if Next Gen did that but I know a lot of productions do.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:14
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Drama requires you to go big or go home. Go big or go home https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iN001iUenmU&t=44s
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Sometimes the supernumerary bridge crew were the main actors' doubles since you've already got them on set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:19
|
|
|
Otisburg posted:Yeah. Not even just for stunts, if you need a close cut-away of a pair of hands tapping on an LCARS display or a pair of feet walking down a corridor or something why bother keeping the big names on the set for that when no recognize them by their hands (James Doohan excepted)? Exactly so. Especially if you only realize later you need that insert, no way in hell will you pull Frakes out of whatever he's up to just to film him pointing out icons on a map or whatever. Hell, sometimes you just grab the photo double for a quick over-the-shoulder for someone else because maybe Dorn is shooting another scene, he's out on location, and your dailies of this angle from before are poo poo. So you throw his photo double into costume, grab Deanna, and reshoot her over his shoulder. Done and done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
^^^ A lot of 2nd unit stuff is filmed that way too. 1st AD posted:Go big or go home  I need to learn how to make gifs
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
She did it the safe way the first time, but it wasn't stunty enough for the director! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10qa4SVV4s&t=95s The Dark One fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Jonas Albrecht posted:I suffer from the same affliction as people who think the Prophets storyline is anything but complete bullshit. You could've just said "I have terrible taste."
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 00:45
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:It's also a matter of paying the actors. If a ton of the stunts that are going to be shot happen after a cut, you can shoot all those separately from the scenes the "real" actors are in and don't have to pay nearly as much to have them on set. I thought main cast (i.e. the people who get their names in the title cards) got paid basically no matter what? Or is that just like the stars (i.e. Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Spiner)? Because my impression is that, 60s TV values aside, Shatner had to be used a lot so they got their money's worth out of the contractually obligated $5000 per episode. EDIT: Or at least, I thought once any of the main cast were in an episode, they were paid fully for that episode, regardless of how many lines or scenes they had. Farmer Crack-Ass fucked around with this message at 02:01 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 01:59
|
|
|
I don't care for the actual direct interactions with the Prophets - because honestly, vague pronouncements full of mystery and ominous portent don't really do it for me except as a prelude to a Kirk-style dethroning - but I love all of the political intrigue surrounding the Bajoran story, which definitely includes the church politics of the Kai and the Vedek Assembly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 02:04
|
|
|
The resolution to the Prophets' story might be dumb but remember that the best episodes of Voyager LITERALLY threw it all away on a huge reset button.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 02:06
|
|
|
Yeah, when the Prophents were used as Big Mystery stuff like they were in S6, and especially S7, it was bad, because that kind of poo poo is just the death of good serialized TV. As a concept, they were very nice, especially in the early seasons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:I thought main cast (i.e. the people who get their names in the title cards) got paid basically no matter what? Or is that just like the stars (i.e. Shatner, Nimoy, Stewart, Spiner)? Could be, I have exactly 0 experience on TV/movie production. It was something I read and I'm perhaps misinterpreting that point. Maybe when you have the stars on set you need to have more crew around or something. In any case, the point is that most of the time productions will pretty much never use the stars for a shoot unless they have to. If there's scene where you don't see a face, there's a good chance its a double.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Exactly so. Especially if you only realize later you need that insert, no way in hell will you pull Frakes out of whatever he's up to just to film him pointing out icons on a map or whatever. I still love the party scene at the end of Take Me Out to the Holosuite and Michael Dorn's photo double is just blatantly sitting at the bar in Worf makeup, silently staring at everyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
Kibayasu posted:Could be, I have exactly 0 experience on TV/movie production. It was something I read and I'm perhaps misinterpreting that point. Maybe when you have the stars on set you need to have more crew around or something. In any case, the point is that most of the time productions will pretty much never use the stars for a shoot unless they have to. If there's scene where you don't see a face, there's a good chance its a double. Stars are the single most expensive part of any shoot and after 8 hours you typically have to pay them double in compensation. Plus actors are loving annoying to work with. It's much easier and cheaper to get a double to do the more ancillary shots generally speaking. Also there are many cases where an actor is getting ready for a different shot and you just grab whoever you can who's in costume because it's quick and easy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 08:14
|
|
|
kelvron posted:Drama requires you to go big or go home. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 08:24
|
|
|
I wanna see the take where he runs face first into the door trying to just crouch under it
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 12:47
|
|
|
Tony Montana posted:Ah, but the Higgs Field. Just catching up, and ~~this is my field~~ Even if you removed the Higgs coupling from everything, most actual stuff would only lose about half its mass. This is because about half the mass of a proton or neutron is from the energy of the gluon-gluon interactions rather than from the quarks that make them up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:Just catching up, and ~~this is my field~~ Woah there buddy, we don't take well to actual science around these here parts. Unless you can speak  we ain't interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 16:58
|
|
|
