ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
The place to “find your people”.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Forbidden Planet (1956)
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Maurice
Mission Specialist


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 460
Location: 3rd Rock

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

While admirable efforts These top-down attempts to line up the blueprints the the matte all suffer from the fact that you can't line up an orthographic drawing with an image that features perspective, so all said diagrams are flawed. You'd have to reverse engineer the perspective on the painting to figure out how/if the elements would actually line up.
_________________
* * *
"The absence of limitations is the enemy of art."
― Orson Welles
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

You're right, of course, Maurice.

I had to guess at things like the length of the extension in the foreground. I did manage to make use of a little "triangulation" in the form of a line extending out from the near edge of the roof of the right-side wing, taking note of where that line and a vertical line from a house feature directly above the end of the extension converged.

But I understand how that can be far less than perfect.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Oct 18, 2018 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The more distant the object, and the shallower its depth compared to its distance from the viewer, the less important perspective becomes.

At least we have something for talking purposes.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 4:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________

Hopefully this is my summation for the jury, although I'm aware that a verdict has already been reached and I'm destined for the slammer, debate-wise. Laughing
______________________________

Gord and I have discussed the matte painting at length in a series of very interesting PM’s, and we finally just had to agree-to-disagree on the matter of which side of the house is presented in the matte painting. Cool

However, Gord was impressed (if not convinced) by a few interesting facts I uncovered, and he encouraged me to share them in a post before we (hopefully) let the thread move on . . . as I’m sure we all want it to.

The comments below are just interesting items I learned and interesting ideas I had while explaining my own viewpoint to Gord during our very spirited debate.

For example, Gord’s strongest argument for his belief that the matte painting shows the rear of the house (the part that isn’t included in the blueprints because it’s the direction from which the scenes were shot) is expressed in this statement by him.

"The matte painting shows NONE of the features shown in the entrance area."

That's very true, of course.

But as I've often said, since the artist painted his own version of the house (regardless of which side it is), the fact that the main entrance looks very different from the set should not really be surprising. Here are some compelling reasons which support that idea.

~ In my diagram of the house's overall shape, is the shape the same as it is in the blueprints?

No, not at all.

~ Does the Core area (which I pasted in from the blueprint) fit inside the domed part of the "matte painting diagram" I made?

No, it does not. I had to butcher the floor plan to squeeze part of it inside the diagram. I did it to show that the house in the painting was obviously never meant to be a representation of the house which is shown in the movie. I happen to think that explains why the main entrance is very different, too.

~ Does the painting show any trace of the pool patio?

No, it doesn't. Henri Hillinick just left that out.

~ Does the set of the house have a wing that extends outward towards the pool, the way the matte painting does?

It absolutely does not. And that wing sits right where the beautifully designed patio should be! Sad

~ Does the painting have a cliff right next to the house?

No, the house in the matte painting is not connected directly to a large mountain with a cliff — and that has always bother me, which is why I did the altered version of the painting. The omission of the house-and-cliff fusion is a significant discrepancy between the matte painting and the set itself, as well as the blueprints and the preproduction drawings.

~ Do the blueprints or the set indicate (in any way whatsoever) that the house has a dome-shaped roof?

To be absolutely fair, they don't. Henri seems to have invented that himself.
______________________________

What does all this mean in terms of the Great Debate?

It means that if the entire shape of the house doesn't conform to either the set or the blueprints, why should we get picky about a little thing like Henri Hillinick changing the round forecourt to an eye-catching "driveway canopy" that stretches WAAAAY out from the house in a dramatic fashion?

My thinking is that the forecourt (when seen from that distance) wouldn't have even looked like the main entrance to the movie audience. Nobody would know what it was, since they hadn't seen the set in the movie yet.

And since that painting is supposed to establish where the jeep is about to arrive (the main entrance of the house), showing the main entrance in the matte painting just seems to make good "cinematic sense".

I must confess, however, that during my discussion with Gord I discovered something which might mean I was wrong when I stated that Henri made up those two major features — the dome and the “driveway canopy”. The Cinefantastique article says the following in the caption next to the picture of the house on page 52.



Well, I’ll be damned! Shocked

Okay, so either the article is mistaken and I'm correct in saying Henri made up his own design for the house . . . or the article is correct and the art department's designs (note the plural) suggested the dome and the altered front entrance which Henri put on the house.

Please note: The caption only states that Henri was given designs to use for the house itself. It doesn't say he was given instructions to put the pool in a specific place, or to leave out the cliff next to the house, or even to paint in the jeep road . . . despite the fact that the caption includes this as well.



What am I getting at with all this?

Well, it appears that other than the pool, the matte painting of the house doesn't have one single major feature in common with the set or the blueprint. The artist either completely made up the design OR he did it based on designs from the art department.

Gord replied with some interesting thoughts about just what form the “art department designs” were done in. For example, were they drawings or models?

However, it seems highly likely that those "art department designs" Henri used were a few sketches of various concepts under consideration for the Morbius' home.

“Just pick one of these, Henri! Nobody is going see the outside of the house other than your painting, so it won’t matter too much! Besides, the guys the the shop are placing bets on whose design you'll use. (Here's twenty bucks, Henri. Use mine. Heck, look at that great canopy in front.)" Wink





However, that raises and a very pertinent question.

Since all of the art department’s efforts were based on the idea that the Morbius’ home was connected to a cliff with a tunnel that lead straight into the Krell complex, how could any of their designs show the BACK of the house?

The back of the house was the cliff! Shocked
______________________________

Henri was given the assignment to create a snazzy painting of the Morbius home which the audience would see for a few seconds just before Robby and the men arrive at the main entrance.

In other words, Henri painted what amounts to a "long shot" of the house, right before we see a close up of the main entrance when the jeep arrives.



For all these various reasons, I’m more convinced than ever that the matte painting is supposed to be the front of the house, using a design very different from the movie set. We’ll probably never know why Henri Hillinick made no effort to show the one (and only) feature of the house’s front we see in the movie.

Perhaps he just felt the circular forecourt we see on the set just wasn’t impressive enough when viewed from so far away, so he put a bold and dramatic canopy over it and hoped that anyone who noticed his alteration while watching the movie would realize that even if the canopy had existed on the set (which it didn’t, of course) it would be out of the frame . . . just like the ceilings in many movie sets. The camera is careful not to show studio lights, boom microphones, etc.

What we do know from the movie itself is that the scene of Morbius and Adams standing in the area BEHIND the house while they gaze at the graveyard in the distance —



— and the scene moments later of them at the FRONT door on the opposite side of the Core —



— means the matte painting does seem to show the front of the house with a background terrain somewhat similar to the graveyard painting.

And the pool might have been deliberately painted in the wrong place just because Henri thought it would be more visible on the right than it would be if it was half-hidden in the backyard, so to speak.

As a matter of fact, when I did my altered version of the painting, I actually had to place the pool a bit higher and to the left than it really should be. So, I can understand why Henri put it more towards the front where the mountain should be connected to the house.



Also, making the pool more visible is consistent with the fact that Henri was proud of his work and wanted it to look its best on screen. We can tell this by what the Cinefantastique article’s picture caption says about his objection to the live-action matte of the jeep arriving. Henri suspected that the live-action matte would look unconvincing and detract from his gorgeous artwork. Cool
________________________________

However, while debating this matter with Gord I discovered something else in that Cinefantastique caption which relates to this mystery. Consider the statement below.



I can’t help wondering if the special effects guys might have actually told Henri to put the pool in a more visible place (rather than painting it behind the house) because they wanted the audience to see their snazzy FX better.

After all, they went to the trouble and expense of enhancing the painting with the matted-in sparkling water, so they wanted to make sure it was big enough and visible enough to be noticed in the brief scene.

I'm sure we'd all agree that making the water as noticeable as possible would be an important consideration, and it just might have influenced the placement of the pool.

Hmmm. Maybe the reason Henri left out the mountain next to the house was to make room for the pool which those pushy FX guys just HAD to have in a more visible place! Mad

Just a thought, folks. Just a thought.

I know I’m throwing a lot at you guys, but I just wanted to share the evidence I’d collected and the conclusions I came to during this fascinating debate.

Anyway, here’s the whole mess in a nutshell (assuming anyone is still awake. Wink

~ The Cinefantastique article says Henri based the paintng n "art department designs, and these designs would not include a "backside" for a house that was connected to a cliff in the preproduction plans, the blueprints, and the movie itself.

~ The "art department designs" were apparently the source of features like the dome and the altered main entrance, neither of which were in the blueprints. In fact, Henri might never have even seen the blueprints. He didn't need to.

~ The pool might have been relocated to the right side at the request of the FX department to show off their sparkling water special effect.

~ The "missing mountain" might have been a choice the artist had to make so he could locate the pool in a prominent spot — which also happens to be the only place he could connect the mountain to the house without covering up part of the house! Shocked
________________________________

That's it guys.

Your honor . . . the defense rests. Finally . . . Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, I think you've analyzed this entire question beyond perfection and most of your arguments are very credible.

I absolutely agree that the painting and the floor plan are in some degree different. But keep in mind that my goal was to find a way to make the two more compatible. There's no way of knowing which is absolutely right or wrong, just an attempt to investigate how it would work if we assume that BOTH are correct from their point of view.

A couple points:

You asked : "Did you mean that if we were able to see the "front of the house" in the matte painting (rather than the back you claim is shown in the painting) then we'd see a floor not shown in the painting? "

I think we would see the entire lower...or first level....Everything seen on the blueprint in fact.
At first I thought that would mean the house was on a slope...But that's not necessarily so. It could just mean that those rock surfaces butt against the house ONLY in the two areas we both agree on. I was thinking that the domed area on top looked too small to contain enough living space, but I was wrong.

I've changed my mind on the whole "embedded" thing...It may be, but is not necessary. So I conceed that idea as questionable. So any argument on that point is moot.
The matte may just show the back side of the main(first) floor as shown in the blueprint.

I don't think the circular soffit of the "core" represents the size of the upper dome. Notice how the soffit extends over the front entrance and over the pool patio. I think (from the size shown in the painting) that the upper level dome would enscribe a larger circle intersecting the circle of the core's soffit. And, of course, the external dome is above the core soffit which is a fixture INSIDE the house that just peeks out at the two areas. I originaly thought that the upper level was bigger, but it just may only contain two bedrooms and bathroom and not a living area as I concieved.

I still contend that the painting is of the back (Or bottom of the blueprint) view...
Because :

-The pool is shown on the right side of the building. (When Alta gets out of the pool it's on the right side. She changes behind bushes on the right side and we see over her shoulder the desert and ravine view...)




-There are No features of the entrance visable in the matte picture. No rock spire on the right side of the door, no paved courtyard with fish statue...and no door!


-The view from the entrance is TOWARD the mountain area, not the desert.



-The triangular support features are represented, but the walls are not open spaces as shown throughout the movie. The only solid walls would possibly be in the "back" (That is the area shown on the blueprint where the camera set-ups are.) Those triangular features look more like windows than supports and the wall appears straight, not curved.



-As you show above, the artist was relieved he didn't have to show the jeep arriving from THE UPPER RIGHT side of the painting. NOT the lower right.! This would mean that the entrance would have to be located on the opposite side of the view. (One problem of that is that the crew would have arrived at the entrance from the left...not the right as shown in the filmed movie....UNLESS it was a large circular driveway---Makes sense because it would loop around and the jeep would be facing the desert again.
(Of course all of this is conjecture, just a way of "making it work".)


Further-

Bud Said :
Quote:
"The artist either completely made up the design or he did it based on designs from the art department. And I seriously doubt they would have given Henri a design for the BACK of the house. After all, no designs for that side needed to be made. It was never going to seen in the movie! "

That's a huge assumption based on NO factual evidence!

That was exactly the way he saw the set and it's the way he painted it....from the rear side because THAT angle could show the pool! Not hide it mostly behind that rock ledge beside the door! Because that was the most dramatic and artisticly pleasing view.


As you may know most movie sets have a "maguette" or scale model constructed for the director and director of photography to use for blocking, lighting, camera setups and other reasons.

We can imagine then that one was made of the house as well. Usually these just have cardstock walls and cardboard cutouts of the furnishings etc.

Now, take the set blueprint and lay it flat on a table. Imagine all the walls, supports etc in 3-dimension.
On the open (wild) side is extend a back wall.

This would be the angle you're looking at it from; the "back" side in front of you, the pool to the right and entrance further back to the left.

Look at it from this angle....The pool on the right with the outside patio concealed behind the buildings wall., the entrance on the top behind the visible walls.... In other words darn close to what is portrayed in the matte painting!



THAT'S the view the artist took for the matte painting!

Morbius's library would be about where that "extension" would be. He used his "artistic liscence" to complete the picture. He may have added that little extension on the right by the pool to balance the composition or just because he liked it. It appears to be located beside and behind the pool and patio area.
He didn't necessarily paint it from the flat blueprint, but may have done so from a 3-D model of the set!

That's why Wayne's projected illustration works so well, although not 100% perfectly....The artist was making a visualy attractive picture, not a construction document.



Now if he had rotated the model or the blueprint 180 degrees so the entrance was shown in front the painting would be very different! He would have turned the print or model so that the top was on the bottom.

Perhaps he did do a prelim of the house from the entrance view, but the background would be looking toward the flat desert (Like in the picture of Alta changing by the pool) and the art director thought the view of the mountains etc. was a more dramatic picture.

All that is just conjecture, but is most logical.
Too bad Henri Hillinck isn't around to ask. Alas, he passed away in 1959 after a prolific amount of movie art (He did matte paintings of Skull Island in KING KONG.). (Many of his originals are in the possession of his grandson John Henry O'Connor and he may own the original mattes from FORBIDDEN PLANET as well.)



There is very little in the concept pictures for him to use in his painting of the residence. Both show the building from ...In the top sketch-the side, and the bottom sketch-the back/side. The only elements are the hint of a domed structure and pool. Where are the trees as indicated on the set plan? Where is the flora around the area? A suggestion perhaps, but not at all like the plan. These sketches have no corellation with the house set as constructed. If he saw these sketches at all he obviously diregarded them in preference to the actual sets.







The only source of all these features is in the blueprint, painted cycloramas around the set and the set itself.

So he DID use the blueprint as reference...but it only makes sense if you accept that the matte shows the house from this angle of reference from the rear. It's the only solution that fits entirely.



Here's an example of what I think a view of the view of the entrance would kind of look like.

HERE'S WHAT A VIEW OF THE FRONT WOULD LOOK LIKE-





Except the background would be more like the desert and ravines like on the left of the larger view.




NOT NEARLY AS DRAMATIC A BACKGROUND!

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I proclaim the dictum of Occam's Razor to be in effect! "When faced with a choice the simpler, more obvious answer tends to be the correct one. When presented with competing hypotheses to solve a problem, one should select the solution with the fewest assumptions."

Ladies and Gentleman, my rebuttal rests. You have to decide...…

Who are you going to believe? Your lying eyes and the obvious or Bud's wacky ideas?
(Just teasing you Bud....Payback...You know!)

Bottom line----

Bud,

I think your examination of the situation is excellent! Although there are points I can't agree with, I think your analysis is great. There are points we'll never agree on, and that's OK. The idea...the whole purpose of this exercise is to gain a better understanding of the residence , how it was concieved and how it would be in reality.



_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.


Last edited by Gord Green on Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:23 am; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 8:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Now WHY did he paint her from the back? No real artist would do that in a portrait!


_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I always thought that the painting showed the right side of the house, with windows into Robby's kitchen. I thought this because of the position of the pool in the painting. Am I right? Probably not. Until I saw the marvelous blow-ups, and enhancements, I thought that the extension was Morbius's study, which I can now see it isn't. Which brings me to a point:

I have been following this discussion, amazed and marveling at all the work being done. But you will never reconcile the sets with the matte painting, because I don't think they cared. They just wanted something that kind of fit, BUT more importantly looked good.

One of the things it would need, is a mountain beside the right side of the house. When they leave Morbius's study, they walk down a corridor. It doesn't seem to be a long corridor, and they show no signs of having made a descent. But when they reach the end, they have to ascend about four feet to reach the lab door, they do descend two steps inside the lab. They don't show how high the lab's ceiling is, but there are hanging lights, and the ceiling must be pretty high to accommodate the large gauge on the Plastic Educator, AKA the Murderous ID Maker.

The house is a Mid-Century design, it is an extreme version, but it is a Mid-Century design. The extension that some think is Morbius's study, isn't. You can see the house wall extending under it, so unless Morbius has a patio off his study, which would fit a Mid-Century home, it isn't a room. What it looks like to me is a mid-century home carport. It has what looks to be a room at the far end which, in a mid-century home would be the laundry/utility room, and storage. It even has a dome-shaped skylight, like some mid-century carports.

Years ago I was reading a book, where they talked about production design. They mentioned that someone was visiting the sets for "The Adventures of Marco Polo", and they marveled at the set design. They said how realistic the sets were (okay, lets gloss over this person thinking that the Chinese had Art Deco architecture). The Production Designer, who's name escapes me (and I'm too lazy to look it up) said that it wasn't realistic, and gave examples why. Now here is the important part to me:

He explained that in Hollywood, they don't try for realism, but rather the IMPRESSION OF REALISM!

That's what they did with the Morbius home. The painting gives the impression of realism.

I hope I haven't derailed this discussion, because I am enjoying it very much. But I had to give my meager two cents.

David.
Back to top
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2018 11:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you David.
You touched upon both my, Bud's and Wayne's points. The painting was done for effect. With only a few seconds of screen time the purpose was to give an IMPRESSION of the house...To establish where they were during the proceeding scenes.

Krel said :
"But you will never reconcile the sets with the matte painting, because I don't think they cared."

I don't know exactly how true that is. Arthur Lonegern wanted to make an "A" picture. He exceeded budgets time and time again to make FORBIDDEN PLANET a virtual piece of art. It was the low feelings of the producers that allowed it to be released as a "rough cut" and not completely edited. I think that there are many fans of this film who can imagine what could have been.

My only purpose was to co-ordinate some semblance of reality between the two images...the matte painting and the set blueprint.


_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Krel
Guest





PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 1:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Gord Green wrote:
Krel said :
"But you will never reconcile the sets with the matte painting, because I don't think they cared."

I don't know exactly how true that is. Arthur Lonegern wanted to make an "A" picture. He exceeded budgets time and time again to make FORBIDDEN PLANET a virtual piece of art. It was the low feelings of the producers that allowed it to be released as a "rough cut" and not completely edited. I think that there are many fans of this film who can imagine what could have been.

Okay, I worded that poorly. What I meant, is that they didn't feel the need to make them match exactly. It was a short scene, and the audience, wouldn't, and didn't notice the differences. They didn't foresee DVDs and people meticulously examining the film sixty two years later. Laughing The painting had to look good, and look like it could match up with the sets. I didn't mean that they went, "okay, good enough". The painting shows too much detail and care for it to be a throwaway. It is an important painting, as it establishes an important location in the movie.

David.
Back to top
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 2:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
~ Does the set of the house have a wing that extends outward towards the pool, the way the matte painting does?

It absolutely does not. And that wing sits right where the beautifully designed patio should be! Sad

It absolutely does. It just doesn't extend out far enough in the painting.

In this diagram the dining/kitchen area in the floorplan (where the "household disintegrator" compartment is embedded in the wall) extends to the right as far as the purple vertical line. But the painting shows it extending only just beyond the middle blue line.



The view of the pool patio is blocked by this wing of the house.

Gord's invoking Occam's Razor is exactly to the point. It takes fewer assumptions to account for a view of the house from this direction.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
Bud Brewster wrote:
~ Does the set of the house have a wing that extends outward towards the pool, the way the matte painting does?

It absolutely does not. And that wing sits right where the beautifully designed patio should be! Sad

It absolutely does. It just doesn't extend out far enough in the painting.

In this diagram the dining/kitchen area in the floorplan (where the "household disintegrator" compartment is embedded in the wall) extends to the right as far as the purple vertical line. But the painting shows it extending only just beyond the middle blue line.

The view of the pool patio is blocked by this wing of the house.

Gord's invoking Occam's Razor is exactly to the point. It takes fewer assumptions to account for a view of the house from this direction.




To quote you from a previous reply: WTF are you talking about? There is no "wing" that extends toward the pool! There's only the patio outside, the core inside, and then the forecourt outside the main entrance. The dinning area does NOT extend out of the house, Wayne.



Your "connection" between the patio and the wing in the painting is as just as incorrect as your connection between the pool by the forecourt and the little blob of blue paint down near the end of the extension you claim is well below the main entrance. Rolling Eyes

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Thu Jun 11, 2020 5:10 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1877

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
The dinning area does NOT extend out of the house, Wayne.

How can you tell? See on the floorplan where the right-hand wall for the dining area is? See where the circular central area is? The wall is outside the circular core area. See what's beyond (above, in the floorplan) the straight-walled portion: an open outdoor patio area. The non-circular portion of the floor is extending out beyond the circular portion.

That's WTF I'm talking about.

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
How can you tell?

With my eyes, you wacky boy. You can't be serious about any of this. Stop joking around, Wayne. This a board for intelligent people. Laughing
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:35 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gord Green
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 06 Oct 2014
Posts: 2940
Location: Buffalo, NY

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2018 9:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know what you're looking at Bud, but there very definitely IS a projection on that side behind the pool patio.



You even show it in your example used to say it's NOT there!



Both of these are meant to highlight the interior features. That extension on the exterior could be larger as shown in the matte.

Hardly wacky.

_________________
There comes a time, thief, when gold loses its lustre, and the gems cease to sparkle, and the throne room becomes a prison; and all that is left is a father's love for his child.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 17016
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sat Oct 20, 2018 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

______________________________

I hope you're joking, because that little area behind the garbage disposal is about four feet across, so if that's a "wing" on the house, my walk-in closet is Radio City Music Hall. Rolling Eyes

Besides, you added a foot or two when your drew your red line.



The blueprint doesn't even show the back wall of that space behind the garbage disposal the way the virtual tour does. Here's where the red line should be.



I suspect Wayne just wanted to see if I was gullible enough to take his post seriously. Dammit, he got me. You and I should probably get off this endless debate about the house and give our members something more interesting to read and reply to.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies and Serials from 1950 to 1969 All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 75, 76, 77 ... 141, 142, 143  Next
Page 76 of 143

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group