Chambers wrote:
> (This is the same guy that had us build a catapult and a fort as a final 
> exam).

We had to do the things like shave the edges off a hot-wheels track and 
then calculate where to start the car from to have it go around the 
curve without falling off.

Or figure the angle to shoot a dart gun to hit a target several feet away.

Or calculate the speed of light, given a different charge and mass for 
an electron.

Neat class.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:24:14 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
>> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
> 
> But watching the beginning of Episode I definitely shows the difference
> between a couple of lame old men and an under-trained too-old-to-start
> amateur and a couple of fully-trained young jedi knights, fighting-wise.
> :-)

True.  Wasn't Bob Anderson the weapons guy in all 6 of them?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 20:09:42 -0800, Chambers wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I can't disagree with any of those - though I have to admit the
>> lightsaber fight between Luke and Vader in Jedi was beautiful to watch
>> with the contrast between the dark backgrounds and the bright sabers.
>> And the wide shots of that fight were very good.  Too much today fight
>> scenes are a series of close-up cutaways, and while the "action" is
>> faster, it doesn't feel as authentic.  I wish fight scenes were more
>> often shot from a distance sufficient to see the combatants and the
>> camera was more or less stationary.  With good fighters, many fight
>> scenes would be absolutely beautiful if they just let us watch it in
>> one shot.
> 
> You've got a problem there - most actors can't do an entire fight in one
> shot.

Well, true, but even with actors who are capable of it, there aren't a 
lot of long shots.  Honestly, I could sit and watch Jet Li do Wu Shu 
nonstop for 90 minutes, and I think he could handle it (or at least in 
his prime he could have, not sure now that he's older).

But even if it was just a couple of cutaways, that'd be OK; the thing 
that bothers me is the constant switching of camera angle and the fact 
that many of the shots are so close you can't really tell what's going 
on.  It looks sloppy.

> That was one of the unmentioned strengths of the second Matrix movie,
> that the shots for the fight scenes were much longer than in the
> original.

True.  That was about the only thing Matrix 2 had going for it, though; I 
was very disappointed in the sequels.  Technically they were stunning 
nonetheless, but I think they would've worked better if Neo's final line 
from the first had actually been what 2 & 3 were all about, instead of 
just another big techno-war.  The thing that worked for me about the 
first one is that the technology supported the story.  In 2 & 3, the 
technology *was* the story, and 2 & 3 to an extent suffered the loss of 
humanity that was present in the first one.

> Also, the recent version of "Pride and Prejudice" (the one with Keira
> Knightley) had some rather long shots in it, with the camera moving
> through various rooms and people / events / conversations coming into
> and out of focus in it.  In one scene in particular, I was like "That's
> cool, moving the camera that way... Huh, they haven't cut yet... Wow,
> this is still the same take!"  It's the kind of thing you can imagine
> getting all the way to the end, and someone making a dumb mistake and
> ruining the whole shot, but nobody did.  I was very impressed by that :)

It is impressive when they can do that - and I for one (and my wife for 
another) appreciate the difficulty of shots like that and tend to be 
impressed by good cinematography.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> 
> I've seen a couple of movies which take the long shot to its extreme and
> film the entire movie in essentially one uninterrupted shot.  There's
> Rope by Hitchcock and a more recent film Russian Ark.  The former is a

	Rope is a good movie. 9 takes, I believe. Sort of scary given that it's
based on a true story.

> pretty good suspense film, and the latter, while a bit dull, has
> absolutely stunning camera work.  I'd take a look if you're interested
> in that sort of thing.  Apparently Russian Ark also took only two takes
> to get right, which is very impressive for a movie which is over an hour
> and a half long.

	Two takes? I haven't seen it, but I saw a trailer for it years ago. It
claimed one take.

-- 
FREE! FREE! One shoe shined absolutely free.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> 	Two takes? I haven't seen it, but I saw a trailer for it years ago. It
> claimed one take.


I might be remembering incorrectly, but I recalled that something went 
wrong during the first take and they had to try it again.  It is one 
uninterrupted shot though, and weather it took one take or two I'm still 
very impressed.

Post a reply to this message

Kevin Wampler wrote:
> I might be remembering incorrectly, but I recalled that something went
> wrong during the first take and they had to try it again.  It is one
> uninterrupted shot though, and weather it took one take or two I'm still
> very impressed.

	I see - I was misinterpreting the word "take". So it took two takes to
make, but the movie is one long take.

-- 
To be frank, I'd have to change my name.


                    /\  /\               /\  /
                   /  \/  \ u e e n     /  \/  a w a z
                       >>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
                                   anl

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 03:09:06 -0000, Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg>  
did spake, saying:

> Phil Cook wrote:
>> But we're not necessariy talking real-life we're talking self-contained
>> film universe.
>
> 	Fair enough, but I've found people's expectations of how people should
> behave in those universes differs widely.
>
>> But the 'just reciting lines' is more then what is said it's all the
>> accompanying body language too; just watch some old (or not so old)
>> silent movies to see the difference. If you want some fun watch all the
>
> 	I've watched a number of old movies, including silent ones.
>
> 	I see patterns in acting behavior for different eras. Some quite
> different from the modern era. Yes, they had a different acting style,
> but what's your point? It just means that people expected something
> differently back then.
>
> 	I have a colleague who used to badmouth B&W movies because they're
> acting was "horrible". So I finally got sick of it and asked, "And the
> acting these days is better how?". He's a smart guy. Thought about it
> for a few minutes, and then retracted his statement.

I was responding to the reciting lines bit by pointing out it's possible  
to have bad acting in silent movies that by definition don't have anyone  
saying anything.

> 	It really is all subjective.
>
>>>     I have no issues with people liking/disliking the acting in movies.
>>> Arguing about it, however, seems futile. "Good" acting almost comes  
>>> down
>>> to a personal preference. Like one's taste in music.
>>
>> But what else have you got to measure it by? If 90% of the audience say
>> "Wow that acting was bad" how can you say "Well that's only your
>> subjective opinon"?
>
> 	Yes.
>
> 	Have you never liked music that 90% of the world dislikes? Would you
> change your mind and say the music is bad because they do?
>
> 	Or movies?
>
> 	Or books?
>
> 	It seems you're trying to _define_ the quality of acting to be more or
> less: Whatever the audience at the time expects...

Indeed, however I can normally see what they're complaining about I just  
didn't notice or don't care.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Fri, 11 Jan 2008 21:25:52 -0000, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> did  
spake, saying:

> Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
>> #2 2001 Space Oddessy.
>
>   I just rented it because it's more than 10 years since I last saw it.

Heh and I just watched it over the weekend

> It's surprisingly good, especially considering that it was made in 1968.
> While not perfect, many space movies made decades later with better
> movie-making technology look worse and have more physical inaccuracies.

Oh I liked the physical stuff and the interspersion between the raspy  
breathing and total silence of space is something every SF film director  
should take a note of, but it was the design flaws that drove me nuts. Hmm  
the most likely reason to perform EVA would be to get to the engines or  
dish so we'll put the pods at the front of the ship so they have to rotate  
180 degrees then move around the cockpit to get there. Hard points to  
attach the EVA pod to the ship so I don't need to float so far? Nah. The  
ability to dock the EVA pod to the emergency door? Nah. An easy to access  
emergency computer override system? Nah the 9000 series is perfect which  
is why they had a Computer Malfunction alert on the hibernation pods.  
Ducking through doors - just make them taller. Ladders to climb up/down  
things that only allow one person at a time. Door control panels on said  
ladders that are at the top/bottom of the shaft rather then next to the  
door. Put the engines well out of the way along this spindly connection so  
they're difficult to get to and easily severed from the rest of the ship.  
Etc., etc.

>   Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> straightforward.

Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month  
later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened  
then?'

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

And lo on Sat, 12 Jan 2008 00:47:45 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Wed, 09 Jan 2008 18:26:40 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>
>> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>>> Chambers wrote:
>>>> 2053 was decent when I read it (I think I was 15 at the time).  I
>>>> couldn't stomach more than a chapter or two of 3001, however (17yo
>>>> when I tried to read it?).
>>>
>>> 	I must have missed out on 2053. I read 2061...
>>>
>>>
>> That was probably it (how am I supposed to remember a random number
>> close to fifteen years later?)
>
> 2^2677009:1 against.
>
> (Name that number!)

Picking up Ford and Arthur in the ship (whose name I can't recall) in  
Hitchhiker's.... ?

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message

Phil Cook <phi### [at] nospamrocainfreeservecouk> wrote:
> but it was the design flaws that drove me nuts.

  There were, of course, also physical incorrectness at places. For example,
the shadowed parts of the ship were lighted by an unknown (bluish) light
source, even in interplanetary space. Stars don't light that much, and
there's obviously nothing to reflect that much light to the shadowed parts.

> >   Anyways, as for being incomprehensible... Only the last 15 minutes or
> > so were incomprehensibly abstract (and, according to the director,
> > completely on purpose), but everything before that was quite clear and
> > straightforward.

> Well you do also go to a jump from radio burst on the Moon to a 18 month  
> later ship heading to Jupiter, which may make you go 'huh, what happened  
> then?'

  Such jumps are quite a common storytelling method. I didn't find it
confusing at all.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message