Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums (http://www.joblo.com/forums/index.php)
-   Celeb Talk/Gossip (http://www.joblo.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=32)
-   -   Another reason why I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson (http://www.joblo.com/forums/showthread.php?t=145399)

SkyNet 04-04-2012 03:44 AM

Another reason why I love Neil DeGrasse Tyson
 
NDT is an astrophysicist, some people may know him as the dude who put the death knell on Pluto as a planet! But the guy is one of the smartest people I have ever seen, and every time I see him on TV, I am enchanted, cuz he is a hilarious dude that talks super passionately about a topic I too am interested in (Space)

anyway, for those of you that hate even the smallest changes to movies upon their re-release, you may hate NDT a bit now:

Quote:

Not many people could claim director James Cameron's attention to detail. But with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the man has met his match.

The director of "Avatar" apparently made only one change to his re-release of the three-hour-plus drama "Titanic": the sky. And he did this following the incessant lobbying of one very annoying astrophysicist.

As recounted by Tyson, he noticed that in a pivotal scene with (SPOILER ALERT) Kate Winslet as Rose clinging to a piece of the boat under the night sky, the left half of the sky was a reflection of the right half. In other words, not the stars she would have seen that night, but a Hollywood fake-out.

Tyson mentioned the story at a panel discussion back in 2009, saying, "There she is looking up. There is only one sky she should have been looking at ... and it was the wrong sky! Worse than that, it was not only the wrong sky; the left half of the sky was a mirror reflection of the right half of the sky! It was not only wrong, it was lazy! And I'm thinking, 'This is wrong.'"

Since Cameron went to such lengths to get so many details of the ship and that night right, Tyson felt justified in complaining about the sky, even if the only people who notice the error are astronomers.

As James Cameron confirmed with Discovery, "Neil deGrasse Tyson sent me quite a snarky email saying that, at that time of year, in that position in the Atlantic in 1912, when Rose (Kate Winslet) is lying on the piece of driftwood and staring up at the stars, that is not the star field she would have seen."

He added, "And with my reputation as a perfectionist, I should have known that and I should have put the right star field in." As the director told the U.K. magazine Culture, "So I said, 'All right, you (so and so), send me the right stars for the exact time, 4:20 a.m. on April 15, 1912, and I'll put it in the movie.' So that's the one shot that has been changed."

The new 3D version of the film, with the right night sky, is out this week.
http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...233907213.html

Digifruitella 04-04-2012 04:10 AM

I just watched a new hour long interview with Cameron, the man is smart and an inspiration. This is cool that the smallest of details are paid attention to. Great stuff. Thanks

Buck Turgidson 04-04-2012 05:44 PM

This is a great example of a proper use of the technology. Lucas could take a lesson.

As for Pluto...to quote Burton Guster "Did you hear about Pluto? That's messed up."

Silverload 04-04-2012 07:31 PM

It's awesome that Tyson knew the exact constellation of that time. It's cool that Cameron changed it.

bigred760 04-05-2012 10:26 PM

I think it's cool that Cameron changed it. I have read how much of a perfectionist he is. I think a lot of directors and/or filmmakers would've just said "Who cares?" and/or simply would've ignored the astronomer's complaints.

Not Cameron.

Digifruitella 04-05-2012 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigred760 (Post 3538911)
I think it's cool that Cameron changed it. I have read how much of a perfectionist he is. I think a lot of directors and/or filmmakers would've just said "Who cares?" and/or simply would've ignored the astronomer's complaints.

Not Cameron.

I hear you, I love and have always loved Cameron's detail-orientedness...

however here's an excerpt from a recent interview I watched

Quote:

Pozner: Are you a perfectionist?

Cameron: No. Because I think perfectionism is irrelevant.

Pozner: Really?

Cameron: Absolutely.

Pozner: Then who are you?

Cameron: I think it's important to be a communicator, you have to communicate an idea, and you have to be successful in bringing that idea. It doesn't have to be perfect. No film is perfect, No performance is perfect. So perfectionism is irrelevant. I think there are filmmakers that are seeking some higher order of perfectionism on a frame by frame basis. But that's not important. What's important is if your film works, and that it really has a strong effect on people. And that's what you have to get at.
I think perfectionism gets misunderstood for his detail-orientedness


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:32 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.