PDA

View Full Version : Superman Returns



Bonzo
2006-Jun-30, 11:51 PM
I was browsing Wikipedia and I somehow made it to the 2006 Superman movie, and being a frequent BABlog reader I knew he would comment on something I saw:


The film opens with a short explantion of the plot up to the present. Krypton's destruction as a result of its star, a red dwarf, going supernova.

My first thought was "red dwarfs don't go supernova" noting again that I am a frequent BABlog reader... Infact my initial thought on this was the universe hasn't been around long enough for one thing, universe is around 14 billion years old right? Red dwarfs have been thought to live for around 100 billion to 6 trillion (6 trillion is on the impossibly high spectrum) years roughly, and even then they don't end in a bang.

I found it quite funny, as I've known what hollywood can do to scientific knowledge, even at a basic level. Also, in Phil's article I noticed how he said something along the lines of "Red Giant" which is false, is it not? Krypton was said to orbit a red dwarf (as brought up previously)

Anyways, I haven't watched the movie and due to all the anti-science in it I don't think I would want to, since now every time I watch the movie "Armageddon" I now tend to point every bit of inaccurate information I see in it (which is quite a lot, yes?)

Odd way to make a first impression on a forum, but I'm often well thought-out. I loved the review of Superman returns, even though I didn't read some of it... By the way Phil, I caught the Sci-Fi special with you in it a while back, but the show generally disappointed me. Anyone else notice the sound in space?

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-01, 06:35 AM
Well, it's probable that he meant "red giant." Was this taken from official press material, or just a guy writing a review on the web?

Bonzo
2006-Jul-01, 07:14 PM
Well.. Uh.. It was Wikipedia, and usually has correct information on well.. Everything.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-01, 10:55 PM
Well.. Uh.. It was Wikipedia, and usually has correct information on well.. Everything.
Already BEEN Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns) ...

Ah ...

Gotta Love Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org)!

:clap:

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-01, 11:42 PM
I have hope. That's why I edit it. I figure changing it is better than complaining about it.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-01, 11:44 PM
I have hope. That's why I edit it. I figure changing it is better than complaining about it.
Me Too ...

One Tiime Though, I Fixed an Inconsistancy in an Article, and One of The Mods Called me a Vandal ...

SOME Gratitude, Huh?

:doh:

ToSeek
2006-Jul-02, 02:11 AM
Me Too ...

One Tiime Though, I Fixed an Inconsistancy in an Article, and One of The Mods Called me a Vandal ...

SOME Gratitude, Huh?

:doh:

Did you use standard punctuation or yours? ;)

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-02, 02:06 PM
Did you use standard punctuation or yours? ;)
COMPLETELY Standard ...

What Really Bugged me, Was If The Mod Had Actually Clicked on The Link I'd Helpfully Provided ...

It Pre-Corroborated My Assertion!

:wall:

Bonzo
2006-Jul-03, 03:36 AM
Already BEEN Fixed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superman_Returns) ...

Ah ...

Gotta Love Wikipedia (http://www.wikipedia.org)!

:clap:
Even being fixed as Phil pointed out in his review, Red Giants don't go boom-boom. :p

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-03, 04:19 AM
Even being fixed as Phil pointed out in his review, Red Giants don't go boom-boom. :p
Eh ...

I'm Gonna Give That a Pass, As a Distinction Without a Difference ...

Most of The Viewing Public Won't Notice The Inconsistency Anyway, And BORING them Would Only Serve, to Make it a Moot Point!

:think:

Jeff Root
2006-Jul-03, 04:31 AM
I suspect that the Superman comics of old never said "red giant"
or "red dwarf", but merely "red star".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Tog
2006-Jul-03, 07:01 AM
I saw this over the weekend. It was supposed to be a red giant. It collapsed down to a white dwarf then exploded with a pair of 'Praxis rings' A few seconds later the planet exploded and sent debris throughout the galaxy. One planet had a dual ring system, one set about 60 degrees off from the first, with giant (3/4 planet diameters) spikes sticking out one side.

The opening sequence had a lot of Bad Astronomy in it, and there was more sprinkled through out the movie in different places. On was a reference to the "28 known galaxies", another that I'm not sure I heard corrently was that superman was zipping around the globe at nearly the speed of light. In the atmosphere. No word on the damage from the shockwave from that. He does go through the sound barrier a lot in the film though, so they seem to know about that...

All in all, a good enough movie, and not really the travesty many were expecting. It's set 5 years after the first one with Christoper Reeve, and yet everyone is 10 years younger...

For the other geeks out there, The Spiderman 3 trailer pretty much comfirms it's the Venom story line.

Lianachan
2006-Jul-03, 05:01 PM
Anyways, I haven't watched the movie and due to all the anti-science in it I don't think I would want to

I think it's probably important to remember that what we're dealing with here is a Superman film.....

Roy Batty
2006-Jul-03, 07:41 PM
I think it's probably important to remember that what we're dealing with here is a Superman film.....
So, does that mean it's to do with a man, that is, super, in some way?:think::)

Gillianren
2006-Jul-06, 12:51 AM
Anyways, I haven't watched the movie and due to all the anti-science in it I don't think I would want to, since now every time I watch the movie "Armageddon" I now tend to point every bit of inaccurate information I see in it (which is quite a lot, yes?)

Yes.

I tend to look on Superman and other movies with actual superpowers (ie, not Batman) as more fantasy than science fiction, which allows shifting of some of the laws of physics.

Big in Japan
2006-Jul-08, 07:02 AM
Did anybody notice that the meteorite made of kryptonite that Lex Luther stole from the museum was clearly labled a meteorite and also clearly labled as coming from a mine in Ethiopia?

What the heck? Did the meteorite just happen to fall from the sky into the open mine shaft? Or did it fall onto the earth's surface and then gremlins hid it in the mine?

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-08, 08:51 AM
To be fair, that wasn't so much bad science as a memory lapse concerning the timeline of the mythology of Superman, which is odd coming from Bryan Singer, since he's such an avowed Superman fan, apparently.

Big in Japan
2006-Jul-08, 10:26 PM
To be fair, that wasn't so much bad science as a memory lapse concerning the timeline of the mythology of Superman, which is odd coming from Bryan Singer, since he's such an avowed Superman fan, apparently.

I'm not sure I follow you. Are you talking about meteorites or something else?

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-09, 07:42 AM
The meteorites would have been found in a mine if it had arrived millions of years before, but it only arrived when Superman did.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-09, 08:10 PM
I realize the odds are enormously against it, but couldn't it have, you know, fallen down the mine? Also, if it's an open mine, it could've just landed there.

Roy Batty
2006-Jul-09, 11:16 PM
I realize the odds are enormously against it, but couldn't it have, you know, fallen down the mine? Also, if it's an open mine, it could've just landed there.
I'd say that's exactly the same odds as this guy having superpowers in the 1st place :D

Ronald Brak
2006-Jul-10, 03:05 AM
Maybe it was a typo and it came from a mime in Ethiopia?

Gillianren
2006-Jul-10, 04:32 AM
So it was trapped in an invisible box, then?

Tobin Dax
2006-Jul-10, 11:57 AM
'Praxis rings' :D :lol: :D

pzkpfw
2006-Jul-10, 08:33 PM
SPOILERS.


The bit I hated most (I hated everything), was the shuttle sequence.

Visually impressive; but what big pile of contrivance.

NASA has people in the B777 that they launch a (new style) shuttle off? (Just so Lois can be there to be rescued).

...and no external fuel tank to run those SME's? (after separation)

...and the shuttle dragged the B777 to the edge of space, instead of ripping it's roof off? (and no explosive bolts for backup release?)

...etc.

I hated the whole movie, add to that the cost and the guy next to me who kept turning on his cell-phone to check the time. Grr.

Sorry. Rant over. Having a bad week.

Cheers,

C0ppert0p
2006-Jul-11, 10:57 PM
My favorite part was when Superman was lying in the hospital and I said in a loud whisper, "He's not dead. He's just paralyzed from the neck down". My friend almost choked on the Coke she was drinking and another one had to leave for a few minutes because he couldn't stop laughing. It was hysterical, some of the people in the row in front of us started laughing too. Everytime someone tried to stifle a laugh it would cause somebody else to do the same thing.

Inferno
2006-Jul-12, 03:54 AM
Forget the bad science, it's the ridiculous story line that annoyed me. When I heard Bryan Singer was on board I thought this is going to be a terrific film. Singer will give it a more real feel. More emotion and more character development - while still keeping a light touch.

