Moon Mission in the 30's

    Howdy everybody. Though I was gone? Nope! It's been a somewhat hectic two months for me. I enter college at CU Boulder, so I've been focusing on adjusting to this new climate. Now that I'm more or less adjusted, I can now resume with writing these entries. I'm back, and  in honor of the recent Mars discovery, I am going to talk about... the Moon. What? I begin this entry months ago, it's not like I could change the subject to Mars, given I had already done the research for this. Anyway, remember my Daedalus overlook? Well, in that, you probably remember me talking a little bit about the British Interplanetary Society's proposal about a moon mission in the 1930's. Well, I'm going to write about it. Enjoy
       In 1938, the BIS commissioned a study about a vehicle that would carry a crew of three onto the Moon, as well as a ton of payload, and safely bring them back to the Earth, with only half a ton of final payload. It was meant to show that a mission to the Moon was both physically and economically viable at the time. The moon rocket would have been using powder as a fuel, as was common in model rockets at the time. However, there was a major problem. The velocity required to actually reach the Moon would be in excess of 16 km/s. If it would be built in a single rocket, 90 % of the mass of the rocket would be propellant. To solve this, they decided to create a step rocket, with multiple boosters. Basically, since the booster would have a very low yield, there would be approximately  2,490 mini honeycomb based boosters, which would be immediately discarded. (Such an idea can be traced back to the multiple stage rockets proposed by Kostatin Tsiolkovsky in the late 19th Century.) It would be launched from a high altitude lake near the Equator (possibly Lake Titicaca). It would be about one metric ton, and could send a crew of three to the Moon. There was shielding for the descent to the Moon, though no shield for the descent back to Earth. Also strange was the use of solid fuel, since liquid fuel was considered impractical, due to the power of pumps needed to actually produce the force to push each booster. (Of course, this problem was eventually solved, by a German rocketeer named Werhner von Braun).  The lunar lander itself looked like a gun shell, about 11 ft tall, and 13.5 ft in diameter. The landing would bear some resemblence to the eventual landing of Apollo 11 in 1969.  The hull would be a glass like aluminum oxide, but the cabin would be plastic, with a ceramic covering. The cabin is also attached to boosters, which would create a spin for artificial gravity. The rocket, despite being the center piece of the mission, was actually not the only part of the mission studied. They also studied how the Astronauts could survive the mission. Along with the aforementioned heat shielding, the food was supposed to be high in calories (such as bread, butter, cheese, honey, etc.). The crew would carry an assortment of scientific equipment and protection, to study the Moon, including sunburn lotion (apparently, spacesuits weren't conceived of yet), a telescope and microscope, and geological hammers. Air and water for the mission would be extracted from a single tank of  To communicate, they would use "flashes of light." (Presumably using it for morse code), which would be broadcast by the BBC (ironic, given their coverage of Apollo 11 30 years later.)
    The design, led by J. Happian Edwards, and including Arthur C. Clarke as the astronomy consultant, was published in January of 1939 in the Society's journal. Even then, they noted that they didn't actually have the resources to actually go through with this mission at the moment (given that even experimenting with rockets was illegal in Britain at the time.) However, they hoped to send out a survey to gather public support, to actually begin with this mission. This attracted a lot of attention to the Society, both positive and negative. It had gotten attention in Time Magazine, and publications as far away as India. Despite this, most modern analyses of the mission do deem it ultimately implausible, due to the large number of boosters, and the lack of heat and radiation shielding. After World War II, the Society turned to lesser targets, such as organizing the first conference on planning the first orbiting artificial satellite. However, it is still held as a seminial study, as the first serious attempt to plan a mission to the Moon, using (then) modern technology, and some of it would later recall the later Apollo missions.
  So, thanks for reading. A shame I couldn't do something Mars related. Maybe the BIS did something with Mars...

Sources:

The Union Jack on the Moon, by Ron Miller- io9.com
http://io9.com/the-union-jack-on-the-moon-1262867212

The BIS Lunar Spaceship- The British Interplanetary Society official website:
http://www.bis-space.com/what-we-do/projects/bis-lunar-spaceship

HMS Moon Rocket, by Tony Reichhardt- The Air and Space Magazine, March 1997:
http://www.airspacemag.com/space/hms-moon-rocket-3143/?all

BIS Lunar Lander- Encyclopedia Aeronautica
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bisander.htm

