How (and why) to Ramble on your goat sideways
07-15-2010, 10:34 PM
#1041
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
I just realized something.
In the film "2001" (made in 1968) all of the video screens depicted are flat-panel displays. In the sequel "2010" (made in 1984) all of the video screens (except for one) are CRTs.
In the real 2001, CRTs were the dominant display technology. In 2010, however, they have been almost entirely supplanted by flat-panel monitors.
This is the kind of **** that keeps me up at night.
In the film "2001" (made in 1968) all of the video screens depicted are flat-panel displays. In the sequel "2010" (made in 1984) all of the video screens (except for one) are CRTs.
In the real 2001, CRTs were the dominant display technology. In 2010, however, they have been almost entirely supplanted by flat-panel monitors.
This is the kind of **** that keeps me up at night.
Reply
0
0
07-15-2010, 11:06 PM
#1043
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
I just realized something.
In the film "2001" (made in 1968) all of the video screens depicted are flat-panel displays. In the sequel "2010" (made in 1984) all of the video screens (except for one) are CRTs.
In the real 2001, CRTs were the dominant display technology. In 2010, however, they have been almost entirely supplanted by flat-panel monitors.
This is the kind of **** that keeps me up at night.
In the film "2001" (made in 1968) all of the video screens depicted are flat-panel displays. In the sequel "2010" (made in 1984) all of the video screens (except for one) are CRTs.
In the real 2001, CRTs were the dominant display technology. In 2010, however, they have been almost entirely supplanted by flat-panel monitors.
This is the kind of **** that keeps me up at night.
Once again Kubrick was way out in front. I think that movie still looks great even after all this time. The warp sequence is starting to look a little dated, like the flying pyramid things for example. But it is still fun to watch.
2001 was a better movie anyway. Except Helen Mirren is kind of hot in 2010, in that Russian butch I'll-****-you-then-kill-you kind of way.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 01:02 AM
#1046
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 01:04 AM
#1047
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,085
Total Cats: 375
Here we have black, pants-less, pregnant prostitutes fighting outside a burger king, with men fighting the women, pot smoking, and eventually a woman wrecking into a cop. It gets better and better with every minute.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 01:15 AM
#1048
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Within the first minute, I'm saying to myself "that's gotta be Oakland."
Then I stopped the video and saw the title.
It's Oakland.
True story.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 02:13 AM
#1051
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
In some ways, Kubrik nailed it. In other ways...
For instance, when Floyd has a layover at the space station on his way to Clavius, he stops to make a phone call. On the one hand, they've got hi-res, hi-framerate videophones. On the other, he makes the call from a phone booth, and when his daughter answers, we find that his wife can't come to the phone because she's out shopping, so he says he'll call back next week. Totally missed the whole idea of mobile phones.
Amusing observation: Most of the computer displays in 2001 are roughly square. All of the video displays (the phone booth, the immigration checkpoint, and the TVs on Discovery) are roughly 16:9, however they're in portrait, rather than landscape orientation.
2001 was a better movie anyway. Except Helen Mirren is kind of hot in 2010, in that Russian butch I'll-****-you-then-kill-you kind of way.
In 2001, exterior shots are silent, save for the sounds coming from inside the helmet of whoever is witnessing the scene. In 2010, most of the exterior shots (the probe, aerobraking, Max's pod, Discovery's engines firing, the undocking, Jupiter exploding, etc) have nat sound.
Gravity and momentum are hugely inconsistent. Stanley Kubrick spent eleventy billion dollars on the first film getting these just right, and Peter Hyams made a hash of it.
When they launch the first probe towards Io from Leonov, people are floating around inside the hangar bay. When they launch Max's pod from the same airlock, they have gravity.
When Curnow and Brajlovsky first enter the derelict Discovery, they are walking sideways on the forward bulkhead (including the pod bay doors) which is logically consistent with its rotation, however in later sequences inside the same room, and despite the fact that they went to the trouble of replicating the sulphery bootprints on the wall left by the aforementioned, everyone is walking around and leaning against pillars like there's normal gravity. That area of Discovery is not part of the rotating ring. When Chandra is inside HAL's logic center (which is on the same level) he's floating.
Heck, when Max and Curnow are moving down the exterior of the spine after initial contact, one moment centrifugal force is thrusting them out towards the sphere, the next moment they're walking upright along spine, and then the next, they're back to centrifugal force kicking their asses again.
Inside Leonov, they still have gravity in the habitation module, even when they are coupled to Discovery with the docking clamp, at which point they had shut down the rotation of that module. And on the bridge of Leonov, they always have gravity, except for the one shot where Dr. Floyd floats two pens in the air to illustrate the booster concept to Cpt. Kirbuk.
