gregchin

Hi all, I just watched the illusionist starring edward norton and jennifer beal - we rented a DVD. It was a very interesting show with a nice twist at the end - to keep you guessing. What fascinated me most was the design of the locket that the male lead gave to his girlfriend. In fact immediately after the movie, i went on-line to try and discover if there was such a locket for sale. It being 3 days before Valentine's I thought that it would make a cool present.However, I was disappointed to discover that there is no such locket and the device was probably a nifty piece of CGI by the films special effects crew. In fact one site mentioned that such a design would not be possible to create.After some thought, I wonder if that assumption is necessarily right. Perhaps if we modified the locket slightly. the main problems I think would be, where to place the hinge on the twisting parts and how to have the picture not be split into 2. I was wondering if this could be accomplished using magnets. So there would not be a hinge, but it could be twisted and yet stay together using the attractive force of magnetism. The picture could also be set onto a very thin piece of metal so that it could seem to stay fastened to the locket.Finally, if we were to try and stay true to the design, the entire locket could be painted in brown and made to look like a piece of wood. Sure it would be much heavier than a wooden one, but perhaps wearable if it were made thinner. Just a thought.Any other possible designs??

Hi all, this is actually my first post and to be honest the main reason I was in the forum is to get more credits so that I can get free hosting - and for that I need to post. So you can see why the topic that got my attention and my first post was this one - replying to get the most from your post. After reading your analyses, which are both interesting and insightful, I think I may have gotten the hang of it; although I'm still not sure since its my first post and I dont know how much credit it will get me. However, doesn't this encourage redundant, superflous and repetitive writing? This is in my humble opinion only - but I do recall my english teacher telling us that the best way to write an article is to get straight to the point and to cut out the redundant words. Perhaps we could suggest to the adminstrators of the website that there could be some other way to gain credits. Relevance perhaps? I do know, thanks to your enlightening articles, that the posts are read or calculated by mechanical means - meaning that credits are given based on certain criteria. Does this mean that a post which does not make much sense but has all the key words relevant to the post title will get lots of points? I'm just asking - I dont know the answer myself. Perhaps some of the other readers can give suggestions???