FLATLAND: The Movie

Rot your brains, then rot our boards

Moderators: SecondTalon, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

FLATLAND: The Movie

Postby __Kit » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:27 am UTC

Don't know if anyone is interested, just informing you all.

http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/
=]

User avatar
EradicateIV
Posts: 361
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:33 pm UTC
Location: Brownsville, PA
Contact:

Re: FLATLAND: The Movie

Postby EradicateIV » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:28 am UTC

__Kit wrote:Don't know if anyone is interested, just informing you all.

http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/


This reminds me I need to read this book!

Should I watch the movie first and disobey the golden rule?
1010011010

Our truth is only as good as our assumptions.

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Re: FLATLAND: The Movie

Postby __Kit » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:38 am UTC

EradicateIV wrote:
__Kit wrote:Don't know if anyone is interested, just informing you all.

http://www.flatlandthemovie.com/


This reminds me I need to read this book!

Should I watch the movie first and disobey the golden rule?


(from deep within my dark robe) Yes...your transformation to the dark side is almost complete...
=]

User avatar
Oort
Posts: 522
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2006 10:18 pm UTC

Postby Oort » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:11 am UTC

I've been meaning to read that book. Is it worth it?

Also, that movie looks pretty interesting.

User avatar
Alcari
Posts: 377
Joined: Thu May 24, 2007 3:06 pm UTC
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Postby Alcari » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:37 am UTC

Yes, it's worth it. And judging by the trailer, it's very different from the movie.

Also, it's 90 pages...You won't get tired, i promise.
I'm made entirely of flaws, stitched together with good intentions.

free manga and anime music

User avatar
__Kit
Posts: 1576
Joined: Tue May 08, 2007 5:12 am UTC
Location: 16/M/NZ
Contact:

Postby __Kit » Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:58 am UTC

I haven't read of it, but I remember some of you talking or mentioning it within the fora, so I thought some may be interested.

(I just added the word 'fora' to my dictionary)
=]

User avatar
misskwiz
Posts: 96
Joined: Wed Mar 21, 2007 6:19 am UTC

Postby misskwiz » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:05 pm UTC

Interesting. I love the book, I might have to check this out. Although I think there's at least two other versions of Flatland in movie form though. Unless this is one of the ones I'm thinking of.

Apparently there's FIVE?

http://www.imdb.com/find?s=all&q=Flatland

Flatland (1982)
Flatland (1965)
Flatland (2007) (V)
Flatland: The Movie (2007)
Flatland: The Film (2007)

To be honest I don't know what that (V) means though.

User avatar
Dingbats
Posts: 921
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2007 12:46 pm UTC
Location: Sweden
Contact:

Postby Dingbats » Mon Jul 02, 2007 5:26 pm UTC

That is truly awesome. I'm seriously considering buying that.

User avatar
RealGrouchy
Nobody Misses Me As Much As Meaux.
Posts: 6704
Joined: Thu May 18, 2006 7:17 am UTC
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Postby RealGrouchy » Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:55 pm UTC

The book is very short, very simple, and very enjoyable.

- RG>
Jack Saladin wrote:etc., lock'd
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:At least he has the decency to REMOVE THE GAP BETWEEN HIS QUOTES....
Sungura wrote:I don't really miss him. At all. He was pretty grouchy.

User avatar
Blatm
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:43 am UTC

Postby Blatm » Mon Jul 02, 2007 7:21 pm UTC

I too enjoyed the book. Judging from the trailer, the movie is significantly different from the book (most notable difference is the colour*). I'll rent it today (or sometime soon) and tell you what I thought of it.

*Damn you, Firefox spell check!

User avatar
Sprocket
Seymour
Posts: 5951
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:04 pm UTC
Location: impaled on Beck's boney hips.
Contact:

Postby Sprocket » Wed Jul 11, 2007 2:21 am UTC

It does look like it's missed the point a bit. The child of the main character is a female, which is of course impossible. I suppose the classism/racism will remain.
"She’s a free spirit, a wind-rider, she’s at one with nature, and walks with the kodama eidolons”
Image
Image
Image
Image
Image
Zohar wrote: Down with the hipster binary! It's a SPECTRUM!

User avatar
Bakemaster
pretty nice future dick
Posts: 8933
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 2:33 pm UTC
Location: One of those hot places

Postby Bakemaster » Wed Jul 11, 2007 3:21 am UTC

I have no idea why, but the FlatlandTheFilm youtube account is one of three completely random subscribers to my equally random youtube channel. Maybe because I questioned the wisdom behind trying to visually animate something that abstract on his trailer video comments page.
Image
c0 = 2.13085531 × 1014 smoots per fortnight
"Apparently you can't summon an alternate timeline clone of your inner demon, guys! Remember that." —Noc

User avatar
sillybear25
civilized syllabub
Posts: 435
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2007 2:19 am UTC
Location: Look at me, I'm putting a meta-joke in the Location field.

Postby sillybear25 » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:16 pm UTC

I saw Flatland (ca. 1965) at a math team meet (regionals I believe...) before I even knew there was a book... I'll have to look into that...
This space intentionally left blank.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Postby 22/7 » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:54 pm UTC

LOVED this book and am very excited about the movie. However, just from seeing the trailer, I have one MAJOR bone to pick.

If there are only two(2) dimensions, how can they move on [i]on top[i/] of their background. That was one of the great things about the book. There is no ceiling or floor because there is no 3rd dimension.

Sorry for the rant, it just bugged me to see a 2 dimensional object moving over a 2 dimensional object in so-called 2 dimensional space...

and done
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
djn
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 1:33 pm UTC
Location: Oslo, Norway

Postby djn » Wed Jul 11, 2007 4:57 pm UTC

Also, shouldn't we bee seeing their insides instead of faces when looking from above? After all, wouldn't their edges be analogous to our surface, and their contained area like our insides?

kwan3217
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:44 am UTC
Location: Sun-synchronous Earth Orbit

Postby kwan3217 » Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:17 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:LOVED this book and am very excited about the movie. However, just from seeing the trailer, I have one MAJOR bone to pick.

If there are only two(2) dimensions, how can they move on [i]on top[i/] of their background. That was one of the great things about the book. There is no ceiling or floor because there is no 3rd dimension.

Sorry for the rant, it just bugged me to see a 2 dimensional object moving over a 2 dimensional object in so-called 2 dimensional space...

and done


djn wrote:Also, shouldn't we bee seeing their insides instead of faces when looking from above? After all, wouldn't their edges be analogous to our surface, and their contained area like our insides?


Are you watching the same trailer I am? Flatlandthefilm.com ? None of the clips I have seen have any of these flaws. Particularly Flatland - Reflection, where the whole point is that you CAN see the inside of a flatlander.

The thing I've always wondered about, a flaw present even in the original book, is how the square could see in Spaceland. He has a 2D eye with a 1D retina, designed to form the 1D images it is possible to make in flatland. He would have to grow a 2D retina to see even 2D images in Spaceland.

Edit: I guess not the same trailer.
Some people look at what is, and ask "why?"
Some people dream about what isn't, and ask "why not?"
I think about it for a while, then say "Oh, that's why not."

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Postby Yakk » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:00 pm UTC

22/7 wrote:LOVED this book and am very excited about the movie. However, just from seeing the trailer, I have one MAJOR bone to pick.

If there are only two(2) dimensions, how can they move on [i]on top[i/] of their background. That was one of the great things about the book. There is no ceiling or floor because there is no 3rd dimension.


What you see as "floor" is the colour of the local "air". :)

Just as a 3 dimensional being swimming in water displaces the air...

But, practically, it is there to make it easier to see things from a dimension above.

There are roofs in the book -- the exist to keep out the rain.

Things aren't simply polygons in the movie -- instead, they use relatively complex two-dimensional structures, like we use relatively complex 3 dimensional structures.

Sorry for the rant, it just bugged me to see a 2 dimensional object moving over a 2 dimensional object in so-called 2 dimensional space...


djn wrote:Also, shouldn't we bee seeing their insides instead of faces when looking from above? After all, wouldn't their edges be analogous to our surface, and their contained area like our insides?


We see the sides of their faces. The "eye" we see includes the inside of their eye-ball, and the mouth we see includes the inside of their mouth.

As for the social commentary -- todays social issues are different than those of the original author of Flatland. Redoing it to point at todays social issues would be the proper approach.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: FLATLAND: The Movie

Postby lesliesage » Wed Jul 11, 2007 10:20 pm UTC

EradicateIV wrote:This reminds me I need to read this book!
I know, this book has been on my list since 2002. I can never find it in used book stores. Time to go to the library.

kwan3217
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 1:44 am UTC
Location: Sun-synchronous Earth Orbit

Postby kwan3217 » Wed Jul 11, 2007 11:07 pm UTC

Flatland has long since become public domain. It's at Wikisource
Some people look at what is, and ask "why?"
Some people dream about what isn't, and ask "why not?"
I think about it for a while, then say "Oh, that's why not."


Return to “Movies and TV Shows”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests