Shrunken women board

by **HHunter1** » Sat Jul 15, 2023 6:21 am

Ah yes the year 2023. The last great Cybertronian war ended years ago and we can travel the space ways in relative peace and safety. What a grand time to be alive.

But yes, Shrinking technology is sadly still just an amusing fantasy. *Walks away whistling innocently*

HH1

by **Elana** » Sat Jul 15, 2023 5:54 am

Why would our AI overlords develop that technology?
(Also only 6 more years before the T800 gets send back in time, to kill Sarah Connor)

by **Hand-Holder** » Fri Jul 14, 2023 9:59 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:57 pm

Little Sally wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:20 pm

Doesn't breaking things down into scientific possibilities not spoil things somewhat?

It's supposed to be a freakin' fantasy!!
I know, right? That's why I can't watch medical or cop shows. It's too hard to not see all the mistakes !!!!

Ph

Fantasy for now, but Science itself will bring Us all to the day where we can really SHRINK and be SHRUNK !!! 20 to 30 Years most !!!

by **DocRick** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:57 pm

Little Sally wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:20 pm

Doesn't breaking things down into scientific possibilities not spoil things somewhat?

It's supposed to be a freakin' fantasy!!

I know, right? That's why I can't watch medical or cop shows. It's too hard to not see all the mistakes !!!!

by **Little Sally** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 6:20 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:05 pm
Actually, a similar concept made me shake my head in the last King Kong movie. The way Kong snatched her from the sacrificial bindings and when he was walking on all fours with Naomi in his hand, would have killed her. The G forces and impact transfers would have torn her apart internally.

Doesn't breaking things down into scientific possibilities not spoil things somewhat?

It's supposed to be a freakin' fantasy!!

by **DocRick** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:05 pm

Actually, a similar concept made me shake my head in the last King Kong movie. The way Kong snatched her from the sacrificial bindings and when he was walking on all fours with Naomi in his hand, would have killed her. The G forces and impact transfers would have torn her apart internally.

by **DocRick** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 2:02 pm

2 x (x - 3) -:- y + (x -y) =

by **Elana** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 1:57 pm

It's not just proportional height, it is total.
If you are shrunken to half size you can survive falls with double the speed. (For low distances sized divider squared as distance multiplier works so a half sized girl can survive 4 times the fall distances. But with air resistance and terminal velocity this quickly gets to a measure of height doesn't matter...And of course the poor giants better move carefully as a fall from any height will kill them

)

by **Prof Sai** » Thu Jul 13, 2023 12:40 am

It's a different way to describe the same thing. Drop a one inch ice cube one inch, and it will stay solid. Drop a 5 foot ice cube 5 feet, and it will shatter into a million pieces.

by **DocRick** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:24 pm

Prof Sai wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:13 pm

Hand-Holder wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 6:55 pm
Sure, I actually never thought about the fact there is a difference between a shrunken woman on a normal hand or a normal woman on a giant hand,
The difference, (in my headcanon) is that the shrunken woman is much less likely to get hurt. This is due to the nature of how the strength of materials scale with size. With the giant, we can more easily calculate what the forces involved are, and it isn't pretty for the woman. If the woman is shrunken, she'd be more like a squirrel that can easily jump off of a roof and be fine.

I believe you're right, but for a different reason.......gravity. You could drop a mouse from 25 times its height and it would survive unscathed. As the mass of a being increases, the height of survivability decreases dramatically. An sw could survive a fall from proportional height far greater than a normal sized person and would probably be able to jump higher and farther, again proportionally, but the tiny bones in an sw would still be quite fragile and easily damaged by an external force such as squeezing too hard in a hand, being sat on, etc.

by **DocRick** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:16 pm

Little Sally wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:09 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:05 pm
Not a lot in Jack the Giant Slayer, but the sw handhold scene isn't bad here.

https://youtu.be/ltU8ba-yVL4
Hey, that's pretty good! Thanks for posting.

Just goes to show how much cinema effects have moved on.

The German movie "Help, I've Shrunk My Friends" does a very good job with the special effects, but it could have used some handhelds. The shrunken girl character made a great sw, and my mind had some great potential scenes, but they would have to be college kids, instead of high school kids......ya know?

by **Prof Sai** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:13 pm

Hand-Holder wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 6:55 pm
Sure, I actually never thought about the fact there is a difference between a shrunken woman on a normal hand or a normal woman on a giant hand,

The difference, (in my headcanon) is that the shrunken woman is much less likely to get hurt. This is due to the nature of how the strength of materials scale with size. With the giant, we can more easily calculate what the forces involved are, and it isn't pretty for the woman. If the woman is shrunken, she'd be more like a squirrel that can easily jump off of a roof and be fine.

by **Little Sally** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 9:09 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:05 pm
Not a lot in Jack the Giant Slayer, but the sw handhold scene isn't bad here.

https://youtu.be/ltU8ba-yVL4

Hey, that's pretty good! Thanks for posting.

Just goes to show how much cinema effects have moved on.
Bring on a new retro styled remake of LOTG, 60s mini dresses included! If only eh.

by **Hand-Holder** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:51 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:05 pm
Not a lot in Jack the Giant Slayer, but the sw handhold scene isn't bad here.

https://youtu.be/ltU8ba-yVL4

I noticed the quality of the special effects, and yes, it is a petty it does not have more SW interactions

by **DocRick** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 7:05 pm

Not a lot in Jack the Giant Slayer, but the sw handhold scene isn't bad here.

https://youtu.be/ltU8ba-yVL4

by **Hand-Holder** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 6:55 pm

DocRick wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 12, 2023 1:27 am

Hand-Holder wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:24 pm

Shrunken Women, for Me, are as exciting in Giant Male hands as in Giant Female hands

AS long is not a Giant playing with a Shrunken Male, I don´t care who is playing with the SHRUNKEN WOMEN, Love them All
Even a "normal-sized" woman in a giant male or female's hands are okay with me........King Kong, The Giant Slayer, War of the Colossal Beast.......

Sure, I actually never thought about the fact there is a difference between a shrunken woman on a normal hand or a normal woman on a giant hand, I just need to see a size difference where the woman is the smaller, lol

Thanks for pointing that out - I call King Kong an SW situation but technically is not, now that I think of it... BUT YES, powerplay is what matters to me !!!

by **DocRick** » Wed Jul 12, 2023 1:27 am

Hand-Holder wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:24 pm

Shrunken Women, for Me, are as exciting in Giant Male hands as in Giant Female hands

AS long is not a Giant playing with a Shrunken Male, I don´t care who is playing with the SHRUNKEN WOMEN, Love them All

Even a "normal-sized" woman in a giant male or female's hands are okay with me........King Kong, The Giant Slayer, War of the Colossal Beast.......

by **Hand-Holder** » Tue Jul 11, 2023 11:24 pm

lefrenchie wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:09 pm

Axtwyt wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:29 pm

lefrenchie wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm
SM or GTS again... beurk

No one respect this place I think I will leave this place.
Go ahead, the door’s right there.
And you can go to GTS city with your submissive friends

Shrunken Women, for Me, are as exciting in Giant Male hands as in Giant Female hands

AS long is not a Giant playing with a Shrunken Male, I don´t care who is playing with the SHRUNKEN WOMEN, Love them All

by **lefrenchie** » Tue Jul 11, 2023 4:09 pm

Axtwyt wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:29 pm

lefrenchie wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm
SM or GTS again... beurk

No one respect this place I think I will leave this place.
Go ahead, the door’s right there.

And you can go to GTS city with your submissive friends

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:13 pm

lefrenchie wrote: ↑
Mon Jul 10, 2023 1:06 pm
SM or GTS again... beurk

No one respect this place I think I will leave this place.

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:07 pm

I think I just prefer more natural, flawed hand pictures when I can find them. Just call me "Karen".

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:05 pm

This one also labeled as a photograph just looks too perfect to be a photograph, Like the hands in the original post collage, but then just a little "flawed" as a photograph of hands would be, as our hands are not perfect.

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 11:01 pm

This was "advertised" as a photograph of hands. It doesn't look like a photograph at all to me, other than a very touched up one.

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:59 pm

I think we can all agree this is an actual photograph of hands.

by **DocRick** » Mon Jul 10, 2023 10:51 pm

It's just something about the hands. The wrinkles are there, the tiny veins are there.......I feel like a real nitpicker.......it's the thumbnail. For some reason, it just doesn't look like a photograph of a thumb. Like I think I said above, I believe I've seem the hand image and others like it, that are tagged as photgraphs, but I don't usually use them for the same reason as I stated above. They may be touched up pictures for advertising purposes or something or I'm seeing something that is not there. Regardless, this still, when looking at it as a whole, is my favorite sw picture ever.

Shrunken women board

CGI or photocollage

Post a reply

Expand view Topic review: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage

Re: CGI or photocollage