|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 10, 2007 11:11:15 GMT -4
It looks oddly over and under-designed at the same time. And it looks like it would fall over if it landed on a rock. Still -- too bad they didn't get a chance to try it out.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 13:12:03 GMT -4
It has no wings, it doesn't bank when turning and there are no cool Tie-fighter sounds..
One of them did, however, make a sound suspiciously like the Air Force anthem.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 13:20:27 GMT -4
I think you might have accidently posted the picture of H. G. Wells time machine there Jay. It's a kinetic sculpture called SS Pussywillow. For a number of years it was on loan to the NASM. I don't know where it is now. If memory serves, it was created by the same artist who made the Rube Goldberg breakfast-making machines in the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. And speaking of the Wells time machine and movie props, I was also privileged to inspect that time-machine prop very closely at Warner Brothers just after the release of the most recent film version, where the machine was being prepared for display somewhere. It was very well built. Although I doubt its actual time-traveling capacity, it was clearly a good example of wood- and metalworking. The glass features were made from a large fresnel lens cut into sections. The brass and hardwood craftsmanship was first rate. Those boys at the Mill are amazing!
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Oct 10, 2007 14:57:53 GMT -4
If memory serves, it was created by the same artist who made the Rube Goldberg breakfast-making machines in the film Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Roland Emmett.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 15:06:51 GMT -4
I always thought the Rod Taylor-piloted '60 Time Machine was the best-looking time machine that didn't also look like a Police Box on the outside.
Oh, wait, I fogot about the time-traveling De Lorean. Okay, the '60s Time Machine is the definitive turn-of-the-century time machine, not necessarily the best-looking.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 10, 2007 15:16:29 GMT -4
I'd agree - though I don't think that movie is all that good. A close second for me would be the one in Time After Time. Everyone knows a functional time machine would need a hatch.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 10, 2007 15:18:14 GMT -4
The better to trap Jack the Ripper with, of course.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 15:30:36 GMT -4
I always thought the Rod Taylor-piloted '60 Time Machine was the best-looking time machine that didn't also look like a Police Box on the outside.
It is also the iconic visualization of the Wells device. That older prop had a long and distinguished career, however it underwent several modifications and adaptations for use in fairs, exhibits, and so forth. I don't remember where it finally ended up, but I recall it's in fairly poor shape these days.
The rule of thumb in property design and construction is that a prop should fall apart on closing night at curtain-down. That is, unless it is eminently reusable, it should be constructed emphemerally at the lowest possible cost. I have made a set of "general" props for our theater, and built them robustly to last through several productions. But a Wellsian time machine has limited general use, so in keeping with standard practice the original was constructed not to last much beyond the production.
The Mill did an excellent job on the updated prop. It was very substantially constructed and holds up under closeups.
|
|
|
Post by wdmundt on Oct 10, 2007 15:30:46 GMT -4
The makers of Back to the Future knew about the hatch rule.
|
|
furi
Mars
The Secret is to keep banging those rocks together.
Posts: 260
|
Post by furi on Oct 10, 2007 15:42:06 GMT -4
looking at the Sov LM it seems to have a few correlations to the Mirkin LM, it isn't aerodynamic (well DUH!) the landsing pads and support seem to be similar down facing windows (for landing as opposed to looking at stars)
was it staged primarily from design?
For some strange reason I have never worked out where the LM couldn't have worked argument ever arose. seems perfectly feasible to me (but then I also believe in such things as Human accelerated Global warming and think that the chemtrail theory is a pile of dingos kidneys)
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 10, 2007 15:51:25 GMT -4
The rule of thumb in property design and construction is that a prop should fall apart on closing night at curtain-down.
In modern action films, it looks like they handle this by blowing up the set and the props.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 10, 2007 16:04:41 GMT -4
The rule of thumb in property design and construction is that a prop should fall apart on closing night at curtain-down.
No one must have told WETA Workshop, they went into painstaking details and acre for their LotR props, even adding embossed and padded leather to the interior of the armour.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 10, 2007 17:37:05 GMT -4
Conventional wisdom for film props these days is to build it real. That's what governed WETA's decision to fully equip Lord of the Rings properties. And that's because a fair amount of the art in filmmaking is accomplished spontaneously on the set. A director will see something he couldn't have foreseen and set up a shot to capture it. In that case you don't want a cut corner in a prop to disallow that. So the armor etc. was constructed so that if Jackson wanted to show the inside, he could; even if that wasn't explicit in the script.
Stage productions are more ruthlessly laid out in advance. By the time the prop is seen by the audience, the exact mode of using it has been worked out and practiced and committed to company memory, often with knowledge of the constraints imposed by its construction. Conversely an actor may suggest an improvement to a prop based on developing his performance in rehearsal.
Film props for location shooting have to be robust in order to survive transport and use far away from extensive repair facilities. At Warner Brothers the Mill is only five minutes away from any point on the lot, but out in the wilds of New Zealand you may not have a paint booth handy.
Stage props have to be robust enough not to fall apart in the actor's hand. But other breakage is usually easy to correct. Our shop is literally 25 feet from the stage; and I can repair props often while the play is still going. The ultimate case of that was once when I dressed in costume and went onstage in the character of a repairman to repair a fixed piece that had broken during an earlier scene, and whose proper operation was required for a subsequent scene! At the very least you tag a broken prop with a repair ticket and the crew fixes it the next day before the next shop. For key props you make a backup.
A film prop often has to work in closeup, and you (the builder) may not know ahead of time. At my theater we have the same sort of constraint: our audience is at times only a couple of feet away from set and prop elements. So many of our props are more realistic than strictly required. But on other stages I've built for, the nearest audience member is 30-40 feet away and so you don't need to make it any more convincing than that.
In 1960 the conventional wisdom was still to build it only as good as it seemed necessary. The 1960 time machine was actually partly disassembled in order to shoot the cutaways of the display. It hadn't been built to accommodate that.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Oct 10, 2007 19:13:18 GMT -4
I think I might have stumbled onto the next Moonman. Read the comments for Anonymous Physicist. So far he seems to think that no temperature means absolute zero and seemed to be surprised about the Apollo 17 launch being TV footage. covertoperations.blogspot.com/2007/10/politics-partisanship-media-are-all.htmlOh, and apparently Clavius and those of us on his board are all shills and lairs anyway PW, I read the to-and-fro that you had with anonymous. There's about ten goo quotes that papageno could use. I'm surprised you went to so much effort when it was clear that he couldn't understand what you were saying (I can most of the time, when I get my books out to help!). His misunderstanding of temperature (or lack of ) in a vacuum was hilarious. I think he deliberately played dumb because he couldn't admit that he was wrong early on. In fact, I think a lot of HB do that - cannot be convinced of anything other than what they've already been convinced of. No research, no re-evaluation of the facts or distortion thereof. I wonder if the 'lair' thing is some Freudian slip? According to wikipedia: I n mythology, heroes have often hunted dragons and similar mythic beasts to their lairs. Consequently, fantasy role-playing games often feature monster lairs as a common place for participants to find a treasure trove.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Oct 10, 2007 21:33:10 GMT -4
After reading AP's latest spewage I'm honestly not sure it's worth replying to him, there is so little substance to actually reply too. Rob might be worth replying too and so I may do that when I get home since I'll have to "doctor" the rover photos, ie add arrows to point to the tracks so he can see them. As to AP, I doubt a lightening bolt would get through to him. The fact that after having it explained to him 5 times, he still thinks that saying a vacuum has no temperature means it is absolute zero really shows his complete inability to either admit a mistake or just is incapable of learning. What do you think? Is it worth it? Oh, and the Liar/Lair thing was a just a typo I missed. Most people here know how terrible a speller I am. If it wasn't that I occasionally use MSWord to fix up my posts they'd be illegiable.
|
|