This is discussion archived from a time before the current discussion method was installed.
Nevrmore: On the 300 example...Correct me if I'm wrong, but the moon has been slowly distancing itself from the Earth for a long time, yes? So the thousands of years ago that 300 took place, I think that the moon would look considerably bigger than it does, now. I don't remember exactly how big it looked in the particular scene, though.
HasherBritarse Beachball-sized. Literally hundreds of times bigger than it looks now. If it were ever that close in human history the gravitational and tidal effects would probably have ended human history.
Sikon: Nevrmore, this effect is completely negligible. The Moon does indeed slowly drift from Earth, at the rate of 38 mm per year, which gives about 100 m in 2,500 years (the Battle of Thermopylae took place in 480 BC). But compared to the Moon's radius, or the distance to Earth...
Air Of Mystery: It just looks cool, okay?!
Incidentally, I'm very surprised nobody mentioned Van Helsing.
Kilyle: I noticed for the first time, a few months back, that the moon moves very, very fast. As in, you see it in one spot, and it looks cool, and by the time you've run in and located your camera and come back out (less than five minutes), it's hidden behind the trees. Well, technically, I suppose that's the earth moving, but hey. Point being, if a show lets the moon sit in the same place too long - keeps cutting back to the same moon shot over a period of several minutes or more - it's messing up. But I'm not sure how to say that succinctly on the main page, so someone else put it in, okay?
Doran: Could someone please wiki upload the moon image, its currently on photobucket
Dmmaus: On the ET example: Actually, you can easily capture a photo of something the size of a person silhouetted in front of the moon (or sun) at approximately the same size with a long telephoto lens. If you take a photo of a person from about 150 metres away, they'll look roughly the same size as the full moon. Of course that's not an arrangement that comes readily to mind when viewing the resulting photo, so such a photo does make the moon look bigger.
- That's actually the reason why when you see a HUGE moon in anime and sometimes other media, it doesn't actually look all that unbelievable. The fact is that you actually can make the moon look enormous in photography by using a humongous zoom. While this of course is very hard to do in practice, especially if you want something (such as a person, a tree or a house) to be in front of the moon when you photograph it, because it requires a perfect location and timing (all variables have to be exact: your own location, distance from the subject, phase of the moon and location of the moon over the horizon), it's at least technically possible. Thus the ET example is not all that impossible. It's completely plausible.
Robert: Removed the natter on Muslim flags and Portsmouth.
The Mess: Considering full moons and werewolves, the moon isn't full for an entire evening. In fact, the moon is only full for a single moment. Truly precise werewolves wouldn't have time to transform and kill anyone! Half the world doesn't even get to see any one particular full moon. So, there is, of necessity, a lee period around the full moon for werewolves to operate. Given that, having extra days to operate around the full moon isn't that much of a stretch. Does this reasoning have a place in the article or do I just enjoy overthinking things?
BritBllt: Removing this entry...
- Final Fantasy IV has two moons in its orbit. Fine, planets can work that way. Then one of them just up and LEAVES. With no repercussions to the tides or anything. Not even after 17 years when it comes back does anything seem to happen.
Tnvlsrule: Did anyone else feel the urge to pothole "lunatics" to Incredibly Lame Pun?
