So Long, Gerry Anderson

Via @HNTweets

Gerry Anderson has died by Jamie Anderson.

My favorite supermarionation shows were Supercar and Fireball XL5.  Of course I watched Space 1999 and UFO.  I recall Thunderbirds, which seems to be so popular, but I don't remember watching it that much.

Anderson was responsible for one of my favorite sci fi space movies of the 60s, Journey to the Far Side of the Sun.  The space walk scene with the music (theremin?) was quite beautiful, I always thought.

Skyfall had some awesome Hollywood Hacking

including a Hex-Dump containing the letter "G".

from @dalmer.

Disney Buys Lucasfilm

From The Verge:  Disney buys Lucasfilm, plans to release 'Star Wars: Episode 7' in 2015.

The 50 Greatest Matte Drawings of all Time

RT @ebertchicago: … And glory be! *Not* a slide show!

Melancholia Misses the Physics

Melancholia was a dark and slightly depressing movie but with some interesting special effects.  I watched it on a recommendation from Hal.  However, they got the science wrong on a couple of basic accounts and I think I know why.

If a terrestrial planet (dirt and rock) came that close to the Earth, there would be two major effects.  First, the tidal force on the Earth would be extreme.  The Moon's diameter is more like the size of the United States and look at it's tidal force.  Such an approaching big planet as the fictional Melancholia would basically put the Earth's surface through a food processor before any collision ever occurred.  I'm not sure if the tidal force would be enough to completely destroy the Earth, but anything and anyone on or near the Earth wouldn't know the difference.

Tidal force is caused by the difference in gravitational force between the closest and farthest parts of one body caused by another.  This effect of the Moon on the Earth causes it's ocean surface to bulge toward and away from the Moon.  The Earth's crust also does the same but to a lesser and non-catastrophic extent.

Second, the two bodies would move about their mutual center of gravity.  The Earth would be perturbed completely out of it's orbit by the encounter in some crazy way.   It could still involve a single close encounter, again with both planets being destructively disturbed by the tidal forces of each on the other, followed by a later, final impact, but there's no telling what their mutual trajectory would look like.  What is nearly certain is that the Earth would not continue on it's nearly-circular orbital path.

So surely they had a science/astronomical advisor for the movie.  Why such fundamental mistakes?  I propose that when they consulted their expert, they were thinking of a small asteroid collision with a body more the size of a large metropolis or a state.  A small  body wouldn't perturb the Earth from it's orbit and wouldn't have much tidal effect.  However, the impact would be catastrophic.

Later, because they had brilliant ideas about the look and effect of a  giant planet approach and final impact, they changed the threatening body but they didn't go back and consult the expert.  They just kept the path from the previous discussions.

Behind The Scenes of Back to The Future

This is really neat!  “Geek Tyrant shares a glimpse at what was happening in back of the camera during the making of the Back to the Future triology.”    Posted at Alltop Holy Kaw!

Movie Being Shot on Marietta Square Today

The stars are reported to be Vince Vaughn and Ben Stiller but they won't be there today. See the AJC.com.

Instantwatcher for Netflix

For keeping with with movies coming and going on Netflix, Instantwatcher is quite good.

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang

Is up for sale as reported by Gizmodo.

More information is at Profiles in History.

Built on a custom ladder frame chassis, many old world forms of car building were employed, and modern technology stepped in to created a vehicle which was both accurate enough to fool veteran and classic car experts, when held under the scrutiny of 70mm cinema cameras, and durable enough to withstand everything from driving in sand, cobbled streets and down staircases. The bonnet is crafted of polished aluminum; the boat deck is hand-crafted of red and white cedar built by boat builders in Buckinghamshire, and the array of brass fittings were obtained from Edwardian cars. Even the alloy dashboard plate is from a British World War I fighter plane!

3D Will Never Work

Walter Murch explains to Roger Ebert why 3D movies will never succeed due to the physical realities not matching what our eyes and brains expect.  It's quite simple when you think about it.  In a 3D movie, our eyes aren't focusing on the point they are converging on.

