What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Great Works Draft (1 Viewer)

27.11 Movie- The Third Man, Dir. Carol Reed

On any given day, my favorite movie (same goes for Seven Samurai, not so much Rules of the Game). IMO, the top of the Film Noir genre with stunning direction (Carol Reed), acting (Joe Cotton and Orson Wells with a great supporting cast), writing, and even above all that- cinematography; every shot is framed and lit to perfection in bombed out post-war Vienna (c.1949). Cotton's schlubby everyman anti-hero is genius. Wells is... well, Wells- perfectly inhabits the smirking amoral but charismatic role.

The zythyr? led score is one of my favorite movie scores- and the final ending IS my favorite ending... evah.

 
tim, you dont have to worry about judging "Jungle" - i have a co-judge to do that.

and i am decidedly NOT a metal fan. it simply IS the most perfectly crafted rock song i've ever heard. theme, hooks, arc, solos, bridges - a tightly-woven kickass masterpiece *fistpump*
OK. This is new, though. Questions:1. Who is your co-judge?

2. Do you want to allow the other judges to choose co-judges as well, and simply take their word that they have done so?

3. Do you want me to judge the selections of other category judges, or do you want to do this?

4. I am counting on you to judge my plays, and also to judge Misfit Blondes' plays and wildcard selections. Are you good with this?

This is still your show, WP. However you want to handle these issues, just let me know.

 
Robert McKee speaks in depth about the greatness of Chinatown's script in his tremendous screenwriting book Story. Any of you read it? Really fascinating for anyone interested in narrative storytelling in any of its forms.

 
I have a rap song I really want to take - but have been sitting on it, just not sure how it will get received.
Well, Wikkidpissah will be judging that one, not me. I'm not a rap fan myself, though when judging I really do try to pay attention to the importance of the work.But again, as I tried to point out in the WGD with novelists, it seems to me that when we're dealing with the 60 very greatest songs of all time, which is a pretty small number when you think about it, the plain truth is that not all genres are going to be equal. IMO, a list of 60 should be dominated by pop, rock, and standards (meaning jazz or what is now termed "Adult Contemporary.") Other genres, no matter how well thought of the song is within it's own individual niche, should really be few and far between, and are probably going to be ranked low relative to the other selections when they are chosen.
I don't know you, Tim, so I hate to join the mob mentality but when you say things like this I really can't help it. Do you realize how you have contradicted yourself?You say you try to pay attention to the importance of the work...yet you think that the 60 songs should just come from 3 categories? Tell me how repeating the next best song down the line 20 times over in so few genres will truly illustrate important works. We need groundbreaking, innovative, genre changing, eye opening stuff here. Not just a googled list of knee slappin old standards. I have to say I am really glad you aren't judging this category.
 
tim, you dont have to worry about judging "Jungle" - i have a co-judge to do that.

and i am decidedly NOT a metal fan. it simply IS the most perfectly crafted rock song i've ever heard. theme, hooks, arc, solos, bridges - a tightly-woven kickass masterpiece *fistpump*
OK. This is new, though. Questions:1. Who is your co-judge?

2. Do you want to allow the other judges to choose co-judges as well, and simply take their word that they have done so?

3. Do you want me to judge the selections of other category judges, or do you want to do this?

4. I am counting on you to judge my plays, and also to judge Misfit Blondes' plays and wildcard selections. Are you good with this?

This is still your show, WP. However you want to handle these issues, just let me know.
Glad you picked up on that, timschochet.I like the idea...a lot. I'm a little concerned about you being somewhat overwhelmed trying to rank WildCards and then placing the judges picks. I'd be in favor of recruiting my nemesis Arsenal of Doom to rank my three paintings if you are open to that concept.

 
SKIPPED

23.05 - Doug B (requested skip)

24.16 - Doug B (autoskip)

25.05 - Doug B (autoskip)

26.16 - Doug B (autoskip)

27.05 - Doug B - (autoskip)

27.10 - Thatguy (autoskip until further notice)

27.12 - Team CIA (autoskip)

27.13 - Uncle Humuna - OTC and typing!

27.14 - MisfitBlondes

27.15 - Bob Lee Swagger

27.16 - Scott Norwood

27.17 - DC Thunder

27.18 - Genedoc/Bonzai

27.19 - Tirnan (autoskip if not here)

27.20 - Yankee23Fan (autoskip - in federal court)

 
I have a rap song I really want to take - but have been sitting on it, just not sure how it will get received.
Well, Wikkidpissah will be judging that one, not me. I'm not a rap fan myself, though when judging I really do try to pay attention to the importance of the work.But again, as I tried to point out in the WGD with novelists, it seems to me that when we're dealing with the 60 very greatest songs of all time, which is a pretty small number when you think about it, the plain truth is that not all genres are going to be equal. IMO, a list of 60 should be dominated by pop, rock, and standards (meaning jazz or what is now termed "Adult Contemporary.") Other genres, no matter how well thought of the song is within it's own individual niche, should really be few and far between, and are probably going to be ranked low relative to the other selections when they are chosen.
I don't know you, Tim, so I hate to join the mob mentality but when you say things like this I really can't help it. Do you realize how you have contradicted yourself?You say you try to pay attention to the importance of the work...yet you think that the 60 songs should just come from 3 categories? Tell me how repeating the next best song down the line 20 times over in so few genres will truly illustrate important works. We need groundbreaking, innovative, genre changing, eye opening stuff here. Not just a googled list of knee slappin old standards. I have to say I am really glad you aren't judging this category.
timschochet makes a valid point - it's been nearly a millennium since music was organized into song, but rap has but a 3 decade or so history. I would like to see it represented, though, and I think the pick I have in mind meets the 'greatest' and 'importance' criteria.
 
I have a rap song I really want to take - but have been sitting on it, just not sure how it will get received.
Well, Wikkidpissah will be judging that one, not me. I'm not a rap fan myself, though when judging I really do try to pay attention to the importance of the work.But again, as I tried to point out in the WGD with novelists, it seems to me that when we're dealing with the 60 very greatest songs of all time, which is a pretty small number when you think about it, the plain truth is that not all genres are going to be equal. IMO, a list of 60 should be dominated by pop, rock, and standards (meaning jazz or what is now termed "Adult Contemporary.") Other genres, no matter how well thought of the song is within it's own individual niche, should really be few and far between, and are probably going to be ranked low relative to the other selections when they are chosen.
I don't know you, Tim, so I hate to join the mob mentality but when you say things like this I really can't help it. Do you realize how you have contradicted yourself?You say you try to pay attention to the importance of the work...yet you think that the 60 songs should just come from 3 categories? Tell me how repeating the next best song down the line 20 times over in so few genres will truly illustrate important works. We need groundbreaking, innovative, genre changing, eye opening stuff here. Not just a googled list of knee slappin old standards. I have to say I am really glad you aren't judging this category.
I am a huge fan of groundbreaking, innovative, game changing, eye opening. I really am. But I am also a believer in influence as well. For something to be amazingly influential, it also has to be amazingly popular- not necessarily with the public (though this can be of great importance), but at least with other members of the industry. If you're dealing with 200 songs, that really opens it up for much more of what you're talking about. But we've got 60 to choose from. With 60, IMO, it's hard not to recognize the cream as being from the areas I mentioned.
 
I have a rap song I really want to take - but have been sitting on it, just not sure how it will get received.
with the possible exception of pop country, i have albums/downloads from every music genre - Gregorian chants to Slipknot, Buxtehude to Wu Tang. everything gets a fair hearing from me.
 
tim, you dont have to worry about judging "Jungle" - i have a co-judge to do that.

and i am decidedly NOT a metal fan. it simply IS the most perfectly crafted rock song i've ever heard. theme, hooks, arc, solos, bridges - a tightly-woven kickass masterpiece *fistpump*
OK. This is new, though. Questions:1. Who is your co-judge?

2. Do you want to allow the other judges to choose co-judges as well, and simply take their word that they have done so?

3. Do you want me to judge the selections of other category judges, or do you want to do this?

4. I am counting on you to judge my plays, and also to judge Misfit Blondes' plays and wildcard selections. Are you good with this?

This is still your show, WP. However you want to handle these issues, just let me know.
Glad you picked up on that, timschochet.I like the idea...a lot. I'm a little concerned about you being somewhat overwhelmed trying to rank WildCards and then placing the judges picks. I'd be in favor of recruiting my nemesis Arsenal of Doom to rank my three paintings if you are open to that concept.
That would be great, actually. Wildcards and plays are more than enough for me.In fact, I propose that each category judge who is also a drafter name another drafter who they want to draft their picks.THis will save me the effort and responsibility.

 
MOVIE RUN!!!

I didn't really want to draft this here (my short short list of films has about 10 9 flicks), but I can't pass it up in the 27th round:

27.13 The Searchers - John Ford (Film)

The Searchers tells the emotionally complex story of a perilous, hate-ridden quest and Homeric-style odyssey of self-discovery after a Comanche massacre, while also exploring the themes of racial prejudice and sexism. Its meandering tale examines the inner psychological turmoil of a fiercely independent, crusading man obsessed with revenge and hatred, who searches for his two nieces (Pippa Scott and Natalie Wood) among the "savages" over a five-year period. The film's major tagline echoed the search: "he had to find her...he had to find her."
John Ford's ''The Searchers'' contains scenes of magnificence, and one of John Wayne's best performances. There are shots that are astonishingly beautiful. A cover story in New York magazine called it the most influential movie in American history. And yet at its center is a difficult question, because the Wayne character is racist without apology--and so, in a less outspoken way, are the other white characters. Is the film intended to endorse their attitudes, or to dramatize and regret them? Today we see it through enlightened eyes, but in 1956 many audiences accepted its harsh view of Indians.

Ford's eye for composition was bold and sure. Consider the funeral early in the film, with a wagon at low right, a cluster of mourners in the middle left, then a diagonal up the hill to the grave, as they all sing Ford's favorite hymn, ''Shall We Gather at the River'' (he used it again in the wedding scene). Consider one of the most famous of all Ford shots, the search party in a valley as Indians ominously ride parallel to them, silhouetted against the sky. And the dramatic first sight of the adult Debbie, running down the side of a sand dune behind Ethan, who doesn't see her. The opening and closing shots, of Ethan arriving and leaving, framed in a doorway. The poignancy with which he stands alone at the door, one hand on the opposite elbow, forgotten for a moment after delivering Debbie home. These shots are among the treasures of the cinema.
The Searchers (1956) is considered by many to be a true American masterpiece of filmmaking, and the best, most influential, and perhaps most-admired film of director John Ford.

With dazzling on-location, gorgeous VistaVision cinematography (including the stunning red sandstone rock formations of Monument Valley) by Winton C. Hoch in Ford's most beloved locale, the film handsomely captures the beauty and isolating danger of the frontier.
Ten to fifteen years after the film's debut, and after reassessing it as a cinematic milestone, a generation of "New Hollywood" film directors, French film critics and others, including Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, Jean-Luc Godard, Wim Wenders, and George Lucas, praised the film. They traced their own fascination with film to this mythic John Ford western, and in reverence, reflected his work in their own films (including Star Wars).
We may still be waiting for the Great American Novel, but John Ford gave us the Great American Film in 1956. The Searchers gathers the deepest concerns of American literature, distilling 200 years of tradition in a way available only to popular art, and with a beauty available only to a supreme visual poet like Ford.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The best American movies all coming off the board now. :goodposting:

ETA: Crap, is my new avatar a red X for everyone?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MOVIE RUN!!!

I didn't really want to draft this here (my short short list of films has about 10 9 flicks), but I can't pass it up in the 27th round:

27.13 The Searchers - John Ford (Film)

The Searchers tells the emotionally complex story of a perilous, hate-ridden quest and Homeric-style odyssey of self-discovery after a Comanche massacre, while also exploring the themes of racial prejudice and sexism. Its meandering tale examines the inner psychological turmoil of a fiercely independent, crusading man obsessed with revenge and hatred, who searches for his two nieces (Pippa Scott and Natalie Wood) among the "savages" over a five-year period. The film's major tagline echoed the search: "he had to find her...he had to find her."
John Ford's ''The Searchers'' contains scenes of magnificence, and one of John Wayne's best performances. There are shots that are astonishingly beautiful. A cover story in New York magazine called it the most influential movie in American history. And yet at its center is a difficult question, because the Wayne character is racist without apology--and so, in a less outspoken way, are the other white characters. Is the film intended to endorse their attitudes, or to dramatize and regret them? Today we see it through enlightened eyes, but in 1956 many audiences accepted its harsh view of Indians.

Ford's eye for composition was bold and sure. Consider the funeral early in the film, with a wagon at low right, a cluster of mourners in the middle left, then a diagonal up the hill to the grave, as they all sing Ford's favorite hymn, ''Shall We Gather at the River'' (he used it again in the wedding scene). Consider one of the most famous of all Ford shots, the search party in a valley as Indians ominously ride parallel to them, silhouetted against the sky. And the dramatic first sight of the adult Debbie, running down the side of a sand dune behind Ethan, who doesn't see her. The opening and closing shots, of Ethan arriving and leaving, framed in a doorway. The poignancy with which he stands alone at the door, one hand on the opposite elbow, forgotten for a moment after delivering Debbie home. These shots are among the treasures of the cinema.
The Searchers (1956) is considered by many to be a true American masterpiece of filmmaking, and the best, most influential, and perhaps most-admired film of director John Ford.

With dazzling on-location, gorgeous VistaVision cinematography (including the stunning red sandstone rock formations of Monument Valley) by Winton C. Hoch in Ford's most beloved locale, the film handsomely captures the beauty and isolating danger of the frontier.
Ten to fifteen years after the film's debut, and after reassessing it as a cinematic milestone, a generation of "New Hollywood" film directors, French film critics and others, including Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Steven Spielberg, John Milius, Jean-Luc Godard, Wim Wenders, and George Lucas, praised the film. They traced their own fascination with film to this mythic John Ford western, and in reverence, reflected his work in their own films (including Star Wars).
Well, #### me.
 
tim, you dont have to worry about judging "Jungle" - i have a co-judge to do that.

and i am decidedly NOT a metal fan. it simply IS the most perfectly crafted rock song i've ever heard. theme, hooks, arc, solos, bridges - a tightly-woven kickass masterpiece *fistpump*
OK. This is new, though. Questions:1. Who is your co-judge?

2. Do you want to allow the other judges to choose co-judges as well, and simply take their word that they have done so?

3. Do you want me to judge the selections of other category judges, or do you want to do this?

4. I am counting on you to judge my plays, and also to judge Misfit Blondes' plays and wildcard selections. Are you good with this?

This is still your show, WP. However you want to handle these issues, just let me know.
yeah, i've only mentioned my co-judge about 20 times, from the beginning, so i see how that couldve taken u by surprise. i'll say nothing more about the person than that its a forum member who has been reading the thread from the start. dont care what y'all think about that, dont care what u do about having ur own co-judges. will say that our rankings will be final & irrevocable. and i'm fine filling in the gaps wherever you or anyone needs that. nufced
 
MisfitBlondes' Pick

27.14 Native Son - Richard Wright (Novel)

Never has a book made me so angry and so empathetic at the same time as this one did. It sickens me and inspires me. It proved the racial divide of the time more accurately and blatantly than ever before.

Native Son (1940) is a novel by American author Richard Wright. The novel tells the story of 20-year old Bigger Thomas, an African American living in utter poverty. Bigger lived in Chicago's South Side ghetto in the 1930s. Bigger was always getting into trouble as a youth, but upon receiving a job at the home of the Daltons, a rich, white family, he experienced a realization of his identity. He accidentally kills a white woman, runs from the police, rapes and kills his girlfriend and is then caught and tried. "I didn't want to kill", Bigger shouted. "But what I killed for, I am! It must've been pretty deep in me to make me kill."

Wright gets inside the head of "brute Negro" Bigger, revealing his feelings, thoughts and point of view as he commits crimes and is confronted with racism, violence and debasement. The novel's treatment of Bigger and his motivations conforms to the conventions of literary naturalism.

While not apologizing for Bigger's crimes, Wright is sympathetic to the systemic inevitability behind them. The novel is a powerful statement about racial inequality and social injustices so deep that it becomes nearly impossible to determine where societal expectations/conditioning end and free will begins. As Bigger's lawyer points out, there is no escape from this destiny for his client or any other black American, since they are the necessary product of the society that formed them and told them since birth who exactly they were supposed to be. "No American Negro exists," Wright once wrote "who does not have his private Bigger Thomas living in his skull." Frantz Fanon discusses this feeling in his 1952 essay L'Experience Vecue du Noir, or "The Fact of Blackness". "In the end," writes Fanon, "Bigger Thomas acts. To put an end to his tension, he acts, he responds to the world's anticipation."
 
Not sure if my next pick will be too broad, so let me know if I need to narrow it down, but:

27.15 - Dialectic - Philosophical/Political Idea

I guess I'll credit Socrates via Plato, but dialectic also has far-reaching influence in stuff that I'll leave out for fear of spotlighting.

Dialectic (also called dialectics or the dialectical method) is a method of argument, which has been central to both Eastern and Western philosophy since ancient times. The word "dialectic" originates in Ancient Greece, and was made popular by Plato's Socratic dialogues. Dialectic is rooted in the ordinary practice of a dialogue between two people who hold different ideas and wish to persuade each other. The presupposition of a dialectical argument is that the participants, even if they do not agree, share at least some meanings and principles of inference. Different forms of dialectical reason have emerged in the East and in the West, as well as during different eras of history (see below).

Dialectics is based around three (or four) basic metaphysical concepts:

1. Everything is transient and finite, existing in the medium of time (this idea is not accepted by some dialecticians).

2. Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides (contradictions).

3. Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other (quantitative change leads to qualitative change).

4. Change moves in spirals (or helixes), not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")

Within this broad qualification, dialectics have a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of dialectic is identical to the extensive history of philosophy.[1]. The basic idea is perhaps already present in Heraclitus of Ephesus, who held that all is in constant change, as a result of inner strife and opposition.[2][3][4] Only fragments of his works and commentary remain, however.

The aim of the dialectical method is resolution of the disagreement through rational discussion,[5][6] and ultimately the search for truth. One way to proceed — the Socratic method — is to show that a given hypothesis (with other admissions) leads to a contradiction; thus, forcing the withdrawal of the hypothesis as a candidate for truth (see also reductio ad absurdum). Another way of trying to resolve a disagreement is by denying some presupposition of both the contending thesis and antithesis; thereby moving to a third (syn)thesis or "sublation". However, the rejection of the participant's presuppositions can be resisted, which might generate a second-order controversy.[7]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
27.16 Optics (scientific discovery)

Optics began with the development of lenses by the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The earliest known lenses were made from polished crystal, often quartz, and have been dated as early as 700 BC for Assyrian lenses such as the Layard/Nimrud lens.[3] The ancient Romans and Greeks filled glass spheres with water to make lenses. These practical developments were followed by the development of theories of light and vision by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers, and the development of geometrical optics in the Greco-Roman world. Plato first articulated his emission theory, the idea that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes and commented on the parity reversal of mirrors in Timaeus..[4] Some hundred years later, Euclid wrote a treatise entitled Optics wherein he describes the mathematical rules of perspective and describes the effects of refraction qualitatively.[5] Ptolemy, in his treatise Optics, summarizes much of Euclid and goes on to describe a way to measure the angle of refraction, though he failed to notice the empirical relationship between it and the angle of incidence.[6]

Al-Kindi (c. 801–73) was one of the earliest important writers on optics in the Islamic world. In a work known in the West as De radiis stellarum, al-Kindi resurrected Plato's emission theory[7] which had an influence on later Western scholars such as Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon.[8] In 984, the Persian mathematician, Ibn Sahl wrote a treatise "On Burning Mirrors and Lenses", correctly describing a law of refraction mathematically equivalent to Snell's law.[9] He used his law of refraction to compute the shapes of lenses and mirrors that focus light at a single point on the axis. In the early 11th century, Ibn al-Haytham wrote his Book of Optics, which extensively documented the then-current Islamic understanding of optics; it included the first descriptions of optical phenomena associated with pinholes and concave lenses,[10][11] and greatly influenced the later development of the modern telescope.[12]

In the 13th century, Roger Bacon, inspired by Ibn al-Haytham, used parts of glass spheres as magnifying glasses, and discovered that light reflects from objects rather than being released from them. In Italy, around 1284, Salvino D'Armate invented the first wearable eyeglasses.[13] The first rudimentary telescopes were developed independently in the 1570s and 1580s by Leonard Digges,[14] Taqi al-Din[15] and Giambattista della Porta.[16]

The earliest known working telescopes were refracting telescopes, a type which rely entirely on lenses for magnification. Their development in the Netherlands in 1608 was by three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, Holland, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar. In Italy, Galileo greatly improved upon these designs the following year. Niccolò Zucchi constructed the first reflecting telescope in 1616, which incorporated a mirror to improve magnification. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved reflecting telescope that bears his name, the Newtonian reflector.[17]

The first microscope was made around 1595, also in Middelburg.[18] Three different eyeglass makers have been given credit for the invention: Lippershey (who also developed the first real telescope); Janssen; and his father, Hans. The coining of the name "microscope" has been credited to Giovanni Faber, who gave that name to Galileo's compound microscope in 1625.[19]

Optical theory progressed in the mid-17th century with treatises written by philosopher René Descartes, which explained a variety of optical phenomena including reflection and refraction by assuming that light was emitted by objects which produced it.[20] This differed substantively from ancient Greek notions that light emanated from the eye. In the late 1660s and early 1670s, Newton expanded Descartes' ideas into a corpuscle theory of light, famously showing that white light, instead of being a unique color, was really a composite of different colors that can be separated into a spectrum with a prism. In 1690, Christian Huygens proposed a wave theory for light based on suggestions that had been made by Robert Hooke in 1664. Hooke himself publicly criticized Newton's theories of light and the feud between the two lasted until Hooke's death. In 1704, Newton published Opticks and, at the time, partly because of his success in other areas of physics, he was generally considered to be the victor in the debate over the nature of light.[20]

Newtonian optics and emission theory was generally accepted until the early 19th century when Thomas Young and Augustin-Jean Fresnel conducted experiments on the interference of light that firmly established light's wave-nature. Young's famous double slit experiment showed that light followed the law of superposition, something normal particles do not follow. This work led to a theory of diffraction for light and opened an entire area of study in physical optics.[21] Wave optics was successfully unified with electromagnetic theory by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860s.[22]

The next development in optical theory came in 1899 when Max Planck correctly modeled blackbody radiation by assuming that the exchange of energy between light and matter only occurred in discrete amounts he called quanta.[23] In 1905, Albert Einstein published the theory of the photoelectric effect that firmly established the quantization of light itself.[24] In 1913, Niels Bohr showed that atoms could only emit discrete amounts of energy, thus explaining the discrete lines seen in emission and absorption spectra.[25] The understanding of the interaction between light and matter, which followed from these developments, not only formed the basis of quantum optics but also was crucial for the development of quantum mechanics as a whole.

Quantum optics gained practical importance with the invention of the maser in 1953 and the laser in 1960.[26] Following the work of Paul Dirac in quantum field theory, George Sudarshan, Roy J. Glauber, and Leonard Mandel applied quantum theory to the electromagnetic field in the 1950s and 1960s to gain a more detailed understanding of photodetection and the statistics of light. The ultimate culmination was the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which explains all optics and electromagnetic processes in general as being the result of the exchange of real and virtual photons.[27]

 
This one might go undrafted for a while, but I'm taking it now for the "speak to me" factor. I was too young to watch this when it came out, and it was just a few years ago that I watched it for the first time. Definitely one of my top ten favorites movies, and there's a strong possibility that it will be referenced later in the draft.

27.12 - The Last Picture Show, Movie (directed by Peter Bogdanovich)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This one might go undrafted for a while, but I'm taking it now for the "speak to me" factor. I was too young to watch this when it came out, and it was just a few years ago that I watched it for the first time. Definitely one of my top ten favorites movies, and there's a strong possibility that it will be referenced later in the draft.

27.12 - The Last Picture Show, Movie (directed by Peter Bogdanovich)
Stellar pick.
 
27.16 Optics (scientific discovery)

Optics began with the development of lenses by the ancient Egyptians and Mesopotamians. The earliest known lenses were made from polished crystal, often quartz, and have been dated as early as 700 BC for Assyrian lenses such as the Layard/Nimrud lens.[3] The ancient Romans and Greeks filled glass spheres with water to make lenses. These practical developments were followed by the development of theories of light and vision by ancient Greek and Indian philosophers, and the development of geometrical optics in the Greco-Roman world. Plato first articulated his emission theory, the idea that visual perception is accomplished by rays of light emitted by the eyes and commented on the parity reversal of mirrors in Timaeus..[4] Some hundred years later, Euclid wrote a treatise entitled Optics wherein he describes the mathematical rules of perspective and describes the effects of refraction qualitatively.[5] Ptolemy, in his treatise Optics, summarizes much of Euclid and goes on to describe a way to measure the angle of refraction, though he failed to notice the empirical relationship between it and the angle of incidence.[6]

Al-Kindi (c. 801–73) was one of the earliest important writers on optics in the Islamic world. In a work known in the West as De radiis stellarum, al-Kindi resurrected Plato's emission theory[7] which had an influence on later Western scholars such as Robert Grosseteste and Roger Bacon.[8] In 984, the Persian mathematician, Ibn Sahl wrote a treatise "On Burning Mirrors and Lenses", correctly describing a law of refraction mathematically equivalent to Snell's law.[9] He used his law of refraction to compute the shapes of lenses and mirrors that focus light at a single point on the axis. In the early 11th century, Ibn al-Haytham wrote his Book of Optics, which extensively documented the then-current Islamic understanding of optics; it included the first descriptions of optical phenomena associated with pinholes and concave lenses,[10][11] and greatly influenced the later development of the modern telescope.[12]

In the 13th century, Roger Bacon, inspired by Ibn al-Haytham, used parts of glass spheres as magnifying glasses, and discovered that light reflects from objects rather than being released from them. In Italy, around 1284, Salvino D'Armate invented the first wearable eyeglasses.[13] The first rudimentary telescopes were developed independently in the 1570s and 1580s by Leonard Digges,[14] Taqi al-Din[15] and Giambattista della Porta.[16]

The earliest known working telescopes were refracting telescopes, a type which rely entirely on lenses for magnification. Their development in the Netherlands in 1608 was by three individuals: Hans Lippershey and Zacharias Janssen, who were spectacle makers in Middelburg, Holland, and Jacob Metius of Alkmaar. In Italy, Galileo greatly improved upon these designs the following year. Niccolò Zucchi constructed the first reflecting telescope in 1616, which incorporated a mirror to improve magnification. In 1668, Isaac Newton designed an improved reflecting telescope that bears his name, the Newtonian reflector.[17]

The first microscope was made around 1595, also in Middelburg.[18] Three different eyeglass makers have been given credit for the invention: Lippershey (who also developed the first real telescope); Janssen; and his father, Hans. The coining of the name "microscope" has been credited to Giovanni Faber, who gave that name to Galileo's compound microscope in 1625.[19]

Optical theory progressed in the mid-17th century with treatises written by philosopher René Descartes, which explained a variety of optical phenomena including reflection and refraction by assuming that light was emitted by objects which produced it.[20] This differed substantively from ancient Greek notions that light emanated from the eye. In the late 1660s and early 1670s, Newton expanded Descartes' ideas into a corpuscle theory of light, famously showing that white light, instead of being a unique color, was really a composite of different colors that can be separated into a spectrum with a prism. In 1690, Christian Huygens proposed a wave theory for light based on suggestions that had been made by Robert Hooke in 1664. Hooke himself publicly criticized Newton's theories of light and the feud between the two lasted until Hooke's death. In 1704, Newton published Opticks and, at the time, partly because of his success in other areas of physics, he was generally considered to be the victor in the debate over the nature of light.[20]

Newtonian optics and emission theory was generally accepted until the early 19th century when Thomas Young and Augustin-Jean Fresnel conducted experiments on the interference of light that firmly established light's wave-nature. Young's famous double slit experiment showed that light followed the law of superposition, something normal particles do not follow. This work led to a theory of diffraction for light and opened an entire area of study in physical optics.[21] Wave optics was successfully unified with electromagnetic theory by James Clerk Maxwell in the 1860s.[22]

The next development in optical theory came in 1899 when Max Planck correctly modeled blackbody radiation by assuming that the exchange of energy between light and matter only occurred in discrete amounts he called quanta.[23] In 1905, Albert Einstein published the theory of the photoelectric effect that firmly established the quantization of light itself.[24] In 1913, Niels Bohr showed that atoms could only emit discrete amounts of energy, thus explaining the discrete lines seen in emission and absorption spectra.[25] The understanding of the interaction between light and matter, which followed from these developments, not only formed the basis of quantum optics but also was crucial for the development of quantum mechanics as a whole.

Quantum optics gained practical importance with the invention of the maser in 1953 and the laser in 1960.[26] Following the work of Paul Dirac in quantum field theory, George Sudarshan, Roy J. Glauber, and Leonard Mandel applied quantum theory to the electromagnetic field in the 1950s and 1960s to gain a more detailed understanding of photodetection and the statistics of light. The ultimate culmination was the theory of quantum electrodynamics, which explains all optics and electromagnetic processes in general as being the result of the exchange of real and virtual photons.[27]
That seems...what's the word...unfocused.
 
27.09 CHINATOWN (1974), movie

for my money, the perfect movie. impossibly great story - the tale of the birth of a city, its factions, its greed; tragic love story; incredible twist - sly, snappy dialogue, magnificent performances, stylishly shot by a master, even a great soundtrack. the perfect movie.
Plus it scores big points with this crowd.
 
tim, you dont have to worry about judging "Jungle" - i have a co-judge to do that.

and i am decidedly NOT a metal fan. it simply IS the most perfectly crafted rock song i've ever heard. theme, hooks, arc, solos, bridges - a tightly-woven kickass masterpiece *fistpump*
OK. This is new, though. Questions:1. Who is your co-judge?

2. Do you want to allow the other judges to choose co-judges as well, and simply take their word that they have done so?

3. Do you want me to judge the selections of other category judges, or do you want to do this?

4. I am counting on you to judge my plays, and also to judge Misfit Blondes' plays and wildcard selections. Are you good with this?

This is still your show, WP. However you want to handle these issues, just let me know.
yeah, i've only mentioned my co-judge about 20 times, from the beginning, so i see how that couldve taken u by surprise. i'll say nothing more about the person than that its a forum member who has been reading the thread from the start. dont care what y'all think about that, dont care what u do about having ur own co-judges. will say that our rankings will be final & irrevocable. and i'm fine filling in the gaps wherever you or anyone needs that. nufced
OK, I'm sorry that you seem to have regarded my questions as some form of attack. They weren't intended that way. You may have mentioned a co-judge in the past but I did not realize that the co-judge was meant to evaluate YOUR picks- I thought it was to help you decide your evaluations. Since from the beginning I have also stated several times that I would be evaluating picks by other judges in their judged categories, (since this is how we did it before) AND I even commented on some of your other musical picks in this regard (please note my comments on Let It Bleed)obviously I didn't get "the message", and so I can see how that could have taken YOU by surprise. It seems like everytime I try to clarify rules for the purpose of having a smoother draft satisfying to everyone I get attacked for it. I've been called a dictator at least a dozen times in this thread, been personally insulted countless times, and now the guy who started the whole thing basically implies I'm an idiot and adds that he couldn't care less what I think. Of all the drafts I have run, this has been by far the most aggravating.

I am begging someone, anyone, to take over as commissioner. Just copy the first three posts and start a new thread. That will work better anyway since I will be leaving in two weeks. I want to be a drafter, I really enjoy it, but let someone else handle all the other crap. I will keep my mouth shut and defer to whatever rules are set up. You can judge the wildcards and plays too. Who is interested in taking this off of my hands? I really don't want to be commissioner any more.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top