|
Post by abaddon on Mar 19, 2011 17:09:49 GMT -4
I loved Silent Running at the time. I recently streamed it to my TV for a rewatch and was disappointed by how horribly dated it seemed due to the overpowering Earthmuffin flavor. Still, Huey, Dewey, and Louie are among SF's coolest (and most underated) robots, IMO. Yup, agreed. On the Full Metal Jacket thing, most people are surprised to learn that the combat scenes (comprising a majority of the film) were shot in the London docklands. And they did a damn fine job. Just watching the movie gives one an immersion in the reality of Vietnam. Truly a tour de force in film making art.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Mar 19, 2011 23:35:31 GMT -4
It's surprising (and, as an Englishman, I have to say a little disappointing!) how few people seem to realise that a lot of the big 'American' blockbuster films are shot over here in the good old UK. We have some amazing film studios here, but no-one seems to realise where they are. A lot of the original Star Wars movie was filmed in London too. The original trilogy was all over the place with only about half of of the SW movies filmed in the States, many of the location shots being in places like Tunisa, Norway, and Guatemala. The new trilogy was mostly filmed in a studo with CGI added afterwards, perhaps if Lucas had remembered that great movies have great storylines and real locations, they might have turned out better. Compare the new SW movies with the LotRs ones done at the same time. One used CGI for everything, the other used real locations, models, and full scale sets, adding CGI only when really needed. Which were better in the end?
|
|
|
Post by Obviousman on Mar 20, 2011 2:02:50 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by chew on Mar 20, 2011 9:09:41 GMT -4
It's surprising (and, as an Englishman, I have to say a little disappointing!) how few people seem to realise that a lot of the big 'American' blockbuster films are shot over here in the good old UK. We have some amazing film studios here, but no-one seems to realise where they are. A lot of the original Star Wars movie was filmed in London too. The original trilogy was all over the place with only about half of of the SW movies filmed in the States, many of the location shots being in places like Tunisa, Norway, and Guatemala. The new trilogy was mostly filmed in a studo with CGI added afterwards, perhaps if Lucas had remembered that great movies have great storylines and real locations, they might have turned out better. Compare the new SW movies with the LotRs ones done at the same time. One used CGI for everything, the other used real locations, models, and full scale sets, adding CGI only when really needed. Which were better in the end? Have you seen Plinkett's reviews of the trilogy? Each is about an hour or an hour and a half long and he rips into Lucas mercilessly. They are hilarious. redlettermedia.com/plinkett/star-wars/star-wars-episode-1-the-phantom-menace/
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 20, 2011 13:40:48 GMT -4
Thanks for the help. The other threads look like they haven't been visited in a while and since someone has already mention Jack White, I'd rather just post here. It seems the missing Rover Tracks are one of his pet arguments. If the OP would like me to move this post I will gladly do so. The debate started with the person asking me to explain the missing rover tracks for picture AS17-140-21354. My reply with picture is as follows. "Even a quick glace should be enough for anyone to notice the color differences between the disturbed and undisturbed lunar soil. The area around the rover is marked by hundreds of overlapping footprints. As Astronauts Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan worked around the rover, they disturbed the soil and erased most of what remained of the track markings nearest the rover. But not all are gone...
A quick examination of the photo will reveal (to anyone who actually bothers to look for it) that the tracks are indeed there. The enlarged portion clearly shows the Chevron marks made by the tread of the LR. (Contrast added to show detail)
In the background, you will notice that there are tracks as well and they have not been disturbed or erased. If the rover was placed there on a "Fake" moon set by government stage designers, why pray tell would they create some tracks and not others?
This also raises the logical question as to what would be the advantage of lowering the rover from the ceiling and setting it into position (as Hoax believers would have us believe) when anyone with working eyeballs can see that the rover has wheels on it?? Did this group of evil, government controlled set designers, that supposedly pulled off the greatest deception in human history simply forget that the rover could be pushed into place?
Sorry.. but the "Trackless Moon Rover" theory is a bust!"
