HB Contradictions

[BertL]

nomuse said:

The reason most HB's don't see this as a contradiction, is they have no awareness of how many different jobs, people, and how much money goes into a major film.

I also think they cannot imagine all the (years and years of) planning that goes into making 6 films that have to be so real that they should convince anyone to be genuine, any time. For reference: LOTR, based on a book that was written already, took only about 8 years to make with 'modern' technology.

Then there's the pictures made by the astronauts. In the way the 'hoax' is presented now, the pictures and the films were two different things, i.e. the pictures weren't made at the time of filming. This would be (nearly) impossible to achieve, especially with the huge number of pictures made. For every picture, one would need to know exactly when and where from it would have been made, compared to the film.

In the 'only 2 years of time' (several CTs say NASA realized it couldn't have been done for real), planning this all would take a great deal of time, crew, and dedication. Not to mention the fact that it all had to remain as secret as possible.

[dwight]

Then there's the demand/plea that pro-Apollo people maintain an open mind. ie we at least admit that in theory a hoax was possible. However, most HB folk cannot maintain a mind open enough to admit that at least in theory a real landing was possible.

[Jason Thompson]

Going off-topic for a mo, Jay, I found your use of the word 'crapulence' to be very entertaiing. I know what you intended, but did you know it is an actual, though rarely used, word that refers to excessive drinking of alcohol?

[JayUtah]

Didn't know that. I was using the connotation suggested in the "Who Shot Mr. Burns?, Part Two" episode of "The Simpsons" wherein Mr. Burns says, "...I was left to wallow in my own crapulence." Yell at the Simpsons writers, not me. :-)

[dwight]

That's a very cromulent statement, which has embiggened my understanding of the world.

[PhantomWolf]

I would note that sometimes the "good enough" isn't used ieither. With the props and costumes for LotR there were numerous examples in the wardrobe and minatures where they went into detail well beyond what was needed.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Which would allow the director and cameramen
options not in the script.
A closeup here and there.
With Apollo, good enough, means they didn't need to
go beyond the capability of the cameras.

[thestargazer]

phantomwolf said:

I would note that sometimes the "good enough" isn't used ieither. With the props and costumes for LotR there were numerous examples in the wardrobe and minatures where they went into detail well beyond what was needed.

That puts me in mind of a list of "SFX artist's famous last words" from a coffee table book I've got about the production of the Lord of the Rings movies. It's filled with some gems like "Don't worry about painting or detailing that part, no-one will ever see it." "Go ahead and put lights in there; it should be able to handle the heat" "Paint/glue/seal that - it won't have to actually move" etc.

[JayUtah]

Film screenplays very often don't go shot by shot. That level of detail in preplanning is needed only when you have opticals and other elements that need to be worked on simultaneously by two groups. So while the screenplay might go on for two pages of dialogue in a single scene, you'll shoot it at least three times. You point the camera at one character and shoot his side of the dialogue, then at the other character for his dialogue, then a wider or different shot. Then you intercut between these angles when you edit the final scene.

And so a director will want the ability to select focal length and camera placement in the studio or on location, and not be limited by the crapularity of the costumes, sets, and props. So for film it's okay to put detail into costumes and hand props and even some sets even though that detail may be wasted. But for stage you know your audience isn't getting any closer than the front row.

[PhantomWolf]

One of the things I was thinking of though, was the embossing ofthe Rohan king's emblem n the inside of his armour, something that only the actor would see, yet it was still done. nother was the minature (bigature?) used for Rivendell. Originally it was just going to be used for long shots, till PJ saw it, and then decided he was going to use it for closeups too.

[JayUtah]

That's the nature of collaborative art. A director or cinematographer, choreographer, or even actors draw inspiration and imagination from the physical aspects. As an actor, I "find" elements of my character only when I have the full array of props and costumes. As a director I will happily reblock scenes in order to take advantage of some aspect of the scenery that wasn't readily apparent from the drawings.

The art director will have a vision for the production, but he will also hire designers and builders who are able to extend and embellish that vision in their own vernacular and according to their own skill.

