"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote:
> Looks nice, and...small.  Gee, I want to see a bigger version!

Hum... would need to reconstruct the faulty code - and invest some rendering
time...

> "Phase IV" was an odd film--essentially a documentary about ants, turned into
> a quasi-doomsday story. Clever conceit, though.

Loosely based on a short story by H.G.Wells as I heard tell, so I'm not too
surprised about the documentary info regarding ants. After all, he was into
science-fiction, not science-fantasy.

> THEM! is one of my faves--especially that chilling scene when the little
> frightened girl, numb with shock, screams bloody murder when she smells formic
> acid. The giant ants were pretty cool props, too--probably state-of-the-art
> special effects for the 1950's.

Don't remember it, honestly. Seen it on TV, I'm pretty sure, but the memory
about it probably got drowned in the mass of "Help, the animals are coming to
get us!" B-movies that were broadcast about the same time; and being the N-th
of those movies I saw (instead of the first, like when it originally came to
the theaters), and me being a teenager then, I probably didn't pay much
attention to the qualities of it. To me, I guess it was just another one of
"those ridiculous 50's b/w mutant animal flics".

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> I call it "Revenge of The Killer Scarabs from Outer Space".

What a shitty render!  ;-)

> (Okay, wrong color - should be brown and sound like a bell - but what the
> heck...)

That would make it even shittier.

(In case some people don't get the joke:  aren't you glad that there are
creatures to clean up after the rest of us?)

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> "Kenneth" <kdw### [at] earthlinknet> wrote in message
> news:web.49aa69caf3f1ac26f50167bc0@news.povray.org...
> > "clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
> >
> >> "The day the earth caught fire" was another example of misconceptions
> >> about
> >> effects of nuclear testing, though unrelated to radioactivity issues;
> >> didn't
> >> stop it from being a good movie.
> >>
> > Probably my all-time favorite of the genre; an implausible concept made
> > plausible by a great, serious script. On a par with the original "The
> > Thing."
>
>    Omg, I watched 'The Thing' at the flicks - yeah, it did what it was
> supposed to do - frighten the life out of me!

Are you guys talking about the 50's "The Thing from Another World", or the 80's
"The Thing"?

Post a reply to this message

> > I call it "Revenge of The Killer Scarabs from Outer Space".
>
> What a shitty render!  ;-)

Yeah, a B-render so to speak ;)

But what do you expect from a script that contains plain bullshit? :P

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote in message 
news:web.49aa7ac3f3f1ac2674c3e19a0@news.povray.org...

> Are you guys talking about the 50's "The Thing from Another World", or the 
> 80's
> "The Thing"?

  Well, I'm talking about the 80's 'The Thing', but I thought it was a 
remake of an earlier film of the same name?

     ~Steve~

Post a reply to this message

"St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> > Are you guys talking about the 50's "The Thing from Another World", or the
> > 80's
> > "The Thing"?
>
>   Well, I'm talking about the 80's 'The Thing', but I thought it was a
> remake of an earlier film of the same name?

If Wikipedia can believed, the 50's movie was commonly known as just "The
Thing", but the full title was "The Thing from Another World".

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
> "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> 
>>>Are you guys talking about the 50's "The Thing from Another World", or the
>>>80's
>>>"The Thing"?
>>
>>  Well, I'm talking about the 80's 'The Thing', but I thought it was a
>>remake of an earlier film of the same name?
> 
> 
> If Wikipedia can believed, the 50's movie was commonly known as just "The
> Thing", but the full title was "The Thing from Another World".
> 
> 
Steve McQueen movie as I recall.  One of the first movies I ever saw in 
a real moview theatre.  Loved it!

Post a reply to this message

clipka wrote:
This image suddenly got Very interesting.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Charter <jrc### [at] msncom> wrote:
> clipka wrote:
> > "St." <dot### [at] dotcom> wrote:
> >
> >>>Are you guys talking about the 50's "The Thing from Another World", or the
> >>>80's "The Thing"?
> >>

The 50's one, definitely.  Although John Carpenter's 80's remake was really
terrifying, in a different, more visceral way (probably a closer adaptation of
the novel, too.)

> >
> > If Wikipedia can believed, the 50's movie was commonly known as just "The
> > Thing", but the full title was "The Thing from Another World".
> >
> >

> Steve McQueen movie as I recall.  One of the first movies I ever saw in
> a real moview theatre.  Loved it!

Nope, that's "The Blob." The seminal cheapie 50's monster flick.  I *still*
can't figure out how they made that blobby creature--AMAZING for its time.
(This was the first movie that REALLY scared me. Badly. Gave me nightmares for
years! Oh well, I was just a wee little kid...)

Post a reply to this message

"clipka" <nomail@nomail> wrote:
>
> Well, it should be noted that 1954, at the time of the film's making, long-time
> effects of radioactivity from nuclear weapon use were still poorly understood
> in public. People were only starting to grasp that there *were* such effects.

These are all early to mid 20th century products.

Radium Ore Revigator.  Preserving all the wonderful benefits of radioactive
drinking water!
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.8/index.s12.html

User Manual.  Read it and gape:
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.7/index.s12.html

Death on the breakfast table.  Although the lead in this dish will kill you
before the radiation does.
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/092.3/index.s12.html

All-natural, so it must be good for you, right?
   http://www.theodoregray.com/PeriodicTable/Samples/088.2/index.s12.html

> And after all, when it was found out that radioactive fallout causes "genetic
> mutation", this term was probably still more associated with Darvin's "survival
> of the fittest" ideas than genetic defects. This misconception seems to have
> been common those days, see those infamous Godzilla & Co. movies, which were
> obviously bred on the same lack of insight.

They are actually the same thing.  A mutation can enhance or harm an organism's
odds of survival.  As sentient, interested beings, we humans make a
distinction:  we call the former "fitness" and the latter "genetic defects."
However, to the molecules, subatomic particles, and radiation involved, it's
all the same.  As an example, sickle-cell anemia can be either fitness or
defect, depending on the mutant's life circumstance; yet it is the same
mutation.

Most mutations lower the odds of survival.  After all, mutations are random, yet
a functional genetic sequence is a tremendously improbable outcome.  Hence, when
you boost the regional mutation rate by, say, mismanaging a safety test in a
Chernobyl core, a lot of bad things are going to happen to the life forms in
the vicinity.

Note that no office-building-sized lizards have been reported near Chernobyl
(nor office-building-sized humans near Hiroshima, for that matter).  The
vascular, skeletal, and muscular systems of each species are genetically tuned
for the normal scale of that species.  If a mutation caused runaway growth in a
Ukrainian lizard, it would probably die while still considerably smaller than a
frozen turkey.  File as "genetic defect."

(Interestingly, you can find lots of studies and articles about the surprising
proliferation of wildlife in the Chernobyl area.  The pro-nuclear camp cites
these and says, "See, nuclear radiation isn't so bad after all."  But a closer
look reveals that the animals are often in poor health, and the implication
hits you like a fuel rod to the side of the head:  an exploding nuclear pile is
less dangerous to wildlife than the mere presence of human beings!  Oh.

Environmentalists, you've got your work cut out for you.  Extermination of H.
sapiens is not an acceptable option.)

In my country, misconceptions about evolution are the norm.  The problem is
fundamentalist Christian organizations who do not understand the difference
between real evidence and a 3000 book, and who believe that science is a form
of religion.  While they have been spectacularly unsuccessful at forcing their
mythology into our public school biology classes, they have succeeded in
emasculating biology curricula though politics, intimidation, and sophistry.
Most people don't understand what makes science different from religion, and
are thus unequipped to defend science against the sophists.  (It doesn't help
that Texas, of all states, has de facto control over textbook content for the
whole USA.  It also doesn't help when a certain president, coincidentally(?)
from Texas, does not understand why religious mythology doesn't deserve equal
time in science class.)  As a result, while most of our children manage to
escape being taught that Adam & Eve were literally true, few really learn
anything about evolution.

Post a reply to this message