Ahoy! It’s time for Eric’s Sack of Mail, where I respond to e-mails I’ve gotten that were neither stupid nor angry. (Don’t worry; we have some stupid/angry letters to respond to tomorrow.)

First up is Steve, who has this response to my review of Adam Sandler’s latest opus, “Click”:

I just read your Click review and I think you got it wrong. I really enjoyed the film. Yes, it rips off many films, but I think you underestimate the feelings of 30ish guys who feel like they don’t get enough time with thier family. Films like this will touch them.

Also, you said: “Why, if Michael can skip ahead a few chapters, he can’t also skip BACK a few chapters if he fears he’s gone too far is not explained.”

It is explained, I think you weren’t paying attention. He DOES go back many times in the film (you even comment about going back to 1976). If he FF’s or SKIP’s a chapter, he is still “living” it on “auto-pilot” … so going BACK would allow him to SEE himself, but not “re-do” the moment. He does this many times in the film, how could you miss it?

Regarding the first paragraph: I understand those feelings. I just also understand that the same idea (workaholic dad comes to realize family is most important) has been done — and done better — in 1,000,000,000,000,000 other movies already. But yeah, if a viewer hasn’t seen any of them, I suppose “Click” will do the job.

Regarding the rest: Yes, I saw those scenes, and their existence strengthens my point. I wasn’t suggesting he go back and re-do the scenes he slept-walked through. I was suggesting he go back and at least re-watch them, partly to learn information he needed, and partly to at least WATCH his kids grow up, if not actually interact with them. I mean, if he really feels like he missed out on his kids’ childhood, why not get out the home movies, as it were, and watch ‘em?

Now that we’ve discussed the metaphysics of the Adam Sandler movie, let’s see what “Snide Remarks” reader Tina has to say:

I have a complaint. I hesitate to mention it because in general, I’m a huge fan of all things Snider. [This is the right way to begin an e-mail, by the way.] I commend you Eric for your exceptionally entertaining and informative movie reviews, and your usually-high-quality columns. I say usually because I find the “ask Eric” installments to be a distinct drop on the humor scale from the standard columns. I understand that I am only one reader, and it is possible that there is a large segment of readers who look forward to the “Ask Eric” columns. It is my hope however, that my comment will join a throng of similiar comments and together they will have the power to enact the change I wish to see in the world. Thank you for your time.

Well, I respect Tina’s desire to change the world for good. The “Ask Eric Stuff” columns (sort of a parody of Dear Abby, where people write in with questions and I give unhelpful answers) were hugely popular when I first started doing them in 2001. But it’s true, I haven’t heard much about them lately.

What do you say, “Snide Remarks” subscribers? You likey? No likey? Don’t worry about hurting my feelings, for I have none.

Finally, Alisha writes in with a question that actually required a bit of research to answer. For that I am bitter and angry.

The other day I was reading some article that referred to a movie as being made on video rather than on film, or something to that effect. I can’t remember where I read the article, so I can’t reference it for you–I don’t even remember the film the article discussed. My question is, what’s the difference?

Good question. The technological differences between video and film are complicated, but the key thing is the way the finished products look.

When something is shot on film, it’s really taking 24 still pictures of the subject every second. When those pictures are viewed quickly one after another, it gives the appearance of movement.

Video, on the other hand, records 30 images per second. Plus, each image is divided into two separate fields that interlace to form a complete image — in other words, 60 separate half-resolution images are recorded every second. You get a lot less blurring with 60 images per second as opposed to 24. This is closer to the way human vision works, which is why video looks more “real” than film.

And that’s the chief difference: Video looks more real. For comparison, look at a soap opera (they’re shot on video) and a show like “CSI” (which is shot on film). The soap opera will look more immediate and natural, like it could be happening there in your well-appointed living room. “CSI” looks more like a movie: slightly grainy, slightly detached from what real life looks like. (There are other differences, too, such as lighting and photo-developing techniques, but the video/film difference is the main one.)

Theatrical movies are almost never shot on video. Video looks cheaper than film (which it is), and so shot-on-video movies tend to look amateurish and homemade. You see them a lot at film festivals, but they rarely make it beyond that.

Of course, now we’re starting to see digital video, which is a much higher-quality video that doesn’t look homemade and which has been embraced by major directors such as George Lucas and Robert Rodriguez. Some argue it’s the way of the future; some, like Steven Spielberg, vow they’ll never stop shooting on good old-fashioned film.

Whew! Someone with more technological expertise than myself might have a better, more succinct answer to the video-vs-film question, but I think that basically sums it up. If any brainy readers do have a better one, or if I’ve gotten something wrong, please let me know. And in the meantime, thanks to everyone who contributed to this edition of Eric’s Sack of Mail!

Diligent, long-suffering readers of this blog will recall that one of the strengths of Al Gore’s global warming documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is a study he cites that supposedly demonstrates how the vast majority of scientists are in agreement about global warming, and that the debate should therefore be over.

The study was by Nancy Oreskes. According to Gore, she randomly chose 928 global warming-related articles published in science journals between 1993 and 2003 and found that ALL of them supported the majority view — i.e., Gore’s position, that global warming is real, bad and preventable.

I said in a previous blog entry that I have no choice but accept that study as legitimate. I don’t have access to all the science journals, nor the resources to duplicate the study. I said someone who did have the resources was probably already working on either refuting or supporting it.

And I was right! And it turns out Oreskes’ study — and thus Gore’s support of it in his film — was deeply flawed.

