Alfonso Cuaron's new film ("Gravity") to feature 17 minute opening long take - Page 10 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #271 of 738 Old 10-12-2013, 10:19 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

What are they going to do with it? Is the plan to bring it down, or just leave it floating up there until its orbit decays and it comes down by itself? We can no longer send a shuttle up to fetch it back here. wink.gif

They were going to bring it home originally, but no one knew the lifespan of the shuttle at that time. Now they'll just let it deorbit.
Quote:
I assume they'll build a replica for display in the Air & Space Museum or something. Maybe they already have...

They have the backup mirror on display there.

When the mirror on the telescope itself was found to be... let's just say, "off," there were plans to just build a second Hubble using the backup mirror and put it up as a wholesale replacement, as they weren't sure a repair mission would be less costly.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #272 of 738 Old 10-12-2013, 10:47 PM
Bass Enabler
 
Scott Simonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Clovis, CA
Posts: 13,419
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 281 Post(s)
Liked: 714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I completely understand your point, I just do not agree. The Hubble was made broken and late, only had 5/6ths of the instruments and 85% of the light gathering power it was supposed to, and a shorter than desired service life.

Frankly, although it added to the sum of human knowledge, it would have done a much better job if it worked the first time, had all the designed capabilities, and lasted for the full service life, and cost us one less repair mission.

What's to be proud of?

Hey. My 100" acoustic transparent screen in my HT room has a slight ripple in it. Never noticeable watching most movies. I built it myself and even with it being slightly "broken" I am quite proud of it.


I'm sure a similar analogy could be used to describe their family, parents, kids, friends, etc. biggrin.giftongue.gif

My Dual 18" LLT subs 120dB down to 10hz

 

Plan9Reloaded Co-host

Listen to the Plan9Reloaded Gaming and Technology Podcast (may contain NSFW language)

https://soundcloud.com/plan9reloaded/sets/podcast - direct pod link

http://plan9reloaded.com/site/ - main website

Scott Simonian is offline  
post #273 of 738 Old 10-12-2013, 11:13 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But from a filmmaking standpoint in terms of whether Cuaron accomplished anything new in an outer space movie by supposedly generating tension and suspense without violating the "no sound in space' factor, what difference does it make if the filmmakers accompany the image of an explosion with the explosive sounds of a trombone and snare drum in order to aurally goose the audience rather than the explosive sound of a foley tech throwing a cherry bomb into a bucket of beer bottles? Audience members would not know the difference and, if asked what they thought of all those nifty explosion sounds in Gravity, I doubt 1 in 10 would set the record straight by pointing out they never heard the sound of an explosion in this "no sound in space" movie because Cuaron used musical instruments to create the sound of explosions instead of more traditional foley methods.

This is why I thought it odd that Cuaron made a point to assure us with the "no sound in space" graphic opening that what we were about to see was a movie that won't be resorting to that old-timey convention of accompanying images of explosions in outer space with sounds of explosions on the soundtrack, that he was going to boldly face and meet the challenge of generating suspense and tension in the audience without resorting to such hoary old movie conventions. But he did resort to the hoary old outer space movie convention. He just used the orchestra to make those explosion sounds instead of laying in the sounds of more traditional foley methods. Which also makes no difference to the audience where, if asked what they thought of all those nifty loud explosion sounds in this outer space movie, I doubt 1 in 10 would correct the premise of the question on the grounds that Cuaron used musical instruments to create those sounds and, therefore, he goosed his audience without resorting to that old-timey convention.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I completely understand your point,
NO, you do NOT.
If you actually DID, you would not have written this:
Quote:
The Hubble was made broken and late, only had 5/6ths of the instruments and 85% of the light gathering power it was supposed to, and a shorter than desired service life.
Frankly, although it added to the sum of human knowledge, it would have done a much better job if it worked the first time, had all the designed capabilities, and lasted for the full service life, and cost us one less repair mission.

Quote:
What's to be proud of?
F_cking THIS, man: "it added to the sum of human knowledge"rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

You gotta stop with this tactic of replying to posts while completely ignoring what was written.... it makes discussing things with you very unappealing. mad.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #274 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 01:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 143
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

True.
FWIW, I liked CoM more...it's story and characters have greater complexity.
AC also did a fine Harry Potter movie.
An excellent summation.....my feelings exactly.
The tension in this movie can be cut with a knife.smile.gif
It sure can.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is online now  
post #275 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 01:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tenthplanet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: North of Mexico, South of Oregon, Not as far east as Vegas
Posts: 1,324
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 143
When watching Gravity it was nice to see Sandra Bullock as a dramatic actor, we know she can do comedy so this was an intersting change.

"Bring out yer dead!".."Wait I'm not dead yet!"..(Sound Austrian here) "WRONG !!" (You know what happens next..)
tenthplanet is online now  
post #276 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 03:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But from a filmmaking standpoint in terms of whether Cuaron accomplished anything new in an outer space movie by supposedly generating tension and suspense without violating the "no sound in space' factor, what difference does it make if the filmmakers accompany the image of an explosion with the explosive sounds of a trombone and snare drum in order to aurally goose the audience rather than the explosive sound of a foley tech throwing a cherry bomb into a bucket of beer bottles? Audience members would not know the difference and, if asked what they thought of all those nifty explosion sounds in Gravity, I doubt 1 in 10 would set the record straight by pointing out they never heard the sound of an explosion in this "no sound in space" movie because Cuaron used musical instruments to create the sound of explosions instead of more traditional foley methods.

This is why I thought it odd that Cuaron made a point to assure us with the "no sound in space" graphic opening that what we were about to see was a movie that won't be resorting to that old-timey convention of accompanying images of explosions in outer space with sounds of explosions on the soundtrack, that he was going to boldly face and meet the challenge of generating suspense and tension in the audience without resorting to such hoary old movie conventions. But he did resort to the hoary old outer space movie convention. He just used the orchestra to make those explosion sounds instead of laying in the sounds of more traditional foley methods. Which also makes no difference to the audience where, if asked what they thought of all those nifty loud explosion sounds in this outer space movie, I doubt 1 in 10 would correct the premise of the question on the grounds that Cuaron used musical instruments to create those sounds and, therefore, he goosed his audience without resorting to that old-timey convention.

This kinda makes it sound like there's something happening in the sound field the whole time, which is not true. It's a rather interesting idea that he relied on the music and instruments to "fill the void", at times. Besides, the fact that the audience is warned at the beginning of the film, that it's impossible for sound to travel in space, makes them aware that some trick is gonna get used in the film they're about to see. Can you imagine seeing a film completely silent? you'd have people complaining that they could have at least used some music to avoid complete silence without breaking this no sound in space rule... It's been said numerous times that they didn't violate that rule by the way, and there are times when scenes go from silent to filtered sound in sync with camera movements; that was a pretty ingenuous thing to do imo.
Morpheo is offline  
post #277 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 03:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hitchfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

This kinda makes it sound like there's something happening in the sound field the whole time, which is not true. It's a rather interesting idea that he relied on the music and instruments to "fill the void", at times. Besides, the fact that the audience is warned at the beginning of the film, that it's impossible for sound to travel in space, makes them aware that some trick is gonna get used in the film they're about to see. Can you imagine seeing a film completely silent? you'd have people complaining that they could have at least used some music to avoid complete silence without breaking this no sound in space rule... It's been said numerous times that they didn't violate that rule by the way, and there are times when scenes go from silent to filtered sound in sync with camera movements; that was a pretty ingenuous thing to do imo.

As far as I know, the only outer space movie that depicted an action sequence explosion in total silence, not even cheating with a musical stinger substitute to goose the audience, was when Bowman blew out the door of the pod to re-enter the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I suppose I can mention that movie here without hurting anyone's feelings... There might have been several others, but I can't recall them at the moment.

Anyway, that was a very intense sequence and Kubrick did not lay in any explosive sound to accompany the image of the explosion, no foley, no musical stinger, nothing. The explosion occurred in silence until the external hatch closed and you could hear oxygen re-entering the hold. Imo, that is a director who faced and met the challenge of conveying tension and excitement in an outer space action sequence without resorting to the old crash-boom convention for "no sound in space" movies used by every director from Roger Corman to George Lukas. Alfonzo Cuaron resorted to that old-timey convention, too, did not face and meet the challenge that Kubrick did 40+ years ago. He simply snuck it in using musical instruments instead of laying it in using more standard foley techniques, that's all. wink.gif
hitchfan is offline  
post #278 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 05:53 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

As far as I know, the only outer space movie that depicted an action sequence explosion in total silence, not even cheating with a musical stinger substitute to goose the audience, was when Bowman blew out the door of the pod to re-enter the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I suppose I can mention that movie here without hurting anyone's feelings... There might have been several others, but I can't recall them at the moment.

Television. It's where the good stuff is.

archiguy is offline  
post #279 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 06:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

As far as I know, the only outer space movie that depicted an action sequence explosion in total silence, not even cheating with a musical stinger substitute to goose the audience, was when Bowman blew out the door of the pod to re-enter the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I suppose I can mention that movie here without hurting anyone's feelings... There might have been several others, but I can't recall them at the moment.

And yet in various other scenes Ligeti's music takes all the place. At times the filmmaker makes artistic decisions and at times he tries to be more realistic. That's exactly what Cuaron did when he chose to make the music more prominent in some of his scenes, emphasis on "some".
Dbuudo07 likes this.
Morpheo is offline  
post #280 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 07:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

As far as I know, the only outer space movie that depicted an action sequence explosion in total silence, not even cheating with a musical stinger substitute to goose the audience, was when Bowman blew out the door of the pod to re-enter the Discovery in 2001: A Space Odyssey. I suppose I can mention that movie here without hurting anyone's feelings... There might have been several others, but I can't recall them at the moment.

My impression has always been that there should have been a very brief explosion sound since there was air in the pod when the bolts went off but I can understand why Kubrick decided to eliminate sound entirely.

This nitpicking about sound in space is wearing a little thin.

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Movies

Mr.G is offline  
post #281 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Agreed.
NO, you do NOT.
If you actually DID, you would not have written this:

F_cking THIS, man: "it added to the sum of human knowledge"rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif

You gotta stop with this tactic of replying to posts while completely ignoring what was written.... it makes discussing things with you very unappealing. mad.gif

It is rather YOU who are missing the point. Although I heartily agreed with your review of Gravity, I have a completely opposed view of the Hubble Space Telescope.

I don't know the nature of your job, but I work on engineering programs. We pay attention to budgets, schedules, and performance. Then we make an assessment of the program as a whole and use what we learned on the next program.

The Hubble was late into orbit, and did not work at all until repaired 3 years and 8 months later. Then the repairs needed for the incorrectly ground main mirror degraded the space available for instruments and compromised the performance of the remaining instruments by reducing the light gathering capacity to near the lower design limit - it just barely worked, and it achieved only a fraction of the design goals.

Sorry oink, but the Hubble is a classic example of how to "screw the pooch" in an engineering program. The fact that you didn't know that reflects the only part of the Hubble program where a Hubble team member performed in an outstanding fashion.

The public relations work done on the Hubble was absolutely top notch, I have never seen better. The reverent tones in the documentary disk above are just perfect, as are the press releases and popular magazine articles. The practice of regularly releasing Hubble photos of spectacular nebulae and other never-before-seen parts of the Universe reinforced the entirely erroneous impression of success - and were entirely necessary to get the funding for the latter phases of the program including the repair missions. Whomever the NASA "spin doctor" was, he was a master of his profession.

I mean, did you consider the Space Shuttle program a success, as well? Even though we lost 40% of the shuttle fleet and two crews to accidents? I honor the astronauts and their courage, while I cuss under my breath at the way NASA mis-managed the program and put them at risk.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #282 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 10:18 AM
AVS Special Member
 
hitchfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,081
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr.G View Post

My impression has always been that there should have been a very brief explosion sound since there was air in the pod when the bolts went off but I can understand why Kubrick decided to eliminate sound entirely.

This nitpicking about sound in space is wearing a little thin.

But the explosion was shot from outside the pod, not from the inside, wasn't it? Even if Bowman had heard something for a nanosecond from inside the pod, there would have been no air to carry the sound to "us" on the outside and several yards away from the explosion.

