Monsters, Inc. - Laugh Floor Previews Has Begun

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
I'm talking about the cell-phone ring, put down my chile dog, etc.

That's different. Those are fine. What imagineerboy was talking about was the addition of the children voices that were "supposed to" keep children from getting as scared.
 

Grim Grinner

New Member
I figure that I might as well toss in my two cents into the mix. I've yet to see the show in Living Seas in person, but I do know that the technology behind it is around 10 years (or more) old. Back at the tradeshows like CES and E3- Nintendo used a CGi Mario to interact with passersby. It was a nifty little effect that takes people by surprise.

I find it funny that people are making such a big deal about it now. Whether the show is good or not is largely based off of the "actor" and his/her ability for impromptu. Compared to the masterful work of the Skippers, it becomes even more difficult because the lack of a physical connection- being there in person. The actors have to bleed personality or the performance will fall flat. I'm looking forward to the show and am happy that something has replaced Timekeeper.

In regards to theming, I'd much rather have this attraction elsewhere. It doesn't fit well with Tomorrowland, no matter how hard you try to justify it. Someone mentioned the Speedway as not fitting in- but there we're seeing the drivers of Tomorrow getting behind the wheel.

The monsters in Monsters Inc are NOT aliens. They're monsters from the collective imaginations of children around the world. Whether or not their world rests in our future timeline is of no real import. You can justify ANY ride in the park to reside in TomorrowLand if you try- Especially if you presume we're going to travel in time at some point.

Hopefully this show will make me laugh so hard my sides ache, as often is the case with a brilliant Skipper who knows just how often off the beaten spiel he can go without getting into trouble. If the jokes are lame kiddy chuckles, it'll fade into obscurity.

Count me as undecided, but skeptical.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
I figure that I might as well toss in my two cents into the mix. I've yet to see the show in Living Seas in person, but I do know that the technology behind it is around 10 years (or more) old. Back at the tradeshows like CES and E3- Nintendo used a CGi Mario to interact with passersby. It was a nifty little effect that takes people by surprise.

I find it funny that people are making such a big deal about it now. Whether the show is good or not is largely based off of the "actor" and his/her ability for impromptu. Compared to the masterful work of the Skippers, it becomes even more difficult because the lack of a physical connection- being there in person. The actors have to bleed personality or the performance will fall flat. I'm looking forward to the show and am happy that something has replaced Timekeeper.

In regards to theming, I'd much rather have this attraction elsewhere. It doesn't fit well with Tomorrowland, no matter how hard you try to justify it. Someone mentioned the Speedway as not fitting in- but there we're seeing the drivers of Tomorrow getting behind the wheel.

The monsters in Monsters Inc are NOT aliens. They're monsters from the collective imaginations of children around the world. Whether or not their world rests in our future timeline is of no real import. You can justify ANY ride in the park to reside in TomorrowLand if you try- Especially if you presume we're going to travel in time at some point.

Hopefully this show will make me laugh so hard my sides ache, as often is the case with a brilliant Skipper who knows just how often off the beaten spiel he can go without getting into trouble. If the jokes are lame kiddy chuckles, it'll fade into obscurity.

Count me as undecided, but skeptical.

Count me in on this sentiment (although I will agree with others that the Speedway is somewhat half-themed, but I think it works better than this does because the loading area is at least a small attempt at being futuristic). But, I really hope they try to be entertaining and not relevant in this attraction (but I have my doubts).
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
I figure that I might as well toss in my two cents into the mix. I've yet to see the show in Living Seas in person, but I do know that the technology behind it is around 10 years (or more) old. Back at the tradeshows like CES and E3- Nintendo used a CGi Mario to interact with passersby. It was a nifty little effect that takes people by surprise.

I find it funny that people are making such a big deal about it now. Whether the show is good or not is largely based off of the "actor" and his/her ability for impromptu. Compared to the masterful work of the Skippers, it becomes even more difficult because the lack of a physical connection- being there in person. The actors have to bleed personality or the performance will fall flat. I'm looking forward to the show and am happy that something has replaced Timekeeper.

In regards to theming, I'd much rather have this attraction elsewhere. It doesn't fit well with Tomorrowland, no matter how hard you try to justify it. Someone mentioned the Speedway as not fitting in- but there we're seeing the drivers of Tomorrow getting behind the wheel.

The monsters in Monsters Inc are NOT aliens. They're monsters from the collective imaginations of children around the world. Whether or not their world rests in our future timeline is of no real import. You can justify ANY ride in the park to reside in TomorrowLand if you try- Especially if you presume we're going to travel in time at some point.

Hopefully this show will make me laugh so hard my sides ache, as often is the case with a brilliant Skipper who knows just how often off the beaten spiel he can go without getting into trouble. If the jokes are lame kiddy chuckles, it'll fade into obscurity.

Count me as undecided, but skeptical.

Good post!
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
American Heritage Dictionary said:
a·li·en (ā'lē-ən, āl'yən) Pronunciation Key
adj.

1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.


n.

1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

Doesn't sound too far off to me.
 

Skippy

Well-Known Member
Doesn't sound too far off to me.
Yes, but according to that particular definition I could name a great number of people that are aliens today. If a new family moved in next door from Russia, you could consider them aliens, as they would be people "from another and very different family, people, or place." This definition of 'alien' is not futuristic theme. While 'aliens' in the sense of creatures from another planet is very much a futuristic, science fiction idea.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
Yes, but according to that particular definition I could name a great number of people that are aliens today. If a new family moved in next door from Russia, you could consider them aliens, as they would be people "from another and very different family, people, or place." This definition of 'alien' is not futuristic theme. While 'aliens' in the sense of creatures from another planet is very much a futuristic, science fiction idea.

Your point is valid. But if creatures from another planet is where the bar is set, then Buzz Lightyear doesn't really fit either. He's a toy that's representative of that definition of alien -- unless we agree that the ride is a depiction of the representation of the toy and not the toy itself, and now we're peeling away too many layers of the meta-reality onion.

Tomorrowland's theming has been less than strictly observed, in my opinion, and monsters from some parallel world seem to fit the somewhat loose theming already in place.
 

Epcot82Guy

Well-Known Member
Your point is valid. But if creatures from another planet is where the bar is set, then Buzz Lightyear doesn't really fit either. He's a toy that's representative of that definition of alien -- unless we agree that the ride is a depiction of the representation of the toy and not the toy itself, and now we're peeling away too many layers of the meta-reality onion.

Tomorrowland's theming has been less than strictly observed, in my opinion, and monsters from some parallel world seem to fit the somewhat loose theming already in place.

So let's exacerbate the problem... Good solution...

Well, Buzz is a modern toy who flies through space, so we can make a space-themed attraction with him.

Well, Stitch is a modern movie about things actually going on that we aren't aware, but at least he's a space alien, so that's ok.

Well, since Stitch is a modern day movie, Mosters kind of look like aliens, so that's ok.

Well, if Monsters look kind of like aliens, well talking cars surely are something new and weird. Let's throw them down, too. I can see it fitting.

Well, since talking cars are weird and wacky, people with superpowers are, too, right? So why not put the Incredibles in on some save the 1950's world adventure (heck, the COP has scenes about that, right- this means this is a DEFINITE go and maybe a replacement).

Since we've got the Incredibles here already, those pods sure looked futuristic; much more so than blue trains. So, they fit now.

... The six degrees of separation from Tomorrowland to Pixarland. Heck, everything else is there, so why not go ahead and put our little Robinson friend up on top of Space Mountain.


I realize that is all skeptical, but it shows how fast the problem gets out of hand when people focus on making things fit instead of fitting things where they should/can go more easily. :zipit:
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
So let's exacerbate the problem... Good solution...

Well, Buzz is a modern toy who flies through space, so we can make a space-themed attraction with him.

Well, Stitch is a modern movie about things actually going on that we aren't aware, but at least he's a space alien, so that's ok.

Well, since Stitch is a modern day movie, Mosters kind of look like aliens, so that's ok.

Well, if Monsters look kind of like aliens, well talking cars surely are something new and weird. Let's throw them down, too. I can see it fitting.

Well, since talking cars are weird and wacky, people with superpowers are, too, right? So why not put the Incredibles in on some save the 1950's world adventure (heck, the COP has scenes about that, right- this means this is a DEFINITE go and maybe a replacement).

Since we've got the Incredibles here already, those pods sure looked futuristic; much more so than blue trains. So, they fit now.

... The six degrees of separation from Tomorrowland to Pixarland. Heck, everything else is there, so why not go ahead and put our little Robinson friend up on top of Space Mountain.


I realize that is all skeptical, but it shows how fast the problem gets out of hand when people focus on making things fit instead of fitting things where they should/can go more easily. :zipit:

Wow, is it possible for your to post a bad post?:lol: :wave: Great post! ( again )
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
So let's exacerbate the problem... Good solution...

