• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Sinking of MS Estonia: Case Re-opened Part II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Captain_Swoop said:
Nope

SFX/FX (special effects). These may be audio special effects or visual effects—effects that alter reality and are created in the postproduction and editing phases.
Click to expand...

Some effects are still accomplished on set during filming, and are still considered "special effects," often noted as distinct from "visual effects" or "optical effects." Traditionally, such cues are CAPITALIZED in the screenplay, whether done live or in post. The annotation "FX" doesn't appear in screenplays anymore, although the traditional abbreviations still can be seen in storyboards and script breakdowns. For a hot minute, the annotation "(OPTICAL)" was appended to scene headers in which post-production optical compositing was required, but we no longer need that in the world of CGI.

My screen experience includes Stephen King's The Stand (the 90s miniseries, not the recent remake) and Independence Day (also the 90s version). I was also in an episode of Everwood, but my scene was cut. I also work, as time permits, behind the scenes with a lot of local production companies. My proudest contribution, however, was VFX for Stephen Hawking's The Fate of the Universe.

If you want an actor explicitly to assume a "listening pose," that's just stage direction. You write it unindented as, "CHARACTER assumes a listening pose."

Why is any of this relevant? It isn't, of course. But when a participant resists correction on even a minor, irrelevant point, it says something about the basis of the relevant sua sponte assertions and fiat declarations that proponent makes. Some people just can't stomach having been seen to have made a mistake, regardless of the stakes.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What type of 'nuclear waste' would 'dissolve' the bow visor and make it fall off?

Do you know what 'nuclear waste' actually is?

Do you think that the Estonia was being used to transport nuclear fuel rods?

How would they 'dissolve' the bow visor?
Click to expand...

You know, I'm not a nuclear physicist or anything but if there was somehow radiation strong enough to do that (seems unlikely), every single survivor would've suffered from acute radiation sickness if they were not already dead by the time of the sinking.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Re the atlantic lock being modified in the past, a former boatswain, Luttonen, recalled how engineer Koivisto had modified it, removig key parts. JAIC reported that the lug eyes had been bent due to the waves and or the bow visor falling off, but in fact they had been that ellipse-shape for years, thanks to Koivisto's 'modifications'. So if the JAIC had made assumptions without testing those assumptions, why should we believe 'a few strong waves' knocked the bow visor off?

EFD

Yes, this is Meyer-Werft being defended by the 'German Expert Group' but it is a valid defence.
Click to expand...

Aside from that once again not addressing any points in the post it replies to, it doesn't make a scrap of sense.

The tale you quoted describes Koivisto's bodged modifications to the lugs and bushings which were clearly no good and when inspected were condemned and entirely removed and replaced with a proper repair by a proper engineering company with an admonition that nobody aboard should attempt to modify the lock again.

Since Koivisto's bodge on the lock parts was completely removed, and the elliptical hole described in the report was in the lug on the visor which Koivisto did not modify, how can you claim the lugs "had been that ellipse-shape for years"?
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Re the atlantic lock being modified in the past, a former boatswain, Luttonen, recalled how engineer Koivisto had modified it, removig key parts. JAIC reported that the lug eyes had been bent due to the waves and or the bow visor falling off, but in fact they had been that ellipse-shape for years, thanks to Koivisto's 'modifications'. So if the JAIC had made assumptions without testing those assumptions, why should we believe 'a few strong waves' knocked the bow visor off?

EFD

Yes, this is Meyer-Werft being defended by the 'German Expert Group' but it is a valid defence.
Click to expand...


Please. Stop. Using. estoniaferrydisaster.net. As. Your. "Trusted". Source.

Are you on commission from those guys or something? Use (proper) trusted secondary sources or primary sources, in nearly every circumstance, please.
 
Vixen said:
It is the conclusion of the JOINT ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION COMMITTEE.
Click to expand...


No. The official report does not claim - nor even imply - that it was purely these "few strong waves" that were wholly responsible for causing the bottom lock to fail* - no matter how loudly you shout otherwise.

And if you do think that this is what the report says..... well that speaks to your analytical shortcomings far more than anything else.


* Perhaps I might be able to explain it to you using the "straw that broke the camel's back" story (which I'd hope you understand):

If there was an official investigation & report into the breaking of the camel's back, the report might say - correctly - something like "One straw was added to the camel's back, causing its back to break". But they wouldn't be stating (or implying) that it was this straw alone which caused the camel's back to break. Hope that helps with your understanding.
 
JayUtah said:
Some effects are still accomplished on set during filming, and are still considered "special effects," often noted as distinct from "visual effects" or "optical effects." Traditionally, such cues are CAPITALIZED in the screenplay, whether done live or in post. The annotation "FX" doesn't appear in screenplays anymore, although the traditional abbreviations still can be seen in storyboards and script breakdowns. For a hot minute, the annotation "(OPTICAL)" was appended to scene headers in which post-production optical compositing was required, but we no longer need that in the world of CGI.

My screen experience includes Stephen King's The Stand (the 90s miniseries, not the recent remake) and Independence Day (also the 90s version). I was also in an episode of Everwood, but my scene was cut. I also work, as time permits, behind the scenes with a lot of local production companies. My proudest contribution, however, was VFX for Stephen Hawking's The Fate of the Universe.

If you want an actor explicitly to assume a "listening pose," that's just stage direction. You write it unindented as, "CHARACTER assumes a listening pose."

Why is any of this relevant? It isn't, of course. But when a participant resists correction on even a minor, irrelevant point, it says something about the basis of the relevant sua sponte assertions and fiat declarations that proponent makes. Some people just can't stomach having been seen to have made a mistake, regardless of the stakes.
Click to expand...

It is standard internet forum stuff.
 
Vixen said:
It is standard internet forum stuff.
Click to expand...

That's not what you claimed before. When LondonJohn pointed out that your comment was not correct use of scriptwriting terminology, you replied "of course it is".
That is what people were disputing. Your error doesn't go away just because you're now claiming something different.
 
Last edited:
New film shows hole in High Resolution 'Could be detonation'

New film shows hole in High Resolution 'Could be detonation'

A new film clip released today by EKOT, the investigation team during July 2021, shows clear outward bending deformations and which looks like burnt wood curling outwards.

Anders Ulfvarson, professor of shipbuilding technology at Chalmers, says that this is a major deformation. It looks more broken than I expected. And it looks like the plate folded outward. In one sequence, when the camera comes close to the opening itself, the actual ship structure closest to the hole appears to have been torn from the inside. The steel is in some places at the opening black and curved, and in some places looks almost like burnt wood turned outwards from the ship. There you actually see cracks that run a bit in. This is a case of large deformation. You can see that there is great damage.

The theory that the hole may have been caused when the ship hit the bottom can now no longer be supported, says Lars Ångström. It is completely out of the question that these protruding beams, and twisted almost rolled-up plates, would have been caused by contact with the bottom. This has been added in some other way. Considering that it is both blackened, and that plates and beams are distorted, it is not possible to rule out detonation, says Lars Ångström. If it has something to do with pyrotechnics, it will be revealed by metallographers, says Anders Ulfvarson. We have not drawn any conclusions yet, and the material has not been published by us, says the Accident Investigation Board's chairman Jonas Bäckstrand. According to Jonas Bäckstrand, the films from this summer's dives are expected to be presented in their entirety later this week, or at the beginning of next week.
Click to expand...
Estonia Fyndet

See also Aftonbaldet.


The film clip can also be seen here: Sverige Radio.
 
junkshop said:
That's not what you claimed before. When LondonJohn pointed out that your comment was not correct use of scriptwriting terminology, you replied "of course it is".
That is what people were disputing. Your error doesn't go away just because you're now claiming something different.
Click to expand...

You must be a newbie to internet convention then. :/
 
junkshop said:
Once again, YOU ARE NOT ADDRESSING THE POINT I MADE!!!

I didn't pass any comment on whether ir was in internet convention or not.

I guess you must be a newbie at following a conversation, then. :/
Click to expand...

Judge Rinder does say 'Let me get into my listening pose' so it is OBVIOUSLY a jokey stage direction. If you aren't familiar with internet abbreviations and typography nor understand humour, that is hardly my problem.
 
Vixen said:
You must be a newbie to internet convention then. :/
Click to expand...

I've been posting to internet forums since the days of USENET, back in the late 1980s. Yourself?

But this is not about an "internet convention." When someone pointed out that this was not accepted screenwriting convention, you very clearly stated, "Of course it is."

It is not.

Now you're frantically trying to change horses and claim your original statement meant something else. Because, as I said, some people simply cannot stomach the idea that they've been caught making a mistake, no matter how minor.

You're not infallible. Stop pretending to be.
 
Vixen said:
Judge Rinder does say 'Let me get into my listening pose' so it is OBVIOUSLY a jokey stage direction.
Click to expand...

No, in that context it's dialogue.

If you aren't familiar with internet abbreviations and typography nor understand humour, that is hardly my problem.
Click to expand...

Well is it stage direction as in a script, or is it an internet abbreviation? You can't even get your backpedaling consistent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom