|
Post by the light works on Jan 14, 2015 17:43:13 GMT
There was that 1 camera angle they showed in slower time with him getting squished. I must say that was rather satisfying oh, it was all satisfying. but nothing says "don't try this at home" like your dummy's watery innards spraying out of his arms and legs.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 14, 2015 17:47:35 GMT
There was that 1 camera angle they showed in slower time with him getting squished. I must say that was rather satisfying You are a sick individual...you belong here.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 14, 2015 21:41:53 GMT
There was that 1 camera angle they showed in slower time with him getting squished. I must say that was rather satisfying oh, it was all satisfying. but nothing says "don't try this at home" like your dummy's watery innards spraying out of his arms and legs. It would have also been really cool if they'd given him "bones", like they used to put inside Buster. I mean, who wouldn't have loved to see an autopsy of Homer J. Simpson, showing him having broken every single rib and probably having cracked his spine too?
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2015 0:44:24 GMT
oh, it was all satisfying. but nothing says "don't try this at home" like your dummy's watery innards spraying out of his arms and legs. It would have also been really cool if they'd given him "bones", like they used to put inside Buster. I mean, who wouldn't have loved to see an autopsy of Homer J. Simpson, showing him having broken every single rib and probably having cracked his spine too? that would be a cool visual. probably very difficult to do with their design, and not what they were testing. bummer.
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 15, 2015 10:23:00 GMT
oh, it was all satisfying. but nothing says "don't try this at home" like your dummy's watery innards spraying out of his arms and legs. It would have also been really cool if they'd given him "bones", like they used to put inside Buster. I mean, who wouldn't have loved to see an autopsy of Homer J. Simpson, showing him having broken every single rib and probably having cracked his spine too? The only problem with that would be the return of Homer the week after as if nothing had ever happened. Problem with a dysfunctional family where it all turns out good in the end is its rather depressing when they dont come to some final deserved sticky end.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2015 13:34:07 GMT
So, theorically, Homer-Wrecker 2.0 would involve the same basic Homer that Adam built already but with bones & accelerometers added for additional results.
Are there any changes that should be made to house structure or wrecking ball?
"Remember kids, the only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down."
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2015 14:57:13 GMT
So, theorically, Homer-Wrecker 2.0 would involve the same basic Homer that Adam built already but with bones & accelerometers added for additional results. Are there any changes that should be made to house structure or wrecking ball? "Remember kids, the only difference between science and screwing around is writing it down." thinner skin - to be a realistic human analogue.
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jan 15, 2015 15:09:24 GMT
It would have also been really cool if they'd given him "bones", like they used to put inside Buster. I mean, who wouldn't have loved to see an autopsy of Homer J. Simpson, showing him having broken every single rib and probably having cracked his spine too? LOVE that idea! And to answer TUM's question, it would have been cool to see a bigger arc for the wrecking ball. Not sure how feasible it would be, but what if they had the ball on some sort of A frame rather than a crane? They could then pull it back further than 12ft and the impact would be even more gratifying. Oh, and as was mentioned earlier, the visual damage was good, but they could have also commented that 1 of the reasons for less damage was that Homer cushioned the blow enough that there was only 1 blow rather than multiple with the 1st.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2015 15:19:50 GMT
I wonder what would happen if Homer was recreated out of ballistic gel? I am having trouble locating information on the density of ballistics gel outside: "... 6x6x16 or 8x6x16 inch blocks. Each block is composed of 1 kilogram of ordnance gelatin powder (about 2.21 pounds) and 9 liters (about 2.37 gallons) of very hot distilled water". The math involved in calculating the density from that info makes my head hurt...
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2015 15:21:44 GMT
It would have also been really cool if they'd given him "bones", like they used to put inside Buster. I mean, who wouldn't have loved to see an autopsy of Homer J. Simpson, showing him having broken every single rib and probably having cracked his spine too? LOVE that idea! And to answer TUM's question, it would have been cool to see a bigger arc for the wrecking ball. Not sure how feasible it would be, but what if they had the ball on some sort of A frame rather than a crane? They could then pull it back further than 12ft and the impact would be even more gratifying. Oh, and as was mentioned earlier, the visual damage was good, but they could have also commented that 1 of the reasons for less damage was that Homer cushioned the blow enough that there was only 1 blow rather than multiple with the 1st. If they built a tower or scaffold to swing the wrecking ball from, it would have to be on rails to switch being houses. (Making two would probably be unreasonable given their production time crunch)
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 15, 2015 15:31:45 GMT
LOVE that idea! And to answer TUM's question, it would have been cool to see a bigger arc for the wrecking ball. Not sure how feasible it would be, but what if they had the ball on some sort of A frame rather than a crane? They could then pull it back further than 12ft and the impact would be even more gratifying. Oh, and as was mentioned earlier, the visual damage was good, but they could have also commented that 1 of the reasons for less damage was that Homer cushioned the blow enough that there was only 1 blow rather than multiple with the 1st. If they built a tower or scaffold to swing the wrecking ball from, it would have to be on rails to switch being houses. (Making two would probably be unreasonable given their production time crunch) You mean like a dolly track? Shouldn't be too big of a build for them.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2015 15:33:37 GMT
If they built a tower or scaffold to swing the wrecking ball from, it would have to be on rails to switch being houses. (Making two would probably be unreasonable given their production time crunch) You mean like a dolly track? Shouldn't be too big of a build for them. Perfect. Should we transfer this over to a thread in the Revisit Request section of the Citadel? EDIT" citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/1388/homer-wrecker-2
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2015 15:36:08 GMT
If they built a tower or scaffold to swing the wrecking ball from, it would have to be on rails to switch being houses. (Making two would probably be unreasonable given their production time crunch) You mean like a dolly track? Shouldn't be too big of a build for them. or just pick it up and move it with the crane - but the bigger challenge would be that it would probably be a more expensive build than the crane to get it more stable than the crane. (remember the issue with the crane was that it would not handle the side loading that swinging the ball would generate)
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jan 15, 2015 15:42:56 GMT
They wouldn't have to move the frame, they could simply move out the damaged house, and move in the next one.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2015 15:45:27 GMT
They wouldn't have to move the frame, they could simply move out the damaged house, and move in the next one. that sounds like even more work.
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jan 15, 2015 16:24:59 GMT
the way they were set up in episode appeared to be on a flatbed already. I don't think it'd be too difficult to simply move one out and another in..
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2015 16:28:18 GMT
the way they were set up in episode appeared to be on a flatbed already. I don't think it'd be too difficult to simply move one out and another in.. didn't look like they were on a vehicle to me.
|
|
|
Post by The Urban Mythbuster on Jan 15, 2015 16:34:15 GMT
the way they were set up in episode appeared to be on a flatbed already. I don't think it'd be too difficult to simply move one out and another in.. didn't look like they were on a vehicle to me. I agree with TLW. The houses appeared to be directly on the ground.
|
|
|
Post by blazerrose on Jan 16, 2015 3:56:59 GMT
They were built as pieces of houses, anchored to the ground.
|
|
|
Post by breesfan on Jan 17, 2015 4:40:47 GMT
About the wrecking ball, maybe this can never happen in real life, but I seem to remember the scene where the ball was being swung around with Homer on the ball.
I have to wonder, can you swing a wrecking ball the way it did on 'The Simpsons'?
|
|