Film Review- Paper Towns

 (By the way, I'm sorry there was no Inside Out review. There was some complications that prevented me from writing it. You'll hear my thoughts on it at the end of the year)    
  I was browsing through some of the reviews for this film, when I came across a comment, which literally said that John Green was the next Nicholas Sparks. I don't necessarily agree. I think most people expressing this sentiment are primarily referring to his most famous work as of late,The Fault in Our Stars. They likely weren't referring to today's subject, but I'll get there later. Superficially, yes, Fault does have some resemblance to Mr. Sparks works. However, there is several distinguishing features, at least in term of story.  I haven't read any Nick Sparks works, and I have seen only one of his films (and it made so little impression on me, I sometimes forget I even watched it), so I'm just going off what I've read. In a Nick Sparks book, cancer or insert-disease-here is used merely as a cheap ploy meant to score some tragedy in an otherwise mundane romance. Fault uses cancer (better)  as the center focus, showing how it affects the characters and their outlooks. I'm going to make a wild guess, and say that Sparks never examines terminal diseases in that manner. He certainly didn't in the one movie of his I saw. (Maybe he does in other books. I'll never know; I refuse to pick up any of his books). Another difference. Nick Sparks, as you may know, tends to write the same story over and over ad infinitum. I've read only Fault and today's subject Paper Towns, but that rather small sampling did provide me enough credence to say that they aren't the same story. They have different themes, different romances, different settings, different outlooks for different characters. My point is that Paper Towns is not just another Fault in Our Stars. They are fairly distinct. I certainly could tell the movies apart. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre (Regular readers of this blog might know that already), but I appreciated Fault. It wasn't groundbreaking, or innovative, or overly philosophical. It was just a fairly entertaining little romance film. When I finished Paper Towns, I had the same reaction. Not exactly a book I would think much about, but a good small romance book. The biggest strength of both these works was the fact that, despite their pretensions, they have a sort of charm to them. A sweetness to the romance, the repretoire, something like that. The film Paper Towns somewhat has that charm, but I have more... reserved praise for it...

       Based on the novel by John Green, the film centers around Quentin "Q" Jacobsen (Nat Wolff) who has been infatuated with his free-spirited neighbor Margo Roth Spiegelman (Cara Delevingne) since she moved to his Orlando suburb when they were 8. They bonded over an instance where they discover a deceased man whilst traveling together. (This incident was more important in the book; it is never brought up again in the film) However, by their Senior year in high school, they had grown apart. However, it is clear that Quentin still has feelings for Margo. This is brought to the open when Margo enters into his room one night. Her boyfriend Jase (Griffin Freeman) had been cheating on her, and so she seeks vengeance on Jase, her other friend Becca (Caitlin Carver), with whom Jase was cheating on, and her best friend Lacey Pemberton (Halston Sage), who Margo assumed had knowledge of the affair, but didn't tell her (Lacey actually didn't know about the affair.) Margo wants Q to be an accomplice to her revenge plot against those who have wronged her. Quentin reluctantly agrees, and together, they pull a succession of various embarrassing pranks, including against Chuck Parson (RJ Shearer), an old bully of Quentin's. They then break into the "SunTrust" building, where they share a romantic moment. Q believes this to be the beginning of a renewed romantic relationship with Margo. However, the next day, after detailing the events to his friends Ben Starling (Austin Abrams) and Marcus "Radar" Lincoln (Justice Smith), Q learns that Margo hasn't come to school. He later finds out that she had ran away (thankfully, that bizarre scene in the book, with the detective is left out). While Q, Ben, and Radar are hanging out in Q's room, when they observe a "Woody Guthrie" poster in Margo's room. Curious, they bribe Margo's sister Ruthie (Meg Crosbie), and they dig through her stuff, and find a Guthrie album, which leads them to a collection of Walt Whitman poems. Q finds a particular passage about doors, which leads him to a small paper, with an address on it. The three friend skip school, and head to the location, which shows various atlas, and a messages "You go to the Paper Towns, and You never come back." This begins a journey that will take Q, Radar, Ben, Lacey (who joins them to help rectify the mistake Margo made), and Angela (Jaz Sinclair), Radar's girlfriend (a minor character in the book), that brings them to unexpected places. This journey may not lead to the mysterious, eclectic Margo Q thinks he's searching for.

      The cinematography is relatively good in this film. Not anything special, but good. So was the soundtrack. It was the same heavily indie based soundtrack as Fault, but works a little better here, since it never intrudes on emotional moments. Nat Wolff, and most of the cast do fine. At first, I felt that he sounded too subdued, but I realized that was meant to be his personality. Wolff does well in the role, being able to display the normality of his character. While they make significant changes to the book, it still holds the same theme. However, the movie deals with it in a slightly different way. In the book, (spoiler), she doesn't come up much in the book. She is often discussed as an idea, rather than an actual character, and when Q actually sees her again, he realizes that she is not an idea, but a real, living, breathing person. In the movie, she is also essentially an idea for some of the film, but she is shown more in the film, and her true character is more explicitly shown. Both are used correctly in the context of their respective mediums to deconstruct the "Manic Pixie Dream Girl." While Margo may be portrayed as such a character, in the end, she is still a person with her flaws and her own personality, and Q realizes that their paths are diverging, and that he should let her go. Hell, the movie actually portrays this better, with scenes of where his path was leading, and where Margo's might lead. In the end, Q is able to let go of his image of Margo, and moves on with his life. This is a nice examination into the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, and how it isn't as clean cut in real life.  There is a lot of tension in the movie over whether they will actually find Margo, and there is dramatic tension over whether Q will find the real Margo. It also had very humorous moments, which stem from rather nice setups.