Instead he went for exactly the same feel as the 70s films. Same character interpretation, same silly villian plan to take over the world, same annooying sidekicks. As much as I loved the Reeve movies as a kid, looking back on them now, they're pretty ridiculous and campy.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-12, 04:33 AM
Well, you know, it's kind of hard to make Superman terribly interesting. He's too perfect.

Ronald Brak
2006-Jul-12, 04:49 AM
Well, you know, it's kind of hard to make Superman terribly interesting. He's too perfect.

I think one way they could have made him more interesting is to make more rules of physics apply. Sure Superman could still be able to fly and be infinitely strong, but if other objects had to obey the laws of physics then he wouldn't be able to push a space shuttle into orbit without putting holes in its heat shield and stopping a falling plane would be really difficult. Unless he was very careful each time he tried to grab it he would be left holding two fistfulls of aluminium alloy in his hands.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-12, 06:55 AM
See, I disagree that it would've affected the character, just because he was closer to the rules that applied to him in the '30s. What would have made him interesting was if he were closer in personality to the way he was in the '30s, when (in the first comic) he threatened to electrocute a guy for not giving him information. Of course, we knew he wouldn't do it, but the mobster didn't.

ToSeek
2006-Jul-12, 01:47 PM
Thread moved from "Bad Astronomy Stories" to "Small Media at Large."

ToSeek
2006-Jul-12, 01:49 PM
Well, you know, it's kind of hard to make Superman terribly interesting. He's too perfect.

Lois and Clark did a good job, but did it by focusing on Clark more than Superman.

Moose
2006-Jul-12, 02:15 PM
Lois and Clark did a good job, but did it by focusing on Clark more than Superman.

Yeah, L&C was the best, IMO, interpretation. I'm a big fan of the late Lane Smith too, and his Perry White was caustic, but quite likable. (Pretty much the same character he reprised as Emmett Seaborn in FtEttM.)

It's kind of funny: I'd had a brief hospital stint not long after the time L&C was on, and one of the nursing students assigned to my ward looked like a spitting image of Dean Cain with the Clark glasses. I never pointed it out, but the wiseguy part of me kept having the impulse to whistle the Superman theme whenever he was around.

Gerrsun
2006-Jul-12, 02:23 PM
Forget the bad science, it's the ridiculous story line that annoyed me. When I heard Bryan Singer was on board I thought this is going to be a terrific film. Singer will give it a more real feel. More emotion and more character development - while still keeping a light touch.

Instead he went for exactly the same feel as the 70s films. Same character interpretation, same silly villian plan to take over the world, same annooying sidekicks. As much as I loved the Reeve movies as a kid, looking back on them now, they're pretty ridiculous and campy.

Yeah, I heard the plot and just scratched my head. Appearently Lex Luthor's evil only goes to stealing money from dying widows and real estate grabs?

However, I'll take the campy Chris Reeve's vehicle over this plodding film.

Matherly
2006-Jul-12, 02:53 PM
Well, you know, it's kind of hard to make Superman terribly interesting. He's too perfect.

I disagree. There are many intresting portrayals of Superman:

Bruce Timm's DC Animated Universe had a very textured portrayal. I especially loved the episode where Clark Kent "died" in a car wreck and the episodes where Superman finally lets himself go and unload his frustration on Darkseid.

The 'elseworlds' comic series "The Dark Knight Returns" and "Kingdom Come" both have some intresting philosophical and physical conflicts between Superman and Batman.

As for Superman being to powerful to be intresting (I know that's not what you said, Gillianren. I just want to make a point), the argument that powerful characters can be intresting is exactly what motivated Neil Gaiman to create Dream and the other Endless- beings whom the gods fear- in what is widely regarded as the best comic series ever, Sandman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_%28DC_Comics/Vertigo%29)

Roy Batty
2006-Jul-12, 04:14 PM
- in what is widely regarded as the best comic series ever, Sandman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_%28DC_Comics/Vertigo%29)
Well I certainly think so anyway!!! :cool:

Lianachan
2006-Jul-12, 05:20 PM
Did anybody notice that the meteorite made of kryptonite that Lex Luther stole from the museum was clearly labled a meteorite and also clearly labled as coming from a mine in Ethiopia?

What the heck? Did the meteorite just happen to fall from the sky into the open mine shaft? Or did it fall onto the earth's surface and then gremlins hid it in the mine?

Hmmm- if I remember correctly, Lex Luthor gets his kryptonite from Ethiopia in Superman II (is it, or III?). In which case, it's just a nod to the earlier films.

HenrikOlsen
2006-Jul-12, 10:39 PM
As for Superman being to powerful to be intresting (I know that's not what you said, Gillianren. I just want to make a point), the argument that powerful characters can be intresting is exactly what motivated Neil Gaiman to create Dream and the other Endless- beings whom the gods fear- in what is widely regarded as the best comic series ever, Sandman. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sandman_%28DC_Comics/Vertigo%29)
Which is exactly the point Gillianren had, superman is too perfect, while the endless as people are fundamentally flawed by being contrasts to the concepts they where supposed to reflect, which is what makes them so interesting.
Ok, Despair is not in much contrast, but she's both the youngest(having replaced a previous Despair) and the least interesting.

Inferno
2006-Jul-13, 01:30 AM
Definitely should have focused more on Clarke. I hate this interpretation that Clarke is a secret identity and his real self is Superman. I see it more as he was raised as Clarke Kent. He is Clarke first and foremost.

Perhaps they could have focused on the anguish he faces between wanting to have his own life (Lois, kids, and a quarter acre block etc) and wanting to save everyone he can. Similar idea to the dilemma Buffy faced often in her tv series. The movie alludes to this idea, but never really explores it.

The also needed more interaction between Lex and Superman. Much like the disasterous Fantastic Four the heroes and villians only face off against each other at the very end of the movie. I want to see a Lex that is cunning and ruthless.

Doodler
2006-Jul-13, 05:58 PM
One time, just once, I'd like to see Lex pull of something cruel, nasty, and completely legal, THEN throw the perfect one at that mess and see what he makes of having to possibly, maybe, having to crossing the line a little to get the job done.

If you're powerful enough to do anything, are you powerful enough to face the consequences of it? Superman, as well as anyone can ever perform him, is still too black and white.

Matherly
2006-Jul-13, 06:17 PM
One time, just once, I'd like to see Lex pull of something cruel, nasty, and completely legal, THEN throw the perfect one at that mess and see what he makes of having to possibly, maybe, having to crossing the line a little to get the job done.

"Spoken like a true Justice Lord"

Check out the Justice League episodes "A Better World" (or read about it here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Lords)) to see what happens when Superman decieds to step over the line

Oh and...


Which is exactly the point Gillianren had, superman is too perfect, while the endless as people are fundamentally flawed by being contrasts to the concepts they where supposed to reflect, which is what makes them so interesting.

Quoted for Truth (QFT)

Gillianren
2006-Jul-13, 07:17 PM
As to Lex's plan being a little odd, has anyone heard Charles Manson's plan for a global race war? It was actually way weirder, with the added disadvantage of not being in so many words possible.

parallaxicality
2006-Jul-13, 08:27 PM
You mean he was actually able to string a sentence together coherently enough to write a plan?

Gillianren
2006-Jul-13, 09:07 PM
Another Judging Amy quote: "Hey, Charles Hanson was a misunderstood musician and poet!" (The character who says this is reprimanded for wearing a Charles Manson t-shirt while looking for an apartment. The next line is something like, "Charles Manson is a mass murderer.")

And his plan wasn't written, exactly, but was in fact based on a combination of his interpretation of the Book of Revelation and the Beatles' White Album. And, no, it wasn't especially coherent. It was, however, weirder than most supervillain plots to rule the world could ever dream of being.

Matherly
2006-Jul-13, 09:29 PM
As to Lex's plan being a little odd, has anyone heard Charles Manson's plan for a global race war? It was actually way weirder, with the added disadvantage of not being in so many words possible.

Exactly. I want Lex Luthor's plan to have a snowball's chance of working.

Gillianren
2006-Jul-13, 09:45 PM
Um, I meant Luthor's plan was actually more feasible than Manson's, given advanced Kryptonian technology.

Matherly
2006-Jul-13, 10:27 PM
Um, I meant Luthor's plan was actually more feasible than Manson's, given advanced Kryptonian technology.

Ah, my bad.

Still, saying Luthor's plan was better than Mansons was kind of damning with faint praise, wouldn't you say?