Quarks? I know all about Quark. I'm warming to him but it took some time. His brother is more likable just because he's an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:09
|
|
|
Farecoal posted:Woah there buddy, we don't take well to actual science around these here parts. Unless you can speak A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to that in somewhere(It's about 10% if memory serves)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to Hold the communicator, what? Farecoal fucked around with this message at 17:33 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:26
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to *explodes with the force of a photonic torpedo*
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to If we're going there the vast majority of your body consists of absolutely nothing. Only thing that holds it together is some electric field that's insignificant past any appreciable distance. Oh and decouple your Heisenberg compensator and you're hosed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:03
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to Well, I am, but that gas is oxygen 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/largehadroncolliderfaq/whats-a-proton-anyway/ DemeaninDemon posted:If we're going there the vast majority of your body consists of absolutely nothing. In terms of space, yes. But then again it's entirely possible that all fundamental particles have no volume (ie point particles) and so then the entirety of your body will consist of absolutely nothing! vvv I'm a physicist, I do know what I'm talking about. But yes, PET scans are  . So're normal CAT scans (mathematically speaking) too - and MRIs use some pretty great physics as well (direct, measurable consequence of fermions having spin)
MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:24
|
|
|
MrL_JaKiri posted:A surprisingly large amount of the mass of your body is made up of antimatter, you have to be able to Yeah this isn't true. All antimatter you encounter on Earth is artificially created. Why there isn't still antimatter around naturally anywhere we can observe is one of the mysteries of modern physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry It is encountered in one weird mundane place though: hospitals, as PET scans use it. The P stands for positron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:Yeah this isn't true. All antimatter you encounter on Earth is artificially created. Why there isn't still antimatter around naturally anywhere we can observe is one of the mysteries of modern physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_asymmetry Depends what you consider artificial. Anti-matter is a perfectly natural product of radioactive decay. Emitting a positron is just one way for an atom to decay. Electron capture is another way. Some emit neutrinos (anti-neutrinos) that rarely even interact with matter. The sun emits super butt tons of them that pass harmlessly through you. I'm just going to go ahead and not think about that point particle thing. I'm a chemist I don't need that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Depends what you consider artificial. Anti-matter is a perfectly natural product of radioactive decay. Emitting a positron is just one way for an atom to decay. Electron capture is another way. Some emit neutrinos (anti-neutrinos) that rarely even interact with matter. The sun emits super butt tons of them that pass harmlessly through you. I meant like there's no big pile of antimatter sitting around anywhere we can see. Just stray particles from radioactive decay/cosmic rays/etc. So far, anyway. So how do antiquarks work? If 10% of regular matter is made of antiquarks why don't they annihilate? Do we know?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Grand Fromage posted:If 10% of regular matter is made of antiquarks why don't they annihilate? Do we know? They do! This is something called "pair production". Some exchange particle (ie a photon or a gluon or whatnot) has enough energy to turn into two actual particles (through E=mc2, there's a probability that it can turn into a particle and its antiparticle (the same reaction as the two annihilating eachother, but in reverse). Amazingly, this can also happen when the gluon doesn't have enough energy to do this(!!!) if the particle is short lived, due to the uncertainty principle! (small uncertainty in time due to short lifespan = big uncertainty in energy) So what's happening inside the proton is that a gluon is bobbing along with some energy, it turns into an antiparticle/particle pair with the same total energy as the original gluon and then they recombine back into a gluon with the original energy. The Feynman diagram for that is below (dodgily drawn in ms paint):  This is going on all the time, so while there's a load of antiquarks at any one time they will all be annihilated within a fraction of a second, and a load of new ones will have turned up instead. Also, a gluon can only turn into quarks and not things like electrons because gluons carry colour and that colour has to go somewhere (electrons don't carry colour, but quarks do). Colour being another charge like + or - electrical charge, but there's 6 kinds - red, green, blue, antired, antigreen, antiblue. Quantum Physics is really strange in ways you don't really anticipate. [edit] Pair production is also involved in the coolest thing I've heard of from astrophysics, a pair instability supernova. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_instability_supernova quote:For very high mass stars, with mass at least 130 and up to perhaps roughly 250 solar masses, a true pair-instability supernova can occur. In these stars, the first time that conditions support pair creation instability, the situation runs out of control. The collapse proceeds to efficiently compress the star's core; the overpressure is sufficient to allow runaway nuclear fusion to burn it in a few seconds, creating a thermonuclear explosion Yep, that's a star going from 250 solar masses to nothing left behind in a few seconds. MrL_JaKiri fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
Look at these nerds nerding up the Trek thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Science.. in my scifi? Nah go hard lads, wouldn't be here in the first place if this stuff didn't interest me 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 2, 2024 14:54 |
|
|
Virtual particles.  I assume the change into two particles then the annihilation are the same amount of energy and balance out? Otherwise 10% of your mass constantly annihilating seems like you'd notice. Vagabundo posted:Look at these nerds nerding up the Trek thread. If you don't read physics books for fun you are without honor.
Grand Fromage fucked around with this message at 22:19 on Dec 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 22:15
|
|