Jason Pyne

Michael Bay has easily created some of the worst movies ever made. He has made films such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Pearl Harbor, both of which people only watch because of the laughably bad performances and terrible directing. However, one movie he worked on in the late 90s was so scientifically inaccurate, NASA now uses the film as a test to see whether someone is qualified to work for them or not. That movie was Armageddon.

One of the errors in the movie that baffles me is when Bruce Willis uses a nuclear weapon to split an asteroid the size of Texas in half and sway it away from earth. This is bad science because according to Discover, the energy from the nuke in the movie would have been wasted energy. Even if the nuke made a slight dent in the asteroid, it would need to be nearly as powerful as the sun to split it in half. To me, the thought of something as equally powerful as the sun in the hands of human beings scares me. Even if the people with this weapon claim that it’s for defense, the chance for destruction would be much greater.    

According to badastronomy.com, if the asteroid was moving at 22,000 miles and was eighteen days away, like the movie says it was, that would still make it ten million miles away. This would take any immediate danger out of the conflict the characters face in the film. This is because the asteroid wouldn’t impact nearly as soon as the movie suggests it would. There’s also the issue that if it really is dangerously close, how did these characters miss it until it was nearly right in front of them?

In the movie, the leader of NASA also says that a comet knocked the asteroid out of orbit, which isn’t possible for a space rock that size. He also says the asteroid is the size of Texas, but according to badastronomy.com, the largest asteroid in our solar system is slightly half the size of Texas. The density of a rock that large simply can’t be pushed out of orbit.

According to the show Fact or Fictional, an asteroid the size of Texas is Dwarf planet size. According to Scientist Joe Hanson, he claims that Pluto is only 1.3 times the size of the asteroid in the movie. This suggests that even if a space rock this large exists out in space, it should be placed in a different category than an asteroid.

Also, while it is possible for miniature asteroids to hit a planet in collision with a larger one, the way it’s portrayed in Armageddon suggests there wouldn’t be much left to the density of the Texas sized rock. This would mean that even if there was a terrifying meteor shower, the larger asteroid would become none existent.

Nanotechnology and I, Robot

I, Robot is a film starring Will Smith that takes place in the year 2035. In the film, robots have taken most human jobs and nanotechnology has become a part of everyday life. Will Smith’s right arm in the film was recreated with the use of nanotechnology. Within the character’s backstory, his arm was severed in a car accident and it clearly had an impact on his opinions of artificial intelligence. Something as simple as police tape, is replaced by electronic nanotechnology particles, which creates the issue where anyone can walk onto a crime scene. In the film, the people can walk right through the police tape within the crime scene, which may or may not have sensors built into it. In comparison, with regular police tape, someone would have to cut through the tape or would at the very least trip by reaching over it. If someone used either of these tactics with regular tape, someone would definitely know the crime scene had been breached. This type of nanotechnology could be realistic because we see similar banners for restaurants and bars today. The part that makes it difficult to believe is someone could simply walk through nanotechnology without some type of rejection from their body or the technology itself.

The movie follows Detective Spooner, a cop who has a distrust for robots, due to the car accident. For most of the film, Spooner is the most likable character simply because he is not a baffling idiot. Every other character aside from Spooner trusts robots and nanotechnology without question, even though there are three laws designed for a robot malfunction or crime. The first law is a robot may not injure a human being. The second law is robots must obey the orders that humans give them and as long as there is no conflict with these first two laws, the robot can protect its own existence.

Even though these human-like robots aren’t the only use of nanotechnology, they are the most predominate throughout the story. The other type of nanotechnology that pops up several times is a nano-based security system. Although it is never revealed if it is a human or a robot watching these characters, it gives off an ominous big brother undertone to these scenes.

Even the security system is displayed in an odd way in the film, I would argue that it’s more realistic than not. Although we never directly find out if a person is watching through security or if it’s a human being I think that’s the point. Today, there are cameras around every corner and we like to believe that if someone is watching us they’re human. However, what if parts of this technology have a mind of it’s own, like the film suggests?