Gillianren
2006-Jul-13, 10:39 PM
True enough, but it's a real-world example of a plan crazier and less feasible than a plot device in a superhero movie.

publiusr
2006-Jul-14, 06:18 PM
SPOILERS.


The bit I hated most (I hated everything), was the shuttle sequence.

Visually impressive; but what big pile of contrivance.

NASA has people in the B777 that they launch a (new style) shuttle off? (Just so Lois can be there to be rescued).

...and no external fuel tank to run those SME's? (after separation)

...and the shuttle dragged the B777 to the edge of space, instead of ripping it's roof off? (and no explosive bolts for backup release?)

...etc.

I hated the whole movie, add to that the cost and the guy next to me who kept turning on his cell-phone to check the time. Grr.

Sorry. Rant over. Having a bad week.

Cheers,

It should have been AN-225 with MAKS

Redtail
2006-Jul-14, 06:59 PM
Hi folks newbie here and I gotta say I love the site! I'm an actor by trade (Though astronomy 101 was required in undergrad... I complained a lot that the Physics students weren't required to take theatre:shhh: ) Anyway As a Superman Geek I was reading Mr. Platt's Good/Bad Science review of Superman Returns and thought I might be able to clear a few things up in the DC Universe.

Most of it (of course) was dead on

Bad:
Superman, like the NSA, is watching over us. We see him floating above the Earth, well outside the atmosphere, cape flapping slowly, as he listens. He hears a noise, and knows it's time to fly back down and save the day!

image of Superman floating over the Earth

Good:
Yeah, well, you know, no sounds in space and all that. Silly.

But worse, perhaps-- why was his cape flapping? He wasn't moving, so the cape shouldn't be either. Yes, I know, the Apollo flags appear to flap in footage,Bad:
Superman, like the NSA, is watching over us. We see him floating above the Earth, well outside the atmosphere, cape flapping slowly, as he listens. He hears a noise, and knows it's time to fly back down and save the day!

image of Superman floating over the Earth

Good:
Yeah, well, you know, no sounds in space and all that. Silly.

But worse, perhaps-- why was his cape flapping? He wasn't moving, so the cape shouldn't be either. Yes, I know, the Apollo flags appear to flap in footage, but that's because the astronauts were moving the flagpole trying to get it upright in the surface. With Superman floating motionless, his cape should have been, too. By the way, I missed this; Mrs. Bad Astronomer is the one who caught it.

No way to know this unless one reads the Superman novels but Supes tends to bob a bit when he hovers. It's kind of a meditation technique. Slowly up and down then still. (How his cape got stretched out behind him? No idea.)

Bad: The bad guys are on a rooftop, and have a very large gun. As Superdude approaches, the bad guy starts shooting at him, with bullets ricocheting every which way.

Good: Superman, you should know better! Those bullets are still traveling very quickly, and when they ricochet off can still kill bystanders. We see buildings all around, so those bullets should have been taking out windows all over the place. Anyone working late would get a nasty surprise, if they weren't actually killed outright.

This is right but I just wanted to point out that in the old 50's TV series was worse because along with standing there letting the bad guy use all of his Bullets (Said bullets flying everywhere.) The Bad guy would throw his gun at Supes and Supes would... duck.

Bad:
Lex Luther stabs Superman with a piece of green kryptonite.

Good:
His suit can stop bullets, but not a sharp rock? Sure, you might say, his suit is made from materials from Krypton, so only Kryptonite can penetrate it. But then how was his suit made? Did Martha Kent use kryptonite needles?

The suit is made from the "Cloth" that made up his blanket and bed inside the ship that first brings Superman to Earth. It couldn't be cut normally but it could be unraveled and rewoven (Is that even a word?) The needle Martha used came from a sliver of the afore mentioned ship that Clark helped to put the eye in.

Bad:
Superman catching the Daily Planet ball-like thingamajig An earthquake-like event rolls through Metropolis, causing wide-spread destruction. The giant "Daily Planet" ball-like thing on top of the Daily Planet building falls off. Superman catches it, and plops it down on the ground.

Good:
Well actually, he plops it on a car, and he didn't seem to check to make sure the car was empty. Maybe he used X-ray vision. Anyway, just like with the plane above, all that weight from the metal ball on his hands would have punched a hole in the ball (is there a name for something like this-- I have to keep calling it the ball, which sounds silly). Strength isn't the issue, tensile strength of the material is.

