Robinson Crusoe on Mars

hi.anyone got any info on the dvd release of this cool movie..ta. Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) Directed by
Byron Haskin

Writing credits
Daniel Defoe (novel)
Tagline: One U.S. astronaut pitted against all the odds beyond this earth!
Plot Outline: Stranded on Mars with only a monkey as a companion, an astronaut must figure out how to find oxygen, water, and food on the lifeless planet...

My favorite Mars movie is Mission to Mars, even though a lot of other people think it's really bad.

I'll just move this thread to Ramble City where it belongs.

Mars has been sadly associated with cheap low budget 50's B movies,I think it has corrupted our sub concious minds.

Missions too mars is great if your not troubled by the fact it is realistic or accurate in the most simple ways. But it does bring up the fact that we have too explore that big head on mars.

http://www.chessbase.com/images2/2003/marsface01.jpg

That pic looks doctored to me. Try this one instead:

http://www.vgl.org/webfiles/mars/face/comp.jpg

http://observe.arc.nasa.gov/nasa/gallery/image_gallery/solar_system/graphics/face.jpg

Thats thee original version , The other I had does look docterd.

Imagine if Nasa explored the face and it ended up being nothing more then a optical illusion, Mission to mars would be so dumped.

It still is a interesting formation and I hope Nasa explores it eventually some day.

I say they design a Rover that can get around like a Hummer and drive over that ugly face.

That's the old, low rez pic from like the 80's.

I love that movie---I remember it from years ago; it's was awesome and oh-so-cool. I wish it were out on DVD too---if it is, lemme know.

My favorite Mars movie is Mission to Mars, even though a lot of other people think it's really bad.

That movie's really bad.


It still is a interesting formation and I hope Nasa explores it eventually some day.

Not if the liberals get their way and shoot down President Bush's enormously exciting space plan---thusly keeping humanity from evolving.

That movie's really bad.

As I said many people did not like it, I did.

Imagine if Nasa explored the face and it ended up being nothing more then a optical illusion, Mission to mars would be so dumped.


I doubt it, we've expored the moon and found no traces of monoliths but 2001 is still a great movie. It's a what-if movie, it's not trying to prove a point.

Didn't Johnny talk about this movie a long time ago? Robinson Crusoe on Mars.

Huh? I've never seen it.

Hey, this movie had Adam West in it!

Well someone here talked about it...

I think I made a poll about really bad [or maybe it was just ones with corny names] sci-fi movies and that was one of the titles I put on there.

Here's the thread. (http://tcforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1107)

Actually, it wasn't one of the movies I had in my poll, but you did bring it up, OB1.

It still is a interesting formation and I hope Nasa explores it eventually some day.

Not if the liberals get their way and shoot down President Bush's enormously exciting space plan---thusly keeping humanity from evolving.

Well I understand that alot of scientist are pissed that their projects they spent years working on ,just got axed!

The Hubble is another thing that has paid the price, Though some people are trying too save it, Since really it isnt even near its full potential.

But I agree this new plan is overdue, I hope it gets through.We cannot allow whiney scum too get in the way of the future and all advancements it may bring ,I am for going back too the moon , We still havent found out how it was formed.Mars is inevitable, The Red planet is next frontier!

ASM, shut up about the "face". Guess what? That cloud that looked JUST LIKE Marge Simpson wasn't ACTUALLY formed that way. Does it reek of intelligence? Yes, but the intelligence is in the VIEWER, not the object being viewed.

Here's the thread. (http://tcforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1107)

Actually, it wasn't one of the movies I had in my poll, but you did bring it up, OB1.

I think I found out about it from another thread then...

It still is a interesting formation and I hope Nasa explores it eventually some day.

Not if the liberals get their way and shoot down President Bush's enormously exciting space plan---thusly keeping humanity from evolving.

How will going not going to space keep humanity from evolving?

How will going not going to space keep humanity from evolving?

How does not leaving your house prevent you from evolving?

DJ do you enjoy being the dick? You must.

How does not leaving your house prevent you from evolving?

What?

I believe that space exploration is essential to human evolution. But the reason Bush is getting so much heat for his Mars plan is because, if you haven't heard, the country is in a huge deficit and we have crucial stages left in rebuilding Iraq. Plus, I doubt Bush even really cares about space exploration. All he really wants to do is throw tons more money at NASA and set the deadline for the first human to walk on Mars. At least when Kennedy did it, he gave us an invigorating speech. :rolleyes:

What I'm saying is yes, we NEED to go to Mars, but I feel that this isn't a good time.

Why do people NEED to go to Mars, though? What's the point?

How will going not going to space keep humanity from evolving?

ASM said it best with "How does not leaving your house prevent you from evolving?"...I can duplicate it with, "how does not having the renaissance prevent humanity from evolving." To me, humanity can only go up from here. Besides the obvious economica resources, our planet is only so big. Our population is booming, and wer'e low on resources and room. Besides, that, why not? Why not explore, and colonize? What not boldly go where no man has gone before?

Plus, I doubt Bush even really cares about space exploration. All he really wants to do is throw tons more money at NASA and set the deadline for the first human to walk on Mars.

Couldn't one say the same for any politician who has ever done anything great---just write it off as they not really caring. It's a really a easy, but baselessly meaningless form of slander. Besides, even were it true, it's still grand---if someone accidentally saves someone's life, aren't they still a hero?

At least when Kennedy did it, he gave us an invigorating speech.

Bush had a speech at the NASA podium--I guess it just wasn't really great, but it was there.

What I'm saying is yes, we NEED to go to Mars, but I feel that this isn't a good time.

It took the US less than a decade to go from founding the whole space initiative, to LAND ON THE FUCKING MOON! TEN YEARS, DONE! Now, thirty years later, all we've gotten accomplished is one half-built space station, two space shuttle dead crews, and a telescope. You're right that NOW isn't the right time---we should'be started this initiative in the 70's, and then we'd be there by now!

What's the point? What's the POINT? You are NOT a human! All humanity has always strived to move on, explore beyond the boundries, continue onwards to the next step, never staying still, never just using what is, but imagining, innovating new things! That's the special ability of the human species! To say it's stupid to do such things, or to not do those things one's self, is to not BE human! YOU ARE A MILLION YEARS UNDEREVOLVED! PRIMITIVE MONKEY!

...anyway, Mars is the next step on our journey to who knows what... It's the drive to go onward. If we didn't do these things, we wouldn't even have spears or fire. I'm not saying living like every other life form, without innovation, is a BAD thing, but it's CERTAINLY not human, since that is what DEFINES us as a species. To not continue to invent, explore, and go onward, is to become stagnant. Our current world has a LOT of people who only know their current life, and do not strive to do anything other than create other life forms doomed to the same existance. Sure, they have the standard teen rebellion, but they do it all wrong and rebel against change itself without even knowing it.

Okay ASM, sorry to offend, but really that hill is just plainly not any sign of intelligence at all. It doesn't even resemble one under high resolution imagery. Even with the low res one, it's only HALF a face and at that the bits that resemble a human face are obiously just shadows. Considering there's no other evidence at all of some sort of martian civilization, this one thing that is so easy to dismiss with a simpler explanation shouldn't even be thought of. If they happen to be nearby, sure take a look I guess, but otherwise why bother when there are far more interesting things to be found there?

Finally, just to make it clear to Fits, if you stay inside all day, just because you don't see the point of going out, you never change. Now, I'm a nerd so I myself stay inside most of the time, but I DO go outside every now and then because I MUST learn what there is out there, I MUST change. I am not perfect as I am now, so I must continue to evolve and adapt and learn more and more and more until this ultimate goal is achieved. One must never be satisfied that they have "done enough". You can't stay still by the way when it comes to progress. Either you are moving forwards or backwards, but never still. For example, since landing on the moon, Nasa, while the technology has moved forwards, has moved steadily backwards in terms of funding and focus. I may end up voting for Bush soley because of his move to go forwards (and no, I don't care what the man's motivations are behind it, the point is that NASA has the orders to gain focus and the funding to get the project done), so if the other candidates know what's good for them, they will offer the same thing. Fits, you may say this now, but should we finally begin our exploration of our solar system, maybe terraformation of Mars (that is VERY possible, and if it was fully funded and started now, the planet could be livible, outside in the open air, within around 100 Earth years), you'll see the importance, or maybe you won't. However, everyone who lives on that world in the future will certainly find it important. And, when the last barrier is broken, travel between stars (far more challenging than local space), that's when exploration will be limitless. There will be enough unexplored to keep humanity's fire burning for the rest of the universe's life span. Eventually yes, the universe itself will evaporate into nothingness itself, stretched out infinitly with no hope of ever starting up again, thus time itself has stopped. However, there's a long time until then, and a long time for humanity to enjoy it's time. Let's not have wasted it by staying in the smallest possible section until the sun destroys us long before the universe itself goes away. What a sad thing... As a Christian, this assumes Revelations won't occur for a frickin' long time, but well honestly I refuse to base future plans on a date God has specifically stated no one can ever know, so I'll assume it could very well happen ten seconds before the last planet we are on is torn apart from the sheering force of dark energy, because that way I don't leave myself without a plan if Destiny doesn't occur earlier like some may think (and could easily be wrong about).

Further more, between now and that distant time, perhaps a way to become beings constructed of pure time/space itself will be found (or some tripe bit of sci-fi I'm making up as I go along), so that matter/energy won't be needed and some existance can still go on even after the expansion into nothing. I dunno, just please fits, rekindle that fire of Quest! If you think that's cheesy, prepare to hear worse if you don't!

Besides, even were it true, it's still grand---if someone accidentally saves someone's life, aren't they still a hero?

Um....no. That person would not be a hero. because he/she wouldn't have even bothered if it was accidental.

Darunia, while you have a bit of a negative side of you that really has a bias in a lot of cases, you and I are in perfect agreement on this. I almost feel dirty knowing that, but no matter, the point is right on!

Five-hundred some years ago, I bet there were small-minded people who thought "Why bother sailing to the Americas and building colonies? It's dangerous, expensive, and we have enough problems over here in Europe."

Luckily, the people in charge were a little more ambitious. God only knows what the world would be like now if they decided to wuss out, but for the life of me I can't believe for a second it would be better.

Well that makes three of us---myself, Dark Jaguar & Weltall.

Um....no. That person would not be a hero.

I beg to differ.

Well, a "hero" should actually have the will and drive to accomplish what he is doing...somebody accidently saves somebody else's life. That's no hero. That's just being lucky.

So if someone sees a baby fall out of a window and they catch it, they're not a hero, they're just 'lucky' because he happened to be in the right place at the right time, and didn't have a drive and ambition to walk out the front door and save a human life today?

Come on.

Dictionary-dot-come says:

A person noted for feats of courage or nobility of purpose, especially one who has risked or sacrificed his or her life.

Doesn't say that it has to be an intentional act.

So if someone sees a baby fall out of a window and they catch it, they're not a hero, they're just 'lucky' because he happened to be in the right place at the right time, and didn't have a drive and ambition to walk out the front door and save a human life today?

That's not accidental, though...you still had the drive and the will to save that baby. Now, if a baby inadvertenly fell from the sky and somehow landed in your hands in a way to save its life, that ain't no hero. That's just one extremely lucky man.

That's not accidental, though...you still had the drive and the will to save that baby. Now, if a baby inadvertenly fell from the sky and somehow landed in your hands in a way to save its life, that ain't no hero. That's just one extremely lucky man.
If he catches the child and saves it's life, regardless of whether he had the conscious intent to save a child's life, he's a hero. If he were not there, the child would die. It's luck on the child's part that someone's there to catch him.

I don't agree that unless someone actively tries to be a hero, they can never be one. To me, a hero is someone who accomplishes something great... regardless of whether they knew it was coming. If someone saved my life completely by accident, I would consider them a hero for doing so. I could never tell them "you were no hero, you just got lucky," because I'd be dead if they weren't there.

I say we go to Mars! *announces alliance with Weltall, DJ, Darunia which pertains only to this matter and will not carry over to the Fight Thread*

If they found bones and fossils on mars I would be more interested in checking it out.

If they found bones and fossils on mars I would be more interested in checking it out.

Oh well---Canada's out of the Martian rally. I guess we lose out on bringing any LaBatt Blue or beavers to the first colony.

Fittisize--with all due respect, a person who sets out to save someone on purpose is less of a hero than someone who is unintentionally swept into it--because they could've done the heroic act simply for the attention it would garnish. Such is a glory monger. Take our friend Han Solo; he didn't got to the Death Star to save a princess, or later on to save Luke Skywalker---but he did, reluctantly, and thusly saved the Rebel Alliance and the galaxy. Isn't he a hero?

Now, I kinda see Fitsi's point, but at the same time I already mostly agree with Weltall and the rest of the smart people here. Hard to say. While I would never say "thank you" to my seat belt during a crash, I would CERTAINLY say thank you to the inventor of the device. However, at the same time, while they weren't out to save MY life in particular, they did have a mindset of making that device TO save a life. Hard to judge this one really... Is the person who dragged a trampoline underneath a window, purely to have fun jumping, but then went inside, a hero due to pure circumstance? Can one claim by extension that the person who gave the trampoline to that person is a hero, and thus down the chain call everyone involved in the creation of that trampoline a hero?

By the reverse of that, do you call someone a killer because they put a gun away in a cabinet that gets knocked over and then shoots someone? Do you call them a killer because they were swimming underneath an unknown diving spot when someone jumped and hit them and was killed by the impact (go ahead and assume the person who was actually hit survived, just to avoid that whole issue). By the reverse, perhaps we can judge how we should judge this. Now, I'll readily admit that I am COMPLETELY BIASED FOR GOOD here. That's a fine bias to have. :D

So, if one is to assume that someone who is hit by a baby, saving it's life, is a hero, must we also call the person who's body breaks the back of a pool diver purely by a freak accident a killer? Hard to call that really. Certainly, there's no need to be out to do good deeds from the start. If the person saw the baby and made an effort to catch it at any time, will is involved, and in those cases I will ALWAYS call the person a hero. It's when the baby falls and the person doesn't do a single thing due to being unaware, and the baby hits the person, then it's a thinker. Yes, the child wouldn't be alive otherwise, but similar logic can find people guilty of things I would never find them guilty of myself. Hmm... Perhaps the person shouldn't be called a good deed doer, but should still be given a quick thank you perhaps. Perhaps what determines this is what the person does AFTER the incident.... I dunno... You discuss, and the winner's prize will be that I'll change my viewpoint to the winning one.

Interesting point. Accidental killing actually has some of the same criteria involved though.

So, you accidentally killed a man. It was not your intent to do so. However, the circumstances often warrant differences. You locked a gun in a cabinet, it falls and the impact causes the gun to fire and kill someone? Yes, you are a killer, for you should have unloaded and safety-catched the gun before you locked it in the case. Therefore, you are guilty because of your neglect: Had you properly engaged the safety and unloaded the weapon, the impact would not have killed the person.

The point about saving the baby because it lands on your head is a good one. However, I will have to also display bias in favor of good deeds because as the old maxim goes, it is easier to destroy than to build, easier to kill than to save. A thousand people can watch the baby fall and not do anything about it, but really only one person can save the child. Therefore, since saving the child, even accidentally, is much harder to do than to watch it and do nothing, I am inclined to call the accidental savior a hero, and on that same token, I would not call the onlookers negligent killers if the child died. It is harder to do good than to do bad or do nothing at all, therefore, good deserves the benefit of the doubt, and any accidental hero is still a hero in my opinion.

Interesting point about my gun example, considering responsibilities that are expected regarding guns and all. Okay, replace the gun with a knife in a knife holder that gets knocked down and falls out of it onto the person killing them, like in some bad movies.

Still, I see your point there. As I said, I bias towards good there, including my greater will to thank people than to blame them.

It would be different with a knife, as for one thing, it's much, much less likely that a person would die from a knife that accidentally fell on them than it would from a chambered, loaded gun. Therefore, the knife owner is not guilty, but the gun owner would be.

The one variable that would make the knife-owner culpable is, did the knife have a sheath? If it did, and it was not sheathed... unless the case was a display case (in which the intent is to show the blade and then you would obviously not have it sheathed), then maybe the knife-owner would be guilty. However, it comes down to the likelihood of an accidental knife-death. It's not likely. One would need to be extremely unluckly to have a knife fall on them out of a case and have it kill them, for it would need to strike them in a particular spot to actually kill them, and that kinda stuff happens very rarely by accident. Conversely, it is very easy to be killed by a weapon that is accidentally loaded. Therefore, while a gun owner leaving a weapon loaded is guilty of negligence, I cannot make myself say the same for a knife-owner, because honestly, I would never expect that someone would knock over a display and be stabbed directly in a fatal spot by accident, but I do know that leaving a weapon loaded and in a place where it can be knocked over is just asking for disaster. A knife could fall on you, strike your breastbone, likely cut you, but almost certainly not badly, and unless it fell point-first, it likely would give you nothing worse than a bruise. However, a loaded gun could just as easily blow off your foot as your head. It can hurt you badly if it's pointed even indirectly at you, for there is the chance of ricochet.

A different analogy would be leaving your car's parking brake off and it rolls and kills someone. Criminal negligence. But if you had a bike that fell over and struck a child, killing him? No. Because you expect that a loose car will kill someone, but people are rarely even hurt by stray bikes. It's a matter of degree, so I opine.

I see, it's a matter of the expected level of responsibility, common knowledge regarding the dangers involved. Right, I get ya, and it makes sense too. Yes, that's right, a knife will generally not kill someone with the force of gravity alone. While they are capable of doing more damage than a gun, generally that can only be done with some sort of will guiding the blade. Someone would have to ADD force to the knife for it to do that damage, whereas a gun has the actual force built right into it. If knives fell with the same force as someone stabbing, then yes it would be just as deadly, or more so, in an accident, but you're correct, gravity simply won't be enough there. Perhaps if the entire cabinet fell on top of the knife, forcing it all the way through. However, honestly I can't imagine that happening purely by accident. If the knife was a sword, and a heavy one, propped in an unsafe place, then I can see fault as well. Let's say a large and heavy sword is hung over a doorway for looks. That person should be able to tell how dangerous that situation could be if the support pins for the sword came loose. If that sword did come loose and swing down and kill someone (assume it's heavy enough to give it the force needed), then I would in fact have to blame the guy who hung it up so precariously. If the sword was stored on a ceremonial rack however on top of a shelf of some kind, must less likely to do that, and it somehow happened anyway, it's more of a freak thing.

Yes, I see your point and agree. It's all a matter of common sense. If you can tell it's dangerous, or more to the point, if it's something most people would in fact consider dangerous or negligent, then you are being dangerous or negligent. Also, I'd hold someone negligent if they alone thought it was negligent and it happened, though most people might not think it so, like in the case of a scientist who is aware it was dangerous not to include those lines of code that kept the self aware robot from being able to kill.