The secondary effects he mentions I've already noted myself, e.g., the 3D view makes the screen effectively smaller.  I've already concluded it's a waste to watch a 3D move on IMAX for that reason.  Scott Wilkinson aruges effectively that 3D IMAX is worth it because the resolution is higher, they use two projectors making the resulting movie brighter, and the screen is more likely to fill more of your field of view.

The Original Newspad

Much to my dismay, I didn't get to see 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968.  However, I read the book in 1970 and  finally got to see the movie when it came back to the theatre in 1971 (and again in 1972).  This is one of my all-time favorite movies.

The newspad, shown here, set part of my view for what such a device would be like since that time.

Is the iPad it?  Possibly.  I'll comment more, soon.

The Village

For Halloween, I recommend watching my favorite “scary” movie.

I expect most would agree that M. Night Shyamalan's The Sixth Sense is unforgettable.  On the other hand, though I've seen Lady in the Water, I can't remember what it was about. And there's something I didn't quite like about Unbreakable, but once I realized the movie itself is a comic book, I actually found it to be quite enjoyable.

However, the movie I enjoy the most from his collection is The Village.

Warning, this is a spoiler: If you're wondering why I like this movie so much, at least one reason is here, but I'd suggest watching it first, before clicking.

Star Trek

Well, last night I finally saw Star Trek.

Here are some initial impressions.

The movie is good.  I think that message has been pretty consistently communicated from every direction.  If anyone had any doubt about going to see it, they should definitely go!

The movie treats the Star Trek mythology well, particularly the original series and (maybe with even more focus) the following movies.

The casting was pretty good.  The Spock character is probably the best cast, in my opinion.  McCoy may be the next best.  The Kirk character is good and well-played but, looking at him, I can't see the William Shatner Kirk.  Uhuru, Chekov, and Scotty were farther off the mark but all well-played.  Chekov's role in the movie was surprising to me and entertaining.

I have to say, though there were many old, familiar aspects and plot mechanisms (approaching cliche) throughout the movie, the story never stopped surprising me.  It was delightfully unpredictable.

There were many tributes to Star Wars and I wonder if they were intentional or unconscious.  Hm, J.J. Abrams was born on 27 June 1966 and Star Trek first aired on 8 September 1966, when he was a bit over two months old.  Fascinating.  Star Wars was released on 25 May 1977 when Abrams was nine years old.

Anyway, I couldn't help expecting to see Kirk to look out over the Iowa landscape and see twin suns setting.

The space craft were beautiful and the space scenes were nicely done.  I've heard the problem posed before:  How do you make a modern Star Trek about technology that predated the original series without everything looking better.  In this movie, they didn't worry about that problem even a little.

In contast to other aspects of the film, the interiors of the Enterprise paid only the slightest tribute to the original shows.  Everyone was sitting in the usual positions on the bridge, there was a captain's chair, science station, navigation console, etc., transporter room, sick bay, but the similarities pretty much ended there.  The interiors were completely believable and certainly well done.  I kept wishing for more of a nod to the past onboard the ship.

The bridge was particularly cold and hospital white.  (Okay, the way hospitals used to look!).  At least that's the impression I took with me.  The instruments and techology served it's function but there was nothing delightful, notable or nostalgic about them, and I find that a little disappointing.  Abrams' take on the engineering decks gets credit for being quite interesting and different, but almost seemed over the top in some ways.

One notable exception was the shuttle deck.  It was very well done, a joy to watch, and was a nice tribute to the past.

The movie moves fast and the visuals are also fast so it will take multiple viewings for most of it to sink in.

I do have this specific complaint about the technology.  Every filmmaker feels compelled, it seems, to completely reinvent the transporter effect from scratch.  It's almost like a rite of passage.  Again, I didn't see the need to depart so far from the look of the original series.  I'd like to have seen more of a nod to the old show there, mixed in with the obligatory updating.

On the other hand, Abrams payed wonderful tribute to the sound effects of the original series.  They were included in subtle ways but you couldn't miss them if you knew them.  That's what I'm talking about.