Let me state clearly that I have nothing but respect for Mr. Platt. This sight has been a HUGE help in dealing with a guy who insists that the Moon Landing was a hoax and for that I thank him. Having said that there is a bit of pleasure in this because of the Astronomy prof who would roll his eyes and make snide comments about my being an actor when I asked almost any question.

It's a Globe. :dance:

Matherly
2006-Jul-14, 07:03 PM
Quick tangent...

Welcome aboard, Redtail!

(Back to the topic at hand)

Solon12
2006-Jul-19, 03:59 PM
Its amazing no-one spots the theme right in front on the big screen.

Superman is super low-tech, in fact no technology at all, no R&D needed, the real Nietzschian übermensch.

Nothing new here : after all Zeus had Prometheus eternally tortured for teaching the use of fire to mere mortals. Zeus was a Green! Superman is there to to make sure that real American technological progress is stopped. The European reaction to Lincoln winning in 1865 was Nietzsche - the ideologue for Hitler's triumph of the will.

Americans should know Hitler visited Napoleons tomb in Paris and said he wanted to roll history back before 1783. This is Nietzsche speaking.

So now GM, Delphi, Ford, why retool your bankrupt plants to build things like maglev, Shuttle's or hydrogen cars? After all we Americans are Supermen! We only need the profits from foreign labor! We are super low-tech (except of course wunderwaffen like the totally disfunctional ABM that could'nt even hit a Korean dud). No SDI Laser high-tech system, only fast stones...

Super low-tech with wunderwaffen. And with an American accent - no trace of European ancestry at all!

Tog
2006-Jul-19, 04:14 PM
::blink::

Gillianren
2006-Jul-19, 07:21 PM
Yes. The original concept of "superman" is indeed from Nietzche. Yes, the two Jewish guys who developed Superman took the name and their original concept from it. The original Superman they designed was a villain.

All of this is true. However, their redesign was not intended to be particularly Nietzchean. What's more, I hardly think they can be realistically accused of collaborating with Hitler, given, again, that they were two Jewish guys.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-19, 08:07 PM
Yes. The original concept of "superman" is indeed from Nietzche. Yes, the two Jewish guys who developed Superman took the name and their original concept from it. The original Superman they designed was a villain.

All of this is true. However, their redesign was not intended to be particularly Nietzchean. What's more, I hardly think they can be realistically accused of collaborating with Hitler, given, again, that they were two Jewish guys.
Not to Mention, Superman Predates WWII ...

Plus ...

Hitler Was Often Portrayed in The American Comics of the Early 40s, With Superman, Litterally Kicking his Butt!

Gillianren
2006-Jul-19, 08:59 PM
Well, yes, he predates WWII, but I don't think he predates Hitler's rise to power.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-19, 10:38 PM
Well, yes, he predates WWII, but I don't think he predates Hitler's rise to power.
Kinda Concurrent ...

Superman FIRST Appeared as a Bad Guy in 1936, Probably as a Response to Germany's Occupation of The Rhineland ...

But, By The Tiime War Actually Broke Out, he Was Shrugging Off Bursting Shells and Helping to Defeat the Axis Powers!

:dance:

tony873004
2006-Jul-21, 09:17 AM
Just saw the movie. I've got a few things to add.

Bad Moon phase. When Superman flys up to space after peeking in on Lois, he rises high enough to catch a crescent of Earth's daylight side. But the Moon over this horizon is a gibbous. It should also be a crescent.

Lois faxes for help to "40 North 73 West". That's Long Island. But without minutes and seconds, there's nearly 5000 square miles of Earth that this describes. Good thing he's fast.

When the power came back on, so did the computers. No one had to wait for their machines to re-boot. Where can I get one of those?

Matherly
2006-Jul-21, 06:39 PM
When the power came back on, so did the computers. No one had to wait for their machines to re-boot. Where can I get one of those?

I was reading something about how sombody (T.I. maybe) is developing a new form of memory that won't lose it's contents without power (kinda like Flash memory, but more stable). They said it ment you wouldn't have to boot your computer when it was powered back up.

Maybe LexCorp has been making it using some technology they stole from Brainiac?

ToSeek
2006-Jul-21, 08:41 PM
My PalmPilot has always worked like that, but then it doesn't have a whole lot of memory.

