Talk:Flight of the Navigator

Astoria / LIC

So, I used to love this movie back in the day, and I'm pretty sure that the scene where they first show the spacecraft after crashing into the towers is filmed in NYC by the ConEd station on the river. I can recognize those 3 smokestacks anywhere, and unfortunately I'm not in a position to confirm or dis-confirm anything. Somebody help me out! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravenswood_Generating_Station — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.243.191.131 (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed Small Section

I took out one sentence that made no sense at all. I re-wrote it a few times, hoping that while doing so I could hit on the sentence's secret meaning, but had no luck.Gingermint (talk) 23:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

"Many had seen in the trailer that a silver, acorn-shaped vessel would constitute the alien spacecraft, which is called a Trimaxion Drone Ship by Max (hence his nickname). The movie opens with the shot of such a vessel flying across the Miami skyline; however, a dog suddenly catches the object, revealing it to be a silver Frisbee." Who is Max? (I know, because of the movie, but in the context of this sentence it means nothing). Also, the movie does NOT open with a shot of such a vessel. "... a dog suddenly catches the object, revealing it to be a silver Frisbee." The sentence contradicts itself. Maybe it is a problem of literacy or logic but the sentence is removed now. Gingermint (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Special effects

Some discussion on the special effects here would be nice. At the time, I thought the ship's mirroring and transforming effects were phenominal. -- Sy / ^(talk) 14:12, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Added mention of liquid metal properties of the ship. -- Hydrargyrum

Did you only say that because your username means "Mercury"? ;) --  Denelson83  22:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Akai 5900 Digital Sampler ? Not really...

In the end credits of the movie they mentioned an "Akai 5900" Digital Sampler. IMHO there is no Akai 5900. It should read "Akai S900", one of Akai's most popular MIDI-Samplers that came out in 1986. See [1] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.79.139.139 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

It's a typographical error. The machine they used was most likely the Akai 'S'900, which my quick research indicates came out in 1986, the same year as Flight of the Navigator. So it's not just your humble opinion. Atypicaloracle (talk)

Introduction

I just wanted to leave a note saying that I know I made an already too short introduction shorter, but the words I removed didn't add meaning. By way of justification: "transported in time eight years into the future" is tautology, and there's no need to say "somehow" if you're then going to explain how it happened. Perhaps an explanation of the title could be used to pad the introduction - it actually includes no mention of flying or navigating. I haven't seen this film in ages so I can't recall details well enough to add them. 212.248.180.200 (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

• • The explanation was very confusing. As it was explained in the film, and according to laws of physics, it would involve Eistein's Theory of relativity. He traveled faster than the speed of light and (also mentioned in the film) time "slows down" when you approach the speed of light. He was only "gone" a few hours, but since his travel was at that speed, the people back on earth observed 8 years gone by. Doctorindy (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Speed mentioned in this article doesn't make sense

"This planet is described as being exactly 560 light-years away from Earth. The travel time used by the spacecraft to reach it is 2.2 solar hours, implying a speed of approximately 2.25 million times the speed of light."

560 lightyears / 2.2 hours is indeed 2.25 million times the speed of light. That distance was travelled twice though! so it would be 5.5 million times the speed of light. Even this doesn't really make sense, as that would use the distance as measured from a stationary observer (probably on earth) but takes the dilated time of the moving ship. Correct would be: Using the time passed on earth (8 years) and distance as observed from earth (= 2 * 560 lightyears).

So the speed was "only" be 1120 lightyears / 8 years = 140 times the speed of light. --Flo422 (talk) 14:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Good point

Magnius's overzealous policing of this article recently quenched someone pointing out that although David knew the phone number of his parents' new house, he didn't know its address. Was this explained in the film? Before he is taken to NASA his parents could have given him their new number and not their new address. It still seems strange to me. Or did I miss something?110.33.37.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC).

Paul Mall?

why does every reference to Paul Ruebens refer to him as "Paul Mall"?? Paul Ruebens is in the ending credits as Paul Mall. I'd like to know more. At least this should be mentioned as trivia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.249.12 (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

It's meant to be a flip reference to a once popular cigarette brand.Godofredo29 (talk) 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Robert Sheckley's "Specialist"

I'm surprised that there's no credit anywhere to Sheckley's "Specialist": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specialist_(short_story) gatotkatja (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Voice of Max was really 2 people, not just Paul Reubens

I remember reading some time ago, that before release Disney decided to completely re-record Max's voice, but to do contract clauses, they had to leave Paul Reubens credited. I found on this site: http://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/movies/Flight-of-the-Navigator/Max/ evidence that Taro Ishida was also used for voice over. I think this is why you definatley hear PeeWee Herman in one part of the movie, but he sounds completely different in another part. The sad thing is not anywhere, not here, not on Disney site or on IMDB do they give Taro Ishida credit for the voice which from what I can tell, was used for Max for 95% of the movie. Perhaps if someone doesn't disagree with me, we could give credit where credit is due and add him to the cast list here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.212.46 (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If you click Taro Ishida’s pic on the Behind the Voice Actors page, it becomes immediately clear he didn’t just do 95%—he was Max for 100% of the movie. Not only that, but you’ll see he’s voiced scores of other Disney films, including The Little Mermaid, Fox and the Hound, Winnie the Pooh… in Japanese. What I’m saying is, Taro Ishida does the Japanese dubs for Disney movies, but, no, the original voice actor was in fact “Paul Mall.”

It’s also worth bearing in mind that Pee-wee Herman is but one character Paul Reubens has played, and so it’s not like that’s his normal speaking voice. The trademark Pee-wee laugh and “That’s so funny I forgot to laugh!”-type cracks in the film are not-so-subtle nods to his more famous role, but the rest of it sounds so different because… it’s not Pee-wee.

It also appears Mr. Ishida passed about a month ago. :( —Wiki Wikardo 05:18, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it does not sound like Reubens at ALL for most of the movie, except for that brief Pee-Wee Herman laugh after he does a scan of David's head, and how would David know about Pee-Wee, he was gone from 78-86, he should have never heard of him.96.233.107.168 (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Unsourced Material

Below information was tagged for needing sources in 2010. Feel free to reinsert into the article with appropriate references. DonIago (talk) 17:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Visual effects innovations

==Visual effects innovations== Released at the dawn of 3D animation technology, Flight of the Navigator was the world's first 35 mm feature film to use environment mapping, creating the illusion of a chrome object occupying a live-action frame, considered by many to hold up to today's standards. The computer graphics shots were produced by Omnibus Graphics, one of the first computer animation companies, responsible for most of the classic advertising 3D animation of the 1980s. Computer-generated imagery (CGI) was not used to depict the suspended steps leading into the ship. The effect of the door liquefying to form them was achieved through stop-motion animation by creating a series of metallic sculptures for every frame of the animation. They appeared to support David's weight with a simple optical illusion. They were mounted on thin beams that were angled in a way such that they hid the beams from the camera's lens. This arrangement even allowed for slight camera movement, as can be seen the first time he climbs them. Also note that when he presses on the middle one, they all move slightly. The two full-scale spaceship hulls used in most of the shots throughout the film (one with an open entrance, the other sealed) were constructed out of thin, curved sheets of wood over a metal framework and finished with primer and reflective paint. One of the hulls underwent refurbishment and is currently used as the Cool Ship in Tomorrowland of Magic Kingdom at Walt Disney World. The other hull can today be seen on the Studio Backlot Tour at Disney's Hollywood Studios.

It is insane to see this information present from 2013 because Captain Disillusion made a video last summer that extensively covered the technology used in this film. I understand YouTube is self-published but the 45 minute video of information can make venturing for sources of the above a bit easier. The production section could be expanded. – The Grid (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Time dilation doesn't explain it

I just saw the movie for the first time and caught a major physics error that hasn't been mentioned here. To quote the article:

His subconscious mind tells the scientists that he was taken to a planet called Phaelon, 560 light-years away, in just over a two-hour journey, and they realize that he has been subjected to time dilation as a result of having travelled at speeds far exceeding light, thus explaining why eight years have passed on Earth, but not for him.

No way! Time dilation would apply only to the trip to Phaelon and back, stated in the movie to have taken 2.2 hours each way. But he was evidently on Phaelon for eight years, and time dilation doesn't figure into that at all. I was waiting to find out that he was held in some kind of stasis on Phaelon, but no such thing was ever mentioned. The scriptwriters just dropped the ball. --Thnidu (talk) 00:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Plus there's the issue of what kind of FTL drive max had, if you warp space, expand it behind you and contract it in front of you, time dilation wouldn't apply, and it obviously has to be faster than light to get there in 2.2 solar hours, time dilation only applies when you are traveling close to the speed of light, or near a black hole, going faster than light (if that's possible somehow, by current physics no) you'd be going BACK in time. 96.233.107.168 (talk) 08:34, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

It's an '80s movie every bit as accurate as Top Gun. That explains it. 68.229.212.186 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flight of the Navigator. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222162949/http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=119160 to http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?DVDID=119160

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Lionsgate and Jim Henson Company to help reboot

Check out the article here - http://variety.com/2017/film/news/flight-of-the-navigator-reboot-joe-henderson-1202575383/ ChipmunkRaccoon (talk) 19:35, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

nao entendo por que o artigo em portugues tenta afastar o filme do genero drama se boa parte do filme é o personagem nao se encaixar mais no mundo que ele foi devolvido dai a necessidade dele ter de voltar para a mesma epoca inicial senao o filme ja estaria resolvido com o retorno dele bastaria se readaptar algo que o filme mostra como sendo "impossivel" como seria a historia se nao houvesse como ter retorno no tempo so o retorno espacial — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.64.66.13 (talk) 15:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Beatles - I Get Around, I Get Around.

Did the Beatles song. "I Get Around" get titled differently in the Flight of the Navigator? or was it omitted from the Sound Track list? It's the part David actually tries flying the ship himself with the controls and Max changes the radio station for him and they're cruising around the planet. "Compliance!!!" CaribDigita (talk) 14:50, 24 March 2024 (UTC)