|
Post by The Mad Plumber on May 1, 2011 18:40:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by BJ on May 1, 2011 19:12:30 GMT -5
That's it. Thank you so much. I looked up titles with "game", and missed that one.
Edit - and looking at the info, it was filmed in Austin,, so I was way off. I guess it just felt European. Sounds like I definitely need to watch it again.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on May 21, 2011 21:06:05 GMT -5
Does anyone know the name of the movie that those Raquel Welch cavewoman posters are based on? Thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Weirdo Writer on May 21, 2011 21:43:55 GMT -5
Does anyone know the name of the movie that those Raquel Welch cavewoman posters are based on? Thank you. One Million Years, B.C.
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on May 21, 2011 22:39:52 GMT -5
Ah, thank you! I was hoping it would be available, but it isn't. Still, thank you!
|
|
|
Post by The Mad Plumber on Aug 20, 2011 23:02:27 GMT -5
I have two questions about 2001: A Space Odyssey.
We're to assume that the personnel aboard the space station enjoys the gravity they experience because the station is in constant rotation. Theoretically, could a space station in real life experience gravity such as that in the movie if it rotated so, or would it just end up disorienting and possibly killing the crew?
Secondly, how does the Jupiter crew experience this gravity system when we don't see the Jupiter ship rotating as such?
|
|
|
Post by ilmatto on Sept 19, 2011 17:46:21 GMT -5
A 60s or 70s French crime film. A woman gets off a bus in the rain, a tall bald man follows her home, rapes her, she recovers later, he comes back, she gives him what for with a shotgun. She throws the body in the ocean. The rest of the film she tries to elude some detective(s). Someone please help me identify this film.
|
|
|
Post by Joker on Sept 20, 2011 1:16:29 GMT -5
It sounds like Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1974)
|
|
|
Post by ilmatto on Sept 20, 2011 5:47:58 GMT -5
It sounds like Thriller: A Cruel Picture (1974)After reading your post I started searching some more and I finally identified it online, Rider on the Rain (French: Le Passager de la pluie) 1970. And it had Charles Bronson in it - I didn't even remember that. Thanks for responding.
|
|
|
Post by georgeworge on Sept 20, 2011 19:30:07 GMT -5
I have two questions about 2001: A Space Odyssey. We're to assume that the personnel aboard the space station enjoys the gravity they experience because the station is in constant rotation. Theoretically, could a space station in real life experience gravity such as that in the movie if it rotated so, or would it just end up disorienting and possibly killing the crew? Secondly, how does the Jupiter crew experience this gravity system when we don't see the Jupiter ship rotating as such? To answer Your second question the living quarters of the Discovery do rotate. This can be seen in the film as Bowman and Poole climb onto a ladder during one scene.
|
|
|
Post by Ratso on Oct 4, 2011 10:37:47 GMT -5
I started watching this movie with Bela Lugosi a while ago and now I can't remember what the hell it was called.
In the movie he was playing a vampire again, but it was NOT Mark Of The Vampire.
|
|
|
Post by Ratso on Oct 4, 2011 10:48:30 GMT -5
Never mind I found it.
It's called Return of the vampire.
|
|
|
Post by afriendlychicken on Oct 21, 2011 16:30:07 GMT -5
I have two questions about 2001: A Space Odyssey. We're to assume that the personnel aboard the space station enjoys the gravity they experience because the station is in constant rotation. Theoretically, could a space station in real life experience gravity such as that in the movie if it rotated so, or would it just end up disorienting and possibly killing the crew? Secondly, how does the Jupiter crew experience this gravity system when we don't see the Jupiter ship rotating as such? Your first question can be answered with a yes. Rotate the station fast enough and you'll create enough centrifugal force to allow the personnel to walk around and to experience a feeling of up & down. Although only towards the outer shell. The gravity as you travel towards the hub would decrease until you'd experience weightlessness near and at the center of the station.
|
|
|
Post by caucasoididiot on Oct 29, 2011 9:51:03 GMT -5
^ Ditto to that and georgeworge, though strictly it's the centripetal force.
There are some potential problems, which is why it's not been used to date though described in the literature as far back as the 1890s by Tsiolkovsky. A rotating station complicates things like keeping antennae or other sensors oriented. They either have to countre-rotate or be mounted on a non-rotating hub, the latter also making docking much simpler.
Discovery is meant to use such a system, with the rotating "squirrel-cage" mounted inside the spherical module. This also gets around a MAJOR problem of such a system: making a really gastight rotating seal between the two sections. Note that the sequel shows one of the potential problems of this approach, however. The reason Discovery is tumbling in 2010 is because over the intervening years the inevitable friction has transferred part of the squirrel-cage's motion to the ship as a whole, something that could only be avoided with a truly frictionless bearing (an impossibility) or a countre-rotating weight (added complexity and vehicle mass, likely countre-productive).
Note that the movie probably cheats a little by showing Earth-normal gravity in that space. The effective pseudo-gravity at the rim is determined by the radius and the rotation rate, and with the comparatively small radius the latter would need to be quite high. This not only exacerbates the friction issue but makes Coriolis forces a noticeable problem, not least in that they would create weird and disorienting effects in the astronauts' inner ears whenever they turned their heads. But it probably wouldn't take more than a fraction of Earth gravity to overcome a lot of the long-durayion problems of weightlessness, and given how much else was going on it's no surprise Kubrick didn't try to simulate that.
The space station shows the other approach: making the system so big that you can use a slower rotation period, also requiring ships to match rotation when docking. In vacuum and with computer control, that might well prove to be a lesser complexity than a flipping big airtight bearing.
PS: Modellers have worked out that you can't actually fit all the Discovery sets inside the model as used for the exterior shots, but since I can't think of any movie that worked harder on getting it all to look right, I can't blame 'em for that.
|
|
|
Post by Satchmo on Nov 15, 2011 0:52:56 GMT -5
Please tell me where this scene comes from; I must know:
|
|