#Gordon Murray Design

[diabolus1exmachina]

TVR Cerbera Speed 12 

This is a terrifying machine.  And it’s a car so terrifying that, after a test drive of one of the prototypes, the boss of TVR decided against putting it into production. And when that boss was Peter Wheeler, who thought airbags were more trouble than they were worth and that ABS was just a crutch for poorly set up cars, you likely have some idea of what it takes to terrify him. In fact, we’d argue that Wheeler’s the man who made TVR a byword for terrifying. After he took the reins of TVR, he ditched the Cologne V6s in favour of Rover V8s. Which he then pushed out, bored out and maxed out. But after nearly tripling the Rover V8’s power, Wheeler ditched it entirely in favour of a V8 and straight-six of TVR’s own design. TVR’s tilt at top-tier racing, however, would require even more madness. But then it would, considering it was shaping up to be Blackpool’s merchants of oversteer up against the industrial might of Mercedes, the racing pedigree of Porsche and the bona fide genius of Gordon Murray. Yep, TVR’s planned racer would be up against the Mercedes CLK GTR, Porsche GT1 and McLaren F1 Longtail. Surmounting such a daunting challenge was approached in... let’s say typical TVR fashion. The 7.7-litre V12 (which was, at its most basic, two of TVR’s AJP-6 straight sixes combined) apparently snapped the input shaft of TVR’s 1,000bhp-rated dyno. A top speed in excess of the McLaren F1 was mooted. And, yes, Peter Wheeler, who raced 500bhp-per-tonne TVRs in the one-make Tuscan Challenge, was so spooked by the end result that he deemed the road-going Speed 12 entirely too bonkers and pulled the pin on the road-going car. Yes, too bonkers for TVR. Imagine how mad. See, TVR did end up building just one Speed 12 road car – an amalgam of road car, prototype chassis, and racing parts – and sold it to a buyer personally vetted by Wheeler himself. And it was every bit the madman that everyone expected it to be. The sheer weight of what was onboard the Speed 12– namely, that 7.7-litre V12, with around 850bhp and 900lb ft – was belied only by the eventual kerb weight: around 1,000kg. 

[dailyanarchistposts]

F.2.2 Do “libertarian”-capitalists support slavery?

Yes. It may come as a surprise to many people, but right-“Libertarianism” is one of the few political theories that justifies slavery. For example, Robert Nozick asks whether “a free system would allow [the individual] to sell himself into slavery” and he answers “I believe that it would.” [Anarchy, State and Utopia, p. 371] While some right-“libertarians” do not agree with Nozick, there is no logical basis in their ideology for such disagreement.

This can be seen from “anarcho”-capitalist Walter Block, who, like Nozick, supports voluntary slavery. As he puts it, “if I own something, I can sell it (and should be allowed by law to do so). If I can’t sell, then, and to that extent, I really don’t own it.” Thus agreeing to sell yourself for a lifetime “is a bona fide contract” which, if “abrogated, theft occurs.” He critiques those other right-wing “libertarians” (like Murray Rothbard) who oppose voluntary slavery as being inconsistent to their principles. Block, in his words, seeks to make “a tiny adjustment” which “strengthens libertarianism by making it more internally consistent.” He argues that his position shows “that contract, predicated on private property [can] reach to the furthest realms of human interaction, even to voluntary slave contracts.” [“Towards a Libertarian Theory of Inalienability: A Critique of Rothbard, Barnett, Smith, Kinsella, Gordon, and Epstein,” pp. 39–85, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 17, no. 2, p. 44, p. 48, p. 82 and p. 46]

So the logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

This defence of slavery should not come as a surprise to any one familiar with classical liberalism. An elitist ideology, its main rationale is to defend the liberty and power of property owners and justify unfree social relationships (such as government and wage labour) in terms of “consent.” Nozick and Block just takes it to its logical conclusion. This is because his position is not new but, as with so many other right-“libertarian” ones, can be found in John Locke’s work. The key difference is that Locke refused the term “slavery” and favoured “drudgery” as, for him, slavery mean a relationship “between a lawful conqueror and a captive” where the former has the power of life and death over the latter. Once a “compact” is agreed between them, “an agreement for a limited power on the one side, and obedience on the other … slavery ceases.” As long as the master could not kill the slave, then it was “drudgery.” Like Nozick, he acknowledges that “men did sell themselves; but, it is plain, this was only to drudgery, not to slavery: for, it is evident, the person sold was not under an absolute, arbitrary, despotical power: for the master could not have power to kill him, at any time, whom, at a certain time, he was obliged to let go free out of his service.” [Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Section 24] In other words, voluntary slavery was fine but just call it something else.

Not that Locke was bothered by involuntary slavery. He was heavily involved in the slave trade. He owned shares in the “Royal Africa Company” which carried on the slave trade for England, making a profit when he sold them. He also held a significant share in another slave company, the “Bahama Adventurers.” In the “Second Treatise”, Locke justified slavery in terms of “Captives taken in a just war,” a war waged against aggressors. [Section 85] That, of course, had nothing to do with the actual slavery Locke profited from (slave raids were common, for example). Nor did his “liberal” principles stop him suggesting a constitution that would ensure that “every freeman of Carolina shall have absolute power and authority over his Negro slaves.” The constitution itself was typically autocratic and hierarchical, designed explicitly to “avoid erecting a numerous democracy.” [The Works of John Locke, vol. X, p. 196]

So the notion of contractual slavery has a long history within right-wing liberalism, although most refuse to call it by that name. It is of course simply embarrassment that stops many right-“libertarians” calling a spade a spade. They incorrectly assume that slavery has to be involuntary. In fact, historically, voluntary slave contracts have been common (David Ellerman’s Property and Contract in Economics has an excellent overview). Any new form of voluntary slavery would be a “civilised” form of slavery and could occur when an individual would “agree” to sell their lifetime’s labour to another (as when a starving worker would “agree” to become a slave in return for food). In addition, the contract would be able to be broken under certain conditions (perhaps in return for breaking the contract, the former slave would have pay damages to his or her master for the labour their master would lose — a sizeable amount no doubt and such a payment could result in debt slavery, which is the most common form of “civilised” slavery. Such damages may be agreed in the contract as a “performance bond” or “conditional exchange.”

In summary, right-“libertarians” are talking about “civilised” slavery (or, in other words, civil slavery) and not forced slavery. While some may have reservations about calling it slavery, they agree with the basic concept that since people own themselves they can sell themselves, that is sell their labour for a lifetime rather than piecemeal.

We must stress that this is no academic debate. “Voluntary” slavery has been a problem in many societies and still exists in many countries today (particularly third world ones where bonded labour — i.e. where debt is used to enslave people — is the most common form). With the rise of sweat shops and child labour in many “developed” countries such as the USA, “voluntary” slavery (perhaps via debt and bonded labour) may become common in all parts of the world — an ironic (if not surprising) result of “freeing” the market and being indifferent to the actual freedom of those within it.

Some right-“libertarians” are obviously uneasy with the logical conclusion of their definition of freedom. Murray Rothbard, for example, stressed the “unenforceability, in libertarian theory, of voluntary slave contracts.” Of course, other “libertarian” theorists claim the exact opposite, so “libertarian theory” makes no such claim, but never mind! Essentially, his objection revolves around the assertion that a person “cannot, in nature, sell himself into slavery and have this sale enforced — for this would mean that his future will over his own body was being surrendered in advance” and that if a “labourer remains totally subservient to his master’s will voluntarily, he is not yet a slave since his submission is voluntary.” However, as we noted in section F.2, Rothbard emphasis on quitting fails to recognise the actual denial of will and control over ones own body that is explicit in wage labour. It is this failure that pro-slave contract “libertarians” stress — they consider the slave contract as an extended wage contract. Moreover, a modern slave contract would likely take the form of a “performance bond,” on which Rothbard laments about its “unfortunate suppression” by the state. In such a system, the slave could agree to perform X years labour or pay their master substantial damages if they fail to do so. It is the threat of damages that enforces the contract and such a “contract” Rothbard does agree is enforceable. Another means of creating slave contracts would be “conditional exchange” which Rothbard also supports. As for debt bondage, that too, seems acceptable. He surreally notes that paying damages and debts in such contracts is fine as “money, of course, is alienable” and so forgets that it needs to be earned by labour which, he asserts, is not alienable! [The Ethics of Liberty, pp. 134–135, p. 40, pp. 136–9, p. 141 and p. 138]

It should be noted that the slavery contract cannot be null and void because it is unenforceable, as Rothbard suggests. This is because the doctrine of specific performance applies to all contracts, not just to labour contracts. This is because all contracts specify some future performance. In the case of the lifetime labour contract, then it can be broken as long as the slave pays any appropriate damages. As Rothbard puts it elsewhere, “if A has agreed to work for life for B in exchange for 10,000 grams of gold, he will have to return the proportionate amount of property if he terminates the arrangement and ceases to work.” [Man, Economy, and State, vol. I , p. 441] This is understandable, as the law generally allows material damages for breached contracts, as does Rothbard in his support for the “performance bond” and “conditional exchange.” Needless to say, having to pay such damages (either as a lump sum or over a period of time) could turn the worker into the most common type of modern slave, the debt-slave.

And it is interesting to note that even Murray Rothbard is not against the selling of humans. He argued that children are the property of their parents who can (bar actually murdering them by violence) do whatever they please with them, even sell them on a “flourishing free child market.” [The Ethics of Liberty, p. 102] Combined with a whole hearted support for child labour (after all, the child can leave its parents if it objects to working for them) such a “free child market” could easily become a “child slave market” — with entrepreneurs making a healthy profit selling infants and children or their labour to capitalists (as did occur in 19th century Britain). Unsurprisingly, Rothbard ignores the possible nasty aspects of such a market in human flesh (such as children being sold to work in factories, homes and brothels). But this is besides the point.

Of course, this theoretical justification for slavery at the heart of an ideology calling itself “libertarianism” is hard for many right-“libertarians” to accept and so they argue that such contracts would be very hard to enforce. This attempt to get out of the contradiction fails simply because it ignores the nature of the capitalist market. If there is a demand for slave contracts to be enforced, then companies will develop to provide that “service” (and it would be interesting to see how two “protection” firms, one defending slave contracts and another not, could compromise and reach a peaceful agreement over whether slave contracts were valid). Thus we could see a so-called “free” society producing companies whose specific purpose was to hunt down escaped slaves (i.e. individuals in slave contracts who have not paid damages to their owners for freedom). Of course, perhaps Rothbard would claim that such slave contracts would be “outlawed” under his “general libertarian law code” but this is a denial of market “freedom”. If slave contracts are “banned” then surely this is paternalism, stopping individuals from contracting out their “labour services” to whom and however long they “desire”. You cannot have it both ways.

So, ironically, an ideology proclaiming itself to support “liberty” ends up justifying and defending slavery. Indeed, for the right-“libertarian” the slave contract is an exemplification, not the denial, of the individual’s liberty! How is this possible? How can slavery be supported as an expression of liberty? Simple, right-“libertarian” support for slavery is a symptom of a deeper authoritarianism, namely their uncritical acceptance of contract theory. The central claim of contract theory is that contract is the means to secure and enhance individual freedom. Slavery is the antithesis to freedom and so, in theory, contract and slavery must be mutually exclusive. However, as indicated above, some contract theorists (past and present) have included slave contracts among legitimate contracts. This suggests that contract theory cannot provide the theoretical support needed to secure and enhance individual freedom.

As Carole Pateman argues, “contract theory is primarily about a way of creating social relations constituted by subordination, not about exchange.” Rather than undermining subordination, contract theorists justify modern subjection — “contract doctrine has proclaimed that subjection to a master — a boss, a husband — is freedom.” [The Sexual Contract, p. 40 and p. 146] The question central to contract theory (and so right-Libertarianism) is not “are people free” (as one would expect) but “are people free to subordinate themselves in any manner they please.” A radically different question and one only fitting to someone who does not know what liberty means.

Anarchists argue that not all contracts are legitimate and no free individual can make a contract that denies his or her own freedom. If an individual is able to express themselves by making free agreements then those free agreements must also be based upon freedom internally as well. Any agreement that creates domination or hierarchy negates the assumptions underlying the agreement and makes itself null and void. In other words, voluntary government is still government and a defining characteristic of an anarchy must be, surely, “no government” and “no rulers.”

This is most easily seen in the extreme case of the slave contract. John Stuart Mill stated that such a contract would be “null and void.” He argued that an individual may voluntarily choose to enter such a contract but in so doing “he abdicates his liberty; he foregoes any future use of it beyond that single act. He therefore defeats, in his own case, the very purpose which is the justification of allowing him to dispose of himself…The principle of freedom cannot require that he should be free not to be free. It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom.” He adds that “these reasons, the force of which is so conspicuous in this particular case, are evidently of far wider application.” [quoted by Pateman, Op. Cit., pp. 171–2]

And it is such an application that defenders of capitalism fear (Mill did in fact apply these reasons wider and unsurprisingly became a supporter of a market syndicalist form of socialism). If we reject slave contracts as illegitimate then, logically, we must also reject all contracts that express qualities similar to slavery (i.e. deny freedom) including wage slavery. Given that, as David Ellerman points out, “the voluntary slave … and the employee cannot in fact take their will out of their intentional actions so that they could be ‘employed’ by the master or employer” we are left with “the rather implausible assertion that a person can vacate his or her will for eight or so hours a day for weeks, months, or years on end but cannot do so for a working lifetime.” [Property and Contract in Economics, p. 58] This is Rothbard’s position.

The implications of supporting voluntary slavery is quite devastating for all forms of right-wing “libertarianism.” This was proven by Ellerman when he wrote an extremely robust defence of it under the pseudonym “J. Philmore” called The Libertarian Case for Slavery (first published in The Philosophical Forum, xiv, 1982). This classic rebuttal takes the form of “proof by contradiction” (or reductio ad absurdum) whereby he takes the arguments of right-libertarianism to their logical end and shows how they reach the memorably conclusion that the “time has come for liberal economic and political thinkers to stop dodging this issue and to critically re-examine their shared prejudices about certain voluntary social institutions … this critical process will inexorably drive liberalism to its only logical conclusion: libertarianism that finally lays the true moral foundation for economic and political slavery.” Ellerman shows how, from a right-“libertarian” perspective there is a “fundamental contradiction” in a modern liberal society for the state to prohibit slave contracts. He notes that there “seems to be a basic shared prejudice of liberalism that slavery is inherently involuntary, so the issue of genuinely voluntary slavery has received little scrutiny. The perfectly valid liberal argument that involuntary slavery is inherently unjust is thus taken to include voluntary slavery (in which case, the argument, by definition, does not apply). This has resulted in an abridgement of the freedom of contract in modern liberal society.” Thus it is possible to argue for a “civilised form of contractual slavery.” [“J. Philmore,”, Op. Cit.]

So accurate and logical was Ellerman’s article that many of its readers were convinced it was written by a right-“libertarian” (including, we have to say, us!). One such writer was Carole Pateman, who correctly noted that ”[t]here is a nice historical irony here. In the American South, slaves were emancipated and turned into wage labourers, and now American contractarians argue that all workers should have the opportunity to turn themselves into civil slaves.” [Op. Cit., p. 63]).

The aim of Ellerman’s article was to show the problems that employment (wage labour) presents for the concept of self-government and how contract need not result in social relationships based on freedom. As “Philmore” put it, ”[a]ny thorough and decisive critique of voluntary slavery or constitutional non-democratic government would carry over to the employment contract — which is the voluntary contractual basis for the free-market free-enterprise system. Such a critique would thus be a reductio ad absurdum.” As “contractual slavery” is an “extension of the employer-employee contract,” he shows that the difference between wage labour and slavery is the time scale rather than the principle or social relationships involved. [Op. Cit.] This explains why the early workers’ movement called capitalism “wage slavery” and why anarchists still do. It exposes the unfree nature of capitalism and the poverty of its vision of freedom. While it is possible to present wage labour as “freedom” due to its “consensual” nature, it becomes much harder to do so when talking about slavery or dictatorship (and let us not forget that Nozick also had no problem with autocracy — see section B.4). Then the contradictions are exposed for all to see and be horrified by.

All this does not mean that we must reject free agreement. Far from it! Free agreement is essential for a society based upon individual dignity and liberty. There are a variety of forms of free agreement and anarchists support those based upon co-operation and self-management (i.e. individuals working together as equals). Anarchists desire to create relationships which reflect (and so express) the liberty that is the basis of free agreement. Capitalism creates relationships that deny liberty. The opposition between autonomy and subjection can only be maintained by modifying or rejecting contract theory, something that capitalism cannot do and so the right-wing “libertarian” rejects autonomy in favour of subjection (and so rejects socialism in favour of capitalism).

So the real contrast between genuine libertarians and right-“libertarians” is best expressed in their respective opinions on slavery. Anarchism is based upon the individual whose individuality depends upon the maintenance of free relationships with other individuals. If individuals deny their capacities for self-government through a contract the individuals bring about a qualitative change in their relationship to others — freedom is turned into mastery and subordination. For the anarchist, slavery is thus the paradigm of what freedom is not, instead of an exemplification of what it is (as right-“libertarians” state). As Proudhon argued:

“If I were asked to answer the following question: What is slavery? and I should answer in one word, It is murder, my meaning would be understood at once. No extended argument would be required to show that the power to take from a man his thought, his will, his personality, is a power of life and death; and that to enslave a man is to kill him.” [What is Property?, p. 37]

In contrast, the right-“libertarian” effectively argues that “I support slavery because I believe in liberty.” It is a sad reflection of the ethical and intellectual bankruptcy of our society that such an “argument” is actually proposed by some people under the name of liberty. The concept of “slavery as freedom” is far too Orwellian to warrant a critique — we will leave it up to right-“libertarians” to corrupt our language and ethical standards with an attempt to prove it.

From the basic insight that slavery is the opposite of freedom, the anarchist rejection of authoritarian social relations quickly follows:

“Liberty is inviolable. I can neither sell nor alienate my liberty; every contract, every condition of a contract, which has in view the alienation or suspension of liberty, is null: the slave, when he plants his foot upon the soil of liberty, at that moment becomes a free man .. . Liberty is the original condition of man; to renounce liberty is to renounce the nature of man: after that, how could we perform the acts of man?” [P.J. Proudhon, Op. Cit., p. 67]

The employment contract (i.e. wage slavery) abrogates liberty. It is based upon inequality of power and “exploitation is a consequence of the fact that the sale of labour power entails the worker’s subordination.” [Carole Pateman, Op. Cit., p. 149] Hence Proudhon’s support for self-management and opposition to capitalism — any relationship that resembles slavery is illegitimate and no contract that creates a relationship of subordination is valid. Thus in a truly anarchistic society, slave contracts would be unenforceable — people in a truly free (i.e. non-capitalist) society would never tolerate such a horrible institution or consider it a valid agreement. If someone was silly enough to sign such a contract, they would simply have to say they now rejected it in order to be free — such contracts are made to be broken and without the force of a law system (and private defence firms) to back it up, such contracts will stay broken.

The right-“libertarian” support for slave contracts (and wage slavery) indicates that their ideology has little to do with liberty and far more to do with justifying property and the oppression and exploitation it produces. Their theoretical support for permanent and temporary voluntary slavery and autocracy indicates a deeper authoritarianism which negates their claims to be libertarians.

[wheelsgoroundincircles]

Gordon Murray T.33 – $1.7M

If you have $1.7 million burning a hole in your pocket, another car you can consider is the sporty Gordon Murray T.33.

The car has a sleek design and houses a 3.9-liter V12 engine, the car gets a mind blowing 10,500 RPM. To make the car attractive to global audiences, the manufacturer has stated when the car comes back on the market after its original selling out, consumers can expect to see right and left-hand drive options.

[harrisonarchive]

Screenshot from the “Any Road” music video.

Q: “You are a keen driver and own two cars close to being racing models, don’t you? They must give you a lot of pleasure.” George Harrison: “My McLaren F1 road car always gives me an awesome feeling when I am in it. Next favorite is my Rocket (for hooligans only). Respects to Gordon Murray (designer of both the McLaren F1 and the Rocket, and the BT46B, and now head of car design at McLaren International). Bit of a contrast to my first cars, a Ford Anglia and a Jaguar MkII.” - The Times F1 Handbook, March 2001 “[George] had such fun building the McLaren. When we did the McLaren F1, we decided, I decided that it would be the most personalized motorcar ever made. And if you wanted to customize the car, way beyond paint colors and stuff, if you wanted special bits and pieces, we encouraged people to come down [to the factory]. And George got that concept, and he got it big time. And he used to [laughs] — he almost lived there. We actually joked about getting him a bedroom in the factory, because he used to be down there every week. And I think, I think the car ended up with Ganesh — you know, the Indian little elephant thing — I think the car ended up with fourteen elephants in it. […] He really went for it on the customization. So that makes it a very special motorcar. And it was great fun doing it. In fact, the guys building the car so loved him coming round that they made him a special book with all the photographs of it, his car being built, and signed it, and they gave it to him at the end.” - Gordon Murray, Living In The Material World bonus features You can find detailed photos of McLaren in the book Living In The Material World (2011). (x)

[ulkaralakbarova]

The adventures of two amiably aimless metal-head friends, Wayne and Garth. From Wayne’s basement, the pair broadcast a talk-show called “Wayne’s World” on local public access television. The show comes to the attention of a sleazy network executive who wants to produce a big-budget version of “Wayne’s World”—and he also wants Wayne’s girlfriend, a rock singer named Cassandra. Wayne and Garth have to battle the executive not only to save their show, but also Cassandra. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Wayne Campbell: Mike Myers Garth Algar: Dana Carvey Benjamin Kane: Rob Lowe Cassandra: Tia Carrere Stacy: Lara Flynn Boyle Dreamwoman: Donna Dixon Security Guard: Chris Farley Noah Vanderhoff: Brian Doyle-Murray Alan: Michael DeLuise Tiny: Meat Loaf Bad Cop / T-1000: Robert Patrick Alice Cooper: Alice Cooper Glen: Ed O’Neill Mrs. Vanderhoff: Colleen Camp Terry: Lee Tergesen Russell Finley: Kurt Fuller Davy: Mike Hagerty Ron Paxton: Charles Noland Elyse: Ione Skye Frankie Sharp: Frank DiLeo Waitress: Robin Ruzan Officer Koharski: Frederick Coffin Old Man Withers: Carmen Filpi Film Crew: Original Music Composer: J. Peter Robinson Screenplay: Mike Myers Executive Producer: Hawk Koch Director of Photography: Theo van de Sande Director: Penelope Spheeris Producer: Lorne Michaels Editor: Malcolm Campbell Stunts: Hannah Kozak Stunts: Alisa Christensen Associate Producer: Dinah Minot Associate Producer: Barnaby Thompson Screenplay: Bonnie Turner Screenplay: Terry Turner Casting: Glenn Daniels Production Design: Gregg Fonseca Second Unit Director: Allan Graf First Assistant Director: John Hockridge Second Assistant Director: Joseph J. Kontra Set Decoration: Jay Hart Camera Operator: Martin Schaer “B” Camera Operator: David Hennings First Assistant Camera: Henry Tirl First Assistant “B” Camera: Peter Mercurio Steadicam Operator: Elizabeth Ziegler Script Supervisor: Adell Aldrich Sound Mixer: Tom Nelson Boom Operator: Jerome R. Vitucci Additional Editor: Earl Ghaffari Assistant Editor: Ralph O. Sepulveda Jr. Assistant Editor: Ann Trulove Assistant Editor: Brion McIntosh Supervising Sound Editor: John Benson Sound Effects Editor: Beth Sterner Sound Effects Editor: Joseph A. Ippolito Sound Effects Editor: Frank Howard Dialogue Editor: Michael Magill Dialogue Editor: Simon Coke Dialogue Editor: Bob Newlan Supervising ADR Editor: Allen Hartz Foley Supervisor: Pamela Bentkowski Assistant Sound Editor: Carolina Beroza Assistant Sound Editor: Thomas W. Small Foley Artist: Ken Dufva Foley Artist: David Lee Fein Foley Mixer: Greg Curda ADR Mixer: Bob Baron ADR Voice Casting: Barbara Harris Sound Re-Recording Mixer: Andy Nelson Sound Re-Recording Mixer: Steve Pederson Sound Re-Recording Mixer: Tom Perry Music Supervisor: Maureen Crowe Supervising Music Editor: Steve Mccroskey Set Designer: Lisette Thomas Set Designer: Gae S. Buckley Special Effects Makeup Artist: Thomas R. Burman Special Effects Makeup Artist: Bari Dreiband-Burman Makeup Artist: Courtney Carell Makeup Artist: Mel Berns Jr. Hairstylist: Kathrine Gordon Hairstylist: Barbara Lorenz Hairstylist: Carol Meikle Costume Supervisor: Pat Tonnema Costumer: Janet Sobel Costumer: Kimberly Guenther Durkin Location Manager: Ned R. Shapiro Assistant Location Manager: Serena Baker Second Second Assistant Director: John G. Scotti Property Master: Kirk Corwin Assistant Property Master: Peter A. Tullo Assistant Property Master: Jim Stubblefield Leadman: Robert Lucas Special Effects Coordinator: Tony Vandenecker Chief Lighting Technician: Jono Kouzouyan Production Office Coordinator: Lynne White Unit Publicist: Tony Angelotti Still Photographer: Suzanne Tenner Craft Service: Vartan Chakarian Transportation Coordinator: James Thornsberry Color Timer: David Bryden Negative Cutter: Theresa Repola Mohammed Title Designer: Dan Curry Second Unit Director of Photography: Robert M. Stevens Stunts: Tony Brubaker Stunt Double: Steve Kelso Movie Reviews: tmdb15435519: I wish I could dress the exact same every day and still be cool.

[brookstonalmanac]

Birthdays 8.27

Beer Birthdays

Fred Bowman (1944)

Five Favorite Birthdays

Barbara Bach; actor (1947)

C.S. Forester; English writer (1899)

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel; German philosopher (1770)

Tarzan of the Apes; fictional character (1912)

Jeanette Winterson; English writer (1959)

Famous Birthdays

Patrick J. Adams; Canadian actor (1981)

Andreas Alföldi; Hungarian archaeologist and historian (1895)

Fernest Arceneaux; singer and accordion player (1940)

G.W. Bailey; actor (1944)

Gordon Bashford; English engineer, Range Rover co-creator (1916)

Tim Bogert; singer and bass player (1944)

Carl Bosch; German chemist (1874)

"Downtown" Julie Brown; V.J. (1959)

Sarah Chalke; actor (1976)

Alice Coltrane; pianist and composer (1937)

Jeff Cook; singer-songwriter and guitarist (1949)

Audrey C. Delsanti; French astronomer and biologist (1976)

Daryl "The Captain" Dragon; pop singer, songwriter (1942)

Theodore Dreiser; writer (1871)

Charles Fleischer; comedian and actor (1950)

Tom Ford; fashion designer (1961)

Chuck Girard; singer-songwriter and pianist (1943)

Samuel Goldwyn; film producer (1882)

Jeff Grubb; game designer and author (1957)

Johann Georg Hamann; German philosopher (1730)

Lyndon Baines Johnson; 36th U.S. President (1908)

Tony Kanal; British-American bass player and songwriter (1970)

Tom Lanoye; Belgian author, poet, and playwright (1958)

Ira Levin; writer (1929)

Alex Lifeson; Canadian singer-songwriter and guitarist (1953)

Norah Lofts; English author (1904)

Glen Matlock; English singer-songwriter and bass player (1956)

Katharine McCormick; biologist (1875)

John Mehler; drummer (1948)

Kenji Miyazawa; Japanese author and poet (1896)

Ann Murray; Irish soprano (1949)

Giuseppe Peano; Italian mathematician and philosopher (1858)

Kim Petras; German singer-songwriter (1992)

Jimmy Pop; singer-songwriter and guitarist (1972)

Norman Foster Ramsey Jr.; physicist (1915)

Man Ray; photographer, artist (1890)

Martha Ray; actor (1916)

Harry Reems; porn actor (1947)

Paul "Pee-Wee Herman" Reubens; actor, comedian (1952)

Robert Richardson; cinematographer (1955)

Tommy Sands; pop singer (1937)

Diana Scarwid; actress (1955)

Sonny Sharrock; guitarist (1940)

Reece Shearsmith; English actor, comedian and writer (1969)

Léon Theremin, Russian physicist, engineer, Theremin inventor (1896)

Kay Walsh; English actress and dancer (1911)

Tuesday Weld; actor (1943)

Chandra Wilson; actress (1969)

Lester Young; saxophonist and clarinet player (1909)

[thealmightyemprex]

Disney Review Request :Treasure Planet

Requested by @ariel-seagull-wings ,this is the film that inspired the request idea .We were talking about Treasure Island in general and they asked my opinion on this film and I just shrugged and asked if they would like me to just review it and they said yes

A sci fi take on the classic novel Treasure Island,and the basic plot is the same :Jim Hawkins (Joseph Gordon Levitt ) is the son of an inkeeper and get in his posession a map to treasure from a dying Billy Bones ( PAtrick Mcgoohan ) and with the help of a family friend goes on a voyage , and strikes a friendship with the one legged John Silver (Brian Murray ) but finds out he is a treacherous pirate who is leading a mutiny for he wants the treasure .

However there are changes ,the main one is the story is in space with aliens and robots and such,with sci fi changes like Silver is an alien Cyborg ,really most of the characters are aliens with the exception of Jim (Which I love,perfect for an animated sci fi film ) , the cleverst change is the parrot is now a shapeshifter and the marroned half mad Ben Gunn is now a robot voiced by Martin Short .There are other very big changes which makes this a very unique take on the Treasure Island story .Many characters are changed or combined ,Doctor Livesey and Squire Trelawney are combined into the dog like alien Doctor Doppler voiced by David Hyde Pierce ,The stern Captain Smollet becomes the female and feline alien Captain Amelia voiced by Emma Thompson ,the drunkard Captain Arrow basically become the same character he was in the Muppet version where he is the stern very serious character and is voiced by Roscoe Lee Brown ,the trecherous pirate George Merry and the murderous pirate Isreal Hands are combined into the spider like Mr Scroop voiced by Michael Wincott (There is a character in the film named Hands but he is a minor player ,and his role is given to Scroop as the pirate Jim fights when back on the ship ) ,and the biggest changes are the biggest being Jim and Silver.....But I will save that for later

OK I have talked about the changes,what d9o I think of it as a movie ....I think it is damn good . I think it does what an reinvention of a story should do ,it uses the story as a template but expands or changes stuff when necesary .As a fan of the source material and other adaptations It does bum me that some parts are left out ,especially Blind Pew ,but I do appreciate it keeps some great moments from the book

The film looks amazing with a good mix of CG and 2D.John Silver is especially breath taking being a mix of 2D but with CG components,specifically his mechanical limbs and eyes .Also little character stuff I really enjoyed in the animation like Amelias eyes dilate like a cats .Also the character design here ,the aliens all look so unique ,and I love how weird Silvers crew looks

The voice cast is all spot on ,Emma Thompson makes for a rather badass captain , PAtrick Mcgoohan (In his final role ) nails that salty seadog flare ,LAurie Metcalf is perfect as the concerned mother , I always love David Hyde Pierce ,Roscoe Lee Browne brigns such a dignity to Arrow , and Michael Wincott IS TERRIFYING as Scroop,he has a very gravely voice,its exactly what I imagine a spider would sound like (For the record SCroop is so underrated ,I find him horrifying. I dont know if he even ewants treasure ,he seems to just be in it for murder .He's also there so we have a "Boo and hiss" villain in contrast to Silver )

The best part of the film is the almost father and son relationship between Jim and Silver .Now this isnt the only version to have this element ,but I think this is the most heartwarming .Jim in this version is a broody teen whose father abandoned him and his mother and he develops a bond with Silver ,which makes when he finds out about Silvers villainy more heartbreaking.This might be the most sympathetic Silver ,here a pirate who has given up everything in pursuit of his dream to find Flints Trove ,and here truly likes Jim .In other version it is vague how much Silver actually cares about Jim ,but in this version it is so clear he cares about him .I also like that he still is the main antagonist but he's a villain we like and has layers ,he might be Disneys most interesting villain .Also my favorite scene in the film is the montage showing them bonding set to the Goo Goo Dolls "Im Still Here " it is such a sweet scene

AND NOW QUESTION TIME .Our requester wanted me to discuss three specific points

1. Would you prefer more focus could be given to other characters instead of the drama between Jim and Silver?

Me:No,because they are the main characters .For me Treasure Islands focus should be Jim and Silver and this is one of the most interesting takes on Jim and Silver

2. What do you think of the comic relief of Morph, Doppler and the Marooned Robot?

Me: Morph is a clever concept and is adorable .I reallly like Doppler,again I love David Hyde Pierce and I find him hilarious ,he gets some of the best lines.BEN....is alot .I dont hate him,Martin Shorts given his all and the animation on him is good and I think he is a clever play on the Ben Gunn from the book ,but he is very loud,kind of obnoxious and his jokes are so hit and miss (though I cant decide if "Was I ever dancing with an android named Lupe !!!???" is stupid or brillaint,it does make me laugh )

3. Toughts on the mix between the 18th century with the future?

Me: I love it . I like the mix of aesthetics.I think it looks awesome

OVerall I think its a film that has a cult following for a reason.I love it beck in 2002,love it now

@the-blue-fairie @themousefromfantasyland @goodanswerfoxmonster @angelixgutz @amalthea9 @filmcityworld1 @princesssarisa

[scotianostra]

30th November 1335 saw the Battle of Culblean.

A little known battle during the Second War of Scottish Independence, it was fought out between supporters of Edward Balliol and King David II.

We know a lot about the Battles in which Scotland struggled to rid our country of Longshanks and his army, but the history of the years that followed is often overlooked, King Edwards son was soundly beaten at Bannockburn, and we sent him homeward, to think again, but his grandson Edward III had designs on extending his border by stealth, like his grandfather by placing a puppet King on the throne of Scotland, the Battle of Culblean on St Andrew’s Day 1335 was seen as the turning point in the Second War of Independence.

I have covered the story in previous posts, it  all started with a win for Balliol at the Battle of Dupplin Moor in August 1332,, then later that year  Sir Andrew Murray chased him, half naked back to England, another win for the pretender to the throne at the Battle of Haildon Hill near Berwick on 19 July 1333. His victory was so crushing that King David II and his young Queen fled to France for safety, leaving the country in the hands of Governors.

In return for English support, Balliol granted control of the whole of Lothian, including Edinburgh, to Edward, he had already sworn fealty to the English king the year before. Again Sir Andrew Murray helped depose him and sending him back to his English paymasters, only to return the following year.

Scotland was a divided country over the subject, there were some who thought Edward Balliol was the rightful heir to the throne and if you remember, he had the support of exiled Scots, the Disinherited.

By November 1335, with the help of English troops Balliol held all but 4 Scottish castles,  David de Strathbogie, Earl of Atholl, loyal to Balliol, was laying siege to one of them,  Kildrummy Castle in Aberdeenshire, which controlled the North East. Among them was the Bruce’s sister, Christian, and wife of Sir Andrew, a constant thorn in Balliol’s side during the Second Wars of Independence, he was also Regent to King David.  

Murrray raised an army of about 4,000 to lift the siege, including the Earl of March and Sir William de Douglas. On 29th November the  army camped at “Hall of Logy Rothwayne” on the north east shore of Loch Davan.  On learning of their approach Atholl abandoned the siege and camped at the east end of Culblean, perhaps aiming for his land of Atholl, to the south.

The battle was described by Wyntoun’s Chronicle.  John of the Craig, defender of Kildrummy told Murray of an approach to outflank Atholl, and splitting his forces, on St Andrew’s Day , de Douglas feinted to the front of Atholls army, about 3,000 strong, and de Moray  hit them from the flank. Surprised and overwhelmed the pro English army was defeated. According to Boece’s account Atholl himself was killed by Alexander Gordon, the successor to the Lordship of Strathbogie forfeited by Atholl. Some of the survivors took refuge in the nearby island castle of Loch Kinord, but were forced to surrender the following day.

Compared with the other great battles of the Wars of Independence, Culblean was a relatively small affair, and is now largely forgotten. Nevertheless, its size was greatly outweighed by its importance on the road to Scottish national recovery. The Scottish academic and Historian Dr Douglas Simpson passed what might be said to be the final verdict on the battle when he wrote; Culblean was the turning point in the second war of Scottish Independence, and therefore an event of great national importance. Small as it was it effectively nullified the effects of Edward’s summer invasion, ending forever Balliol’s hope of gaining the Scottish throne. Its effects were almost immediately felt. Edward Balliol spent the winter of 1335-6, so says the Lanercost Chronicle; …with his people at Elande, in England, because he does not yet possess in Scotland any castle or town where he could dwell in safety

A monolith 13ft high was erected 16 September 1956, by the Deeside Field Club, to commemorate the battle, just off the Tarland-Burn o’ Vat road near the hill where the battle was fought. It reads

“Erected by the Deesside Field Club in 1956 to commemorate the Battle of Culblean fought on St. Andrew’s day, 30 November 1335 between the forces of Sir Andrew de Moray, Warden of Scotland, and David, Earl of Atholl, in which the former was victorious. The battle marked the turning point of the second Scottish War of Independence.”

You can read more on the battle and background here https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2017/01/05/battle-of-culblean/

[burntoutclutch]

The story of the McLaren F1 and Gordon Murray.

The McLaren F1, a supercar crafted by McLaren Automotive, emerged from the visionary mind of Gordon Murray, who secured the support of Ron Dennis and enlisted Peter Stevens to shape its exterior. Unveiled in 1992, the McLaren F1 redefined the concept of supercars by embracing an uncompromising approach to design and engineering that transcended existing boundaries.

This groundbreaking masterpiece embodied a clean-sheet design, featuring bespoke components tailored exclusively for the car, excluding the taillights. The overarching principle driving its creation was efficiency, resulting in a compact form with featherweight carbon fiber body panels and understructure, along with aluminum or magnesium mechanical parts. Other unique features of the car are its powerful V12 engine from BMW and its center seat arrangement providing for optimal weight distribution. The obsession with weight became legendary, as even the Kenwood stereo, air conditioning, and gold-plated titanium tools were meticulously designed by manufacturers to meet Murray's stringent weight specifications, challenging the capabilities of parts manufacturers at the time.

Often overlooked is the McLaren F1's impressive racing legacy. The GTR competition version, reaching a top speed of 220 mph, immediately demonstrated its prowess by securing first, third, fourth, and fifth positions against purpose-built racers. It left the competition astounded. By the end of production in 1998, McLaren had produced seven prototypes, seventy-two street-legal models, and twenty-eight fully-fledged race versions. Notably, the Sultan of Brunei owns a notable collection of around eight F1s, while several unfortunate examples have met their demise due to over-enthusiastic owners. Fun fact, El Chapo owned one of these legendary vehicles and it has yet to be found.

[autooptic]

Gordon Murray Would Love To Go Back To Le Mans

Gordon Murray is keen on the idea of getting the T.50 hypercar on the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans, but there are numerous challenges to overcome. Dario Franchitti, the director of brand and product at Gordon Murray Automotive (GMA), expressed a desire to see the car race at Le Mans, particularly with the 30th anniversary of the McLaren F1's victory approaching. However, the T.50's lightweight design complicates regulatory compliance. One possibility for participation might be a Garage 56 entry, which allows innovative cars to compete. Franchitti remains hopeful about GMA's future in racing, especially with the T.50’s unique V12 engine potentially making it a standout at the event.

GMA is also developing its second model, the T.33, which will be heavier than the T.50 but share the same 3.9-liter naturally-aspirated V12 engine from Cosworth, albeit with some modifications. source: carscoops

[diabolus1exmachina]

Gordan Murray Automotive T.33 Spider

The coupe and spider were side by side all the way back to Gordon Murray’s first profile sketches, with the boss wanting “to make sure that the proportions would work”.

It should come as no surprise then that the Spider very much resembles the coupe, with the prominent fixed loop proving essential in terms of style, aerodynamics and indeed safety. While incorporating the rollover structure, the singular structure is also better for airflow as opposed to two loops and obviously, is a surface atop which the engine-mounted inlet scoop can float. What doesn't carry over is the glass canopy over the inlet scoop, with a drop after the loop which now creates buttresses, fairing in a vented panel. Coming off the scoop is a small fin, in which the third brake light and rear-view camera sit. Floating between the roll structure and the windscreen will be two removable roof panels which can be stored in the front trunk. In other words, the T.33’s roof and roof storage effectively mimic that of the Porsche Carrera GT.

Unlike the Carrera GT, having the roof off doesn’t mean you have no storage space in the T.33 Spider. Like the coupe, the Spider will feature unique space underneath its haunches, which hinge outwards to open to reveal 90 litres of space each.

Reflecting the more casual implication of top-down motoring, the four ‘Design Range spec themes brought by GMA for the T.33 Spider are a bit of fun. These will be influenced respectively by GMA core values of Return to Beauty and Engineering art. Differentiating the Spider from the coupe, apart from the obvious removable roof, are the new classy multi-spoke wheels. Might we say they go delightfully with the Azuro California-esque paint on this prototype.

The car’s aerodynamics – specifically its downforce generation – are mostly handled underneath the car, with Murray fully leveraging his ground effect chops. That means the T.33’s Passive Boundary Layer Control (PBLC) system carries over, with variable active ducts underneath the car that control how the air attaches to the car’s floor, working in tandem with a simple active spoiler atop its rump.

Areas where convertibles are often stunted over their hardtop counterparts are in weight and stiffness. In-tandem development of the coupe and Spider means the stiffness targets of both have been in the works from very early on. As for weight? The Spider is targeted to be just 18kg heavier than the coupe. Those targets are the same for ride, stiffness, steering and transient handling too, with the suspension effectively carryover bar minor calibration changes.

The most important bit that carries over? The 617PS (453kW) 4.0-litre GMA V12, developed by Cosworth and good for a 11,100rpm redline. Yes, it’s fed by that central air box that’s bolted directly to it, that’s now there to be heard just a few inches above and to the rear of the occupant’s heads. Imagine how visceral the induction roar could be. Unlike the T.33 coupe, the Spider will only be available with the manual transmission, as opposed to having the option of a six-speed paddle-shift gearbox, although there's a rub with that too, given the paddle-shift has been dropped for the Coupe as well, due to low demand.

[campadailyblog]

GMA T.50s Niki Lauda: Supercar da pista estrema

La GMA T.50s Niki Lauda è una supercar da pista estrema fatta dalla Gordon Murray Automotive. È un tributo al grande pilota Niki Lauda. Combina prestazioni top con un design moderno. Ha un motore V12 da 3.9 litri, è leggera e ha un design aerodinamico. È progettata per offrire un’esperienza di guida unica. Offre prestazioni da supercar e un design elegante e innovativo. Questo veicolo è l’emblema…

[omarelrahimy]

An Introduction to Exotic Cars

More than 239 million Americans have driving licenses. An estimated 69 million American drivers consider themselves car enthusiasts. Drivers in this group have an average age of 56 years. They are the most likely individuals to own or consider owning any kind of collector vehicle, including an exotic car.

The term “exotic car” is often used interchangeably with the term “supercar.” Supercars are expensive, stylish, top-of-the-line sports cars, with common examples ranging from the Bugatti Chiron Super Sport to the Ferrari 812 Competizione. While these and other supercars qualify as exotic cars, the term is much broader.

Although there is no universal or industry definition for what qualifies as an exotic car, there are a few common characteristics. Exotic vehicles typically come with high-performance engines that produce a high level of torque, which describes the traction in an engine design. This allows for increased speed and towing performance.

Exotic cars are often in high demand, and older models are usually rare. Some models may even be one-of-a-kind. A few of the most well-known one-off exotic cars include the Aston Martin Victor, the Bugatti La Voiture Noire, and the Ferrari P80/C SP36. Many of the most expensive cars ever produced are exotic cars. The Aston Martin Valour has a starting price of $1.5 million, with options and add-ons pushing the price tag beyond $2 million. Other exotic cars approaching the $2 million mark include the Ferrari Monza and the Gordon Murray T.33. Even if an exotic car is not one-of-a-kind or one of the world’s most expensive vehicles, they are usually produced in limited quantities, making them perfect for the collector’s market.

Concept cars represent another group of vehicles that may be classed as exotic cars. A concept car is a show vehicle or prototype produced as part of the development process while building and testing new auto technologies. Concept cars produced in modern times do not automatically qualify as exotic cars, but a 1960s-era concept car that had superior features for its time may be considered exotic, especially if the car is in high demand. Similarly, a “milestone vehicle” may take on the reputation of an exotic car as its historic profile rises and collectors come to appreciate the car’s influence on the industry.

If a person wants to purchase an exotic car, there are a few characteristics to look for. Exotic cars generally offer unique customizations, such as hand-built construction using rare or unusual materials. In some cases, a standard sports car may be transformed into an exotic car because of these unique customizations.

It is not uncommon for an exotic car to make some kind of cultural impact. Because of their flashy design, exotic cars are frequently featured in films and television shows. If the car’s popularity signals a cultural turning point, it may be considered an exotic car. Examples of exotic cars that have made notable appearances on screen range from the Lamborghini Countach LP5000S in Cannonball Run to the Ferrari 250 GT featured in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off.

When it comes to challenges associated with purchasing an exotic car, price is the main issue. In addition to the high up-front investment and costly customization options, exotic cars are more expensive to maintain. The components used in these cars are top-of-the-line and may be difficult to source. It can also be hard to find a mechanic familiar with a specific exotic car. Even so, exotic cars have been popular with vehicle collectors for nearly a century, and the market shows no sign of slowing down any time soon.

[tthieu2808]

Week 4: Digital Community and Fandom: A Reality TV Case Study

Reality TV has been a dominant form of television programming for the last 20 years. It includes gamedocs, dating programs, makeover/lifestyle, docusoaps, talent contests, court programs, reality sitcoms, and celebrity based programs (Murray and Ouellette 2009). Reality television is a genre that is designed to elicit talk and shared opinions ... not only in terms of judging the participants' behaviors but also by speculating on the authenticity of what they are watching. This talk is not only found in homes, workplaces and schools, but also proliferates online in forums, web comments, blogs, vlogs and social media' (Deller 2019). In the mid-late 2000s, the emergence of competitors in the form of social networking sites such as Facebook, MySpace and especially Twitter. While reality is a genre that privileges ‘liveness’, on Twitter, the liveness is often enhanced by on-screen hashtags during broadcasts. One of the attractions of Twitter is the presence not only of the audience but also of producers, hosts, experts or actors and guests participating in the program who also tweet their viewing ( Deller, 2011).

Social Media opens up new markets and audiences and the memes and GIFs from these shows. People who join these shows can get a chance for fame, image and self-presentation online.

Take for example famous chef Gordon Ramsay's show Hell's Kitchen. Thanks to the success and maintenance of appeal after 20 seasons of this show, Gordon Ramsay - the show's brand character - has become a highly influential chef on social networking platforms and has become more and more popular through memes, gifs on social networking platforms like Twitter, Facebook...

References:

Deller, Ruth A 2019, Extract: 'Chapter Six: Reality Television in an Age of Social Media' in Reality Television: The TV Phenomenon That Changed the World (Emerald Publishing).

Murray, S & Oullette, L 2009, ‘Reality TV: Remaking Television Culture’, NYU Press.

[ulkaralakbarova]

Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson meet as boys in an English Boarding school. Holmes is known for his deductive ability even as a youth, amazing his classmates with his abilities. When they discover a plot to murder a series of British business men by an Egyptian cult, they move to stop it. Credits: TheMovieDb. Film Cast: Sherlock Holmes: Nicholas Rowe John Watson: Alan Cox Elizabeth Hardy: Sophie Ward Professor Rathe: Anthony Higgins Mrs. Dribb: Susan Fleetwood Det. Sgt. Lestrade: Roger Ashton-Griffiths Dudley’s Friend: Matthew Ryan Dudley: Earl Rhodes Chester Cragwitch: Freddie Jones Bentley Booster: Patrick Newell Khasek – Lower Nile Tavern Owner: Nadim Sawalha Rupert T. Waxflatter: Nigel Stock Master Snelgrove: Brian Oulton The Reverend Duncan Nesbitt: Donald Eccles Dudley’s Friend: Matthew Blakstad Dudley’s Friend: Jonathan Lacey Ethan Engel: Walter Sparrow Mr. Holmes: Roger Brierley Mrs. Holmes: Vivienne Chandler Curio Shop Owner: Lockwood West Cemetery Caretaker: John Scott Martin School Porter: George Malpas School Reverend: Willoughby Goddard Policeman with Lestrade: Michael Cule Policeman in Shop Window: Ralph Tabakin Hotel Receptionist: Nancy Nevinson Older Watson (voice): Michael Hordern Schoolboy (uncredited): Grant Burns Acolyte (uncredited): George Lane Cooper Chestnut Seller (uncredited): Salo Gardner Restaurant Patron (uncredited): Lew Hooper Footman (uncredited): Royston Munt School Master (uncredited): Henry Roberts Patron (Lower Nile Tavern) (uncredited): Fred Wood Film Crew: Animation: John Lasseter Casting: Irene Lamb Executive Producer: Steven Spielberg Executive Producer: Kathleen Kennedy Executive Producer: Frank Marshall Production Design: Norman Reynolds Visual Effects Supervisor: Dennis Muren Producer: Roger Birnbaum Director: Barry Levinson Producer: Mark Johnson Editor: Stu Linder Director of Photography: Stephen Goldblatt Animation: Eben Ostby Animation: Don Conway Animation: David DiFrancesco Set Decoration: Michael Ford Screenplay: Chris Columbus Makeup Artist: Nick Dudman Art Direction: Fred Hole Makeup Supervisor: Peter Robb-King Art Direction: Charles Bishop Assistant Art Director: Gavin Bocquet Original Music Composer: Bruce Broughton Associate Producer: Harry Benn Characters: Arthur Conan Doyle Costume Design: Raymond Hughes Producer: Henry Winkler Visual Effects Supervisor: David Allen Animation: Craig Good Second Unit Director: Andrew Grieve Visual Effects: Robert Cooper Assistant Art Director: George Djurkovic Third Assistant Director: Peter Heslop Visual Effects Camera: Jay Riddle Visual Effects: Blair Clark First Assistant Director: Michael Murray Animation Supervisor: Bruce Walters Art Direction: Dave Carson Visual Effects: Sean M. Casey Second Assistant Director: Ian Hickinbotham Makeup Artist: Jane Royle Animation: William Reeves Visual Effects: Tony Hudson Visual Effects: Jay Davis Animation: Barbara Brennan Animation: David Salesin Animation Supervisor: Ellen Lichtwardt Goodchild Dressing Prop: Paul Cheesman Art Designer: Michael Ploog Draughtsman: Reg Bream Rotoscoping Artist: Donna K. Baker Draughtsman: Peter Childs Animation: Robert L. Cook Animation: Gordon Baker Animation: Jack Mongovan Visual Effects: Tony Laudati Visual Effects: Marghi McMahon Movie Reviews: