Shake OK not OK

Camera shake is used in a couple of segments of the Netflix Black Mirror series where it is used the right way and the wrong way. The first image we see here is of the scene where mom is desperately looking for her 4 year old little girl who got separated from her in the park when she was preocupied with taling with someone. She is screaming “Sarah!” many times, the camera follows the mom, spins around, shows from differrent angles her frustration. Apparently the producer believed that this was good to add the frantic motion to display the confusion. This was completely unnecessary and actually made it harder to see mom’s distraught facial expressions that convey that message much more than shaky cameras.

Later in the episode called Arkangel (S4E2) which is produced by Jodie Foster we see the daughter in her teens frantic and frustrated that her boyfriend just dumped her. In this scene there is shake but it’s necessary because there is no dialog. It adds to the presentation of emotional upset and should only be used in limted basis when there is no dialog. The reason it also works here has to do with how the viewer knows the context of her frustration from more than one perspective, hers, and her moms, and even that of us as we watch it and feel for what she went through her whole life bringing her to a point where we wonder if she might kill herself. We do not always have that kind of perspective and the shake and wander compliments the feelings of this scene.

Send your identity to the Sun?

US Government sponsored NASA seems to have nothing better to do so it’s offering you a chance to send your name on it’s Sun probe which is supposed to help with predicting the weather and stop climate from changing.

I suppose you can watch the one’s and zeros of your name burned to disk burn up when it gets there in your imagination as your name would be incoded onto a thumb drive. VIP passes even available.

This news has insired some thought. The craft is said to have 4.5 inch carbon shields to protect it from the intense radiation causing the temperature to be 2500 degrees F although those are made of “composite” materials, not 100% carbon.

“At atmospheric pressure it [carbon] has no melting point, as its triple point is at ~4,330 degrees C, or 7,820 degrees F [3][4] .”

I wonder what is it’s melting point in space? Space is said to be a vacuum. Is there no melting point in a vacuum?

Looking at the images seems there are numberous parts that would not have this protection, for one, the solar panels, or are they 100% carbon? Never heard of such a thing, silicon is fundamental to solar. Silicon melting point is 2577 degrees F[5]. Is this made of both silicon and carbon? How do we know if the 2500 degree damage point is even accurate?

Other parts like metal poles and brackets could not possibly be protected, they wouldn’t be able to bend.  Are they 100% carbon or a conposite? Is this thing really going up there?

Fusable alloys have a melting point of 361 degrees F [1]. Melting point of silicon which is in solar panels is 2579 F at lower pressure it is about 1832 F at higher pressure. Is there any pressure in a vacuum?

Let’s make a movie presenting the facts that would effectively point out whether we believe this is even possible. Since NASA states the temperature would be 2500 degrees F for serious damage it sure seems this thing wouldn’t make it. One of the key elements we need to determine is determining if there is any pressure in a vacuum as it appears the less pressure the higher the melting points.

There are movies made that say that we never even went to the moon, only to a movie set but those hardly touch on these sets of details. It seems particles determine pressure and there are a wide array of influences that can affect pressure besides particles of matter in space*.

* Wikipedia states “According to modern understanding, even if all matter could be removed from a volume, it would still not be “empty” due to vacuum fluctuations, dark energy, transiting gamma rays, cosmic rays, neutrinos, and other phenomena in quantum physics.”

References 1, 3, 4, 5 found at Wikipedia.

What makes a great actress actor actperson?

Not sure I should even use that word person as it has the male connotation to it and these days everything offends certain homo sapiens some of whom call them selves mee three or something like that. Some consider Amy Adams as beeing a massively better acting thingy than Merryl Streep. I have to agree with the author of this full article that there are many more who might be better, but in one example saying that Sigourney Weaver is better is leaving out important dertermination materials in evaluation. Whenever an acting thingy homosap is being judged on “acting ability” one is mostly limited to what they have acted in. Weaver is well known for Aliens and Dave and some other well received films but who wants to see Aliens more than once? I don’t and it’s not just because I don’t love alien or sci-fi films like others do, it’s that when I think of seeing a sci-fi film and think of seeing Weaver again, I cringe. I’m not even tototally sure why that is. Yes her acting is good, even great in that film, but it’s not good enough to make me overlook how she acts. Not that there’s something seriously wrong with it, it’s just not acting that draws me back in. Great acting includes a style that draws in everyone. Her style is limited somehow. Streep has more variety in style thus when we see her we don’t see the same person all the time, oh sorry, perthing. Streep has done so many roles where I would watch more than once.

Written by Ken Wegorowski. Copyright 2018. All rights reserved.

Dog Years (1997)

This movie is rated #1 by an IMDb user for the ten best B-movies ever. There are some humorous elements of this film. It was created about 2 years before “Blair Camera All Over The Place” so it’s a good film to study regarding some basics in steady watchable film making, angles, dialog, plot, sound effects. In the film Wally’s dog is abducted by “gangsters” that believe that Wally robbed them. Wally does what it takes to track down and find his dog. There are some quirky twists and elements of surprise. There’s no computer graphics so the plot relies on good story telling and imagery. It’s a pretty rough quality and certainly dated and amateurish by today’s standards but it’s worth a look.

Dog Years

review by