This one is really trivial, but towards the end, HAL makes a point of informing Floyd (who is on Discovery's flight deck) that Dr. Curnow cannot be sending the mysterious message because he is in accessway 2 (and we see a shot of him sitting on his *** in the middle of it). Moments later, Floyd follows the Man Who Was David Bowman down a corridor into the pod bay. They would have had to have taken accessway 2 to get there from the flight deck, as it's the one that goes through the core (ref: 2001.) No way Curnow would have overlooked a dead guy walking past him.
For that matter, how can there still be one pod in the bay? There were three to begin with. Poole lost the first one when HAL killed him with it on the second EVA. Then Floyd lost the second pod when he blew the hatch to get back inside Discovery through the manual airlock, and he left with the third one to check out the Monolith (after deactivating HAL) and never came back.
Why was Discovery spinning when they first found it? The official explanation is that after the ship powered down, the rotating ring gradually coasted to a stop, with the result that the ring's angular momentum was coupled into the hull. Makes sense. But this should have caused the ship to rotate in yaw around the center of the sphere, yet it was rotating in pitch around the center of the spine.
Ok, I admit it. I'm a geek. Still, 2010 was a good film.
But seriously- anybody who has never seen 2001, download it now. You have my permission to fast-forward through the first 20 minutes. I'll summarize: There are apes. Then there is a monolith. Then the apes discover the use of tools. Viola! Man.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 02:23 AM
#1052
Want fries with that?
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
Posts: 2,011
Total Cats: 2
I hesitate to call 2001 a movie for the reason that half of the movie are arbitrary screens and ominous music in 20 minute increments.
EDIT: Oh also, ITT: Joe reveals his life (Or lack thereof)
EDIT: Oh also, ITT: Joe reveals his life (Or lack thereof)
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 02:52 AM
#1053
Elite Member
iTrader: (15)
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: San Antonio, Texas
Posts: 4,847
Total Cats: 27
Yeah, the whole Stargate scene (and the pyramids in particular) were a bit Pink Floyd. But hey, it was the 60s.
In some ways, Kubrik nailed it. In other ways...
For instance, when Floyd has a layover at the space station on his way to Clavius, he stops to make a phone call. On the one hand, they've got hi-res, hi-framerate videophones. On the other, he makes the call from a phone booth, and when his daughter answers, we find that his wife can't come to the phone because she's out shopping, so he says he'll call back next week. Totally missed the whole idea of [i]mobile phones.
In some ways, Kubrik nailed it. In other ways...
For instance, when Floyd has a layover at the space station on his way to Clavius, he stops to make a phone call. On the one hand, they've got hi-res, hi-framerate videophones. On the other, he makes the call from a phone booth, and when his daughter answers, we find that his wife can't come to the phone because she's out shopping, so he says he'll call back next week. Totally missed the whole idea of [i]mobile phones.
Amusing observation: Most of the computer displays in 2001 are roughly square. All of the video displays (the phone booth, the immigration checkpoint, and the TVs on Discovery) are roughly 16:9, however they're in portrait, rather than landscape orientation.
There are a lot of trivial details in 2010 that bug me.
In 2001, exterior shots are silent, save for the sounds coming from inside the helmet of whoever is witnessing the scene. In 2010, most of the exterior shots (the probe, aerobraking, Max's pod, Discovery's engines firing, the undocking, Jupiter exploding, etc) have nat sound.
Gravity and momentum are hugely inconsistent. Stanley Kubrick spent eleventy billion dollars on the first film getting these just right, and Peter Hyams made a hash of it.
When they launch the first probe towards Io from Leonov, people are floating around inside the hangar bay. When they launch Max's pod from the same airlock, they have gravity.
When they launch the first probe towards Io from Leonov, people are floating around inside the hangar bay. When they launch Max's pod from the same airlock, they have gravity.
When Curnow and Brajlovsky first enter the derelict Discovery, they are walking sideways on the forward bulkhead (including the pod bay doors) which is logically consistent with its rotation, however in later sequences inside the same room, and despite the fact that they went to the trouble of replicating the sulphery bootprints on the wall left by the aforementioned, everyone is walking around and leaning against pillars like there's normal gravity. That area of Discovery is not part of the rotating ring. When Chandra is inside HAL's logic center (which is on the same level) he's floating.
Heck, when Max and Curnow are moving down the exterior of the spine after initial contact, one moment centrifugal force is thrusting them out towards the sphere, the next moment they're walking upright along spine, and then the next, they're back to centrifugal force kicking their asses again.
