|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 20, 2018 2:35:28 GMT
It has long been a desire of mine to pen a screenplay about the struggles between Robert Hooke, Sir Isaac Newton, and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. In my picture, Newton is a bad tempered, jealous and even vengeful visionary. Though a dead man by the end of the picture, Leibniz, and in some sense even Hooke too for that matter actually win, but it is Newton who ends the film spreading his Fluxions method into the industrial age(then cut to more recent scenes of modern engineers actually using Leibniz' integrals, etc)
Though sometimes a bit too real about Newton at times in the movie, I do include a few satisfying scenes especially for representing Newton's brilliance. I have one scene where Newton sits beneathe apple trees looking off to the moon setting on the horizon while he pieces together ideas about what could make the moon orbit (forgetting for the moment that the Earth's rotation is actually responsible for this view of the moon) There are several dissolves showing the moon getting nearer and nearer the horizon. Then, in the foreground, an apple falls to the ground before him, right in front of the setting moon (and, no. The apple does not hit him in the head!) Naturally! The same thing making the apple fall also orbits the moon! One problem with this scene is that Hooke actually first mentions this possibility. Newton gives it the proper maths to support it.
Hooke and Newton sometimes meet at the Grecian Coffeehouse in the film. I'd like to think they had a kind of hang out.
Anyway, the idea is rough, but I'd really like to write this one day. Trouble is, getting accurate, trustworthy sources on the topic...
Suggestions?
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 20, 2018 4:46:14 GMT
Well, a place to start is the internet. There seems to be a lot of discussions on the topic.Many don't seem to care for Newton although I've never met the man. You'll just have to weed through them to determine what you think is accurate and what isn't. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 20, 2018 14:22:05 GMT
since when do "accurate" and "movie" go together?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 22, 2018 20:31:39 GMT
Historical notes for those that didn't realise this; The Grecian Coffee House was a real Coffee House in London where Newton, amongst many others, did actually hang out and discuss 'intellectual' topics. In fact the (reputable) Coffee Houses like the Grecian were known as 'Penny Universities' due to this and the one penny entry fee. They did not serve alcohol, nor allow women inside. (Or at least not the reputable coffee houses anyway). The building still stands today, although its been a public house since around 1840, and is a grade two listed building. -------- www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/general/newton.htmlweb.stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.htmlwww.bbc.com/timelines/zwwgcdm "Challenged by Robert Hooke to prove his theories about planetary orbits, Newton produced what is considered the foundation for physics as we know it." www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html (Note; There is a link at the bottom of the article to a second hand account of the 'Apple from the tree' story. The link is currently blank, but this seems to be due to updates/maintenance rather than the site going down) |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2018 10:13:01 GMT
Historical notes for those that didn't realise this; The Grecian Coffee House was a real Coffee House in London where Newton, amongst many others, did actually hang out and discuss 'intellectual' topics. In fact the (reputable) Coffee Houses like the Grecian were known as 'Penny Universities' due to this and the one penny entry fee. They did not serve alcohol, nor allow women inside. (Or at least not the reputable coffee houses anyway). The building still stands today, although its been a public house since around 1840, and is a grade two listed building. -------- www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/general/newton.htmlweb.stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.htmlwww.bbc.com/timelines/zwwgcdm "Challenged by Robert Hooke to prove his theories about planetary orbits, Newton produced what is considered the foundation for physics as we know it." www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html (Note; There is a link at the bottom of the article to a second hand account of the 'Apple from the tree' story. The link is currently blank, but this seems to be due to updates/maintenance rather than the site going down) that is an important bit of information for those only vaguely aware of Newton's bio - so they are making the distinction between The Grecian and a random coffee house in Greece. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 24, 2018 14:16:53 GMT
Historical notes for those that didn't realise this; The Grecian Coffee House was a real Coffee House in London where Newton, amongst many others, did actually hang out and discuss 'intellectual' topics. In fact the (reputable) Coffee Houses like the Grecian were known as 'Penny Universities' due to this and the one penny entry fee. They did not serve alcohol, nor allow women inside. (Or at least not the reputable coffee houses anyway). The building still stands today, although its been a public house since around 1840, and is a grade two listed building. -------- www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/general/newton.htmlweb.stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.htmlwww.bbc.com/timelines/zwwgcdm "Challenged by Robert Hooke to prove his theories about planetary orbits, Newton produced what is considered the foundation for physics as we know it." www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html (Note; There is a link at the bottom of the article to a second hand account of the 'Apple from the tree' story. The link is currently blank, but this seems to be due to updates/maintenance rather than the site going down) It seems as though Hooke did more than merely mention his belief about gravity with regard to the orbits of planets. He apparently wrote a paper "The inflection of a Direct Motion into a Curve by a Supervening Attractive Principle" in 1666. In my opinion, he should have simply gone ahead and used the term "gravity" rather than "Supervening Attractive Principle" in its title, however. That could open this one for debate, since he didn't title his paper specifically about gravity, therefore one could argue he wasn't talking about gravity. (Trying to find the actual paper so as to read what he was talking about in it) Anyway, it looks like Robert Hooke was very much a force to be reckoned with for Newton. In some sense, I get the feeling that one could make a loose analogy that Hooke was to Newton very much like Lorentz was to Einstein (professionally anyway - not so much on a personal level). Furthermore, I have it as Hooke suffering from some sort of sleep disorder. He took many notes with regard to his quality of sleep and the things that could help with that. In my work, I intend to assume he suffered from Sleep Apnea. Something hardly understood in the 1600's. And, something I am familiar with and can understand how it hinders thinking. ( I'd say Hooke could have ultimately worked out the math for his paper, but the Sleep Apnea made that difficult -- or at least that's what I will assume) Thank you all! Looks like interesting stuff to read for sure! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 24, 2018 14:40:47 GMT
Historical notes for those that didn't realise this; The Grecian Coffee House was a real Coffee House in London where Newton, amongst many others, did actually hang out and discuss 'intellectual' topics. In fact the (reputable) Coffee Houses like the Grecian were known as 'Penny Universities' due to this and the one penny entry fee. They did not serve alcohol, nor allow women inside. (Or at least not the reputable coffee houses anyway). The building still stands today, although its been a public house since around 1840, and is a grade two listed building. -------- www.physics.wustl.edu/alford/general/newton.htmlweb.stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.htmlwww.bbc.com/timelines/zwwgcdm "Challenged by Robert Hooke to prove his theories about planetary orbits, Newton produced what is considered the foundation for physics as we know it." www.independent.co.uk/news/science/the-core-of-truth-behind-sir-isaac-newtons-apple-1870915.html (Note; There is a link at the bottom of the article to a second hand account of the 'Apple from the tree' story. The link is currently blank, but this seems to be due to updates/maintenance rather than the site going down) It seems as though Hooke did more than merely mention his belief about gravity with regard to the orbits of planets. He apparently wrote a paper "The inflection of a Direct Motion into a Curve by a Supervening Attractive Principle" in 1666. In my opinion, he should have simply gone ahead and used the term "gravity" rather than "Supervening Attractive Principle" in its title, however. That could open this one for debate, since he didn't title his paper specifically about gravity, therefore one could argue he wasn't talking about gravity. (Trying to find the actual paper so as to read what he was talking about in it) Anyway, it looks like Robert Hooke was very much a force to be reckoned with for Newton. In some sense, I get the feeling that one could make a loose analogy that Hooke was to Newton very much like Lorentz was to Einstein (professionally anyway - not so much on a personal level). Furthermore, I have it as Hooke suffering from some sort of sleep disorder. He took many notes with regard to his quality of sleep and the things that could help with that. In my work, I intend to assume he suffered from Sleep Apnea. Something hardly understood in the 1600's. And, something I am familiar with and can understand how it hinders thinking. ( I'd say Hooke could have ultimately worked out the math for his paper, but the Sleep Apnea made that difficult -- or at least that's what I will assume) Thank you all! Looks like interesting stuff to read for sure! I'm wondering if he intentionally wasn't limiting the options to gravity |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 24, 2018 15:40:41 GMT
It seems as though Hooke did more than merely mention his belief about gravity with regard to the orbits of planets. He apparently wrote a paper "The inflection of a Direct Motion into a Curve by a Supervening Attractive Principle" in 1666. In my opinion, he should have simply gone ahead and used the term "gravity" rather than "Supervening Attractive Principle" in its title, however. That could open this one for debate, since he didn't title his paper specifically about gravity, therefore one could argue he wasn't talking about gravity. (Trying to find the actual paper so as to read what he was talking about in it) Anyway, it looks like Robert Hooke was very much a force to be reckoned with for Newton. In some sense, I get the feeling that one could make a loose analogy that Hooke was to Newton very much like Lorentz was to Einstein (professionally anyway - not so much on a personal level). Furthermore, I have it as Hooke suffering from some sort of sleep disorder. He took many notes with regard to his quality of sleep and the things that could help with that. In my work, I intend to assume he suffered from Sleep Apnea. Something hardly understood in the 1600's. And, something I am familiar with and can understand how it hinders thinking. ( I'd say Hooke could have ultimately worked out the math for his paper, but the Sleep Apnea made that difficult -- or at least that's what I will assume) Thank you all! Looks like interesting stuff to read for sure! I'm wondering if he intentionally wasn't limiting the options to gravity Excellent point. He was being careful and more general stating it was some attractive force. Whereas Newton specified it had to be gravity... Right? Do you think? Only the actual paper of Hooke's would say... Did find this at least: Michael Nauenberg: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-004-0226-yIn it, Prof Nauenberg summarizes that Hooke knew it was gravity. |
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on Sept 24, 2018 20:22:34 GMT
IIRC, several major institutions came out of these London coffee houses around the same time as Newton. One example is private insurance was created in a similar coffee house with Lloyds of London being the first one to emerge.
My question is how do you make a movie about math interesting to the average person?
While us here will find it interesting, not many others will. On top of that, how do you explain the difference between Newtonian and Leibnizain methods of Calculus? Most people will instantly tune out as soon as they see an integral or derivative notation on screen.
|
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 24, 2018 22:09:34 GMT
The notion Newton had that he was chosen by God to solely reveal the truth behind the universe provides us an arena where conflict arises. The technical components will be shown, brief enough to get the point across. But, the all consuming tension between players will hopefully carry the scene for those less technical, more so than any technical data. Although, technical information can be presented with visual graphs too. Keep in mind, we are only talking rate of change and gravity -- things many people get if they see some sort of visual aid these days.
These are well defined characters with very different outlooks on life. When they mix, Sparks will fly. As they did. Another part is Liebniz and his exploits with women.
Anyway, so far it is merely a foundation of conflict, albiet a professional conflict as it is currently. I think we need to see Newton grow and become less hateful of those slower than he that he sees as trying to compete rather than merely contribute. But, sadly, I doubt we see any transformation in him here.
Edit:
I think a better answer at the moment is that since I didn't invent these characters, I'll need to hope that research will reveal good interesting content.
In any case, I think many of us have stumbled upon a fight at the office, or one on the internet somewhere and we couldn't help but take a seat and reach for the popcorn...
For instance, here's a show where technical data was rather complicated, but with good visuals and well-developed characters explaining in their own way, we ended up eating it up actually:
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2018 0:48:23 GMT
I'm wondering if he intentionally wasn't limiting the options to gravity Excellent point. He was being careful and more general stating it was some attractive force. Whereas Newton specified it had to be gravity... Right? Do you think? Only the actual paper of Hooke's would say... Did find this at least: Michael Nauenberg: link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00016-004-0226-yIn it, Prof Nauenberg summarizes that Hooke knew it was gravity. I was thinking of him being forward thinking enough to be able to say it would apply to other orbital scenarios |
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 25, 2018 2:42:28 GMT
I think this is why most of us just stick with the apple story.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2018 5:48:08 GMT
I think this is why most of us just stick with the apple story. and the dumber among us think Newton invented gravity. |
|
|
|
Post by rmc on Sept 25, 2018 7:08:56 GMT
My take on the input I am getting here is that there may be sources available on the topic, but it's a bad idea for a screenplay. Does that accurately sum up?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2018 14:14:57 GMT
My take on the input I am getting here is that there may be sources available on the topic, but it's a bad idea for a screenplay. Does that accurately sum up? I'm not sure. I'm guessing if done right, it could be a hit with the more intelligent viewers. I don't think you're looking for the type of audience who can't wait to see Sharknado 42, anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 25, 2018 14:18:19 GMT
I didn't take the comments that way at all. I took them as attempts to provide you with the information you are looking for and asking questions that you may not have thought of. Look at The Imitation Game as a good example. This movie is all about complex math, and yet it gets 8 out of 10 stars. I believe you have a vision that you should pursue. |
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Sept 25, 2018 14:22:22 GMT
I don't think its that bad an idea for a screenplay, all of the protaganists you have were actually rather interesting people. Living in interesting times and, through the coffee houses, almost certainly coming into contact with other interesting people.
One idea might be to focus on the Grecian rarther than specifically Newton and Hooke, looking at which other notable characters were around at the time - you can always fudge history a little here, and maybe highlight little known people from the period. This might even make it more likely that the script gets picked up, as you'd be talking about filming on one set, or possibly some scenes being filmed on location as the building is still there. The history aspect may make it interesting to the BBC History Department, and something that can be filmed on one set would make it cheap enough to tempt a smaller production company.
Historical note; As I mentioned before women were not allowed into the Grecian or for that matter any reputable coffee house. So if any producer starts talking about adding a woman point out that any woman found in the Grecian would have been physically thrown out. They would be assumed to be prostitutes, and even if they were known or revealed to be the wife of someone inside their husband would have dragged them out to avoid a scandal.
|
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on Sept 25, 2018 14:34:03 GMT
...then cut to more recent scenes of modern engineers actually using Leibniz' integrals, etc. Now there's your problem. While the general public loves action films, I don't know if they can handle anything of that intensity. Seriously though, as Cyber points out, the public likes stories about interesting people and the conflicts between them. They really don't care about science. Take Edison and Tesla as an example. While many people are interested in the battle that went on between these two great inventors, they couldn't care less that your refrigerator says, "for use on Alternating Current only" on the back. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2018 14:34:14 GMT
I don't think its that bad an idea for a screenplay, all of the protaganists you have were actually rather interesting people. Living in interesting times and, through the coffee houses, almost certainly coming into contact with other interesting people. One idea might be to focus on the Grecian rarther than specifically Newton and Hooke, looking at which other notable characters were around at the time - you can always fudge history a little here, and maybe highlight little known people from the period. This might even make it more likely that the script gets picked up, as you'd be talking about filming on one set, or possibly some scenes being filmed on location as the building is still there. The history aspect may make it interesting to the BBC History Department, and something that can be filmed on one set would make it cheap enough to tempt a smaller production company. Historical note; As I mentioned before women were not allowed into the Grecian or for that matter any reputable coffee house. So if any producer starts talking about adding a woman point out that any woman found in the Grecian would have been physically thrown out. They would be assumed to be prostitutes, and even if they were known or revealed to be the wife of someone inside their husband would have dragged them out to avoid a scandal. it would be an interesting writing challenge writing that in such a way it didn't set off a political firestorm. something of a "we don't endorse this kind of behavior but we want to accurately represent that this is the way women used to be treated." |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 25, 2018 14:37:59 GMT
...then cut to more recent scenes of modern engineers actually using Leibniz' integrals, etc. Now there's your problem. While the general public loves action films, I don't know if they can handle anything of that intensity. Seriously though, as Cyber points out, the public likes stories about interesting people and the conflicts between them. They couldn't care less about science. Take Edison and Tesla as an example. While many people are interested in the battle that went on between these two great inventors, they couldn't care less that your refrigerator says, "for use on Alternating Current only" on the back. yep, they absolutely love tesla, but they have absolutely no comprehension whatsoever that about half of Tesla's ideas never took off because they were either totally off the mark, or simply not practical to implement. - I.E. his "tesla death ray" better known to scientists as his attempt to transmit electricity wirelessly, which was not usable, because it created so much electromagnetic noise it interfered with nearly everything. |
|