PetersCreek
2006-Jul-21, 09:09 PM
When the power came back on, so did the computers. No one had to wait for their machines to re-boot. Where can I get one of those?
Maybe they just didn't have their monitors plugged in to the UPS.

Matherly
2006-Jul-21, 09:22 PM
Palm Pilots use batteries to keep thier memory.

This comes from someone who's Plam batteries have run down, losing everything :(

ToSeek
2006-Jul-21, 09:46 PM
But they don't give out when you change batteries. How does that work?

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Jul-21, 10:08 PM
But they don't give out when you change batteries. How does that work?
If its Anything Liike My Graphing Calculator ...

Dual-Battery Source ...

As Long as EITHER The Lithium or Alkaline Cells are Installed, The Memory Will Stay Active!

:dance:

GDwarf
2006-Jul-21, 10:34 PM
I was reading something about how sombody (T.I. maybe) is developing a new form of memory that won't lose it's contents without power (kinda like Flash memory, but more stable). They said it ment you wouldn't have to boot your computer when it was powered back up.

Maybe LexCorp has been making it using some technology they stole from Brainiac?
That actually already exists, it's called EEPROM (Electrically Erasable-Programmable Read Only Memory) and has been around for a while. (Newer games for video game consoles that use cartridges use EEPROM, they keep all the data without using a battery.) I don't know how stable it is, or how much it can store, what I do know is that it can be quite small.

As for palm pilots, they probably have a small battery soldered to the motherboard that provides enough power to keep the RAM from turning off, pretty much the same idea as the CMOS battery in your computer that helps save all the hardware and startup information.

tony873004
2006-Jul-22, 04:53 AM
As for palm pilots, they probably have a small battery soldered to the motherboard that provides enough power to keep the RAM from turning off, pretty much the same idea as the CMOS battery in your computer that helps save all the hardware and startup information.
That would be my guess, unless there's a flash card (ee prom) in a palm pilot.

I service alarm systems for work. 15 years ago I saw the "soldered battery" method used in burglar alarms so zone programming and user arm/disarm codes wouldn't disappear (causing us major headaches and service calls after a blackout). They were lithium batteries. We had to know how to unsolder and replace them.

Roy Batty
2006-Jul-22, 12:25 PM
Another possibility for small power requirement devices that only need to be kept supplied for 30-60 seconds whilst changing batteries might be a capacitor?

hrherle
2006-Aug-18, 09:58 PM
Hi all,

After seeing the movie I felt watching a regular CG effect movie rather than the old ones. I think in old ones whenever Superman shown flying, it was a stuntman gliding in wires at limited speed with his cape resting on his body. but now cg can get a flying superman at any speed with his cape waving.

anyway here are few more bad physics i obeserved.

1) Superman holds the plane at the nose and put it down. Distance of centre of gravity (COG) of plane and pt. of support (Superman) being huge, the moment will be huge at the tail end.People at the tail end will experience a large force on them. Same the case when superman catches the Steel frame as it falls.
a
2) The globe which falls seems not rotating. If superman catches the rotating globe, he has to first balance the weight and the rolling action.

3) The last, Superman manages to lift the Huge "Crystal Island" without even bothering to balance it. BTW, wont the Island break up as it is supported at a single pt. ( I am not sure the strength of the "Crystal").

pghnative
2006-Aug-18, 11:14 PM
Another possibility for small power requirement devices that only need to be kept supplied for 30-60 seconds whilst changing batteries might be a capacitor?This is most likely, since that is indeed about the limit to the time you can take to change the batteries without losing all data.

Jason Thompson
2006-Aug-20, 10:09 PM
I think in old ones whenever Superman shown flying, it was a stuntman gliding in wires at limited speed with his cape resting on his body.

Actually a wide variety of techniques were used to make Superman fly. I am not sure how they did it in the Kirk Alyn cinema serials or the George Reeves TV episodes, but for the Christopher Reeve films:

Firstly, no stunt double was used. It was Christopher Reeve in all shots.

If he had to fly in and land, or take off and fly away, he was on a wire rig which would move to lift or lower him as well as carry him along the set. It was up to Reeve himself to hold his body in such a way as to make it look like he was flying and not being moved around on wires (which, by the way, was a skill those who knew him attributed to his hang gliding experience, which required him to be able to hold his body rigid). This caused some problems during shooting and rehearsal as sometimes the operatirs would get the movement a little wrong. Either he would be unexpectedly hoisted off his feet while still mid-line, or he would be dropped in the wrong place. Christopher Reeve recalled that during the scene in the first film where Superman returns Lois Lane to her balcony after taking her on a flight over Metropolis the riggers would often either undershoot and drop them down out of shot behind the balcony or else overshoot and practically have them landing in the kitchen set.

To make him appear to be flying past things like landscapes or clouds he was laid on a table and either shot against a bluescreen for the background to be added in later or else the background was projected from film onto a screen behind him. The back projection was the simplest method, but had limitations as it could not really allow him to appear to do anything except fly in a straight line past a scene (Thinking about it, this was the way Superman was seen to fly in the George Reeves TV episodes, so I suspect that was the technique used for those). The bluescreen method allowed more dynamic options, but did have one big problem: he was wearing a blue suit. For these shots he was outfitted with a special suit that was more turquoise than blue, and this was later optically corrected to restor the correct colour (presumably there was a good reason for going through all this rather than simply using a greenscreen rather than a bluescreen, but I don't know what it was).

As for his cape, apparently there was a special device made that resembled the skeleton of an umbrella that was placed under his cape and made to move randomly so his cape would appear to ripple in the air currents.

The source for all this info, by the way, is the 'making of' feature on the Complete Superman Collection DVD set.

Tog
2006-Aug-21, 07:19 AM
Actually a wide variety of techniques were used to make Superman fly. I am not sure how they did it in the Kirk Alyn cinema serials or the George Reeves TV episodes...

I think the George Reeves TV shows they used a chroma screen. Basically he just laid on a block that was placed infront of a background of the same color. Pretty much like the way they do the weather on TV now. I seem to remember noticing that his stomach was always a little more flat when he fle than when he stood. Flat like it was resting on a board or something. He also never really turned. It was always in profile and horizontal. For his landings, it looked he just jumped from a chair off camera. His take offs too, always took him out of the frame. At least, that how I remember them.

Jason Thompson
2006-Aug-21, 09:48 AM
For his landings, it looked he just jumped from a chair off camera. His take offs too, always took him out of the frame.

From what I recall reading about the show, that's exactly what he did. For scenes where he flew in through a window he apparently had a bar across the top on the outside of the flat which he held on to and swung himself through the window from.

Gillianren
2006-Aug-21, 08:20 PM
(presumably there was a good reason for going through all this rather than simply using a greenscreen rather than a bluescreen, but I don't know what it was).

Having skimmed the Wikipedia article on the subject of bluescreening, I believe it is because greenscreens are predominantly used because of a quirk of digital cameras, so it seems likely they wouldn't've really had access to one, and almost certainly not one big enough for their purposes.

ZaphodBeeblebrox
2006-Aug-22, 01:35 AM
Having skimmed the Wikipedia article on the subject of bluescreening, I believe it is because greenscreens are predominantly used because of a quirk of digital cameras, so it seems likely they wouldn't've really had access to one, and almost certainly not one big enough for their purposes.
Yeah, The Use of Green Screens Rather than Blue Only Became Necessary Because of The Switch to Digtal Over Analog Technology, BUT The Quirk Was More an Artifact of The Whole Film Developing Process than of The Actual Change itself ...

This is Because, While Digital Recordings Result in a Positive Product, Filming Invariably Yields a Negative Exposure!

Furthermore, The Use of Colour Knock-Out, Particularly in its Early Days in The 1960s, Needed a Solid Background to Be Replaced Instead of One Using Multiple Primary Colours ...

Thus, Secondary Film Processing Which Results In the Primary Colours, Red, Yellow, and Blue, Requires a Background of The Least Common Secondary Colour, Royal Blue; While The Primary Process of Digital Decoding, Which Retains The Original Primary Colours of Liight, Magenta, Cyan, and Green, Requires a Background of The Least Common Primary Colour, Lime Green!

Maksutov
2006-Aug-24, 07:47 AM
I think in old ones whenever Superman shown flying, it was a stuntman gliding in wires at limited speed with his cape resting on his body.

Actually a wide variety of techniques were used to make Superman fly. I am not sure how they did it in the Kirk Alyn cinema serials[edit]For those the live actor was replaced with an animated flying Superman. Not very convincing.