<snip>

I realize that is all skeptical, but it shows how fast the problem gets out of hand when people focus on making things fit instead of fitting things where they should/can go more easily. :zipit:

Take it up with WDI. Tomorrowland is what it is. You can raise a stink about it or just realize which way the wind is blowing and accept it. From where I sit, it's not the end of the world, and if it were, there wouldn't be anything I could do about it anyway.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Monsters Inc is hardly the first (or second, or third, or eighth) attraction to adopt a, shall we say, "creative" approach to fitting the theming around it. If I'm trying the square peg/round hole approach by playing devil's advocate for this attraction, then I'll accept the charges...but so is everyone else who accepts HM, Speedway, and Splash where they are now. Slapping a themed facade on an attraction whose story has nothing to do with the land it's dumped in (or in Speedway's case, shoehorning an existing out-of-place theme into a barely themed "story") isn't exactly careful thematic development.

To paraphrase the man on the boat ride: "Monsters Inc, yoo are not the firsht to pash thish vay."
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
As I pointed out earlier in the thread, Monsters Inc is hardly the first (or second, or third, or eighth) attraction to adopt a, shall we say, "creative" approach to fitting the theming around it. If I'm trying the square peg/round hole approach by playing devil's advocate for this attraction, then I'll accept the charges...but so is everyone else who accepts HM, Speedway, and Splash where they are now. Slapping a themed facade on an attraction whose story has nothing to do with the land it's dumped in (or in Speedway's case, shoehorning an existing out-of-place theme into a barely themed "story") isn't exactly careful thematic development.

That's a good point. I think the only possible problem with MI for me is that it would be another Fantasyland style attraction in Tomorrowland. And it isnt' something I'm really upset about at all. It is kind of frustrating, but at the same time it is understandable. I don't really buy the MI doesn't fit the theme of the land argument because as you said it has been done before and it will be done again. If the attraction is good, nobody will ever mention the land theming again because it is close.
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
The thing about MI, is that it seems that when everybody defends on how it fits properly with the theme, they have to do alot of research on it to explain. It really shouldn't take anyone to do alot of research to come up with an excuse to why an attraction fits into the land. Take Buzz for example, he's a spaceman, flies around in space, has a sci fi look about him. There you go! Space Mountian, flying around in space in rocket ships. There you go! Monsters Inc, monsters are could possibly be from anther, planet or another deminsion. They fit the cyteria for aliens which kind of fits the theme of tomorrow land, and besides, tomorrowland has a space port, a prison center, and now a comedy clubs! The cell is the structural and functional unit of all living organisms, and is sometimes called the "building block of life."[1] Some organisms, such as bacteria, are unicellular, consisting of a single cell. Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular, (humans have an estimated 100 trillion or 1014 cells; a typical cell size is 10 µm, a typical cell mass 1 nanogram). The largest known cell is an ostrich egg.

The cell theory, first developed in 1839 by Schleiden and Schwann, states that all organisms are composed of one or more cells; all cells come from preexisting cells; all vital functions of an organism occur within cells, and cells contain the hereditary information necessary for regulating cell functions and for transmitting information to the next generation of cells.

The word cell comes from the Latin cellula, a small room. The name was chosen by Robert Hooke when he compared the cork cells he saw to the small rooms monks lived in.[2]

Contents [hide]
1 Overview
1.1 Properties of cells
2 Anatomy of cells
2.1 Prokaryotic cells
2.2 Eukaryotic cells
3 Subcellular components
3.1 Cell membrane: A cell's defining boundary
3.2 Cytoskeleton: A cell's scaffold
3.3 Genetic material
3.4 Organelles
4 Cell functions
4.1 Cell growth and metabolism
4.2 Creation of new cells
4.3 Protein synthesis
5 Origins of cells
5.1 Origin of the first cell
5.2 Origin of eukaryotic cells
6 History
7 See also
8 References
9 External links
9.1 Online textbooks



[edit] Overview

[edit] Properties of cells
Each cell is at least somewhat self-contained and self-maintaining: it can take in nutrients, convert these nutrients into energy, carry out specialized functions, and reproduce as necessary. Each cell stores its own set of instructions for carrying out each of these activities.


