Comments on: Oceans: A Review

By: Charles V. Packer

Charles V. Packer — Wed, 05 May 2010 12:10:31 +0000

Because there were few clues to the size scales, I had to guess at the sizes of the organisms that were unfamiliar to me. I realized that a smooth exterior was a clue to smallness as was absence of any turbidity in the water. In fact, I’m wondering if the tiny organisms were actually filmed in an aquarium where the environment could be more controlled.

By: Tweets that mention A review of Disney's Oceans: some good, some bad, but go and see it #science #movies -- Topsy.com

Mon, 03 May 2010 22:45:03 +0000

[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by David Nemeth. David Nemeth said: A review of Disney's Oceans: some good, some bad, but go and see it http://bit.ly/ahyoDS #science #movies […]

By: Jennifer Frazer

Jennifer Frazer — Mon, 03 May 2010 17:44:28 +0000

There's a broken link in this post but I can't seem to get it fixed in the original. The correct link for the seafood wallet card/iPhone app is here. I understand the French version also has a lot of narration with Jacques Perrin and his grandson. Not sure what Jacques was thinking or if that's also as cheesy as it sounds. Please do report back if you see it and let us know what you think. As for March of the Penguins, I'd be interested to see the original, if only I could understand French well. : ( Three years of high school French just won't cut it . . . The English version didn't impress me much. I felt it was only an average TV-quality nature documentary. Perhaps the original would change my mind. As for the size range -- they did show some echinoderm embryos and a crustacean egg toward the beginning, but I assumed they were relatively immotile and didn't need slowing down. For cilliates and flagellates, yes, I can say from experience slow motion helps! Those suckers are fast. And I still marvel at the beautiful (if artistically liscensed) work of the animators who illustrated the Rite of Spring for Fantasia . . .

By: Charles V. Packer

Charles V. Packer — Mon, 03 May 2010 13:29:27 +0000

What is the size range of the organisms shown in the movie?
At the larger end it’s the blue whale, for sure, but what
is the size of the smallest animals? I believe they are
microscopic, or at most, millimeter-sized. If this is correct,
then their motions certainly must have been shown in slow-mo.
To the extent that slow-motion is used in the movie — and
I think it is used extensively — it illustrates a principle of
universality in the motion of organisms: that there is a
time scale for viewing any organism that makes its motions
“feel” like human movements. For brevity I won’t consider the
implications here, but I can’t help thinking about the
prescience of all those Disney animators of the 1940s and 50s:
they didn’t imagine, so much as report on things they had
never seen…

By: Cristina

Cristina — Mon, 03 May 2010 10:01:48 +0000

Interesting review… I wonder if the narration will be as heavy handed in the original. I’ll be seeing it soon in Spanish, but I’ll eventually get hold of a dvd where I can appreciate the original work. I haven’t seen any of Perrin’s other works in anything other than French, but I did contrast March of the Penguins in French and the Dinseyfied English version… not at all the same movie! Much less original, much less inspiring (the English).