MovieChat Forums > mmmnoodlesoup > Replies
mmmnoodlesoup's Replies
Does he actually have good films? I've watched a few of his films, and they have great T&A and not a lot else. Open to suggestions if you have any.
I have seen:
Les amazones du temple d'or (5/10)
Die Sklavinnen (5/10)
Des diamants pour l'enfer (1/10)
El tesoro de la diosa blanca (5/10)
Yeah this seems to be the consensus in this thread and I think I agree. Thank you for your intelligent and non angry response!
People saying you can't discuss plot holes is arguably an annoying trend to.
This will be my last response to you due to your poor grammar.
"CAMERA IS MAKING THE SHOT,NOT IN THE SHOT" - this does not rebut my point that you see what the camera sees, and that this camera is a proxy for an independent observer.
"CAMERA AND THE SHIP ARE BOTH MOVING" - I agree that this is a possible explanation, that the ship is at low speed relative to a moving camera.
"AN ITEM IN FRAME AND STATIONARY IS THE ONLY WAY TO JUDGE ACTUAL SPEED OF MOVEMENT" - You're right. But if you look at my original post, I made the assumption that the camera was stationary, so you could have simply responded with "What if the camera is moving too", which is something I hadn't considered at that point. Also, even if something else is in frame, you'd have no way of knowing it is stationary. In fact, nothing is truly stationary. Everything orbits something.
I have already rebutted this point above, and my rebuttal received no further rebuttal:
"You don't see a camera, but the movie was filmed with a camera. And, you do see what the camera sees. So the camera is a proxy for an independent observer."
Yes I think I agree that your hypothesis is the most likely.
Nah I genuinely wasn't sure what you meant. I don't know why you're being so evasive with clarification, but nevertheless, yes think that I have now worked out what you meant.
It's not necessarily the only explanation. Another explanation is that the ship is indeed moving slowly. Another explanation is that it is stationary and the camera is panning backwards across the ship. Another explanation is that the metaphorical camera is very distant from the ship but zoomed in which makes speeds appear slower, e.g. viewing the movement of Jupiter in the sky from Earth.
In what way are you saying this relates to the shots of the spaceship moving relative to the camera in the film? Are you saying the film could represent the camera being very distant from the space ship, but then zoomed in?
Yes I understand the basic concept of relativistic movement. Are you saying that these scenes are supposed to represent a spaceship moving very fast, and the camera also moving very fast, but slightly slower than the spaceship?
Yeah you're right, flying was the wrong word to use. Not really relevant the crux of the discussion though.
What's it like getting angry with people on the internet?
I understand that seeing the ship move forwards relative to the camera doesn't necessarily mean that the ship is indeed moving forwards. What I was hoping to discuss is what the framing was meant to represent in terms of movement of the ship.
No one has rebutted the fact that the ship is moving relative to the camera.
You're right, plot hole was the wrong term.
The ship is moving relative to the camera.
I know. I have not said that stars should be moving relative to the camera. In fact I haven't even used the word star.
2001 is my favorite film of all time. Thanks for reading.
Do you truly believe that every single film is worse than this film? Like, even Battlefield Earth, The Room, some obscure drama from the 30s that no-one watched, and the 40 hour Andy Warhole documentary that is just a static shot of the Empire State Building?
I think you're just angry that people have different opinions from you!
"There is no camera in the movie"
You don't see a camera, but the movie was filmed with a camera. And, you do see what the camera sees. So the camera is a proxy for an independent observer.
"You have no idea how far you are from the spacecraft"
Actually you do. If you know how big the spacecraft is, and how much of your field of vision it takes up, you are able to make a reasonable estimate as to how far away the ship is. Just like if you saw a car in a desert with no landmarks anywhere, and there was a sand storm so you couldn't see the horizon, you would still be able to estimate it's distance from you.
"you can't say it's stationary either"
Now we're getting somewhere to actually addressing my question. I wonder if a moving observer is the only way to explain the slow speed of the spacecraft relative to the observer
Just because you would like it to be shorter, doesn't mean the director should have done it that way. The director is making the film we wanted to make. He's not there to please your particular tastes.
I for one am glad the movie has the details it does. I enjoy it, and it helps me understand where the characters are coming from in making their decisions.
The camera is a reference. It represents what you would see if you were in that spot, stationary. And if you were in that spot, stationary, Discovery would be travelling significantly faster relative to your stationary position.
Sure they could have made it short. Space Odyssey or Pulp Fiction could have been shorter too. But those films are generally considered among the best films of all time. So there is a market for yarn-like dialog or extended scenes that set a mood. Maybe you're just not into that kind of thing.
I for one loved the dialog, and practically every line/scene in the film. I found all the dialog to be believable and involving. I wouldn't have changed it.