I don't think anyone would be nitpicking the "no sound in space" issue if Cuaron hadn't brought it up himself right at the top, hadn't apparently been hoping to win points for creating an outer space action movie without relying on the same old crash-boom convention employed by virtually every low budget outer space filmmaker (and big budget ones, for that matter) since the dawn of sound and the drive-in theater...and then proceeded to sneak that same old convention in with tubas, trombones and snare drums instead of the more typical foley sound creation techniques. If that wasn't his motivation, I have no idea why he would feel compelled to mention it at all. I mean, why not just goose up the musical soundtrack to mimic the explosive sounds of crashing and explosions, appreciate the aural stimulation that convention generates in your audience for those action sequences and move on? Why try to make us think you're a more clever or scientifically more accurate filmmaker than so many that came before you, filmmakers who were at least more honest and unabashed about utilizing that old time convention?
hitchfan is offline  
post #283 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 10:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Morpheo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Montreal by day, Paris by night...
Posts: 6,516
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 81 Post(s)
Liked: 290
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But the explosion was shot from outside the pod, not from the inside, wasn't it? Even if Bowman had heard something for a nanosecond from inside the pod, there would have been no air to carry the sound to "us" on the outside and several yards away from the explosion.

I don't think anyone would be nitpicking the "no sound in space" issue if Cuaron hadn't brought it up himself right at the top, hadn't apparently been hoping to win points for creating an outer space action movie without relying on the same old crash-boom convention employed by virtually every low budget outer space filmmaker (and big budget ones, too, for that matter) since the dawn of the drive-in theater...and then proceeded to sneak that same old convention in with tubas, trombones and snare drums instead of the more typical foley sound creation techniques. If that wasn't his motivation, I have no idea why he would feel compelled to mention it at all. I mean, why not just goose up the musical soundtrack to mimic the explosive sounds of crashing and explosions, enjoy the goose that generates for your audience in those action sequences and move on. Why try to make us think you're a more clever or scientifically more accurate filmmaker than so many that came before you and who were at least more honest and unabashed about utilizing a old time convention?

That's your interpretation.


The film DOESN'T rely on "crash-boom" convention. Listen to the score! The Gravity filmmakers realized something from day one I guess: you can't take away the fact that the audience is an audience. Oh well why bother anyway... 2001 will always be the greatest sci-fi film ever made right? Nevermind the fact that Cuaron wanted to create an ENTIRELY different experience than Kubrick. These two stories have nothing in common except they take place in space. Which doesn't mean Gravity is not an effective and thrilling film, because IT IS. Which is what its filmmakers intented to do - and they succeeded.
Morpheo is offline  
post #284 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 12:45 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

It is rather YOU who are missing the point. Although I heartily agreed with your review of Gravity, I have a completely opposed view of the Hubble Space Telescope.

I don't know the nature of your job, but I work on engineering programs. We pay attention to budgets, schedules, and performance. Then we make an assessment of the program as a whole and use what we learned on the next program.

The Hubble was late into orbit, and did not work at all until repaired 3 years and 8 months later. Then the repairs needed for the incorrectly ground main mirror degraded the space available for instruments and compromised the performance of the remaining instruments by reducing the light gathering capacity to near the lower design limit - it just barely worked, and it achieved only a fraction of the design goals.

Sorry oink, but the Hubble is a classic example of how to "screw the pooch" in an engineering program. The fact that you didn't know that reflects the only part of the Hubble program where a Hubble team member performed in an outstanding fashion.

The public relations work done on the Hubble was absolutely top notch, I have never seen better. The reverent tones in the documentary disk above are just perfect, as are the press releases and popular magazine articles. The practice of regularly releasing Hubble photos of spectacular nebulae and other never-before-seen parts of the Universe reinforced the entirely erroneous impression of success - and were entirely necessary to get the funding for the latter phases of the program including the repair missions. Whomever the NASA "spin doctor" was, he was a master of his profession.
There you go again...focusing on the engineering history of the Hubble.rolleyes.gif
AND AGAIN, I have to point out to you my post said absolutely NOTHING about engineering...and deliberately so.
Here is my original post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Regarding the Hubble....
Of all the tech tools we have invented in the past 100 years, this telescope is right up there on the list of accomplishments humans can brag about.

Hubble completely changed our understanding of the Universe we live in.
Quite literally re-writing the textbooks, and something we can all be proud of as a civilization.
Because of this, I find it sad we are not taking steps to preserve it as a symbol of our achievements for future generations to honor and respect.
Hubble really deserves a permanent place of display
.
Do you see what I highlighted?
That is the point of my post.

If you can't acknowledge what I wrote, then you are trolling.

Quote:
I mean, did you consider the Space Shuttle program a success, as well? Even though we lost 40% of the shuttle fleet and two crews to accidents? I honor the astronauts and their courage, while I cuss under my breath at the way NASA mis-managed the program and put them at risk.
IMO, the Shuttle never really worked as advertised.
It was ill-conceived, poorly engineered and executed, and a financial boondoggle that added little to science (when compared to Hubble).


Quote:
Originally Posted by tenthplanet View Post

When watching Gravity it was nice to see Sandra Bullock as a dramatic actor, we know she can do comedy so this was an intersting change.
No question, a fine job by Ms. Bullock.smile.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #285 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 01:48 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
archiguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Charlotte, NC
Posts: 18,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 240 Post(s)
Liked: 596
Space Shuttle = orbital truck. That's all it was. But it was useful. As for the Hubble, yeah, it was flawed from an engineering standpoint but not fatally so. It was pretty cool that they were able to figure out how to fix it. Listen, anything that gets the public - especially kids - enthused about space exploration is fine with me. With a little nifty coloration, some of those Hubble photographs were totally awesome (said in the appropriate vernacular).

Besides, aren't we going to launch a better, "new & improved" space telescope into orbit at some point? That is, if NASA ever gets any more funding? (Years down the line of course, after the current austerity insanity runs its course.) That might be a good reason to go back to the moon. Build a really kick-ass telescope on the lunar surface, free from any atmospheric distortion. Maybe a series of them so the whole sky can be observed. Yeah baby!
archiguy is offline  
post #286 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 02:05 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Space Shuttle = orbital truck. That's all it was. But it was useful.
IMO, the loss of lives and the cost/effectiveness ratio was not acceptable.

Quote:
As for the Hubble, yeah, it was flawed from an engineering standpoint but not fatally so. It was pretty cool that they were able to figure out how to fix it. Listen, anything that gets the public - especially kids - enthused about space exploration is fine with me. With a little nifty coloration, some of those Hubble photographs were totally awesome (said in the appropriate vernacular).
+10000000

Quote:
Besides, aren't we going to launch a better, "new & improved" space telescope into orbit at some point? That is, if NASA ever gets any more funding?
Yes, they are/were.

Quote:
That might be a good reason to go back to the moon. Build a really kick-ass telescope on the lunar surface, free from any atmospheric distortion. Maybe a series of them so the whole sky can be observed. Yeah baby!
Hmmmmm.....cool.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #287 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 02:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fookoo_2010's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,737
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 51
At the box office:

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/box-office-gets-a-boost-from-older-audiences-seeing-gravity-in-3d-1200721603/?utm_source=sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breakingnewsalert


Captain Phillips may not be a dud, but I won't see a second time unless I am hog tied and can't vacate the premises.
fookoo_2010 is online now  
post #288 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Besides, aren't we going to launch a better, "new & improved" space telescope into orbit at some point?


That would be the James Webb Space Telescope. I believe its scheduled for launch on 2022.

This beast, The Giant Magellan Telescope, is scheduled for completion around 2020.

I hope I’m still alive to see some of the amazing pics these bad boys will be giving us.
Dbuudo07 likes this.
Aliens is offline  
post #289 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 03:46 PM
AVS Special Member
 
eweiss's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Highland Village, TX
Posts: 7,595
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Pretty good movie, IMO. Saw it in "LieMAX" 3D. If you have a real IMAX theater near you, then go see it that way with the humongous screen. Otherwise, I think it would probably be just as good to see it in regular 3D if you sit close to the screen as paying the extra $$ to see it in "LieMAX" 3D. (Look up "LieMAX" if you don't know what that is.) Either/Any way, it's worth paying extra for the 3D.

By comparison, the 3D preview for Hobbit II - Desolation of Smaug - looked like lame 3D, like flat figures standing at various distances. The 3D in Gravity is very cool. I moved near the front so the screen filled my vision; my wife and granddaughter stayed several rows back. I think this movie needs to be seen with the screen filling as much of your field of vision as possible, almost as if you have a space helmet on, so that it's vertiginous at times.

I found the "dramatic" music to be annoying and unnecessary at times - maybe most times. Maybe it wouldn't bother me at a second viewing.
eweiss is offline  
post #290 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 04:52 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post


I hope I’m still alive to see some of the amazing pics these bad boys will be giving us.
I thought you guys live 800 years???confused.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #291 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 05:36 PM
AVS Special Member
 
dragonbud0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Monmouth County, NJ
Posts: 1,898
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 22
OMG! After seeing the trailer, I know that I must see this one.

In 2D, there was no disappointment in terms of the story (taking sci-fi from Hollywood with heavy grains of salt). It was more about acting and dialogue, than the gorgeous Earth and space in the background - though in the 1st 5-10 minutes, I detected quite a bit of grains in the space background despite the 4K Sony digital projector used.

I love Sandra Bullock in this one, despite botox and all. She should get the Oscar nod again.

Can't wait for the BR or this one might push me over to 3D, more so than Avatar.

Go see it! It's 90 minutes short - it was hell of a ride for me too!

Somewhere between 8 to 9 out of 10.
dragonbud0 is offline  
post #292 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 05:54 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Tulpa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 10,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

That would be the James Webb Space Telescope. I believe its scheduled for launch on 2022.

This beast, The Giant Magellan Telescope, is scheduled for completion around 2020.

I hope I’m still alive to see some of the amazing pics these bad boys will be giving us.

The James Webb telescope is primarily infrared, though, not visible spectrum like Hubble.

Not that it entirely matters. They enhance the photos on the Hubble so that they appear more colorful than they really are.

Don't believe everything on the Interwebz! A duck's quack DOES echo!
Tulpa is offline  
post #293 of 738 Old 10-13-2013, 09:36 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by dragonbud0 View Post

I detected quite a bit of grains in the space background despite the 4K Sony digital projector used.
I didn't notice a lot with the IMAX presentation.

Quote:
Can't wait for the BR or this one might push me over to 3D, more so than Avatar.
Although I don't own a 3D setup yet, I will be buying the BD 3D release.wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

They enhance the photos on the Hubble so that they appear more colorful than they really are.
True.

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #294 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 07:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

The James Webb telescope is primarily infrared, though, not visible spectrum like Hubble.

Not that it entirely matters. They enhance the photos on the Hubble so that they appear more colorful than they really are.

The Hubble may produce better posters for the wall, but the JWST will see much more than the Hubble or any telescope ever made until now. There are some really good comparisons here.
Aliens is offline  
post #295 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 08:32 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mr.G's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 3,430
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 69 Post(s)
Liked: 113
Quote:
Originally Posted by hitchfan View Post

But the explosion was shot from outside the pod, not from the inside, wasn't it? Even if Bowman had heard something for a nanosecond from inside the pod, there would have been no air to carry the sound to "us" on the outside and several yards away from the explosion.

We just have different takes on the Bowman scene. The reason Bowman positioned the pod next to the hatch doorway was that when the pod door opened suddenly the air escaping the pod would propel him forward. That being the case the air exited the pod along with Bowman and entered the hatch before being lost to space. The total loss of air was not instantaneous but took a second or two (not a nanosecond) to go back out through the hatch doorway. Remember the scene when Bowman bounces off the far wall and comes dangerously close to exiting back out the hatch doorway? That's also where the air is escaping back into space. If there was air anywhere in this sequence there should been some modicum of sound.

A somewhat related discourse on IMDB:
Quote:
Why doesn't Dave's pod fly off into space when the hatch blows?

The total change in momentum of Bowman and the air escaping from the pod, when applied to a pod with about the mass of an SUV, would result in the pod moving away at only about 1 metre per second. That would be barely noticeable from our POV -- even if the change wasn't immediately corrected by an auto-pilot mechanism, which is feasible. Regardless of HOW Bowman exited the pod, the change in momentum of all that left the pod in one direction will be precisely balanced by the change of momentum of the pod in the opposite direction. A good baseline for calculating changes in momentum can be obtained by assuming conditions of STP in the pod, a gas volume of 4 cubic metres, a mass for the pod of 2500 kg, a mass for Bowman of 150 kg, an average delta v of 200 m/s for the air in the pod, and a delta v of 10 m/s for Bowman -- all of which yields a result of 1 m/s. If the ambient pressure in the POD were lower, we don't know what it is, or Bowman could have purposely lowered it, it would have moved more slowly. During Apollo, the cabin pressures sometimes ran at one third of an atmosphere the film was made during this time. It is to be inferred that, due to reaction forces by the escaping POD cabin atmosphere plus the torque exerted by POD door transverse retraction, the POD's reaction control system has to be active during any emergency ingress. That is, the auto control of the reaction control system has been set to cancel translational and rotational motion.

All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Movies

Mr.G is offline  
post #296 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary McCoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: San Jose, California, USA
Posts: 6,246
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 12 Post(s)
Liked: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

There you go again...focusing on the engineering history of the Hubble.rolleyes.gif
AND AGAIN, I have to point out to you my post said absolutely NOTHING about engineering...and deliberately so.
Here is my original post:
Do you see what I highlighted?
That is the point of my post.

If you can't acknowledge what I wrote, then you are trolling.
IMO, the Shuttle never really worked as advertised.
It was ill-conceived, poorly engineered and executed, and a financial boondoggle that added little to science (when compared to Hubble).
No question, a fine job by Ms. Bullock.smile.gif

Understand this: The idea of preserving the Hubble as a museum display is offensive to me, because all it REALLY represents is the most expensive project management failure of all time. I can't see the world with any other eyes than my own, which are engineer's eyes.

I'm glad it's gonna burn up.

Gary McCoy
The United States Constitution ©1791. All Rights Reserved.

Gary McCoy is offline  
post #297 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 10:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
raaj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Near the lovely City by the Bay
Posts: 2,791
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 20 Post(s)
Liked: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Understand this: The idea of preserving the Hubble as a museum display is offensive to me, because all it REALLY represents is the most expensive project management failure of all time. I can't see the world with any other eyes than my own, which are engineer's eyes.

I'm glad it's gonna burn up.

Gary.. this is a really strange argument, buddy! Do you also feel that we should bulldoze the Leaning Tower of Pisa? eek.giftongue.gif
raaj is offline  
post #298 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 11:57 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
oink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Shuloch
Posts: 26,553
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 63 Post(s)
Liked: 815
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Understand this: The idea of preserving the Hubble as a museum display is offensive to me
"Offensive?"
A space telescope affects you emotionally?eek.gif

Quote:
all it REALLY represents is the most expensive project management failure of all time.
You call it "the most expensive project management failure of all time," I call it one of the best tools for advancing the science of astronomy ever.

Quote:
I can't see the world with any other eyes than my own, which are engineer's eyes.
Maybe therein lies the source of the problem?wink.gif

A.P.S. deserve our protection....join the cause today!
oink is offline  
post #299 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 01:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Aliens's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,803
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 88 Post(s)
Liked: 287
What went wrong with the Hubble Space Telescope

Thanks to Gary’s comments about the Hubble failure, I was curious to see if other engineers held the same view and came across this article. What a great must-read for any enthusiast. Also, Charlie Pellerin is a great storyteller. smile.gif

With a project that exceeded the budget by 4X, and then to have the lens failure upon launch; I can see why an engineer would not be happy. However, I think scientists would have a different perspective.
Aliens is offline  
post #300 of 738 Old 10-14-2013, 03:38 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Will2007's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,925
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aliens View Post

What went wrong with the Hubble Space Telescope

Thanks to Gary’s comments about the Hubble failure, I was curious to see if other engineers held the same view and came across this article. What a great, and I think a must read for any enthusiast. Also, Charlie Pellerin is a great storyteller. smile.gif

With a project that exceeded the budget by 4X, and then to have the lens failure upon launch; I can see why an engineer would not be happy. However, I think scientists would have a different perspective.

That's a very good article, Aliens. It does parallel the management and cultural failures at NASA and its subcontractors leading up to the Challenger disaster very well. Some of my childhood friends' dads were the top technical guys at MSFC during the last Challenger flight and some of them ultimately took the fall for the "technical failure" of the O-rings, when it really wasn't a problem with the O-rings themselves that were to blame, but rather a culture that bred a bunch of "yes" men who were too afraid to override the bureaucrats who insisted the launch take place despite the cold and all the technical reasons to delay or scrub the launch that cold Florida morning. Some of them did recommend scrubbing the launch at considerable risk to their careers, but their opinions and advice were overridden due to a "failure is not an option" and "can do" culture. As Pellerin points out, that some of culture lends itself to silencing dissent and downplaying or even ignoring the personality and cultural factors at play in favor of viewing problems as solely technical in nature was a factor that helped cause the disaster. Of course, as any non-engineer professional who has to deal with engineers on a regular basis can tell you, engineers tend to regard everything as a technical problem with a technical engineering solution.

Sorry, but that just ain't so, especially when human factors and human interactions and hierarchies are in play.
Will2007 is offline  
Reply Movies, Concerts, and Music Discussion

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off