Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics?

Steven L. wrote:

> My prediction is that if they ever do a movie about Ringworld, Hollywood
> will continue in the Roddenberry tradition of casting only humanoid
> aliens to save money.

When the SCIFI channel had a blurb up about their _Ringworld_
miniseries, there was a strong implication that only human characters
were involved. I don't know what the status is of their _Ringworld_
project, though, as I haven't heard anything about it for many months.

> That means no puppeteers, though they might try
> to put a tiger mask and rubber suit on a stunt man to show a kzin.

Except that CGI now makes showing real aliens -- not just humans in
makeup and customes -- possible, and actually fairly convincing if done
with a reasonable budget.

--
Erik Max Francis && max.TakeThisOut@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
Custom reconciles us to everything.
-- Edmund Burke
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Erik Max Francis wrote:

> Steven L. wrote:
>
>> My prediction is that if they ever do a movie about Ringworld,
>> Hollywood will continue in the Roddenberry tradition of casting only
>> humanoid aliens to save money.
>
>
> When the SCIFI channel had a blurb up about their _Ringworld_
> miniseries, there was a strong implication that only human characters
> were involved. I don't know what the status is of their _Ringworld_
> project, though, as I haven't heard anything about it for many months.
>
>> That means no puppeteers, though they might try to put a tiger mask
>> and rubber suit on a stunt man to show a kzin.
>
>
> Except that CGI now makes showing real aliens -- not just humans in
> makeup and customes -- possible, and actually fairly convincing if done
> with a reasonable budget.

Sure, but hiring a stunt person to play an alien with a voice actor
reading the dialogue is even cheaper and easier.

Besides, even the CGI aliens in the recent Star Wars movies didn't quite
look right. CGI still can't capture all the subtle muscle twitches and
movements that a human makes.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin.TakeThisOut@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Steven L. wrote:

> Erik Max Francis wrote:
>
>> Steven L. wrote:
>>
>>> My prediction is that if they ever do a movie about Ringworld,
>>> Hollywood will continue in the Roddenberry tradition of casting only
>>> humanoid aliens to save money.
>>
>>
>> When the SCIFI channel had a blurb up about their _Ringworld_
>> miniseries, there was a strong implication that only human characters
>> were involved. I don't know what the status is of their _Ringworld_
>> project, though, as I haven't heard anything about it for many months.
>>
>>> That means no puppeteers, though they might try to put a tiger mask
>>> and rubber suit on a stunt man to show a kzin.
>>
>>
>> Except that CGI now makes showing real aliens -- not just humans in
>> makeup and customes -- possible, and actually fairly convincing if done
>> with a reasonable budget.
>
> Sure, but hiring a stunt person to play an alien with a voice actor
> reading the dialogue is even cheaper and easier.
>
> Besides, even the CGI aliens in the recent Star Wars movies didn't quite
> look right. CGI still can't capture all the subtle muscle twitches and
> movements that a human makes.

Which has what relevance to _aliens_? They don't have all the "subtle
muscle twitches and movements that a human makes"--they may or may not have
their own depending on how they're put together, but since they're not
human they aren't going to behave like humans.
>
>
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

In article <oiUrf.2704$nu6.129@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net>, Steven L.
wrote:
> My prediction is that if they ever do a movie about Ringworld, Hollywood
> will continue in the Roddenberry tradition of casting only humanoid
> aliens to save money.
>
One word : CGI
While CGI is currently expensive, it's costs can expect to
more-or-less follow Moore's law, for the medium-term future at least. That
means the bang-per-buck doubles about every 18 months ; or the cost per
comparable image halves every 18 months ; or the pixel count per dollar
doubles every 18 months. I don't see that happening to flesh-and-blood
actor's wages. So at some point, CGI is going to become cheaper than
flesh-and-blood actors. Worse (from the f-a-b actor's point of view), it's
going to happen quickly. Probably within a year.
Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for the
Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life scary
for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.

The work that some amateurs have done in this area by generating 3-d
models for Niven characters in tools like PoVRay is very instructive in
this context. Where are the bones, what are their limits of movement? How
much muscle is needed to accelerate that bone by that much. Put skin over
the top. Kzinti!

I was thinking these thoughts as we stopped off in the garage on the
way back for a loaf and a pint of milk. We left with a fluffy Siberian
tiger, who answers to Amur.

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Tue, 27 Dec 2005 10:14 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 13:00:11 GMT, Aidan Karley
<doIlookDAFTenoughTOpost.TakeThisOut@validEMAILaddressTOa.NEWS.group> wrote:

> The work that some amateurs have done in this area by generating 3-d
>models for Niven characters in tools like PoVRay is very instructive in
>this context. Where are the bones, what are their limits of movement? How
>much muscle is needed to accelerate that bone by that much. Put skin over
>the top. Kzinti!

Did someone ask where the bones are?
http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/ks/Kzin2.jpg
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Aidan wrote:

> Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
> about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
> like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
> pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for
> the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
> movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
> and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life
> scary for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.

The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of large
moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even normal adult
gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just looks wrong.


Ginevra

--
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

> Aidan wrote:
>
>
>>Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
>>about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
>>like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
>>pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for
>>the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
>>movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
>>and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life
>>scary for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.
>
>
> The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of large
> moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even normal adult
> gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just looks wrong.

All these sci-fi movies featuring giant animals ignore the physics of
just standing on legs, let alone leaping.

Ever see fossils of actual giant animals like Brontosaurus? They had
tremendously massive legs and feet to support their weight. You can't
just magnify a gorilla to 40 feet tall and expect its legs can bear its
weight, because of the usual square-cube problems.

So if it's unrealistic for King Kong to stand, I'm not worried about it
being unrealistic for him to leap either.



--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin RemoveThis @earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Steven L. wrote:

> Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:
>
>> Aidan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
>>>about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
>>>like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
>>>pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for
>>>the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
>>>movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
>>>and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life
>>>scary for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.
>>
>>
>> The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of
>> large moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even normal
>> adult gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just looks
>> wrong.
>
> All these sci-fi movies featuring giant animals ignore the physics of
> just standing on legs, let alone leaping.
>
> Ever see fossils of actual giant animals like Brontosaurus? They had
> tremendously massive legs and feet to support their weight. You can't
> just magnify a gorilla to 40 feet tall and expect its legs can bear its
> weight, because of the usual square-cube problems.

You're oversimplifying--a T-rex weighed as much as a medium sized elephant
but the build was very different and it moved on two legs besides, so
clearly there are other factors.

> So if it's unrealistic for King Kong to stand, I'm not worried about it
> being unrealistic for him to leap either.
>
>
>

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Steven L. wrote:

> Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

>> Aidan wrote:

>>> Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
>>> about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
>>> like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
>>> pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for
>>> the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
>>> movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
>>> and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life
>>> scary for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.

>> The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of
>> large moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even
>> normal adult gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just
>> looks wrong.

> All these sci-fi movies featuring giant animals ignore the physics of
> just standing on legs, let alone leaping.

> Ever see fossils of actual giant animals like Brontosaurus? They had
> tremendously massive legs and feet to support their weight. You can't
> just magnify a gorilla to 40 feet tall and expect its legs can bear its
> weight, because of the usual square-cube problems.

> So if it's unrealistic for King Kong to stand, I'm not worried about it
> being unrealistic for him to leap either.

You so miss the point - he doesn't look wrong standing even if it
is (which I did know), but he does look wrong leaping about.


Ginevra

--
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

> Steven L. wrote:
>
>
>>Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:
>
>
>>>Aidan wrote:
>
>
>>>>Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
>>>>about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for things
>>>>like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their movement
>>>>pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a contender for
>>>>the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they carefully replicated the
>>>>movements of a human knee and ankle onto a gorilla with a gorilla's knee
>>>>and ankle. And that didn't look realistic. *That's* got to make life
>>>>scary for a rubber-suit actor and his investment manager.
>
>
>>>The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of
>>>large moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even
>>>normal adult gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just
>>>looks wrong.
>
>
>>All these sci-fi movies featuring giant animals ignore the physics of
>>just standing on legs, let alone leaping.
>
>
>>Ever see fossils of actual giant animals like Brontosaurus? They had
>>tremendously massive legs and feet to support their weight. You can't
>>just magnify a gorilla to 40 feet tall and expect its legs can bear its
>>weight, because of the usual square-cube problems.
>
>
>>So if it's unrealistic for King Kong to stand, I'm not worried about it
>>being unrealistic for him to leap either.
>
>
> You so miss the point - he doesn't look wrong standing even if it
> is (which I did know), but he does look wrong leaping about.

You missed my point.
A 40 foot tall King Kong could not leap at all.


--
Steven D. Litvintchouk
Email: sdlitvin.DeleteThis@earthlinkNOSPAM.net

Remove the NOSPAM before replying to me.
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

dh@. writes:

>I was completely unaware that anyone was even
>considering making a Ringworld movie, but was
>just looking around to see if there were any pictures
>people had made of it available online. So when I
>saw something about a movie I got pretty excited.
>Then I looked in the groups search and most of the
>discussions I saw about it were from around 2000,
>so has it already been done and released? If not,
>what's up with it?

It would interesting to see if a mass audience would swallow a movie
who's ending came down to someone being lucky? I can never decide if
that's pure genius or just downright dumb. Opinions?

Graham
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

In article <48m2r1ln62mop8190jclq0f3i3ub5s6o45.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, Darren J
Longhorn wrote:
> Did someone ask where the bones are?
> http://www.geocities.com/darrenlonghorn/ks/Kzin2.jpg
>
Hmmm, could that torso twist or bend at all?
I've always read the descriptions in the books as implying a
fairly stereotypical tetrapod skeleton with the addition of
"gastralia", which are common on dinosaurs (I think on theropods rather
than other dinosaurs, but I'd have to check that).

--
Aidan Karley, FGS
Aberdeen, Scotland,
Location: +57d10' , -02d09' (sub-tropical Aberdeen), 0.021233
Written at Fri, 06 Jan 2006 14:40 GMT
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics? 

Steven L. wrote:

> Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

>> Steven L. wrote:

>>> Ginevra M. Longbottom wrote:

>>>> Aidan wrote:

>>>>> Actually, I was watching Kong yesterday with the wife, and thinking
>>>>> about the CGI used. The flaws in the model used at the moment for
>>>>> things like Kong were quite apparent (to my eyes) - by basing their
>>>>> movement pattern on scanned movements of Serkis/ Gollum (surely a
>>>>> contender for the Most Famous Invisible Actor Oscar?), they
>>>>> carefully replicated the movements of a human knee and ankle onto a
>>>>> gorilla with a gorilla's knee and ankle. And that didn't look
>>>>> realistic. *That's* got to make life scary for a rubber-suit actor
>>>>> and his investment manager.

>>>> The biggest flaw is that Jackson has entirely ignored the physics of
>>>> large moving animals - Kong leaps about like a small monkey, even
>>>> normal adult gorillas can't move so freely. The net effect is it just
>>>> looks wrong.

>>> All these sci-fi movies featuring giant animals ignore the physics of
>>> just standing on legs, let alone leaping.

>>> Ever see fossils of actual giant animals like Brontosaurus? They had
>>> tremendously massive legs and feet to support their weight. You can't
>>> just magnify a gorilla to 40 feet tall and expect its legs can bear its
>>> weight, because of the usual square-cube problems.

>>> So if it's unrealistic for King Kong to stand, I'm not worried about it
>>> being unrealistic for him to leap either.

>> You so miss the point - he doesn't look wrong standing even if it
>> is (which I did know), but he does look wrong leaping about.

> You missed my point.
> A 40 foot tall King Kong could not leap at all.

That's what I said!


Ginevra

--
 >> Stay informed about: Ringworld movie? Ringworld pics?