[nomuse]

In response to thestargazer, I've got a little list of things that have saved my butt -- 1) If you are building a musical, any flat surface larger than 1'x1' must be considered danceable. If a dancer can get to it, the choreographer _will_ put a dancer on it. 2) There is no "back side" to a prop or furniture item. 3) Railings are _never_ decorative. 4) The largest soprano in the opera _will_ be blocked on top of the flimsiest platform of the set. Build accordingly.

And then there's Joe Ragey's Second Law: "Nothing is temporary." If the repair you made with gaff tape and chewing gum holds through tech, then you will open with it. There is never the time to go back and fix something that hasn't broken _yet_.

As a builder I believe in giving the director and other designers the maximum options. If I can make windows functional and platforms walkable, I will. If I can make extra entrances, cross-overs, I will. I also believe that the actor should be given everything possible to make their job easier. I love putting real lock sets, sinks with running water, pockets in costumes, and so forth; making the surroundings of the actor as real as possible and giving them maximum opportunities for "business."


But to go back to Apollo. Unless the hoax used some demanding wunderkind like Kubrick (and there is good textual evidence that no such genius guided the filming), then everything that went before the camera was the end result of years of scripting, calculation, rehearsal, and other preparation. There isn't a space in the Apollo sequence for someone to "suddenly" decide they want a close-up. Everything seen in that close-up must be the end result of much engineering and invention for what machinery might plausibly be there, what its function is, etc.

However. I have visited fan sites where the most amazing theories are spun out as to the performance parameters of phasers and to what Geordi actually meant when he said "Reverse the phase on the Quantum Inducers" on Episode #42. I do wonder if the Hoax Believers (if they even reason out their position that far!) think that the Apollo films and stills were made, then armies of bored engineers descended to spin some sort of coherent techno-babble out of the mass of data. It is a difficult question to ask of the Hoax Believers. Since they can not speak Engineer -- and lack almost any grounding in science or logic -- they can not see the impossibly elegant way all the descriptions and narratives and logs and blueprints and so forth fit together in close agreement.

I am sorry if I am not clear myself. Suffering from a nasty head cold and typing quickly before yet another long night at the theater.

[twinstead]

I am sorry if I am not clear myself. Suffering from a nasty head cold and typing quickly before yet another long night at the theater.

Clear as a bell, Nomuse. Most HB's just don't get the big picture of the landings and prefer to concentrate on meaningless minutiae.

[Jason Thompson]

And then there's Joe Ragey's Second Law: "Nothing is temporary." If the repair you made with gaff tape and chewing gum holds through tech, then you will open with it. There is never the time to go back and fix something that hasn't broken _yet_.

That reminds me of when I was doing backjstage work at a school production of The Sound Of Music. We had a pair of wooden balustrades, built very much to the 'good enough' philosophy. At some point every single night some cast member managed to catch his foot on one and break it.

Every night except closing night, naturally.

[JayUtah]

You never, ever, ever scrimp on safety. Stages and film sets are very dangerous places. You have heavy objects rigged above you, plenty of opportunities to fall off things, large amounts of electricity employed, frantic work being done in the dark on uneven surfaces, and often very powerful machines.

This was just recently brought home to me. Our stage has a very sophisticated and very powerful lift/turn mechanism, and last week a stagehand -- one of my friends -- got his clothing caught in it, his head and face pinned against the wall, and thus very seriously injured. I wasn't there, since this a production (Aida) that I'm not involved in. But you must never intentionally allow an unsafe condition to exist.

And our theater is in the round, so we're quite accustomed to the notion of sets that have to look good from every angle. And I try to divide my time equally between onstage and backstage work. I believe that each of those activities compliments the other. As an actor, I build sets and props that I, as an actor, would want to use. As a builder, I act and direct as if I were responsible for the safety and endurance of the sets, props, and costumes. This has unexpected benefits. During runs, when there is minimal construction staff available, I can make emergency repairs. I once even repaired a crucial prop, onstage, in character.