A reader named Keryn (I offer no comment on that spelling) pointed me toward an article by Iain Murray published in the National Review. Now, the National Review would sooner open an abortion clinic in its conference room than say anything positive about Al Gore, and much of what Murray says boils down to nothing more than “my scientists are better than Gore’s scientists.” But he does offer a key insight, found in item #24:

On the supposed “scientific consensusâ€?: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, did not examine a “large random sampleâ€? of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.â€? Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’â€?

The way it went down was, Oreskes’ study was published Science Magazine on Dec. 3, 2004. In it, Oreskes said she had done an Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) database search for the keywords “climate change” and had come up with 928 abstracts published between 1993-2003, and that not one of them rejected the consensus position.

When Dr. Benny Peiser did the same search, however, he came up with some 12,000 papers, not 928. Confronted with this information, Oreskes confirmed she’d screwed up: She hadn’t searched for the keywords “climate change,” as her article said, but for “global climate change.” That search brings up only 1,247 documents. (Where she got the number 928, who knows.)

Seeing that Oreskes’ study was flawed from the get-go, Peiser did his own. He used the same keywords — “global climate change” — for 1993-2003 and came up with 1,247 documents, as just mentioned. Only 1,117 of those had abstracts (you know, the paragraph that summarizes the whole paper). He analyzed those 1,117 abstracts and found that only 13 explicitly endorse the consensus view; 322 implicitly accept it but focus on other aspects; 44 focus on natural factors of global climate change; and 34 reject or doubt the Al Gore view altogether. (Oh, and 470 of the 1,117 articles include the keywords “global,” “climate” and “change” but don’t actually have anything to do with the matter at hand.)

Science Magazine ran a brief correction a few weeks later, but refused to published Peiser’s more detailed study on the grounds that the information he was presenting was already widely disseminated on the Internet. (In other words: “Yeah, we screwed up when we ran Oreskes’ article. Quit rubbing it in.”)

Peiser recounts the whole thing, including his exchanges with Science Magazine, here. It’s good reading.

Several readers also brought to my attention an article from the Wall Street Journal that argues with some more of Gore’s points. This article also mentions the Oreskes/Peiser studies.

The inaccuracy of the Oreskes study hurts part of Gore’s case: the part where he says scientists all more or less agree with him. In truth, while there is a majority opinion (MOST scientists seem to be onboard with it), it’s far from being an overwhelming consensus. I suspect average non-scientist citizens will decide what to believe the same way they usually do: They’ll agree with Gore if they’re Democrats and disagree with him if they’re Republicans. Ta-da!

Final side note/tangent: Many conservative pundits, including my occasional employer Glenn Beck, insist on declaring Gore’s film a box-office failure and mocking him for it. They say this because they wish it to be so, not because the facts support it.

(Glenn Beck has compared the film to Hitler’s propaganda. I suppose it’s his job to stir up controversy by making extreme statements, thus ensuring more attention for himself. Hitler, I mean. Oh, and I guess Glenn, too.) (But I kid.)

The film has grossed $13.6 million to date, making it the fifth most successful documentary of all time. It will be in fourth place by the time it’s finished. (It needs just another $1.5 million to overtake “Madonna: Truth or Dare,” but probably won’t muster the $7 million it needs to kick “Bowling for Columbine” out of the No. 3 spot.)

Yes, $13.6 million is nothing compared to the top grossers of the day. But no reasonable person would compare a documentary to a wide-release Hollywood blockbuster. By any sane system of measurement, $13.6 million for a documentary is fantastic. You can argue with the movie’s facts, agenda or presentation, but on the matter of its box office, there IS a consensus and the debate IS over.

We have only one wide release again this weekend, but it’s a biggie. “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (and no, the subtitle doesn’t refer to Keira Knightley’s cleavage) is opening in 4,133 theaters. Box Office Mojo says that’s the third biggest opening of all time, just barely behind “Shrek 2″ and “Spider-Man 2.”

That’s 4,133 theaters, mind you. Since many theaters will have it on more than one screen, the actual number of screens will be more like 8,300 — about 22 percent of all the movie screens in the country. (There are 37,740 as of 2005.) So choose a screen at random and there’s a one-in-five chance “Pirates of the Caribbean” is playing on it this weekend.

Of course, “Superman Returns” is still out there, still playing in 4,065 theaters on about 8,200 screens. “Click” and “Cars” are still doing brisk business on at least 3,500 screens each. That’s 20,000 screens — 53 percent of the total — accounted for by just four movies.

No wonder the arthouse flicks and the documentaries and the independent films can’t play on more than 20 or 30 screens at a time. Even if the distributors could afford to make 3,000 prints to send out, they wouldn’t be able to find 3,000 screens to show them on.

Anyway, I saw “Pirates of the Caribbean” last Wednesday afternoon at a press screening. Disney is obviously proud of this one, showing it nine days early and even letting us bring a guest to the press screening (which is usually verboten). (Not that I did bring a guest, but I could have.)

The most fun we had was before the movie, when we saw a trailer for “The Guardian,” a “Top Gun”-ish flick due this fall starring Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher. When it gets over, I leans over to Dawn Taylor and I says:

“Kevin Costner and Ashton Kutcher. Because a block of wood and a slab of cement were unavailable.”

And Dawn says:

“It’s going to get awfully crowded in that paper bag they both can’t act their way out of.”

OH, SNAP!!

Anyway, “Pirates of the Caribbean,” “A Scanner Darkly” and “Strangers with Candy” are among the films reviewed in this week’s “In the Dark.” If you haven’t subscribed to it yet, there must be something wrong with you, like clinically.