Talk:Contact (1997 American film): Difference between revisions
→Shape of the capsule…: new section |
→James E. Gunn influence: new section |
||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
It seems very pedantic, and even wrong, to say that the shape of the capsule was changed from a dodecahedron to a sphere for the film; as can be seen, the pod (shown clearly when dropped, and again when it hits the water on its “return”) is a lattice-work doecahedron cage, in which the sphere sits. There may be a question of æsthetics, but it isn’t so much a change from the book as a design choice in not filling in the faces of the dodecahedron.[[User:Jock123|Jock123]] ([[User talk:Jock123|talk]]) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
It seems very pedantic, and even wrong, to say that the shape of the capsule was changed from a dodecahedron to a sphere for the film; as can be seen, the pod (shown clearly when dropped, and again when it hits the water on its “return”) is a lattice-work doecahedron cage, in which the sphere sits. There may be a question of æsthetics, but it isn’t so much a change from the book as a design choice in not filling in the faces of the dodecahedron.[[User:Jock123|Jock123]] ([[User talk:Jock123|talk]]) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
== James E. Gunn influence == |
|||
Hello, I today started reading a polish translation (from 1987) of the James E. Gunn's book "Listeners" ("Słuchacze"), which was released in the 1972 or 73. It is very similar to the story in this film. It is even to Carl Sagan (and others)! For sure film have few plots which are different, to make it more Hollywood production and having more action, but backstory, many topics, philosophical questions, background and many details are in agreement. I would like to know what people thinks about it. Gunn isn't a thirdparty author, he written many hard-science fiction books and articles about it, for sure his works was known to Sagan.--[[Special:Contributions/149.156.82.207|149.156.82.207]] ([[User talk:149.156.82.207|talk]]) 06:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 06:22, 11 May 2012
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Contact (1997 American film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Contact (1997 American film) has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Film: American GA‑class | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
 | Science Fiction GA‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
References to use
- Please add to the list references that can be used for the film article.
- Wessel, Kari (2004). "Alien Encounters: Science Fiction and the Mysterium in 2001, Solaris, and Contact". In Rickman, Gregg (ed.). The Science Fiction Film Reader. Limelight Editions. pp. 181–209. ISBN 0879109947.
Unanswered questions
As a reader, I wanted to know more about several things: 1) The editing by Arthur Schmidt is superb, and it really makes the film work. What kind of input did Schmidt have in the process? Or, does he just edit at the direction of Zemeckis? Is it collaborative? I'm curious about the production methods, and the filming section seems a bit short for any future FAC. 2) The Bill Clinton and CNN controversy seems like a homage to The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), as that film used real journalists to give it added authenticity. However, when I saw Contact during its initial release, I and many others that saw it at the time were very surprised to see the President in the film, so it may have had the intended effect. 3) Coppola's lawsuit doesn't make any sense. He must have known (or his attorneys must have known) that the case would go nowhere after waiting two decades since the book was originally published. Suing a dead man? It just doesn't add up and the whole thing is just completely bizarre. It would help to get Coppola's take on the incident. Viriditas (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Shape of the capsule…
It seems very pedantic, and even wrong, to say that the shape of the capsule was changed from a dodecahedron to a sphere for the film; as can be seen, the pod (shown clearly when dropped, and again when it hits the water on its “return”) is a lattice-work doecahedron cage, in which the sphere sits. There may be a question of æsthetics, but it isn’t so much a change from the book as a design choice in not filling in the faces of the dodecahedron.Jock123 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
James E. Gunn influence
Hello, I today started reading a polish translation (from 1987) of the James E. Gunn's book "Listeners" ("Słuchacze"), which was released in the 1972 or 73. It is very similar to the story in this film. It is even to Carl Sagan (and others)! For sure film have few plots which are different, to make it more Hollywood production and having more action, but backstory, many topics, philosophical questions, background and many details are in agreement. I would like to know what people thinks about it. Gunn isn't a thirdparty author, he written many hard-science fiction books and articles about it, for sure his works was known to Sagan.--149.156.82.207 (talk) 06:22, 11 May 2012 (UTC)