Mouse cells grown in a culture dish. These cells grow in large clumps, but each individual cell is about 10 micrometres across.All cells share several abilities[3]:

Reproduction by cell division (binary fission, mitosis or meiosis).
Use of enzymes and other proteins coded for by DNA genes and made via messenger RNA intermediates and ribosomes.
Metabolism, including taking in raw materials, building cell components, converting energy, molecules and releasing by-products. The functioning of a cell depends upon its ability to extract and use chemical energy stored in organic molecules. This energy is derived from metabolic pathways.
Response to external and internal stimuli such as changes in temperature, pH or nutrient levels.
Cell contents are contained within a cell surface membrane that contains proteins and a lipid bilayer.
Some prokaryotic cells contain important internal membrane-bound compartments, but eukaryotic cells have a highly specialized endomembrane system characterized by regulated traffic and transport of vesicles.[4]



[edit] Anatomy of cells
There are two types of cells, eukaryotic and prokaryotic. Prokaryotic cells are usually singletons, while eukaryotic cells are usually found in multi-cellular organisms.


[edit] Prokaryotic cells
Main Article:prokaryote


A typical prokaryotic cellProkaryotes are distinguished from eukaryotes on the basis of nuclear organization, specifically their lack of a nuclear membrane. Prokaryotes also lack most of the intracellular organelles and structures that are characteristic of eukaryotic cells (an important exception is the ribosomes, which are present in both prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells). Most of the functions of organelles, such as mitochondria, chloroplasts, and the Golgi apparatus, are taken over by the prokaryotic plasma membrane. Prokaryotic cells have three architectural regions: appendages called flagella and pili — proteins attached to the cell surface; a cell envelope consisting of a capsule, a cell wall, and a plasma membrane; and a cytoplasmic region that contains the cell genome (DNA) and ribosomes and various sorts of inclusions. Other differences include:

The plasma membrane (a phospholipid bilayer) separates the interior of the cell from its environment and serves as a filter and communications beacon.
Most prokaryotes have a cell wall (some exceptions are Mycoplasma (a bacterium) and Thermoplasma (an archaeon)). It consists of peptidoglycan in bacteria, and acts as an additional barrier against exterior forces. It also prevents the cell from "exploding" (cytolysis) from osmotic pressure against a hypotonic environment. A cell wall is also present in some eukaryotes like fungi, but has a different chemical composition.
A prokaryotic chromosome is usually a circular molecule (an exception is that of the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi, which causes Lyme disease). Even without a real nucleus, the DNA is condensed in a nucleoid. Prokaryotes can carry extrachromosomal DNA elements called plasmids, which are usually circular. Plasmids can carry additional functions, such as antibiotic resistance.

[edit] Eukaryotic cells

A typical eukaryotic cellEukaryotic cells are about 10 times the size of a typical prokaryote and can be as much as 1000 times greater in volume. The major difference between prokaryotes and eukaryotes is that eukaryotic cells contain membrane-bound compartments in which specific metabolic activities take place. Most important among these is the presence of a cell nucleus, a membrane-delineated compartment that houses the eukaryotic cell's DNA. It is this nucleus that gives the eukaryote its name, which means "true nucleus". Other differences include:

The plasma membrane resembles that of prokaryotes in function, with minor differences in the setup. Cell walls may or may not be present.
The eukaryotic DNA is organized in one or more linear molecules, called chromosomes, which are associated with histone proteins. All chromosomal DNA is stored in the cell nucleus, separated from the cytoplasm by a membrane. Some eukaryotic organelles also contain some DNA.
Eukaryotes can move using cilia or flagella. The flagella are more complex than those of prokaryotes.
Table 1: Comparison of features of prokaroytic and eukaryotic cells Prokaryotes Eukaryotes
Typical organisms bacteria, archaea protists, fungi, plants, animals
Typical size ~ 1-10 µm ~ 10-100 µm (sperm cells, apart from the tail, are smaller)
Type of nucleus nucleoid region; no real nucleus real nucleus with double membrane
DNA circular (usually) linear molecules (chromosomes) with histone proteins
RNA-/protein-synthesis coupled in cytoplasm RNA-synthesis inside the nucleus
protein synthesis in cytoplasm
Ribosomes 50S+30S 60S+40S
Cytoplasmatic structure very few structures highly structured by endomembranes and a cytoskeleton
Cell movement flagella made of flagellin flagella and cilia made of tubulin
Mitochondria none one to several dozen (though some lack mitochondria)
Chloroplasts none in algae and plants
Organization usually single cells single cells, colonies, higher multicellular organisms with specialized cells
Cell division Binary fission (simple division) Mitosis (fission or budding)
Meiosis
Table 2: Comparison of structures between animal and plant cells Typical animal cell Typical plant cell
Organelles Nucleus
Nucleolus (within nucleus)
Rough endoplasmic reticulum (ER)
Smooth ER
Ribosomes
Cytoskeleton
Golgi apparatus
Cytoplasm
Mitochondria
Vesicles
Vacuoles
Lysosomes
Centrosome
Centrioles
Nucleus
Nucleolus (within nucleus)
Rough ER
Smooth ER
Ribosomes
Cytoskeleton
Golgi apparatus (dictiosomes)
Cytoplasm
Mitochondria
Vesicles
Chloroplast and other plastids
Central vacuole(large)
Tonoplast (central vacuole membrane)
Peroxisome
Glyoxysome

Additional structures Cilium
Flagellum
Plasma membrane
Plasma membrane
Cell wall
Plasmodesmata
Flagellum (only in gametes)



[edit] Subcellular components

The cells of eukaryotes (left) and prokaryotes (right).All cells, whether prokaryotic or eukaryotic, have a membrane, which envelopes the cell, separates its interior from its environment, regulates what moves in and out (selectively permeable), and maintains the electric potential of the cell. Inside the membrane, a salty cytoplasm takes up most of the cell volume. All cells possess DNA, the hereditary material of genes, and RNA, containing the information necessary to build various proteins such as enzymes, the cell's primary machinery. There are also other kinds of biomolecules in cells. This article will list these primary components of the cell, then briefly describe their function.


[edit] Cell membrane: A cell's defining boundary
Main article: Cell membrane
The cytoplasm of a cell is surrounded by a plasma membrane. The plasma membrane in plants and prokaryotes is usually covered by a cell wall. This membrane serves to separate and protect a cell from its surrounding environment and is made mostly from a double layer of lipids (hydrophobic fat-like molecules) and hydrophilic phosphorus molecules. Hence, the layer is called a phospholipid bilayer. It may also be called a fluid mosaic membrane. Embedded within this membrane is a variety of protein molecules that act as channels and pumps that move different molecules into and out of the cell. The membrane is said to be 'semi-permeable', in that it can either let a substance (molecule or ion) pass through freely, pass through to a limited extent or not pass through at all. Cell surface membranes also contain receptor proteins that allow cells to detect external signalling molecules such as hormones.


[edit] Cytoskeleton: A cell's scaffold
Main article: Cytoskeleton
The cytoskeleton acts to organize and maintain the cell's shape; anchors organelles in place; helps during endocytosis, the uptake of external materials by a cell, and cytokinesis, the separation of daughter cells after cell division; and moves parts of the cell in processes of growth and mobility. Eukaryotic cytoskeleton is composed of microfilaments, intermediate filaments and microtubules. There is a great number of proteins associated with them, each controlling a cell's structure by directing, bundling, and aligning filaments.


[edit] Genetic material
Two different kinds of genetic material exist: deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and ribonucleic acid (RNA). Most organisms use DNA for their long-term information storage, but some viruses (e.g., retroviruses) have RNA as their genetic material. The biological information contained in an organism is encoded in its DNA or RNA sequence. RNA is also used for information transport (e.g., mRNA) and enzymatic functions (e.g., ribosomal RNA) in organisms that use DNA for the genetic code itself.

Prokaryotic genetic material is organized in a simple circular DNA molecule (the bacterial chromosome) in the nucleoid region of the cytoplasm. Eukaryotic genetic material is divided into different, linear molecules called chromosomes inside a discrete nucleus, usually with additional genetic material in some organelles like mitochondria and chloroplasts (see endosymbiotic theory).

A human cell has genetic material in the nucleus (the nuclear genome) and in the mitochondria (the mitochondrial genome). In humans the nuclear genome is divided into 46 linear DNA molecules called chromosomes. The mitochondrial genome is a circular DNA molecule separate from the nuclear DNA. Although the mitochondrial genome is very small, it codes for some important proteins.

Foreign genetic material (most commonly DNA) can also be artificially introduced into the cell by a process called transfection. This can be transient, if the DNA is not inserted into the cell's genome, or stable, if it is.


[edit] Organelles
Main article: Organelle
The human body contains many different organs, such as the heart, lung, and kidney, with each organ performing a different function. Cells also have a set of "little organs," called organelles, that are adapted and/or specialized for carrying out one or more vital functions. Membrane-bound organelles are found only in eukaryotes.

Cell nucleus (a cell's information center)
The cell nucleus is the most conspicuous organelle found in a eukaryotic cell. It houses the cell's chromosomes, and is the place where almost all DNA replication and RNA synthesis occur. The nucleus is spheroid in shape and separated from the cytoplasm by a double membrane called the nuclear envelope. The nuclear envelope isolates and protects a cell's DNA from various molecules that could accidentally damage its structure or interfere with its processing. During processing, DNA is transcribed, or copied into a special RNA, called mRNA. This mRNA is then transported out of the nucleus, where it is translated into a specific protein molecule. In prokaryotes, DNA processing takes place in the cytoplasm.
Mitochondria and Chloroplasts (the power generators)
Mitochondria are self-replicating organelles that occur in various numbers, shapes, and sizes in the cytoplasm of all eukaryotic cells. As mitochondria contain their own genome that is separate and distinct from the nuclear genome of a cell, they play a critical role in generating energy in the eukaryotic cell, a organelles that are modified chloroplasts; they are broadly called plastids, and are often involved in storage.
Endoplasmic reticulum and Golgi apparatus (macromolecule managers)
The endoplasmic reticulum (ER) is the transport network for molecules targeted for certain modifications and specific destinations, as compared to molecules that will float freely in the cytoplasm. The ER has two forms: the rough ER, which has ribosomes on its surface, and the smooth ER, which lacks them. .
The ER contains many Ribosomes (the protein production machine)
The ribosome is a large complex composed of many molecules, only exist floating freely in the cytosol, whereas in eukaryotes they can be either free or bound to membranes.
Lysosomes and Peroxisomes (of the eukaryotic cell. The cell could not house such destructive enzymes if they were not contained in a membrane-bound system.
Centrosome (the cytoskeleton organiser)
The centrosome produces the microtubules of a cell - a key component of the cytoskeleton. It directs the transport through the ER and the Golgi apparatus. Centrosomes are composed of two centrioles, which separate during cell division and help in the formation of the mitotic spindle. A single centrosome is present in the animal cells. They are also found in some fungi and algae cells.
Vacuoles
Vacuoles store food and waste. Some vacuoles store extra water. They are often described as liquid filled space and are surrounded by a membrane. Some cells, most notably Amoeba have contractile vacuoles, which are able to pump water out of the cell if there is too much water.
[edit] Cell functions
[edit] Cell growth and metabolism
Main articles: Cell growth, Cell metabolism
Between successive cell divisions, cells grow through the functioning of cellular metabolism. Cell metabolism is the process by which individual cells process nutrient molecules. Metabolism has two distinct divisions: catabolism, in which the cell breaks down complex molecules to produce energy and reducing power, and anabolism, wherein the cell uses energy and reducing power to construct complex molecules and perform other biological functions. Complex sugars consumed by the organism can be broken down into a less chemically-complex sugar molecule called glucose. Once inside the cell, glucose is broken down to make adenosine triphosphate (ATP), a form of energy, via two different pathways.

The first pathway, glycolysis, requires no oxygen and is referred to as anaerobic metabolism. Each reaction is designed to produce some hydrogen ions that can then be used to make energy packets (ATP). In prokaryotes, glycolysis is the only method used for converting energy. The second pathway, called the Krebs cycle, or citric acid cycle, occurs inside the mitochondria and is capable of generating enough ATP to run all the cell functions.


An overview of protein synthesis.
Within the nucleus of the cell (light blue), genes (DNA, dark blue) are transcribed into RNA. This RNA is then subject to post-transcriptional modification and control, resulting in a mature mRNA (red) that is then transported out of the nucleus and into the cytoplasm (peach), where it undergoes translation into a protein. mRNA is translated by ribosomes (purple) that match the three-base codons of the mRNA to the three-base anti-codons of the appropriate tRNA. Newly-synthesized proteins (black) are often further modified, such as by binding to an effector molecule (orange), to become fully active.[edit] Creation of new cells
Main article: Cell division
Cell division involves a single cell (called a mother cell) dividing into two daughter cells. This leads to growth in multicellular organisms (the growth of tissue) and to procreation (vegetative reproduction) in unicellular organisms.

Prokaryotic cells divide by binary fission. Eukaryotic cells usually undergo a process of nuclear division, called mitosis, followed by division of the cell, called cytokinesis. A diploid cell may also undergo meiosis to produce haploid cells, usually four. Haploid cells serve as gametes in multicellular organisms, fusing to form new diploid cells.

DNA replication, or the process of duplicating a cell's genome, is required every time a cell divides. Replication, like all cellular activities, requires specialized proteins for carrying out the job.

[edit] Protein synthesis
Main article: Protein biosynthesis
Cells are capable of synthesizing new proteins, which are essential for the modulation and maintenance of cellular activities. This process involves the formation of new protein molecules from amino acid building blocks based on information encoded in DNA/RNA. Protein synthesis generally consists of two major steps: transcription and translation.

Transcription is the process where genetic information in DNA is used to produce a complimentary RNA strand. This RNA strand is then processed to give messenger RNA (mRNA), which is free to migrate through the cell. mRNA molecules bind to protein-RNA complexes called ribosomes located in the cytosol, where they are translated into polypeptide sequences. The ribosome mediates the formation of a polypeptide sequence based on the mRNA sequence. The mRNA sequence directly relates to the polypeptide sequence by binding to transfer RNA (tRNA) adapter molecules in binding pockets within the ribosome. The new polypeptide then folds into a functional 3D protein molecule.

[edit] Origins of cells
Main article: Origin of life
The origin of cells has to do with the origin of life, and was one of the most important steps in evolution of life as we know it. The birth of the cell marked the passage from prebiotic chemistry to biological life.

[edit] Origin of the first cell
If life is viewed from the point of view of replicators, that is DNA molecules in the organism, cells satisfy two fundamental conditions: protection from the outside environment and confinement of biochemical activity. The former condition is needed to maintain the fragile DNA chains stable in a varying and sometimes aggressive environment, and may have been the main reason for which cells evolved. The latter is fundamental for the evolution of biological complexity. If freely-floating DNA molecules that code for enzymes are not enclosed into cells, the enzymes that benefit a given DNA molecule (for example, by producing nucleotides) will automatically benefit the neighbouring DNA molecules. This might be viewed as "parasitism by default." Therefore the selection pressure on DNA molecules will be much lower, since there is not a definitive advantage for the "lucky" DNA molecule that produces the better enzyme over the others: All molecules in a given neighbourhood are almost equally advantaged.

If all the DNA molecule is enclosed in a cell, then the enzymes coded from the molecule will be kept close to the DNA molecule itself. The DNA molecule will directly enjoy the benefits of the enzymes it codes, and not of others. This means other DNA molecules won't benefit from a positive mutation in a neighbouring molecule: this in turn means that positive mutations give immediate and selective advantage to the replicator bearing it, and not on others. This is thought to have been the one of the main driving force of evolution of life as we know it. (Note. This is more a metaphor given for simplicity than complete accuracy since the earliest molecules of life, probably up to the stage of cellular life, were most likely RNA molecules that acted as both replicators and enzymes: see RNA world hypothesis. However, the core of the reasoning is the same.)

Biochemically, cell-like spheroids formed by proteinoids are observed by heating amino acids with phosphoric acid as a catalyst. They bear much of the basic features provided by cell membranes. Proteinoid-based protocells enclosing RNA molecules could (but not necessarily should) have been the first cellular life forms on Earth.

Another theory holds that the turbulent shores of the ancient coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory, aiding in the countless experiments necessary to bring about the first cell. Waves breaking on the shore create a delicate foam composed of bubbles. Winds sweeping across the ocean have a tendency to drive things to shore, much like driftwood collecting on the beach. It is possible that organic molecules were concentrated on the shorelines in much the same way. Shallow coastal waters also tend to be warmer, further concentrating the molecules through evaporation. While bubbles comprised of mostly water tend to burst quickly, oily bubbles happen to be much more stable, lending more time to the particular bubble to perform these crucial experiments. The Phospholipid is a good example of a common oily compound prevalent in the prebiotic seas. Phospholipids can be constructed in one's mind as a hydrophilic head on one end, and a hydrophobic tail on the other. Phospholipids also possess an important characteristic, that is being able to link together to form a bilayer membrane. A lipid monolayer bubble can only contain oil, and is therefore not conducive to harbouring water-soluble organic molecules. On the other hand, a lipid bilayer bubble [1] can contain water, and was a likely precursor to the modern cell membrane. If a protein came along that increased the integrity of its parent bubble, then that bubble had an advantage, and was placed at the top of the natural selection waiting list. Primitive reproduction can be envisioned when the bubbles burst, releasing the results of the experiment into the surrounding medium. Once enough of the 'right stuff' was released into the medium, the development of the first prokaryotes, eukaryotes, and multi-cellular organisms could be achieved. This theory is expanded upon in the book, The Cell: Evolution of the First Organism by Joseph Panno Ph.D.

[edit] Origin of eukaryotic cells
The eukaryotic cell seems to have evolved from a symbiotic community of prokaryotic cells. It is almost certain that DNA-bearing organelles like the mitochondria and the chloroplasts are what remains of ancient symbiotic oxygen-breathing bacteria and cyanobacteria, respectively, where the rest of the cell seems to be derived from an ancestral archaean prokaryote cell – a theory termed the endosymbiotic theory.

There is still considerable debate about whether organelles like the hydrogenosome predated the origin of mitochondria, or viceversa: see the hydrogen hypothesis for the origin of eukaryotic cells.

[edit] History
1632–1723: Anton van Leeuwenhoek teaches himself to grind lenses, builds a microscope and draws protozoa, such as Vorticella from rain water, and bacteria from his own mouth.
1665: Robert Hooke discovers cells in cork, then in living plant tissue using an early microscope.[2]
1839: Theodor Schwann and Matthias Jakob Schleiden elucidate the principle that plants and animals are made of cells, concluding that cells are a common unit of structure and development, and thus founding the cell theory.
The belief that life forms are able to occur spontaneously (generatio spontanea) is contradicted by Louis Pasteur (1822–1895) (although Francesco Redi had performed an experiment in 1668 that suggested the same conclusion).
Rudolph Virchow states that cells always emerge from cell divisions (omnis cellula ex cellula).
1931: Ernst Ruska builds first transmission electron microscope (TEM) at the University of Berlin. By 1935, he has built an EM with twice the resolution of a light microscope, revealing previously-unresolvable organelles.
1953: Watson and Crick made their first announcement on the double-helix structure for DNA on February 28.
1981: Lynn Margulis published Symbiosis in Cell Evolution detailing the endosymbiotic theory.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
Did you paste a chapter from your biology textbook into your post? Not sure if that was an accident or intended to make a point of some sort. :veryconfu

At any rate...I will happily concede your point that Monsters Inc requires a "stretch" to match the theming around it. Will you concede mine that Haunted Mansion and Splash Mountain (about which everyone who hits this "out of place" tom-tom remains noticeably silent) require an equal amount of stretchiness? Consistency is all I ask.
 

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Did you paste a chapter from your biology textbook into your post? Not sure if that was an accident or intended to make a point of some sort. :veryconfu

It was a copy and paste from wikipedia. I used it to explain that explaining how Monsters Inc fitting into Tomorrowland was a difficult as rocket science.
 

Wilt Dasney

Well-Known Member
The thing about MI, is that it seems that when everybody defends on how it fits properly with the theme, they have to do alot of research on it to explain. It really shouldn't take anyone to do alot of research to come up with an excuse to why an attraction fits into the land. Take Buzz for example, he's a spaceman, flies around in space, has a sci fi look about him. There you go!

It's not called "Sci-Fi Land." Buzz Lightyear may fit aesthetically, but beyond the feel, there's no substantive correlation between a toy spaceman and a vision of the future.

Being the stickler for exact correlation that you are, why are you willing to give one a pass on the grounds of "close enough" but not another?

*remains on the lookout for consistency*
 

dxwwf3

Well-Known Member
At any rate...I will happily concede your point that Monsters Inc requires a "stretch" to match the theming around it. Will you concede mine that Haunted Mansion and Splash Mountain (about which everyone who hits this "out of place" tom-tom remains noticeably silent) require an equal amount of stretchiness? Consistency is all I ask.

I don't think there is any doubt that you are right here.
 

LilDucky

New Member
That's a good point. I think the only possible problem with MI for me is that it would be another Fantasyland style attraction in Tomorrowland. And it isnt' something I'm really upset about at all. It is kind of frustrating, but at the same time it is understandable. I don't really buy the MI doesn't fit the theme of the land argument because as you said it has been done before and it will be done again. If the attraction is good, nobody will ever mention the land theming again because it is close.
Thank you!! :lol: :lol:

This is what I've been trying to get across! I dont buy this argument because it seems like people are using it just to hate on the attraction. It's the excuse du jour! If it wasnt about "not fitting with the theme", the gripe would be about something else.

Some say, "I just they would have put it in MGM or something....it would have fit better there". No they dont!!! :lol: If it had been placed there, then we would have heard the wdwmagic complaint department whine about having two Pixar based rides being built at MGM at the same time. Same thing with Epcot, or DAK.

I think people are hating on it because the ride may not necessarily appeal to them, or for whatever reason. The sad part to me, is seeing people post like they *want* it to fail.They want it to fail so they can prove their point? Is this what's going on here? When the ride was announced, people were griping left and right.... before the concept art even came out!

Bottomline: wait until the ride is officially opened, and until you can see it for yourself to ultimately condemn it as a waste of time and money. And no, reviews based on videos dont count for much. How would you feel if a bunch of newbies came onto this board, never having visited WDW, bash the place because the rides on the videos they saw didnt look that good?

and finally consider this dismaying observation: Someone else may *like* this ride you think sucks!!! :eek: :eek:

Contrary to popular belief.... not everyone hates Stitch!!
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom