LRRcast - Decadent Magic Trailers: James Cameron Sucks Xmas

[James]

It's a christmas miracle! A podcast!!

[Metcarfre]

OF COURSE I left my compy at home so I can't download it!

[King Kool]

HOLY CRAP IN A PITA! I can finally Audiosurf the LRRcast! After all these decades! I can continue to ignore my family!

EDIT: FUCK I HIT A GRAY BLOCK AFTER FORTY MINUTES FUCK

Also, as far as them taking properties and trying to shoehorn them into marketable properties, remember the Prince of Persia? It wanted to be Pirates of the Caribbean SO FUCKIN' HARD.

[Vigafre]

I'd like to say that James did an awesome job with the titling of this LRRcast.

[Yaxley]

I'd like to say that James did an awesome job with the titling of this LRRcast.

I second this very much, though I should probably go be with my family on Christmas instead of listening to it right now.

*subtly grabs a pair of headphones, just in case*

[Littleman 64]

This podcast is in contending for best christmast present.

[Noxshade]

Storm Crow descending, winter unending!

[Chuckles]

This podcast is in contending for best christmast present.

Contend nothin'. I love me some LRR.

"Screw the family, I have LRRcast!"

[Mighty Magnus]

YAY, more LRRy podcast goodness.
Hope the team and every one here on the forums had a good Christmas/Festive season or whatever you require to be happy.

[Dubious_wolf]

Movies based on video games not a good idea. I am really glad that Nathan Fillion isn't in the Uncharted movie, not even he could save that shit.

[Pigmy Wurm]

Movies based on video games not a good idea. I am really glad that Nathan Fillion isn't in the Uncharted movie, not even he could save that shit.

the problem with the movie is not that it is shit, the premise sounds promising. The issue is that it isn't uncharted.

I understand why Hollywood feels the need to play around with most video games, a lot of the stuff doesn't translate well and/or has a very niche appeal, but all they had to do was read a plot summery, trim some elements to fit it under 2:30 and you have a movie, its that easy.

As far as the podcast it's self. Really glad you posted it. After a month of no podcast I was getting antsy, but felt it I posted or tweeted anything about it I would come off as a dick. You guys make so much great content that I don't want sound entitled but could you please give us a heads up if you think a podcasst or what not will be a long time coming, at least to save us from constantly checking the site.

[kais58]

Stuff about size of moon

The moon appearing bigger closer to the horizon is not because of diffraction through the atmosphere it's just your eyes making it appear bigger because you can see other objects in the foreground, if you take a picture of it on the horizon compared to when it's high in the sky, it's the same size.

[phlip]

it's just your eyes making it appear bigger because you can see other objects in the foreground

It's not that either - even if you're in the middle of a featureless plain, and there are no objects in the foreground to compare the moon to, it still appears bigger on the horizon than high in the sky.

The best hypothesis I've heard is that for most objects, something directly above you is much closer than something on the horizon... much like how the ground directly below you is closer than the ground at the horizon. Take, say, a bird, or a plane (or Superman) flying overhead... it starts out very distant and small-looking at one horizon, then relatively close and large overhead, then distant and small at the other horizon. And this is going to be the same for any terrestrial thing you might see above you - birds, planes, clouds, treetops... they all work the same: higher in the sky == closer to you.

The only things that don't have this effect, are extraterrestrial... but the stars are too small for you to notice a change in size, and you can't look at the sun directly, so that leaves only the moon. The moon is identically sized at the horizon and high in the sky... but your brain is so used to seeing things on the horizon as "distant" and things high in the sky as "close"... and I'm sure everyone seen the illusions where there are two objects of the same observed size, but where you think one is "close" and one is "distant" - the "distant" one looks much larger than the "close" one... the brain is compensating for the perspective effect that it assumes is there, even when it actually isn't.

It's worth noting that this is entirely a cognitive effect - the actual size of the moon doesn't change. Easiest way I've heard to check this is an appropriately-sized coin held at arm's length will be the same size as the moon, both at the horizon and in the air. The trick being that you're keeping the coin at the same distance from you, so it doesn't have the same effect where overhead objects are closer than ones on the horizon. So if, say, a helicopter would be larger than the moon when it's overhead, then it's still going to be larger than the moon when it's on the horizon - the horizon moon only looks larger, it's still the same actual size. The main difference between them is, again, that the helicopter overhead is going to be relatively close, but the helicopter on the horizon, can be quite distant - so the helicopter can be made small enough to fit inside the moon, rather than making the moon big enough to be larger than the helicopter. But, as they mentioned in the podcast, that would require the helicopter to be absurdly far away, whereas the shot of something silhouetted against the moon in those cutscenes is invariably a close-up.

Finally, a note on the refraction idea - this effect does exist, and it's measurable, but in most cases it's not strong enough to notice by the naked eye. Also, it makes the moon smaller on the horizon, not bigger. And only in the vertical direction, it's unchanged horizontally (it ends up very slightly ellipse-shaped).

[iamafish]

wow matt, tell us what you really think! Fun podcast though!

[dex-dex]

you can not go wrong with a don knotts/Jimmy Stewart impression about ostridges!