Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

The Man From Planet X (1951) and its too late to hear a Who.


hamradio
 Share

Recommended Posts

B-O-R-I-N-G, lame and stupid.

 

Time to put the mannequin back in the store window. Robert Osborne said the actor playing the alien was not billed and no one asked his name. How fortunate, if I was in that getup, I don't want anyone to know my name either. He probually changed his name anyway as a precaution. :_|

 

While I'm typing this, Dr Who or is it Dr What is on along with R2D2's evil brothers.

Prop manager had no trouble finding stuff at the local junk yard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we the only two people on the planet who actually stayed up and watched a movie titled "Dalek's: Invasion Earth 2150 A.D."?

 

"EX-TERMINATE! EX-TERMINATE!" I think death would be preferable to hearing those robots shout at me. And yes, George Lucas was definitely a fan of this film. The R2 units in Star Wars are streamlined Daleks and they even have the same hook extender-arm as R2-D2. There's a shot in this film as one of the robots accesses a control panel that is almost an exact replica from a shot of R2 interfacing with the Death Star's computer.

 

This is the third time I've seen "Man From Planet X" and it just keeps getting worse every time I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall once in the 1970's while checking the local newspaper listings there was a movie listed there called THE MAN FROM PHOENIX (1951). I thought, "there's one I've never heard of..."

But quickly I realized that some careless typist was to blame when the movie THE MAN FROM PLANET X was actually what was supposed to be listed.

 

The imaginary movie would probably have been better than the real one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did not watch *The Man From Planet X* (1951) tonight. I have seen it before.

 

I believe the key to enjoying this movie is to be properly prepared so as to maximize the effect on your perceptions. The television should be the only light source. It will help greatly if a storm is raging outdoors to establish a this-is-the-safe-haven attitude. It is a prerequisite also that you be twelve years old.

 

I have watched only the first hour of the Doctor Who movie. I expected it to be so camp that it is very nearly a jamboree. I have seen none of the original television series and my only knowledge of the mythos is that I have fallen in love with the newest incarnation on BBC and the documentaries airing to support it..

 

Doctor Who has a history that its budget for props and scenery was 2s6p. This movie is keeping that tradition alive.

 

I was greatly disappointed by the character appearing old. I feel this is a cheat as he is several hundred years old and it is his regenerations which keep him looking young and part of the fun and part of the challenge for the actors is that he is so very much more world-weary than his looks alone allow.

 

I was greatly disappointed by the character introducing himself as "Doctor Who". A great part of the fun is that he always introduces himself as: "The Doctor" and it is up to a member of the supporting cast to say: "Doctor Who?"

 

I was greatly looking forward to seeing this as I have come to expect of Doctor Who an innate humor and brilliant writing It is sad to say I have not found it.

 

I feel this movie is fun if you do not over-analyse it and if your hopes are not as high as mine were. I will definitely watch it to the end. I might not commit it to DVD so that I can watch it uninterrupted at a later date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Floyd, thanks to your post, I just learned something. I didn't know that Margaret Field was the mother of Sally Field. Yep, never heard or made any connections. Also learned of her recent death. If any threads were created, I simply never read or came across it. Something did came out of this movie.

 

RIP

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/margaret-field-actress-mother-sally-258313

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I like the Man from Planet X because Sally Field's mother is in it and William Schallart is very young and is the bad guy.

 

Sally Field was the original TV Gidget in the 1960s, and when the show was revived in the mid-1980's as The New Gidget (starring Caryn Richman), William Schallert played the character's father.

 

It just proves that there is no place on earth quite as incestuous as Hollywood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry for your misery, ham, but I like The Man from Planet X. To me, this film is frightening because the people are stranded on an island that has no easy communication with the mainland. And it always seems to be night time and foggy. :) And with a man from another planet is out on the moors somewhere kidnapping local people. Yikes!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fred, its probually me (more likely is) but for the life of me I'll never understand the logic of people when one will......

 

*Love this face*

manfromx.jpg

 

*but hate this face*

howard_the_duck_xl_01-film-b1.jpg

 

Am I missing something? Very confusing. ?:|

 

Edited by: hamradio on Dec 29, 2011 1:48 AM Had to use different image, original site thought it was worthy to protect a small 16K image of frozen face.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It had its moments, but it's still mostly a grade Z sci-fi flick. Certainly

not in the same league as The Thing, which came out the same year.

I think some clever editor could have cut some of the footage, added

a little bit and come out with either a Scottish murder mystery and/or

a very strange version of Macbeth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> As incest is the practice of close blood relatives having sex with one another I'd think that there are a lot of places where people do it much more than do Hollywood residents. I'm not sure how William Schallert starring in one film with Margaret Field and then another with Sally Field is equivalent to the repugnant activity that is incest.

I'm beginning to think that anything expressed in a purely figurative sense is going to be lost on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

{font:Calibri}I’ve always liked this movie, but is perpetuates the 1950’s stereotype that mathematics is beyond the reach of the average person. When Schallert claims he has hit upon a way to communicate with the alien (“the universal language – geometry”), Robert Clarke replies to the other scientist "Excuse me, Professor, you've lost me. I'm the shadowy figure in the left background with the stupid expression on his face. I don’t get this mathematics." Schallert then goes on to say he needs some time to work out his formula, which presumably is something highly advanced, like finding the area of a rectangle.{font}

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prime numbers are not even standard to all users of the decimal system. I have seen textbooks which say that 1 is a prime number and I have seen many more references which say it is not.

 

I have always wondered on how appropriate mathematics would be in a first contact situation. Science fiction writers all seem to be adherents to the numbers-are-a-universal-language cult. For thousands of years people went to strange lands and learned to talk to the natives when neither understood more mathematics than a basic understanding that if one pelt can be traded for one handful of beads then two pelts should be worth two handfuls of beads.

 

I question also how useful mathematics would be in such situations. What is the algebraic formula for "what gasses do you breathe" and what is the trigonometric proof for "we come in peace"?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>I thought you would have hated that movie because it broke Newton's laws of planetary motion! Noticed that stupid oribt??

 

I think this movie and also "When Worlds Collide" (1951), and maybe a couple of others, were based on news reports about a close approach of an asteroid, in the late 1940s, such as Icarus (discovered June 11, 1949).

 

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0044207/

 

Also see: Abel Gance - "La fin du monde" (1931)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}Prime numbers are not even standard to all users of the decimal system. I have seen textbooks which say that 1 is a prime number and I have seen many more references which say it is not.

The decimal system is not even standard to people around the world. Many cultures still count by fives and twenties, such as the indigenous people of Central and South America, as well as the indigenous people of Alaska.

 

In the past, 1 was designated as prime because it satisifed the somewhat vague definition that a prime number was a counting number with exactly two factors: itself and 1. Otherwise, the number is called composite. Nowadays, we say the factors must be distinct, and we don't classify 1 as prime or composite. Also, one of the most important statements in arithmetic says that "Every composite number can be expressed as a unique product of primes." Since 10 = 2 x 5, but

10 =1 x 2 x 5, we would violate uniqueness if we allowed 1 to be prime.

Then again, I don't think people from another world would be that interested in this concept, but who knows.

 

I always cite "Red Planet Mars" as a great example of mathematical ineptitude. Everybody in the room agrees that pi is the ratio of the diameter of a circle to its circumference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}

>

> I have always wondered on how appropriate mathematics would be in a first contact situation. Science fiction writers all seem to be adherents to the numbers-are-a-universal-language cult.

I've sometimes wondered about that notion, simply because our ideas of what mathematics are is not necessarily what their ideas would be. "One" to us might be "Ten" or something else entirely, to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=kriegerg69 wrote:}{quote}

> I've sometimes wondered about that notion, simply because our ideas of what mathematics are is not necessarily what their ideas would be. "One" to us might be "Ten" or something else entirely, to them.

 

I wish Capuchin could free some time to reply to this. He has created a system for a posited race whose minds are not like ours as they have less memory and more analytical ability. This means they have to learn as little as possible by rote and they do the majority of their arithmetic by manipulating the graphic representation of the digits.

 

I hope you can see what I mean to say by looking at one of his worksheets:

http://www.primers.jymes.com/DigitSet.jpg

There are far fewer representations to remember and a few rules replace all of the rote 11 = 2, 22 = 4 and so on which must be memorized for addition.

 

There is the oddity also that there is no zero. I doubt any of our mathematicians could easily accept it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> {quote:title=SansFin wrote:}{quote}

> > I hope you can see what I mean to say by looking at one of his worksheets:

> http://www.primers.jymes.com/DigitSet.jpg

> There are far fewer representations to remember and a few rules replace all of the rote 11 = 2, 22 = 4 and so on which must be memorized for addition.

 

Google "Kaktovik Inupiaq Numerals," which were created by Alaskan middle-school kids in the 1990s. It may be similar to what Capuchin is trying to do - no rote, just manipulation of symbols.

 

> There is the oddity also that there is no zero. I doubt any of our mathematicians could easily accept it.

 

That isn't as odd as you might think. Many civilizations did not use (or need) the zero - examples are the Egyptians, the (very) early Mesopotamians, the Greeks, and so on. Except for the Mayans, zero was not used in this hemisphere either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

© 2023 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...