And there in the credits, Majel Barrett for the ships computer voice!  She died in December of 2008.  I wondered if she had already recorded voice parts for this movie, or if they lifted them from stock or other movies.  Anyway, that was a delightful surprise.

Finally I'll note this.  Most plot lines introduce a series of tangles and then work to unravel them all by the end.  This story left a big tangle unresolved.  Big.   I'm interested to see whether they simply use it as the canvas for an ongoing series of stories, or if they devote the next movie to fixing it.

Speaking of the future, as my old friend and I got up to leave after the credits  ended, I couldn't help thinking about how Star Trek has been going strong for 43 years and wondering what would be done with it over the next 43 years.

A Good Review of Star Trek

Chris Tookey of the UK Mail Online likes the new Star Trek movie. From the review, it sounds good.

Star Trek Trailers

Here is a trailer on YouTube for the new Star Trek movie.

While looking for it, I also found this trailer for new remastering of the original series.

Two Robots and a Roach

Okay, WALL·E, was incredibly great! The movie industry has now caught up with and exceeded my imagination! The computer animation was exquisite. The story was wonderful. The references to space and particulary to 2001 were very entertaining. I'm sure it was filled with references that I didn't catch. It's a movie that I would expect to watch many times over.

An unexpected bonus is that our neighborhood has upgraded some (or all) cinemas to DLP so this was the first time I've seen a digital movie at the cinema. That made it even more amazing. If it's possible to see this movie in DLP, don't watch it any other way!

WALL·E himself reminded me a lot of the Mars rover in that excellent animation that was done a few years ago. There were some of the neat little focusing tricks that caught my eye in that film. I guess they will quickly become another cliche, if they haven't already. Now that I think of it, they used them all the time in Battlestar Galactica (the new TV series).

The endless technology motif was just fun. It was very well done and enjoyable to watch.

I loved the references to 2001: A Space Odyssey. My only minor disappointment was that I hoped they would tie into the memory bank scene in 2001, one of my favorites. Alas, it wasn't there unless it was so subtle I missed it.

One criticism and the only major astronomical error was that they included a spinning, spiral galaxy—seeing one spin of course would be an impossibility. If it takes light 100,000 years to cross the diameter of a typical grand spiral, they are guaranteed to always appear solidly frozen in human time frames. And remember, even clouds and minute hands appear stationary to us, and they actually move pretty fast! If we aren't going to see an hour hand move we certainly wouldn't see the motion of a 250-million-year hand (which is the galactic orbital period of the sun).

After the movie itself was over, I then experienced my jaw dropping (all the way down to the sticky floor) during the credits. Absolutely fantastic! And even the opening Magic Castle Disney logo is now exquisitely beautiful.

Wall-E, Batman and Iron Man

Okay, two people who's opinions I follow have said Wall-E is one of the best movies (ever?) and the best Pixar/Disney movie yet, so I guess I'll go see it.

I went and saw (Batman) The Dark Knight last week. Though it was well done, on first viewing I found that I didn't enjoy it that much. It also seemed very long to me. When I thought the movie was at the end, it seemed to go on for another whole movie.

When I was a kid I was a huge Batman fan. He was my number one comic book hero for some time. Of course there was major bat-mania with the TV show coming out. The last time I read a Batman comic book was probably around 1970, so that's where my familiarity with the written mythology ends.

I wasn't crazy about the first movie in this new series when I saw it at the theater, too, but I came to like it more on subsequent viewing. Maybe I'll like this one more, too, after seeing it again.

I will say that the way they incorporated the characters I was familiar with was pretty clever. Also, the guy playing the Joker probably deserves the praise I've heard for his acting in that role. The underlying themes in the story were also admirable and somewhat clever, so I have to give them a bit of credit for that. I thought the cell-phone thing was way too hokey and pretty cheap for a plot element. I also found it unbelievable that the Joker was that hard for anyone to catch and that the underground criminals didn't simply get rid of him.

In contrast to all of that, I saw Iron Man earlier in the summer and found that to be a completely enjoyable movie. It was one of the best “comic book” movies I've ever seen, maybe the best. I could watch it over and over, I'm sure.