500 Days of Summer Scene Analysis 

The scene starts with Tom entering Summer’s apartment. The scene then enters a split screen mode, one side saying “expectations” the other saying “reality”. The split screen starts out similar in contrast and are both mostly visual story telling. The split screen ends when Tom spots Summer wearing a wedding ring from across the room and is clearly jealous towards her decision.

 Production Values:

The scene begins in the day time and the conflict isn’t visually striking. However, the scene ends at night with a shadow across one side of Tom’s face. I also find it interesting that only the key components are in close ups. Most of the scene is made up of wide and medium shots, even across the split screen dynamic.

Producer’s Intended Meaning:

Scott Neustadter wrote this film as revenge towards an English girl that dumped him in the mid 2000s. The character of Tom reflects this a lot as he desperately wants to make his relationship with Summer work, but she sees no future with him. Even though, Neustadter was not a producer on the film, this intended meaning shines through during the story arc.

 Who paid for the media? Why?

20th Century Fox financed distribution, while production was split between Dune Entertainment and Watermark. The budget was under $10 million which could have been enticing to investors. However, on a deeper level, I think the studio was enticed by the unique approach to a romantic comedy. Although there are a lot of dramatic elements to this film, the intended message of the film doesn’t feel like a fantasy like some romantic comedies do.

What values are expressed? What beliefs about the world-and the way it should be- are represented?

The values expressed in this scene could easily apply to the social learning theory. The director is asking us to sympathize for Tom instead of feeling happy for Summer. This is achieved well but in a way this effect promotes jealously which isn’t healthy.

In what ways is it a healthy or unhealthy media message? (And what do you mean by healthy or unhealthy?)

The main point of this scene is that our expectations usually don’t meet reality. Yet, the actors who portray Summer and Tom are both attractive. This portrays an unhealthy message because it insists that looks are everything when it comes to being in a relationship. It also can be seen as a healthy message due to Tom’s realization that Summer can’t meet his expectations. The point this scene makes is if someone makes you unhappy or is taking advantage of you, move on from that person, even if it hurts.  

Briefly discuss your own views on the piece

This movie as a whole is very sad and yet provocative at the same time. The frustrating thing about Summer’s character is that we grow to understand why she does the things she does, even if we don’t agree with them. Although we feel for Tom as the story progresses, it makes him seem like a sappy one dimensional character in comparison. Summer also challenges the cultivation theory of how we view relationships in 2018. As she says

        “I like being on my own. Relationships are messy and people’s feelings get hurt, who needs it? We’re young, we live in one of the most beautiful cities in the world, we might as well have fun while we can and save the serious stuff for later,”

Provocative question:

Kevin Tent Editing Article Response #1

​In this article, Kevin Tent talks about his working relationship with Alexander Payne and how they bounce ideas off of one another. Tent also goes into detail about their new project Downsizing, and the scenes they decided to cut out of the final film. Two scenes he describes, that I find quite interesting, are at the beginning and end of the film that take place eight thousand years into the future. Tent says the scenes took place in a cave with an old man telling the story of the protagonist to a bunch of children. While there were other scenes cut out, I find this idea particularly interesting. Is this old man a descendent of Paul, portrayed by Matt Damon? Is this what the downsizing community evolves into? I haven’t seen the film, but this could have added another strange element to the project. From the clips I have seen, the film is weird, but it doesn’t do anything we haven’t seen before. This could be one of the reasons why it wasn’t received well.

​Tent also describes how his more difficult editing choices were influenced by screenings in the editing room and Paramount Pictures alike. I find this technique intriguing because when it comes to being the editor, you’re looking at the film all day everyday. While most editors are experienced enough to cut together a film, they often need an outside opinion to validate what works and what doesn’t work in their cut. As an editor, your eyes can get tired of looking at the same project for months on end, which is why this is so important.

The films Brave Heart and Gladiator share a number of similarities and differences in comparison to one another. Brave Heart gives the viewer a more emotive feeling when watching the film scene to scene. Gladiator, on the other hand, is intense in its politics and harsh colors from the first frame. The score of Brave Heart is peaceful and gives the viewer a sense of understanding of each character’s motivations. Gladiator, utilizes more dramatic music even in scenes where the fighting has ended. The editing choices in both movies are different as well. In Gladiator some shots are slowed down and in Brave Heart the pacing feels more contained. Both movies share a passionate protagonist who believes in fighting to avenge what he feels was taken from him. How each of the protagonists go about doing that is what makes both stories different and compelling.

On the flip side, there color pallets are almost exactly opposite. Brave Heart utilizes a lot of cool colors such as greens and blues, where as Gladiator uses red or orange tones. These colors represent a number of subjects. The choice of blues and greens in Brave Heart shows that Scotland is a very peaceful place to live. Similarly, the reds and oranges in Gladiator represents the intensely hot climate and the fluctuating conflict. While there are greens and blues in Gladiator, they are extremely muted and dull compared to the popping cool colors in Brave Heart. However, the colors of both films are multilayered as well. One of the few times colors of conflict are shown in Brave Heart is when the enemies are on screen. They are always wearing red and dark silver armor whereas the Scottish are wearing blue and green colors, which is a visual representation of conflict. Basically, the Scottish are fighting from a peaceful perspective and the antagonist isn’t. Generally, in film, red is regarded as a sign of conflict where as blue is considered a neutral color and green is somewhere in between. The colors the character’s wear is a visual representation of the goals of the Scottish versus the British. You can speculate that since the landscape of Scotland is green, the argument could be made that Scotland as a country becomes a character. This color choice shows that the landscapes themselves are neutral when it comes to the fighting. One of the few times the landscape changes color is during the shots that contain blue contrast. Basically, these green landscapes are still present but the shot takes place later in the day or during rain fall.  

There are also some scenes in Gladiator during the second and third act where narrow key lighting is utilized but the outside light source is overexposed. Due to the older structures and recreations the project was filmed at, the overexposure was going to be an issue whether it was filmed on digital or film.  A lot of the locations they used are Roman landmarks, where because they are older buildings lighting them will be difficult. As the film progresses, any cool colors that were utilized in Maximus’s story seeming take a back seat to show the intensity of his situation. The shadows aren’t as harsh and more shots take place outside. However, the natural landscape changes from muted and bland to bright red and orange, which could represent the urgency within the character. In the political subplots, there are more blue colors that are apparent, but from a story perspective I find it interesting because by this point you realize these politicians aren’t neutral, they’re corrupt.

Compared to Gladiator, the score is peaceful and calming but this is because the politics of both movies are different. In Gladiator, the soundtrack is intense and fierce even if there is little conflict in a scene. However, this difference could also be because the imperialism in Brave Heart is just beginning and in Gladiator it’s ending. There is a scene in Brave Heart where the screen is lit with harsh orange colors from torches. The scene was shot at night, and normally this would insist there is conflict on screen; the music suggests otherwise. The scene is intended to be a farewell to a character that died, and although the colors may suggest conflict, the music tells the viewer the conflict has passed. The music serves as an additional purpose in the battle sequences. In each battle sequence, though the scenes may be brutal, the music justifies the cause the Scottish are fighting for. The score for Gladiator gives the listener more of an unsettling feeling. The music doesn’t sound peaceful even when there are scenes with little or no conflict.

In terms of plot, the main similarity between the two films is the time period; one film is set in ancient Rome and one is set in Scotland during the dark ages. While these time periods may not be exactly the same, it’s still easy to draw comparisons through color and locations. Both films have scenes that take place in a castle with dim or very little lighting, and both have scenes that take place outside during a battle sequence with warm colors.  

One of the saddest parts of Brave Heart is the introduction to the character of William Wallace as a kid. Through editing and the musical score, we feel the emotion of Wallace not being ready to fight for his country. The scene also cuts back between his father John Wallace who wants him to stay at the family farm rather than fight. Through the editing choices every shot we see William’s father fades farther and and farther into the background. All of these choices evoke the feeling that this is the last time we will see this character alive.

Another key scene that is showcased through editing is William Wallace’s transition into a ruthless killer. Right before the character drastically changes, he tries to escape the British with his wife, because she hit a British soldier to avoid rape. Wallace escapes unharmed, but when his wife doesn’t return it becomes the turning point for character. It takes the viewer a few moments to notice this, because when he returns all the shots are slowed down, and the editor chose to create tension by cutting back and forth between the British and William’s now aggressive facial expression. And when a British officer goes to arrest him, the shots speed back to full motion and Wallace, along with the rest of the town, kill all the opposing soldiers.

The first time I watched both these movies I remember tears were dripping from my eyes like crazy. And regardless of cinematic elements, I have have always felt as though when a movie makes you cry it is powerful and moving in some way. These cinematic elements can help you achieve this goal, but if the message or performance isn’t convincing what’s the point of all that hard work? The camera and lighting can add to the symbolism of a films theme, but the performance and direction should be what engages a general audience.

Milk is a movie directed by Gus Van Sant and is the story of Harvey Milk and his struggles in the gay community in the 1970s. The Times of Harvey Milk is a documentary on the person, but in documentary format. Both films have their pros and cons, but the story of Harvey Milk is best suited for documentary format. In the documentary there is a sense of reflection because of his death, while in the biopic there is an illusion of urgency but it’s not substantial.

Both films show footage of gay minorities peacefully protesting their right of free speech. And in both instances it is the police who instigate and turn the event from peaceful to violent. This may be the film’s way of suggesting that those with power such as cops seem unwilling to change their way of thinking.  

While Milk is technically a biopic, it has an untraditional documentary like format for some scenes. This includes the use of real footage and blending the real Harvey Milk with the actor who plays him. Personally, I found this technique rather abrasive because in my opinion a biopic should play with real events and fiction more than historical accuracy. Part of the fun of watching a biopic is the fiction aspect of the story and having the option as a viewer to do research later. While Milk is still technically a biopic, using real footage takes away from the fun of watching that type of movie.

Both films open with the board of supervisors making an announcement that Harvey Milk has been gunned down. The only difference is in the documentary it works better because it’s not a story where we follow the character. In the biopic when we see this opening we already know the outcome of our protagonist, and some may become less interested in the story because of this.

As a filmmaker, the main take away from these films is when making a period piece, always do research, whether it’s a biopic or not. Although it’s interesting to have fiction when having actors portray historical figures, accuracy to the time period and certain events is still important. What accuracies Milk struggles with makes The Times of Harvey Milk great.

On the other hand, in The Times of Harvey Milk the audience is introduced to people Milk knew through a series of interviews, which works in this film because we see the emotion through these real people. We also hear Milk’s real will he recorded a year before he was gunned down. The difference in pacing compared to Milk, is that by starting with his will and the fact that he was killed in documentary format makes the film more impactful, because the viewer gets to hear all the memories his friends and supporters have of him. Had Milk not told the story through Milk’s will and shown the audience that he’s in danger, people that don’t know the history would have been more impacted by his death at the end of the film.

2017 What Did I Learn?

The world is a crazy place. People are going through stuff all the time, even if you can’t necessarily see it. Life is short, so be kind to your neighbors even if it can be difficult. Don’t be afraid to reach for your dreams. Do what you think is right, even if that sometimes means making a mistake occasionally.

What do all of these outcomes have in common? The fact that life is full of unexpected emotions and transformations. Assuming that each year will be the same in some capacity is an unhealthy expectation we often place on our goals; yet we still do it. I know I did this year. I know other people who did this year. But why do we do it?