       Okay, Cara Delevingne: Wooden. She expresses all of her sentiments in the exact same tone of voice when she is supposed to be active, surprised, casual. Her performance does not make me interested in her character, who is supposed to the driving force behind the characters and the story itself. When she rarely expresses any sort of emotion well, I really have no interest in her as an idea, which, as I just described, is the point of the story. I won't spoil the book, but, needless to say, they make major changes to the second and third acts. I'm not going to complain because they changed the events. I'm going to complain about how those changes affect the narrative. The changes make the narrative seem more haphazard, and more rushed. It also makes it more apparently rushed. For instance, they elevate Radar's girlfriend Angela into a main character, simply so that her and Radar's plotline could be acted out, even though it could have been earlier in the film. This is because that plotline was resolved earlier in the book. I also feel that they left some threads from the book they carried over unfinished. For example, the dead man, who was mentioned more, and actually served a narrative purposes. Again, I'd like emphasize that I'm not complaining that they simply changed it. I'm complaining how they handled these changes. Some other things. I loathed the Ben character (I loathed him in the book too, so it may have been a carry over, and he is more likeable in the movie. At least, his "Honeybunny" schtick is not as prevelent in the film) It also has some of the more corny lines in the novel, which could have easily been cut. The dialogue is also a little stilted at times, but there is enough good dialogue to save the film.

          I'll say this: it deserves the 58% it got on Rotten Tomatoes. Not to say that it was a terrible film. It was a fairly decent film. It just wasn't as good as I thought it would be. But it is still fairly good. I did enjoy watching it, and I'm glad I watched it. If you read the book, whilst they make major changes, it is still in the spirit of the book, and true to its themes and characters, so you'll probably enjoy it. Just don't think it will be faithful like Fault was. If you haven't, it might be a nice offering to take a date to, or just see for the hell of it. It isn't that long, so if you're interested, go ahead and watch it. Overall, good, not great. 

Review: Jurassic World

           Again!? Why did they think this was still a good idea? I mean, first, before the park even opens, the whole apparatus of the park was deactivated, and the dinosaurs went berserk. Then, they tried to build one in San Diego, on the  mainland, and a T. Rex ended up rampaging through a major metropolitan area. Then, some people landed on the island, and a spinosaurus almost killed them. (Yeah, I'm really into this franchise.) Anyway, why did they think that building another park was a good idea? You know that something is going to go wrong, based off that track record, and I'm going to let you guess what happens in this film. Yep, everything goes wrong. And they had the audacity to genetically create a new dinosaur, an ultimate predator sort, and they didn't have any contingency plans for it. You know what, it probably doesn't matter. Because this is actually fairly decent a film.
      Fourth in the film franchise based off the 1990 novel by the late Michael Crichton, the film follows "Jurassic World," a fulfillment of John Hammond's original vision for Jurassic Park. It is a major success, with visitors coming to see the varieties of genetically created prehistoric creatures on a daily basis. However, to increase visitors, the manager (I presume so, at least) of the park, Claire Dearing (Bryce Dallas Howard) was told by InGen, now under the management of Simon Masrani (Irrfan Khan), to create an all new Dinosaur. One which would combine all the ultimate predators (Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Carnotaurus, Giganotosaurus, Majungasaurus, and Rugops), which also has other traits from DNA placed in it. They called it Indominus Rex (roughly translating to "Untameable king"). However, after Ms. Dearing gives Mr. Masrani a laydown of the creature, he asks that someone be able to control it. Specifically, Owen Grady (Chris Pratt), a former Navy seal, assigned to train the (featherless, because that isn't scary enough, supposedly) velociraptors, who is rightfully suspicious of the prospect. Meanwhile, Zach and Gray Mitchell (Nick Robinson and Ty Simpkins), the nephews of Dearing, come to visit the park, and their aunt. However, given that Dearing is a little too busy at the moment, so they are stuck with her assistant. They promptly ditch the assistant to explore the park a little more. After an establishment scene, showing Grady as the alpha of a pack of Velociraptors, and head of security Vic Hopkins (Vincent D'Onofrio) wanting to use them as weapons (Spoilers: that goes no where, and doesn't matter in the slightest to the precedings), he is brought to the Rex exhibit, where it disappears from its captivity, supposedly by climbing. However, when Grady and two other employees investigate, they find it is very much in its cage. Apparently, the frog DNA caused it to change its temperature enough that the thermal sensors couldn't detect it. It escapes from its confines, kills the two employees, and begins a rampage. All the while, the park is evacuated, but the two nephews, in gyroscope tour, decide to go off trail, and encounter the Rex. They barely escape it. Now, Grady and Dearing must now both find and defeat the Rex, and find the two boys, before more havoc is wrecked.
    First, the dinosaurs were pretty good to look at. Yeah, they weren't scientifically accurate (I'd go back to Alan Grant's statement that the Dinosaurs were more theme park attractions in the third film), but it was fun to see them. Also, the acting is okay. Chris Pratt did pretty well in his role. Some may find him bland, but his serious demeanor was pretty well done, and proves that he could do more than be a snarky badass. He has, at this point, completely excised Andy Dwer from his system.  Bryce Dallas Howard did well. Sure, their characters weren't complex, but the characters were never great in these films, so that gets a pass. The effects were good. One thing I really appreciated was the use of practical effects in some scenes. CGI has become so prevalent, that everything seems false. The use of practical effects is not only a good homage to the original, but makes the reactions of the people around the dinosaurs more believable. There was also the fact that there was a lot of suspense in the plot. The climax, I won't spoil, was very exciting to watch, and has a homage to the original that works. It is easily the best scene in the whole film.
    Are you familiar with the concept of a "Mary Sue"? If not, it basically refers to a character that is very perfect in their abilities and actions. Indominus Rex is a Villain Sue. It literally is a predator so perfect that it has camoflage, ultra-intelligence, and it can even tame other creatures. That really pushed my suspension of disbelief. It really seemed implausible, even with all the genetic talk, that this creature is so perfect at being a villainous creature. I didn't much care for the two kids, and their story. The reason that I cared about the two kids in the original was that they had distinct personalities, and we got to know them well enough that we wanted to see them succeed. In this, yes, we follow the kids from the beginning, but the whole summation of their personalities are 'Gary is pedantic, and Zack is somewhat girl-crazy." I really didn't care about their stories, when they had such bland characterization.  I was worried going in that this would rely heavily on nostalgia for the original. That wasn't greatly true, but the homages that were in the film were irritating. Granted, one or two of them were okay, but it just came off as overbearing. Like the director kept wanting to say "Look, I made a sequel to this influential film, and trying to recapture its glory." You know, Abrams did that with Super 8, and that was less than satisfying. The things I like about the Jurassic Park sequels was that they never tried that. They never pretended that they could easily remaster what the originals had. This one is definitely trying. But, in fairness, it doesn't come up a lot.
       It was okay. To some extend, it meet my expectations. It was never going to be as good as the first and second, but it's good on its own. If you want to see a Jurassic Park sequel, or just interested, I say watch this (I definitely prefered this to the Third Jurassic park.) If you dislike the films, this one isn't going to convince you otherwise. Next week, Pixar!

Tomorrowland Spoiler review

    So, I decided to write this, just to explain my review. Now, normally I wouldn't do this, largely because I feel that a review should just be a recommendation. It's just my thought on whether or not a person or entity would enjoy it or not. Spoiling it means you'd probably not see it, and I feel that I should encourage you to see it. The only exception is if the film is repulsively bad. Then, I could spoil it all I want, because then no one would see it. Tomorrowland is not an incredibly bad film. However, I feel I need to explain the third act of the film, in order for my review to make sense. Again, this is a spoiler review, so if you are interested in seeing Tomorrowland, I suggest you stop reading, and look at my previous review. Reading my previous review would explain some of the context for the scenes.
      So, Frank, Casey and Athena manage to reach a facility, where they are teleported to the Eiffel Tower. There, the Robot agents manage to track our heroes there. However, they manage to escape, using a rocket, which is accessed.... At the bottom of the tower. Yeah. So, if they had intended on going to Tomorrowland discreetly, well, they were witnessed by millions of people, and the electricity went off in a large metropolitan area. Oops. How exactly did the founders of Tomorrowland (established as Gustav Eiffel, Jules Verne, Thomas Edison, Nikola in this scene) exactly intend on getting there secretly, with that mode of transportation. This could have easily been solved by having it be in the French Countryside or something. Anyway, they go above the atmosphere and send their ship back down to reach the necessary velocity to cross the dimensional threshold to get to Tomorrowland. They cross it. However, they find that the city has fallen into destitution. They are promptly capture by Nix and his army of robots. They take the three to a device, which utilizes tachyons to see past and future events. There, we discover the truth: there is going to be an apocalypse. How? The movie doesn't explain. David Nix says that the apocalypse is inevitable, but once again, Casey's optimism shows a more optimistic future. However, they are then put into a cell, where they will be sent back to Earth. In that cell, however, they realize that,,, I'm sorry, this is part that irks me,... that the machine is sending signals to implant images of the apocalypse. Yep, that's the big mystery. Expecting something bigger on top of that. Well, sucks for you! And that's not even the worst part. When they confront Nix about it, he says that he intended to use those signals, in order to warn humanity about the apocalypse, but instead they embraced the idea of the end, and marketed it (at the back of my mind, I was thinking the movie was dissing Mad Max.) What? Really, that is his whole evil scheme. Show people the images of the apocalypse, without context. Um, hey, evil Governor Hugh Laurie, uh, why didn't you send a very clear message saying "Hey, you know this world. If you don't want it to happen, stop doing the stuff you're doing. See this (shows Tomorrowland). Try doing what we do..." and he goes into detail about what they do in Tomorrowland. And again, this is the big twist. This is supposed to be the thing the big mystery was leading up to. It really is disappointing. And once again, I feel I should blame Lindelof for this. Really, those two films (and Prometheus, which I haven't fully seen) suffer from this problem. A big mystery, which gives a insufficient conclusion, and lackluster effects. Really, it's his mark on the film, not Brad Bird's. Anyway, there is a large fight scene, Athena sacrifices herself, Nix is killed, and Casey destroys the tower. Later, Casey and Frank decide to rebuild Tomorrowland, with help from Casey's father, and a new army of Robot kids, like Athena.They go out, and get more innovators and exceptional... Oh my god, I just realized the Objectivist undertones of this (Maybe people were right about Brad Bird). Sorry, they give them pins like the one Casey received, and they go to Tomorrowland.
   Oh, yeah, the absurd scenes. Let's see, the Paris Rocket, I already covered that. The finishing fight with Nix. The CGI made it look very cartoonish. Oh yeah, there are scenes of Athena fighting. Yes, an 11 year old girl is the focus of several fight scenes. I... don't know what to say. What can you say? Oh yeah, I can't take that seriously. Sorry, I just can't. It's too absurd.
      Looking back, my review was a little too positive. That may be because I write them immediately after watching the film, and I haven't had time to fully think about it. Now that I've had time to think, I like this less. Granted, I still like it to some extent, but my opinion is more mixed. I feel this deserves a 48% (its score on Rotten Tomatoes). Well, nothing much else to say.

Review: Tomorrowland

      Animation is a difficult process. One must constantly draw each frame of the shot, and make sure that each picture is perfect, hence making the animation flow. So, animation and live action are two very different processes. And often the transition between one and the other can be very unstable. (I mean, take a look at any film based off a Hanna-Barbera property). One prominent example of this was Andrew Stanton. Stanton directed Finding Nemo and WALL-E, two films that I really love, and have a special place in my heart. However, he then went on to direct a live action adaptation of Edgar Rice Burrough's character John Carter, and the results were less than satisfying. (That film was actually the subject of my first film review, if anyone has a copy of Indus Interational School, Bangalore yearbook of 2011-2012.) How does one go from such classics to a mediocre offering. Well, the standards of animation are different than live-action, and sometimes, like I said, the transition is very difficult from one to the other. I mention this, because the director of today's subject Tomorrowland is Stanton's colleague in Pixar, Brad Bird. He was the director of The Iron Giant. You probably know him better as the director of the Incredibles, and Ratatouille. He also had significant involvement with the early seasons of the Simpsons. (He directed the two early Krusty the Clown centered episodes). I would like to say that I adore his work. I love The Iron Giant and The Incredibles, and Ratatouille is my favorite Pixar film (and one of my favorite films, period). However, I had trepidation when I heard he was directing this film, largely because he had a larger background in animation ( I had forgtten  he directed the fairly decent Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol). So, does Brad Bird bring the same passion to this live action offering that he does to his animated picture. Uh,.... Let's jump right in.
         Our film opens with a recording of Frank Walker (George Clooney) describing the situation. In 1964, Frank is a young kid (Thomas Robinson), who invented a jetpack, and goes to display it at the World's Fair that year. There, he places it before David Nix (Hugh Laurie), who dismisses it after Walker is forced to admit it can't fly. However, Nix's, uh, little girl, Athena (Raffey Cassidy) has a soft spot for young Frank, so she gives him a pin and a set of directions. He follows those directions in the "It's a Small World" display at the World's Fair, and finds himself in a mysterious, futuristic city. After he has a mishap, he actually manages to get his jetpack to fly. He manages to meet up with Athena. From there, the narrative shifts to the present day, and we meet prodigy Casey Newton (Britt Robertson). She is the daughter of a NASA engineer (Tim McGraw, for some reason), and she is trying to delay the closing of the NASA launch platform her father works at. However, she is caught during one of her outings, and after being released, she finds a pin with a large 'T' on it with her possessions. When she touches it, she transported to a field, where she catches a glimpse of a future city. She then runs from home to see the full extent of the pin. Within the pin, she finds herself in a strange future city, where the fantastic reigns supreme. However, the pin eventually runs out of juice, and Casey goes to find its origin. In Houston, she finds a retro sci-fi antiques shop, where she finds two odd clerks (Kathryn Hahn and Keegan-Michael Key), who explain the pin as an ad for a futuristic city called Tomorrowland. However, when she fails to disclose the origin of the pin (she merely found it in her possessions), the shop keepers become violent. However, a mysterious little girl comes to save her (in what has to be the most absurd action scenes I've ever witnessed.), revealing the store clerks to be robots. The little girl than drives with Casey. She is revealed to be Athena, and she is also a robot. After explaining that she was the one who gave Casey the pin, she drops her off at the home of the now aged and cynical Frank Walker. Walker at first is apprehensive about Casey, and her desire to go to Tomorrowland, primarily because he is bitter about his exile and the impending doom of the world, which he measures on a monitor with a clock. However, after Casey's optimism causes the probability of disaster to reduce, he agrees to help her get to Tomorrowland. However, robots disguised as Secret Service Men invade Walkers house. Luckily, they escape, and they meet up with Athena. We learn that Casey was chosen for the pin, and that she has the potential to save Tomorrowland, especially against the now Governor David Nix, who has machinations of his own.
    Good things: the mystery for the first two acts is compelling. I was invested in what was going to happen in this situation, and why it was happening. It also had a large level of intrigue, as we follow our heroes through the mysteries of Tomorrowland. The acting is very good. Britt Robertson does exude a very powerful optimism, which makes her characters importance believable. George Clooney also does well as a cranky, cynical former inventor, who still has some wonder in him. Hugh Laurie makes a very interesting villain (though his clean shaveness and British accent keep reminding me of one of his comedy characters from back when he was on the BBC). The 1964 Tomorrowland (there is a distinction) also feels very alive, and very vibrant. Finally, I felt it did a better job of promoting optimism than Interstellar did. For one thing, optimistic attitudes literally play a large role in the plot, and also plays a large role in the conflict of the story.
         Remember that mystery I described earlier? It actually builds up to a fairly mundane conclusion. Seriously, I was thinking "That's it? That's the whole mystery they were building up to?" It wasn't bad, per se. It just isn't particularly spectacular. It feels like that twist was supposed to build on a larger conclusion. I might do a spoiler review, because I feel that I would need to examine the ending to be more specific on that point. After watching what the mystery really amounted to, the film just feels a little empty, after that. I don't think this was Brad Bird's fault. I lay the blame on co-writer Damon Lindelof. I haven't seen Lost, (though I hear that it suffered from the same problem) but I have seen Cowboys & Aliens and Star Trek: Into Darkness. Thinking about it now, both of those suffered the same problem: an apparently large mystery, which gets a very disappointing solution. It's a lot of empty spectacle, which I suppose is the problem of his work. I think Brad Bird's considerable talents allow the story not be nearly as disappointing, but it still feels empty, when you get down to it. The effects don't help. Tomorrowland looks very nice, but it feels fake looking, unlike some very good CGI backgrounds. Especially modern Tomorrowland, which seems abandoned completely, safe Nix and his army. That adds to the film's hollowness. Also, there are moments of sheer absurdity, which are hard to take seriously. Once again, if I write a spoiler review, I'll go into detail.
   So, was this or the similarly themed Interstellar better? Eh, I'll go with Interstellar. Whilst Interstellar suffered from various flaws, it at least kept its large scale up consistently. The conflict seemed more urgent, and more interesting. Though, I will say that this is more optimisitc, which I personally enjoyed. So, would I recommend it? Um, personally, I liked it enough. However, I feel that some people will be disappointed. If you want to just see a movie this weekend, this will probably be good. If you want to see a science adventure, this would be good. If you want to see something of substance, than you probably won't find it with this film. It's not a must-watch, but if you're interested, I say go ahead. Thanks for reading

