Did Lana Fly?
redhawk
airborne fighting Clark. If she figured it out, maybe she can teach him how
to do it.
BC
"redhawk" <newfou...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nrSYi.4883$m44.947@trnddc06...
> Lana got the "pre-flight energy waves" special effect when she was going
> airborne fighting Clark. If she figured it out, maybe she can teach him
> how to do it.
too much for Clark. Maybe she could have combined the two -- sex while
flying.
redhawk
"BC" <bcph...@att.net> wrote in message
news:PwSYi.67929$YL5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
Clark might be suspicious after tonight's episode, wondering if Lana just
wanted to join the "Mile High Club" because she'd discovered that Lex was a
member.
Hunter
says...
> Lana got the "pre-flight energy waves" special effect when she was going
> airborne fighting Clark. If she figured it out, maybe she can teach him how
> to do it.
No. The closes she came was back flipping. That "energy wave" was
supposed to demonstrate they moving at superspeed relative to each other.
She attacked him at superspeed, he moved in behind her even faster, she
instinctively knew he was behind her and she back fliped kicked, all
happening in a fraction of a second messured in "micro" units.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Hunter
bcph...@att.net says...
I guess you forgot about the summer of '05 regarding sex. And I would
think flight would be demonstrated at more than a few inches off the
ground during a fight.
Ken from Chicago
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.219df41fa...@news.optonline.net...
Clark had similar superspeed energy waves during the Myxlpltk episode and he
sped off the football field to save Chloe.
-- Ken from Chicago
Hunter
kwicker1...@comcast.net says...
Exactly it often happens when "we" move with him most of the time if
somthing equally as quick is moving with him, like a bullet. I recall a
scene in which Clark saved Lex's life by stepping in front of bullets
using superspeed. The bullets were making similar "shock wave" effect.
Bradster
Those slow-mo backflips are sooo lame (even my 10 year old son agrees). You
can so tell she is on a wire. I wish they stop using that type of flying
kick effect or improve the quality of their stunts and CGI work.
Brad
Ken from Chicago
"Bradster" <bdhayR...@ATHotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
news:XfaZi.196063$1y4.73284@pd7urf2no...
The center of gravity is all wrong. Animators and illustrators tend to draw
the center of gravity "correctly" so that the movements look and "feel"
right. Often with live-action fx, to physically hold the actors by wire, the
center of gravity is at the waist when it should be at the feet (i.e.,
imagine the characters flying with rockets in their feet and then flying
movements would look "right"--as opposed to wearing rockets attached to
their belts).
Also super fights have characters spinning the wrong way. If you're a
gymnast or martial artist doing somersault so that you land forward of your
current position then you tend to do a forward somersault (i.e., your head
spins up and over so you can see forward *toward* the direction you're
moving) since that would be most energy wise instead of a backward
somersault (i.e., your head spins back and down and you can see backward
*away* from the direction you're travelling).
For example in DAREDEVIL, if you're doing a somersault so you move forward
off a building then you'd be most likely to do a forward somersault instead
of a backward somersault.
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
> The center of gravity is all wrong. Animators and illustrators tend to draw
> the center of gravity "correctly" so that the movements look and "feel"
> right.
Animators rock!
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
Ken from Chicago
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-31378...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
I believe I said that:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films/msg/2b326e97cf7b4ba1
Animators are the future of movies, tv and video entertainment.
Only a matter of time before pert near everyone is digitally scanned and
animated in entertainment simply to open up the possibilities in
production--and great actresses can finally keep a movie career PAST 40.
-- Ken from Chicago
BC
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:-9udnfZdaL9rIqja...@comcast.com...
I thought they did that already -- great actresses with long careers. If
they didn't keep their careers by aging then they weren't a great actresses
to start with. Recently haven't all the fans on this group been drooling
over the appearance Helen Slater or Lynda Carter? Tom Wopat?
I respect the talent of animators -- mostly because I know nothing about it.
But I can't see the movies moving toward cartoons and still trying to make
it seem real. If anything, by and large, the animated ( or illustrated)
characters have been brought to the big screen using real life actors. I
would rather see Superman as an actor fly than an animated one and the
animated scenes of Spiderman flipping from building to building looked all
wrong. The interesting thing about animation in the films is that it looks
good for about a year or two then seeing the film years later, as technology
progresses, it looks phoney as hell and doesn't hold up. Conversely, stunts
or action done with real actors/stuntmen/cars etc. still holds up -- like in
the Bond films or Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan etc..
> -- Ken from Chicago
>
Ken from Chicago
>
> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:-9udnfZdaL9rIqja...@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
>> news:ANIM8Rfsk-31378...@news.phx.highwinds-media.com...
>>> In article <roCdnV56X9kKDqja...@comcast.com>,
>>> "Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The center of gravity is all wrong. Animators and illustrators tend to
>>>> draw
>>>> the center of gravity "correctly" so that the movements look and "feel"
>>>> right.
>>>
>>> Animators rock!
>>>
>>> --
>>> Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
>>
>>
>> I believe I said that:
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.arts.movies.current-films/msg/2b326e97cf7b4ba1
>>
>> Animators are the future of movies, tv and video entertainment.
>>
>> Only a matter of time before pert near everyone is digitally scanned and
>> animated in entertainment simply to open up the possibilities in
>> production--and great actresses can finally keep a movie career PAST 40.
>
> I thought they did that already -- great actresses with long careers. If
> they didn't keep their careers by aging then they weren't a great
> actresses
> to start with. Recently haven't all the fans on this group been drooling
> over the appearance Helen Slater or Lynda Carter? Tom Wopat?
I like Helen Slater and Lynda Carter but they have had far from "great
actress" careers. At least they haven't had onscreen. They might have won
every stage theater award on Earth but the stage is witness protection for
Hollywood.
Try and name 3 of the Best Actress nominees of the Oscars--of the past
decade. Bonus if their initials are NOT "H.M." or "M.S.".
Now compare that to the top grossing movies of recent years--and try name
the notable lead actresses of recent years and their movies:
2006:
423,032,628 Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest (2006)
250,863,268 Night at the Museum (2006)
244,052,771 Cars (2006)
234,360,014 X-Men: The Last Stand (2006)
217,536,138 The Da Vinci Code (2006)
210,592,590 300 (2006)
200,069,408 Superman Returns (2006)
197,992,827 Happy Feet (2006)
195,329,763 Ice Age: The Meltdown (2006)
167,007,184 Casino Royale (2006)
Best Actress:
*** Queen, The (2006) - Helen Mirren
Devil Wears Prada, The (2006) - Meryl Streep
Little Children (2006) - Kate Winslet
Notes on a Scandal (2006) - Judi Dench
Volver (2006/I) - Penélope Cruz
2005:
380,262,555 Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
291,709,845 The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
(2005)
289,994,397 Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
234,280,354 War of the Worlds (2005)
218,051,260 King Kong (2005)
209,218,368 Wedding Crashers (2005)
206,456,431 Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005)
205,343,774 Batman Begins (2005)
193,136,719 Madagascar (2005)
186,336,103 Mr. & Mrs. Smith (2005)
Best Actress:
*** Walk the Line (2005) - Reese Witherspoon
Mrs Henderson Presents (2005) - Judi Dench
North Country (2005) - Charlize Theron
Pride & Prejudice (2005) - Keira Knightley
Transamerica (2005) - Felicity Huffman
2004:
436,471,036 Shrek 2 (2004)
373,585,825 Spider-Man 2 (2004)
370,614,210 The Passion of the Christ (2004)
279,167,575 Meet the Fockers (2004)
261,437,578 The Incredibles (2004)
249,358,727 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004)
186,739,919 The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
176,610,096 The Polar Express (2004)
176,049,130 The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
173,008,894 National Treasure (2004)
Best Actress:
*** Million Dollar Baby (2004) - Hilary Swank
Being Julia (2004) - Annette Bening
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) - Kate Winslet
Maria Full of Grace (2004) - Catalina Sandino Moreno
Vera Drake (2004) - Imelda Staunton
> I respect the talent of animators -- mostly because I know nothing about
> it.
> But I can't see the movies moving toward cartoons and still trying to make
That you would think of animated movies are (merely) "cartoons" shows just
how sheltered you've been from the true potential of animated movies. But
then again, in America, that's all too common. Even the 3d cgi movies are
considered more of a genre than a medium for telling movie--what with the
umpteenth cgi animal flick of a "fish out of water" / "fish going into the
big pond" stories that keep getting repeated by Hollywood--DESPITE Pixar's
success of breaking that mold.
> it seem real. If anything, by and large, the animated ( or illustrated)
> characters have been brought to the big screen using real life actors. I
> would rather see Superman as an actor fly than an animated one and the
> animated scenes of Spiderman flipping from building to building looked all
> wrong. The interesting thing about animation in the films is that it
> looks
> good for about a year or two then seeing the film years later, as
> technology
> progresses, it looks phoney as hell and doesn't hold up. Conversely,
> stunts
> or action done with real actors/stuntmen/cars etc. still holds up -- like
> in
> the Bond films or Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan etc..
>
>
>> -- Ken from Chicago
There's a world of difference between the Millenium Falcon's "tunnel run" in
STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI and Lee 'Apollo' Adama's "tunnel run" in
BATTLESTAR GALACTICA's "Hand of God" episode. The former, as exciting and
flashy as it was in the 1980s, was as unrealistic as the Spider-Man
animation in the 2000s, while the latter BSG run was believable and
plausible. It was explicitly directed to be so by Ron Moore when he gave
instructions to the fx folks to make it look like it was possible someone
could reasonably maneuver said in said tunnel.
Plus many of the best fx are "invisible". While everyone was focused on Tom
Hanks being digitally inserted into stock video footage in FOREST GUMP the
movie, I walked out of the movie stunned that Gary Sinise's legs had been
amputated--and then stunned when I realized they had NOT, that it had been a
digital effect. About six months after the movies release, entertainment
news shows did a follow up to reveal the "hidden" fx in FG, from "Captain
Dan"'s amputated legs to Gump's ping pong playing prowess to the floating
feather.
Total digital animation will change everything in the movies--from the
flashy to the mundane (e.g., Anthony Hopkins' and Patrick Stewart's de-aging
in, respectively, HANNIBAL and X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND).
-- Ken from Chicago
P.S. Same happened to JURASSIC PARK, everyone focused on the dino fx while
missing that Ariana Richards' face was digitally applied to a stuntwoman's
face for a shot where the stuntwoman accidentally looked up into the camera
in a scene.
BC
Not sure where you are going with this. You were saying that 40 year olds
needed animation to keep their careers alive yet the Best actress awards
have Streep and Dench (2) and I think some others But you seem to think
their career success is related to box office. The films that make the big
box office are more action don't you think and require younger
actors/actresses? Yet the "thought provoking" films may require more
experience from an actor/actress.
>
>> I respect the talent of animators -- mostly because I know nothing about
>> it.
>> But I can't see the movies moving toward cartoons and still trying to
>> make
>
> That you would think of animated movies are (merely) "cartoons" shows just
> how sheltered you've been from the true potential of animated movies. But
> then again, in America, that's all too common. Even the 3d cgi movies are
> considered more of a genre than a medium for telling movie--what with the
> umpteenth cgi animal flick of a "fish out of water" / "fish going into the
> big pond" stories that keep getting repeated by Hollywood--DESPITE Pixar's
> success of breaking that mold.
I don't think they are cartoons but I can see the animated parts because I
have worked with images for over 30 years but ther are exceptions like
Forrest Gump.
>
>> it seem real. If anything, by and large, the animated ( or illustrated)
>> characters have been brought to the big screen using real life actors. I
>> would rather see Superman as an actor fly than an animated one and the
>> animated scenes of Spiderman flipping from building to building looked
>> all
>> wrong. The interesting thing about animation in the films is that it
>> looks
>> good for about a year or two then seeing the film years later, as
>> technology
>> progresses, it looks phoney as hell and doesn't hold up. Conversely,
>> stunts
>> or action done with real actors/stuntmen/cars etc. still holds up -- like
>> in
>> the Bond films or Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan etc..
>>
>>
>>> -- Ken from Chicago
>
> There's a world of difference between the Millenium Falcon's "tunnel run"
> in STAR WARS: RETURN OF THE JEDI and Lee 'Apollo' Adama's "tunnel run" in
> BATTLESTAR GALACTICA's "Hand of God" episode. The former, as exciting and
> flashy as it was in the 1980s, was as unrealistic as the Spider-Man
> animation in the 2000s, while the latter BSG run was believable and
> plausible. It was explicitly directed to be so by Ron Moore when he gave
> instructions to the fx folks to make it look like it was possible someone
> could reasonably maneuver said in said tunnel.
yes the tunnel run and that sort of effects can't be done "for real" by real
people -- they have to use an animated effect like a glass matte or
green/blue screen etc. I'm not saying that current animation is worse than
older animation. I'm saying that if a stunt can acutally be done by people
it looks more real. Since no one can actually go through a warp drive jump
then we have to use animation. And animation or not I enjoyed the Star Wars
films and other films with animation or CGI like Minority Report. But I
didn't think much of the Spiderman films, Xmen was good -- the effect has to
done well to get me to believe. Oh, and Sin City was interesting.
We may have different definitons of animation. Claymation for example is
animation yet it isn't drawn. It is just click stopping clay figures or
single framing and moving the figures etc.
CGI animated explosions, fire, car wrecks all look fake to me. But they are
getting better. Superman Returns was some of the best for the action and
yet a close look at surface detail reveals smooth tones and little else. I
can see it as not being real. Same for faces or bodies etc. They lack a
certain level of detail.
>
> Plus many of the best fx are "invisible". While everyone was focused on
> Tom Hanks being digitally inserted into stock video footage in FOREST GUMP
> the movie, I walked out of the movie stunned that Gary Sinise's legs had
> been amputated--and then stunned when I realized they had NOT, that it had
> been a digital effect. About six months after the movies release,
> entertainment news shows did a follow up to reveal the "hidden" fx in FG,
> from "Captain Dan"'s amputated legs to Gump's ping pong playing prowess to
> the floating feather.
Yes those were good but they were real actors and the FX was in the legs or
something that one of them was doing. So a real actor was involved and that
makes the best match IMO. I don't see scanning an actor and using a
computer model. The previews of the new film like that with Angelina Jolie
look like crap IMO. Same for that 300 film.
>
> Total digital animation will change everything in the movies--from the
> flashy to the mundane (e.g., Anthony Hopkins' and Patrick Stewart's
> de-aging in, respectively, HANNIBAL and X-MEN 3: THE LAST STAND).
Yes it will and like in still photography the results will be mixed.
Instead of fixing things before they are shot or doing it in the planning
stage a new crop of filmmakers will try to fix everything in post. The cart
is in front of the horse. I see young photographers shooting beer/wine and
then later trying to put a light behind the bottle in Photoshop. It would
have been easier and more effective to have put a damn light or mirror
behind the glass/bottle in the first place.
Anim8rFSK
Jeri Jo Thomas <kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 08:27:56 -0600 Ken from Chicago
> (kwicker1...@comcast.net) stepped to the mic and said...
>
> > Animators are the future of movies, tv and video entertainment.
> >
> > Only a matter of time before pert near everyone is digitally scanned and
> > animated in entertainment simply to open up the possibilities in
> > production--and great actresses can finally keep a movie career PAST 40.
> >
> >
> Then "A Scanner Darkly" should have been a much bigger hit.
Other than being a horrible horrible movie that wasn't animated, but
just live action run through filters, and capable of making one's eyes
bleed.
Martin Phipps
wrote:
> "Bradster" <bdhayREMOV...@ATHotmailDOT.com> wrote in message
>
> news:XfaZi.196063$1y4.73284@pd7urf2no...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Hunter" <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:MPG.219e683d1...@news.optonline.net...
> >> In article <TLydna-ivcuWyananZ2dnUVZ_tykn...@comcast.com>,
> >> kwicker1b_nos...@comcast.net says...
>
> >>> "Hunter" <buffhun...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >>>news:MPG.219df41fa...@news.optonline.net...
> >>> > In article <nrSYi.4883$m44.947@trnddc06>, newfounds...@hotmail.com
You're confusing centre of gravity with pivot point: your centre of
gravity is located, naturally, at the centre of your body, weighted by
mass of course. The pivot point is the point around which the body
spins, which in the case of wife-fu is located around the waist. In
real life there is nothing holding the body fixed at the waist. To
apply torque to spin, one can use the force of gravity, using one's
feet as the pivot point. It would alse be possible to grab onto
something like a bar and have that be the pivot point, in which case
you could create maximum torque by pushing against something else with
your feet.
> (i.e.,
> imagine the characters flying with rockets in their feet and then flying
> movements would look "right"--as opposed to wearing rockets attached to
> their belts).
Again, no, we don't move as though we had rockets on our feet. Notice
when you are walking that one foot is moving and the other is still:
again it is mainly the force of gravity propeling you forward as you
lean forward slightly and allow the other foot to break your fall.
Try it yourself: that's exactly what we are doing and we don't even
think about it! Running is different: we are mainly moving forward as
a result of forward momentum created by our feet actually pushing
against the ground. Jumping, meanwhile is accomplished mainly by us
bending our waist and springing upwards. None of this is going to
look as though we have rockets on our feet.
Martin
Anim8rFSK
Jeri Jo Thomas <kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:42:25 -0700 Anim8rFSK (ANIM...@cox.net) stepped
> to the mic and said...
>
> > Other than being a horrible horrible movie that wasn't animated, but
> > just live action run through filters, and capable of making one's eyes
> > bleed.
> >
> >
> Is that what you call roto-scoping? "Run thru filters"?
Well, first, it's not rotoscoped. A rotoscope is a patented device (got
one sitting right here) that they aren't using, and they call it by some
other similar term. And while there is some hand work involved, it's
more filters than tracing.
--
Jitterbug phone works! (Third time's a charm!)
Except the first bill is $100 high. Heavy sigh.
Ken from Chicago
Old school rotoscoping was literally manually drawing over a film. Often
nowadays they use computers to do so, applying image effects, aka "filters",
like in those awful series of stock broker ads where they are "animated" for
no frelling reason other than to attract attention--only to be distracting
from the sales pitch and irritating the life out of me.
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
"Ken from Chicago" <kwicker1...@comcast.net> wrote:
Ken, the stockbroker ads is the EXACT technique we're talking about.
Done by the same company. Imagine 90 minutes of that crap, with a less
interesting plot, and you've got 'A Scanner Darkly'
Ken from Chicago
But Phillip K Dick at least writes well so the story is more compelling
(assuming TPTB behind the movie adaptations don't "tweak" it too much). I
don't have anything against the technique itself. I loved its use in WAKING
LIFE where there was a point to doing so. I hate it in those stockbroker ads
because they are there just to be there.
-- Ken from Chicago
Anim8rFSK
Running Keanu Reeves through a filter is 'just to be there' too.
Anim8rFSK
Jeri Jo Thomas <kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 22:44:17 -0700 Anim8rFSK (ANIM...@cox.net) stepped
> to the mic and said...
>
> > In article <MPG.21a04f817...@news.east.earthlink.net>,
> > Jeri Jo Thomas <kata...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:42:25 -0700 Anim8rFSK (ANIM...@cox.net) stepped
> > > to the mic and said...
> > >
> > > > Other than being a horrible horrible movie that wasn't animated, but
> > > > just live action run through filters, and capable of making one's eyes
> > > > bleed.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Is that what you call roto-scoping? "Run thru filters"?
> >
> > Well, first, it's not rotoscoped. A rotoscope is a patented device (got
> > one sitting right here) that they aren't using, and they call it by some
> > other similar term. And while there is some hand work involved, it's
> > more filters than tracing.
> >
> >
> "Rotoscoping is an animation technique in which animators trace over
> live-action film movement, frame by frame, for use in animated films.
> Originally, pre-recorded live-action film images were projected onto a
> frosted glass panel and re-drawn by an animator. This projection
> equipment is called a rotoscope, although this device has been replaced
> by computers in recent years. More recently, the rotoscoping technique
> has been referred to as interpolated rotoscoping."
>
> "A Scanner Darkly".
That's nice. A rotoscope is a patented device. I own one. If you
aren't using a rotoscope, you really need to call it something else, as
the A Scanner Darkly people do. The 'animation' is done by Flat Black
Films, and they call their process "Rotoshop" not rotoscope.
While there is some hand line work done on crap like A Scanner Darkly,
the vast majority of it is still just filters.
The reason they call it "interpolated rotoscoping" is because the
computer is doing the work, with people doing, at most, keyframes.
bf
> In article <PwSYi.67929$YL5.66...@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net>,
> bcpho...@att.net says...
>
> > "redhawk" <newfounds...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:nrSYi.4883$m44.947@trnddc06...
> > > Lana got the "pre-flight energy waves" special effect when she was going
> > > airborne fighting Clark. If she figured it out, maybe she can teach him
> > > how to do it.
> > She just taugh him how to have sex -- two lessons in the same night is just
> > too much for Clark. Maybe she could have combined the two -- sex while
> > flying.
>
> ---
> I guess you forgot about the summer of '05 regarding sex. And I would
> think flight would be demonstrated at more than a few inches off the
> ground during a fight.
> --
> ----->Hunter
>
She waits for 2 years to have sex with Clark again, and Clark is so
reluctant and in fact looked like he dreaded doing it.. That's got to
be great for Lana's ego, to be naked in the barn and willing, and then
to still have to convince Clark to do it.
Maybe that's why she kissed Lex.. Clark just can't satisfy her needs.
Anim8rFSK
bf <bfor...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, she was only waiting in the sense that she was having sex with
other people in the meantime.