Inside Leonov, they still have gravity in the habitation module, even when they are coupled to Discovery with the docking clamp, at which point they had shut down the rotation of that module. And on the bridge of Leonov, they always have gravity, except for the one shot where Dr. Floyd floats two pens in the air to illustrate the booster concept to Cpt. Kirbuk.
This one is really trivial, but towards the end, HAL makes a point of informing Floyd (who is on Discovery's flight deck) that Dr. Curnow cannot be sending the mysterious message because he is in accessway 2 (and we see a shot of him sitting on his *** in the middle of it). Moments later, Floyd follows the Man Who Was David Bowman down a corridor into the pod bay. They would have had to have taken accessway 2 to get there from the flight deck, as it's the one that goes through the core (ref: 2001.) No way Curnow would have overlooked a dead guy walking past him.
For that matter, how can there still be one pod in the bay? There were three to begin with. Poole lost the first one when HAL killed him with it on the second EVA. Then Floyd lost the second pod when he blew the hatch to get back inside Discovery through the manual airlock, and he left with the third one to check out the Monolith (after deactivating HAL) and never came back.
Why was Discovery spinning when they first found it? The official explanation is that after the ship powered down, the rotating ring gradually coasted to a stop, with the result that the ring's angular momentum was coupled into the hull. Makes sense. But this should have caused the ship to rotate in yaw around the center of the sphere, yet it was rotating in pitch around the center of the spine.
But seriously- anybody who has never seen 2001, download it now. You have my permission to fast-forward through the first 20 minutes. I'll summarize: There are apes. Then there is a monolith. Then the apes discover the use of tools. Viola! Man.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 03:43 AM
#1054
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Yes, I hate that in any space movie. It is an obvious departure from reality. They did get that right(er) in the new Star Trek movie. At the beginning when the Federation ship is being attacked by the Romulans, an exploding hull gives way and sucks a crew member (red shirter?) out of the hull. The 'camera' follows the crew member, and when they are outside of the ship, the sound drops out.
The whole intermittent gravity thing is annoying. That is also another one that is used in other space movies.
OK, Joe, holy **** how did you catch that one?
EDIT:
Actually, that might work IF the ring is in configuration #2 below. Accessway 1 would be to one side, 2 would be in the middle, and 3 would be on the other side. But still, there should be no gravity in the accessways to hold Curnow's *** to the floor.
Hell, the whole ship is just a piece of fiction anyway...
In fact, when they are walking the spine, I think the starfield in the background is rotating the wrong way, such that they would be walking along the trailing edge of the ship. Thus they would be pulled away from and not forced into the ship.
OK I forget which way the ring rotated relative to the long axis to the ship.
We'll give directions from the point of view of a person standing outside Discovery directly in front of it, looking back towards the ship. And we know that the ship is tumbling in pitch (falling forward, if you will) based on the orientation of the engine nozzles, the flight deck window, and the main antenna when they first approach it.
1: Envision that from top to bottom there are three decks. The flight deck is on top, then the ring (on its side, with the "axle" that the ring rotates on running top to bottom) and then the pod bay is at the bottom. I think that this configuration is best supported by 2001, even though the ring probably wouldn't fit into the available space between the pod bay and the flight deck. This configuration would cause Discovery to tumble in yaw around the sphere as the ring coasted down.
2: The ring's axle might run from front to back (coaxial with the spine), such that the ring is behind the flight deck and the pod bay. And in this orientation, the ship would wind up simply rolling around the long axis of the spine- not very visually dramatic.
3: The only configuration that would cause the ship to tumble in pitch would place the ring's center axle running from left to right, and this would cause the ring itself to run right through the middle of both the flight deck and the pod bay. And even at that, the center of rotation would still be the sphere, and not the middle of the spine.
Holy cow... I can't believe I thought that hard about this. I think I've actually just lost respect for myself. I have had far too much to drink tonight, and it is officially time for bed.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 08:26 AM
#1058
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Birmingham Alabama
Posts: 7,930
Total Cats: 45
People were making fun of my giant jug of Arizona tea all day, since it was like 42oz. "There goes Jesse with his 40".That video is great! People wonder how stereotypes just create themselves out of nothing... well they don't come from nothing obviously. They are doing great for the advancement of their own people and for the view of other people towards them.
Reply
0
0
07-16-2010, 08:36 AM
#1059
mkturbo.com
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Charleston SC
Posts: 15,176
Total Cats: 1,680
People were making fun of my giant jug of Arizona tea all day, since it was like 42oz. "There goes Jesse with his 40".That video is great! People wonder how stereotypes just create themselves out of nothing... well they don't come from nothing obviously. They are doing great for the advancement of their own people and for the view of other people towards them.
Reply
0
0