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 20, 2011 13:48:22 GMT -4
To help drive the point home, I also added this. AS17-137-20981 helps illustrate how easily the tracks were covered over by lunar soil kicked up by the Astronauts. Note that the area around the instrument stuck into the soil displays evidence of very few boot prints, yet the track on the right is completely erased.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 20, 2011 13:56:40 GMT -4
Thanks for the help. The other threads look like they haven't been visited in a while and since someone has already mention Jack White, I'd rather just post here. It seems the missing Rover Tracks are one of his pet arguments. If the OP would like me to move this post I will gladly do so. I don't know about the OP, but it seems to me at least that it's more relevant to the other thread. Nothing wrong with posting in the other thread if you have something new to add to it.
|
|
|
Post by supermeerkat on Mar 21, 2011 5:04:21 GMT -4
That, more or less, is what I've done, and now the only contact is to nod at him as we pass in corridors. Besides, it soon won't be a problem at all as I have a new job and am working my notice.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 21, 2011 13:54:31 GMT -4
Hee. Leave a note on his desk the last day you're there . . . .
|
|
|
Post by ka9q on Mar 22, 2011 6:44:25 GMT -4
This also raises the logical question as to what would be the advantage of lowering the rover from the ceiling and setting it into position (as Hoax believers would have us believe) when anyone with working eyeballs can see that the rover has wheels on it?? Did this group of evil, government controlled set designers, that supposedly pulled off the greatest deception in human history simply forget that the rover could be pushed into place? You will find that this line of argument never seems to register with the Hoax Believers. (Not that any line of argument really registers with them either.) They seem to think it's enough just to find inconsistencies (or "incoherencies", as one prolific French hoax believer amusingly calls them) in the official record, invoking the classic False Dichotomy fallacy to claim that this somehow proves the missions were faked.
|
|
|
Post by Glom on Mar 22, 2011 13:35:28 GMT -4
This also raises the logical question as to what would be the advantage of lowering the rover from the ceiling and setting it into position (as Hoax believers would have us believe) when anyone with working eyeballs can see that the rover has wheels on it?? Did this group of evil, government controlled set designers, that supposedly pulled off the greatest deception in human history simply forget that the rover could be pushed into place? You will find that this line of argument never seems to register with the Hoax Believers. (Not that any line of argument really registers with them either.) They seem to think it's enough just to find inconsistencies (or "incoherencies", as one prolific French hoax believer amusingly calls them) in the official record, invoking the classic False Dichotomy fallacy to claim that this somehow proves the missions were faked. Bingo. CTers never usually attempt to actually make the case for a hoax because they never show evidence of actual hoaxing. They (ignorantly) nitpick this and that and then assume that proves the hoax by default. As Jay would say, they don't know what it means to prove something. They're never bothered by how well this supposed inconsistency fits in with their own conspiracy theory. Case in point, the 9/11 Truther "evidence" of the Pentagon plane not actually crashing into the Pentagon based on the flight data recorder that somehow ended up in the crash site anyway.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Mar 22, 2011 14:12:31 GMT -4
Such basic failings in logic have convinced people. Just not the ones who end up here.
|
|
|
Post by fiveonit on Mar 29, 2011 22:38:01 GMT -4
He did say he liked my example and that it did cast some doubt on that particular picture. He then came back with this.. >.You still have not explained the pictures of the trackless rover. That still is on the table.My response... OH YES I HAVE!! I showed you (QUITE CLEARLY) how the tracks got covered over. Do I really need to point that out in every rover photo?? Is this how this is going to work? You just point to picture after picture while exclaiming. "Well how about this oneā¦ how about this one.. or this one.. maybe this one"
I have a better idea. Why don't you find me a "Trackless Rover" picture where there are not multiple Astronaut footprints around the rover, or one that is not a close up of the wheels and only shows a foot or two in front of behind each tire.So he posted this from Apollo 15 I then replied... A great shot of AS15-82-11121. Have you bothered to look at the picture immediately before it, AS15-82-11120? Thank you for proving my point! :-)And what do we see to the left of the rover... Hmmmmmmmm... Looks like Rover Tracks to me!!Such basic failings in logic have convinced people. Just not the ones who end up here. I don't know if what I posted did or did not convience him. I do know I haven't heard from him (or his one buddy) for over a week since posting these.
|
|
|
Post by echnaton on Mar 30, 2011 1:39:59 GMT -4
Savor the sweet sound of silence. It's a small victory, but shutting them up for a while is usually the best that can be hoped for. And maybe, just maybe, you will have planted a seed in an adolescent's mind that will flower during adulthood. Either way, good job!
|
|
|
Post by nomuse on Mar 30, 2011 4:54:31 GMT -4
Never underestimate the possible contortions.
I'm posting back and forth at another forum with someone who believes the recent tsunami never happened, that the video coming out of Japan is obvious fakes, and his major reason is that "cars don't float."
But that's not the interesting part. The interesting part is when he actually answered (as so few people do), why, if you were trying to pull a hoax, you'd include a patently ridiculous element.
His answer, as far as I can make it out, is that you are expected to notice that what is shown on the video is impossible, and that will make you doubt your own reasoning, and thus condition you even better to accept this faked video and the next as well.
I think I've read a P.K.D. novel that was less convoluted.
|
|