EPCOT: The Experimental Prototype Community Of Tomorrow

     When one thinks Disney, one thinks of fantasy, princesses, wizards, dragons, and magic. However, one word you probably don't think of is futurism. However, Disney has had a long history futuristic thinking. From Tomorrowland in Disneyland, to the "Man in Space" specials he made in the 50's, Walt Disney had a certain interest in the future, and the possibilities it brought forth.(And before you comment, no, his head is not cryogenically frozen. He was cremated, and his ashes are at  the Forest Lawn Memorial Park in Glendale, California.)   And towards the end of his life, he conceived of a city of the future, which he would build in Florida. While there isn't a city, you know this concept better as "EPCOT.
     By the 1960's, Walt Disney had already established his monumental family-friendly image, and his even larger animation company. From his humble roots as the son of a farmer, through establishing his own animation company with his brother in 1923, his struggles as an cartoonist in the 1920's and 30's, to finally getting success with Snow White and the Seven Dwarves in 1937, he had finally succeeded in the American Dream. However, he had many grandkids, and he was concerned about what kind of world they would inhabit. At the time, the inner city had undergone urban decay, and were not particularly nice places to live. Disney contrasted this with the controlled environment he had at California's Disneyland. So, he thought, what if he and his Imagineers could build not just a theme park, but an entire community, which would be a safe haven, with a controlled environment the same as Disneyland. So, he delved into the topic of city-planning, and drew up plans for a city of his own. At the same time, he had made several pavilions for the 1964 World's Fair, and he began to make plans from that for a Disneyland on the East Coast. However, he decided to build something more impressive. He determined Florida to be the best location for his project, and promptly purchased 27,800 acres of Florida Swampland, and convinced the Florida State Legislature to give his company full control of this land. At said company, the board wasn't entirely convinced that an entire city was feasible from an entertainment company. They wanted a Disneyland on the East Coast. Disney relented, and placed the theme park on the northmost portion of the city, so they could experience the whole thing. In October of 1966, he produced a small film about his EPCOT project( which one can see here). He had hoped to use the film as a way of convincing industry to support his project by contributing technology to it. However, whilst Disney was plotting the future, his future was sadly ending. On December 15th, 1966, Walt Disney died of lung cancer in Burbank, California. After his death, his brother, whilst weary of EPCOT, still carried on the project. However, the Disney board formally nixed any plan. However, they went ahead with the theme park idea. Walt Disney World Resort opened on October 1st, 1971, with the Magic Kingdom, and a few hotels around it. However, that was not the end of the EPCOT idea. The concept morphed from a full on city, to more of a permanent World's fair, where technological innovations would be on display, as well as world cultures.In the late 70's, Roy Walker, CEO of Walt Disney (the company) wanted to re-explore EPCOT. However, the board ultimately decided it wasn't feasible. However, an Epcot center was added to Disney World as a compromise, which opened in 1982. The center would be more of an area to communicate ideas than an actual living place. It still resides in Walt Disney World today. They also built the community of Celebration, Florida in 1996, though that is based more off new urbanism than futurism.
     So, what was this city going to be, exactly? Well, first, and foremost, the city would be build in a radial pattern. It generally rotates out of a single core area. The urban density lowers as you ,move away from the center. A monorail, like the one in Disneyland, would be the main source of transportation, connecting the Northern and Southern portions of the Disney World property. Inside EPCOT, the WEDway PeopleMover would be the main source of transportation. It would be a train that ran on motors in the rails, rather than the vehicle itself. It would transport residents from the city center to the other residential areas. ( A "PeopleMover" can be found in Disney World today.) Cars would only be needed for ""only for weekend pleasure trips." Most of the supplies would be transported through underground tunnels within the city.(Apparently, Ol'Walt didn't want the residents to see the supplies for the city get transported into the city.) These two lines would converge at a Transporation Lobby, which would allow for transfers between the local PeopleMover, and the Monorail to the park. At the city center, there would be the 30-story Cosmopolitan Hotel, where guests could engage in leisurely activities. Outside of the hotel would be the shopping district, called "The International Shopping Center," where various cultures across the worlds were represented. (This evolved into the World Pavilions at the Epcot theme park.) Outside the Shopping Center, there would be the high density residential areas, where the 20k residents of the city would live in apartment. They would be no retirement. Rather, everyone who lived there would be a worker in the city center. Also, the people wouldn't actually own the apartments, but are actually renters. The apartments were actually build to allow for the newest technology to be integrated easily. Residents could come home to find their appliances changed. (That actually scares me.) Finally, there is the Green Belt, and the low Density areas, where the services, like schools, community centers, and churches, would be provided. As for visitors, after they arrive in the Disney World Airport or by car (going through the underground tunnels, like they're going from Britain to France), they will go to the Disney World Welcome Center, where they meet guides who speak in their home languages. After all aspects of their trip are planned, They then move through the EPCOT industrial park, where major American corporations would work to make new technologies for the city. After they had seen the whole area, than they get to the theme park area last.
       So, will it work? Honestly, I don't know. Though, I would note that the scale is too grandiose for a single company who made cartoons. Similarly, the fact that no one owns property would not go over well, with potential buyers. It's clear that it wouldn't work as a city. As a permanent World's fair, it has worked for 30 years. So, why am I talking about this? I mean, there's not like there's a film that describes a future society. And is produced by Disney. And will debut next week....
See you next week.

Sources:

The Original E.P.C.O.T Project:
https://sites.google.com/site/theoriginalepcot/

Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow- Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Prototype_Community_of_Tomorrow_(concept)

Walt Disney's Vision of an EPCOT- JustDisney.com
http://www.justdisney.com/Features/walts_epcot/  

Review: Avengers: Age of Ultron

(To anyone who gets the joke, Congratulations! You win the No-Prize! (That joke actually makes sense in context. Look it up))
Hey, Wayward Followers,
      This is your radical writer, Rambunctious  RC! And today, we discuss the exhilarating exploits of Earth's Mightiest Heroes! Of course, the good folks at Marvel are doing very fine for themselves. 2012's The Avengers, directed by Jaunty Joss Whedon, was a mega-success, on a scale only Galactus would appreciate! Whilst the Distinguished Competition languishes in a continual spiral of low-quality, "dark" movies, Marvel continues to put out only the highest quality movies that any True Believer would appreciate! Of course, this is thanks to a "Marvel formula" of good characterization, daring plots, and a little sense of humor! However, with a such a high standard to uphold, can the sequel "Age of Ultron," compare to the other Modern Marvels, especially with Jaunty Joss at the helm once again? Well, strap in, Wayward followers, and let's take a look!
     Based of the exciting Marvel comic book team created by Stan "The Man" Lee and Jack "King" Kirby, Age of Ultron follows our intrepid heroes, as they infilitrate the castle of the dreaded Baron Strucker ( Tepid Thomas Kretschmann). However, the Baron has an ace up his nefarious sleeve! Two superpowered twins, Quicksilver (Amazing Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Scarlet Witch (Enigmatic Elizabeth Olsen), who attack our heroes! (Are they mutants, the seed sprung from Magneto? Well,... It's possible. They don't mention it). Eventually, the Invincible Iron Man (Reputable Robert Downey, Jr, ) is able to penetrate the fortress, and after the Scarlet Witch induces a mysterious dream into Iron Man's mind, finds the specter previously wielded by Loki, God of Evil! Back at the Avenger's mansion, after Iron Man examines the mysterious contents of the spector, He and the Incredible Hulk's meek alter ego, Bruce Banner (Miraculous Mark Ruffalo) decide to build Ultron, a robotic peace keeping force. However, little do our Marvelous heroes realize that Ultron (Jumping James Spader), once activated, decides that the plague of mankind should be eradicated. He attacks our heroes, and escapes into the wide range of the World Wide Web. Now, the Avengers, including the Mighty Thor (Captivating Chris Hemsworth), the Gorgeous Black Widow (Snazzy Scarlett Johansson), Captain America (Charming Chris Evans) and The Sensational Hawkeye (Jazzy Jeremy Renner), must stop Ulton's evil scheme, and save the human race! But can the Mighty Avengers stop him in time?
     Well, Wayward Followers... You know, I'll stop that now. Still it was fun to write. So, good things. There are a lot of goods things about this film. The acting, the cinematography, and the writing are all superb, as usual. The action is fantastic, often comprehensible, but still fun to watch. I forgot how funny these films are. There is a running joke revolving around Captain America chastising Iron Man for language, which other character use against Cap. The burgeoning romance between Hulk and Black Widow is also an interesting touch. Two characters that normally aren't romantically attached are shown having a romance.  There are many nods to the comics, which don't feel like fanservice, but actually legitimately serve the plot. Whilst I'm sure people might be upset at the changes, (for instance, Hank Pym is not mentioned at all, despite being Ultron's creator in the comics,) the other references will likely placate them.  The plot isn't particularly complex, with the heroes simply trying to fight Ultron, as he tries to destroy the human race. However, there is also the unstable team dynamic, which Ultron exploits to try to further his plans. The design of Ultron is great, harkening back to the original, but adding a new modern twist. Also, Spader's performance brings more a malicious personality to Ultron, OTHER THAN THE ROBOT SPEAK THE COMICS DO. Also, an Avengers character hitherto unseen (who is sprung from a vision)? Awesome, completely awesome. Watch the film, and you'll see.
   There are a few gripes. The film starts immediately, and moves very fast from there, rather than slowly allow the events to build up, and increase the stakes. I suppose that this is because most are already familiar with the franchise and its characters, but still, had they set it up more, and slowed it down, it would feel more intense. Similarly, the climax feels a little long, with various events impeding our heroes. It isn't a bad climax It just it feels too long. Also, I was slightly bothered by the Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Thinking how the X-Men reboot could possibly tie into the MCU kept bothering me through the film.
       So, as good as the first? Nope. However, the first is a hard act to follow. As a Marvel film on its own, it is still a fantastic picture. To anyone who loves superheroes, you'll probably see it anyway, so yeah, see it. If you don't like Superheroes, don't see it. If you just want to see a film, watch this. It makes me very excited for the next batch of Marvel movies. (Wakanda's mention alone makes me excited for Black Panther) Thanks for reading, Wayward Follower, and I'll see you in three weeks!.
       Extraordinary!