|
So in the first episode the past pushes back so hard that a car crashes through a telephone booth, killing the driver, and now the worst that happens is that Jake gets caught in a brothel? Man. The first episode sure set the bar high. Here's hoping something worthwhile happens in the next episode and it's not just the ex-husband lurking in the shadows. I'm also kind of sad there's not more references to Jake feeling out of place. The pop culture references are nice but not quite there, for me at least.
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Why did Miss Mimi not know about the Mafia? I'm confused how something that big wouldn't be known?Medullah posted:Just Google a Price Albert if you want to be extra scarred then I can handle most gore, as long as it has nothing to do with the penis.  People who are into that poo poo are hosed up, no joke.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
I was confused about that as well. I don't know how much the mafia was in American media in the 60s but surely she would have to have hard of it from news stories over the years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I was confused about that as well. I don't know how much the mafia was in American media in the 60s but surely she would have to have hard of it from news stories over the years. late 50s early 60s it was a pretty big deal. 63 the first major player went state's evidence. I'd think the mafia would have been news.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Wikipedia: "The public's association of the word with the criminal secret society was perhaps inspired by the 1863 play "I mafiusi di la Vicaria" ("The Mafiosi of the Vicaria") by Giuseppe Rizzotto and Gaspare Mosca. The words Mafia and mafiusi are never mentioned in the play; they were probably put in the title to add a local flair. The play is about a Palermo prison gang with traits similar to the Mafia: a boss, an initiation ritual, and talk of "umirtà" (omertà or code of silence) and "pizzu" (a codeword for extortion money).[8] The play had great success throughout Italy. Soon after, the use of the term mafia began appearing in the Italian state's early reports on the phenomenon. The word made its first official appearance in 1865 in a report by the prefect of Palermo, Filippo Antonio Gualterio.[9]" It's currently 1962.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 01:32
|
|
|
Azhais posted:late 50s early 60s it was a pretty big deal. 63 the first major player went state's evidence. I'd think the mafia would have been news. But maybe not news in a small town which back in that time really pretty much just focused on local news and the big things like war/space race/etc. (Or it could just be a mistake)
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Joe Vilachi testified a month before the Kennedy assassination. It makes perfect sense that small town Texans don't know anything about somewhat mythic east coast crime syndicates.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 13:03
|
|
|
The clothespin thing was very well done. It brought home how hosed up that guy is in the head, while leaving all the details to the viewer's own imagination. I hope they never mention it again. Also, I'm still kinda struggling with the whole premise of the show. Maybe it's because I'm not American, but I just don't understand why preventing the JFK assassination is supposed to be such a big deal. Why would you assume that it would make the world better? Why would you spend years of your life on this? This obsession seems to come out of nowhere. I guess it would be kinda interesting to see how it changes the flow of history, but I wouldn't waste years of my life.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 14:03
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:The clothespin thing was very well done. It brought home how hosed up that guy is in the head, while leaving all the details to the viewer's own imagination. I hope they never mention it again. I think it's a bit of an American thing, but it's also an age thing. For Boomers, it's what "stopping 9/11" would be to us. It's a bit of a stretch to believe that Franco's character, a solid Gen Xer, would care as much. I kinda had the same doubts when I read the book, but it was inevitable when you're reading a book by a Boomer who started writing it in the 70s and was writing a character much younger than he is now. King can't quite step into the shoes of someone born in the 70s so there's a little less fish out of water stuff than you or I would experience going back 50 years. Though I have to say somewhat selfishly a Gen Xer would be slightly more able to fit into 1960 than someone born in an era of Internet, more than 3 channels on tv, microwaves, VCRs/DVDs, cell phones/no rotary phones, etc. People born in the 70s can at least remember some of that from their childhood.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
Al framed stopping the assassination as a way of preventing Vietnam from happening, which would presumably in turn stop the military-industrial complex from developing and American policy from overcompensating after getting their rear end handed to them and being forced to retreat. Whether it would really happen or not, in the story it's not just about the soldiers who died in Vietnam but pretty much every major military conflict afterward. Including 9/11. Plus it's one of the few major historical turning points that was a singular event done by one person (barring conspiracy theories), which is why it works from a storytelling perspective as something a single man could feasibly prevent. Even moreso than the well-worn time travel trope of assassinating Hitler.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
He also mentions it would likely prevent RFK from being assassinated (and maybe MLK) since he was the big anti-war nominee. You'd also probably prevent Nixon's presidency too. Of course, without JFK's death, RFK doesn't get the soul-searching experience that turns him hard to fighting poverty and war, so he's likely become a hawkish Dem in favor of using the CIA to quell subversives...
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 16:45
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:He also mentions it would likely prevent RFK from being assassinated (and maybe MLK) since he was the big anti-war nominee. You'd also probably prevent Nixon's presidency too. I thought Nixon made for a pretty great president. Sure he lied, but so did every other president (Bush literally monitored every brown person in america under the patriot act in front of the public's eye), Nixon just got caught. But nixon had great foreign policy, he established the EPA, he started the National Cancer act to put federal funding into cancer research, he was instrumental in implementing policies to repair racial relations, and help oppressed blacks at least get some recompense through affirmative action policies. He also helped desegregate southern schools and ensured that federal loan services could not discriminate based on gender or race. Nixon, I think, was a fantastic president based on what I've read about his presidency. Then again, I was born in the mid 90's so I literally only have had exposure to two presidents (too young for clinton), so what do I know.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Yeah there is no way i would stop the assassination. With the threat of nuclear war i wouldn't change anything major like that. I mean we survived to 2016, why would you risk it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Was there ever really a risk of nuclear war? While it was all wink wink nudge nudge, we fought Russia in Korea, Vietnam, and all the poo poo in the middle east. There weren't any nukes thrown around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:Was there ever really a risk of nuclear war? While it was all wink wink nudge nudge, we fought Russia in Korea, Vietnam, and all the poo poo in the middle east. There weren't any nukes thrown around. There was, but not really after the Cuban Missile Crisis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:19
|
|
|
There were near misses after that, but they were mostly from computers loving up and miscommunications.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:32
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:There were near misses after that, but they were mostly from computers loving up and miscommunications. http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls Surprisingly good article from the History Channel. The fourth one on their list is the one I always think of when someone mentions times when the Cold War almost went hot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:34
|
|
|
Fragmented posted:Yeah there is no way i would stop the assassination. With the threat of nuclear war i wouldn't change anything major like that. I mean we survived to 2016, why would you risk it? You could always reset one more time if the world went to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:40
|
|
|
ExtraNoise posted:http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-cold-war-close-calls http://lacrossetribune.com/news/false-alarm-how-a-bear-nearly-started-a-nuclear-war/article_bc6f4da6-a89c-5d7d-bf0a-e41150753b62.html Lest we forget the bear
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
emanresu tnuocca posted:You could always reset one more time if the world went to poo poo. What if you went back to 2016 and were instantly exposed to lethal doses of nuclear fallout radiation?
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
That was the original concept of the book- there were no resets, he got a lethal dose of radiation when he came back, and he had to stop himself in the past before the radiation poisoning killed him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
Ugly In The Morning posted:That was the original concept of the book- there were no resets, he got a lethal dose of radiation when he came back, and he had to stop himself in the past before the radiation poisoning killed him. Before anybody worries about this being a spoiler, originally Under the Dome was about an apartment building getting locked off from civilization and the residents having to resort to cannibalism. Some of King's stories go through a lot of iterations.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
I hope this show ends up with Franco coming back to 2016 and getting murdered by a thug at a Donald Trump rally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
I hope he comes back and it's just like 1985 in Back to the Future 2. Don't gently caress with history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
Ravane posted:I thought Nixon made for a pretty great president. Sure he lied, but so did every other president (Bush literally monitored every brown person in america under the patriot act in front of the public's eye), Nixon just got caught. But nixon had great foreign policy, he established the EPA, he started the National Cancer act to put federal funding into cancer research, he was instrumental in implementing policies to repair racial relations, and help oppressed blacks at least get some recompense through affirmative action policies. He also helped desegregate southern schools and ensured that federal loan services could not discriminate based on gender or race. lol No.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
blue squares posted:lol Ravane is a boring troll, please don't encourage him by quoting and/or responding to him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Oh, sorry
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
In fairness, Nixon was remarkably civil and fell on the sword during the Kennedy election, when he could have contested all the voting discrepancies and thrown a shadow over the whole thing. Instead, he felt that the succession of the presidency should never be called into question and just peaced out. Of course, he took the ratfuck tricks to heart for his term in office. I probably should have thrown in LBJ likely doesn't propose The Great Society as a result of saving Jack. So there's a whole lot of negatives off the bat.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
Comparing JFK's assassination to a boomer 9/11 kinda works for me. Cause I would totally spent a couple years in the 90's, to prevent 9/11. Life was nice back then, almost idyllic. I would go to a Nirvana concert, get a cheap college education and smoke inside buildings all the time. The life of kings.
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
FilthyImp posted:In fairness, Nixon was remarkably civil and fell on the sword during the Kennedy election, His California bid, less so. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9FlPeKKzA
|
|
#
?
Mar 13, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:Comparing JFK's assassination to a boomer 9/11 kinda works for me. Cause I would totally spent a couple years in the 90's, to prevent 9/11. Life was nice back then, almost idyllic. I would go to a Nirvana concert, get a cheap college education and smoke inside buildings all the time. The life of kings. Stopping 9/11 would be so loving easy with what we know. It would be just the pilot. Edit: Actually now that i think about it wouldn't stopping the JFK assassination be just as easy? Just call the secret service and tell them your neighbor told you he's going to shoot the president(and hes a marine sniper that defected to the USSR, and he showed you his rifle)? Stick around for a year or so and see if the assassination happens differently and if it does with Oswald in jail, boom: Conspiracy. Reset try again. Fragmented fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 14, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:01
|
|
|
In the book, Al addresses his reasoning for what events he believes unfold: (I don't think this is spoilery, but if it is I will put a spoiler tag around it if someone wants me to.) The Book posted:"Oh, I'm talking about a lot more than that, because this ain't some butterfly in China, buddy. I'm also talking about saving RFK's life, because if John lives in Dallas, Robert probably doesn't run for president in 1968. The country wouldn't have been ready to replace one Kennedy with another." I think what gets lost in a lot of King's works being put to film is the uncertainty and doubt his characters have. They think a lot of the things the readers think (like a lot of the points that have come up in this thread about butterfly effects) but there's usually no way to dialogue that or not enough time to put it in.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Al's bit there makes it into the series, at least in part, but it's kind of easily glossed over sadly. I remember the RFK bit at least.Fragmented posted:Just call the secret service and tell them your neighbor told you he's going to shoot the president(and hes a marine sniper that defected to the USSR, and he showed you his rifle)? Another analogy to stopping JFK9-11: Camelot doesn't fall, American disillusionment doesn't start ratcheting up.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:35
|
|
|
Sleeveless posted:Ravane is a boring troll, please don't encourage him by quoting and/or responding to him. blue squares posted:lol Yeah, thanks for dismissing my opinion without offering any substantial argument against it. That's totally discussion inducing. I don't understand why 90% of you idiots would rather listen to the same opinions spouted over and over again than something that challenges those opinions. Nixon was a great president for all the reasons I mentioned, and I don't give a gently caress what you 40 year olds think (unless you can give a decent argument to convince me otherwise).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
Nixon did do some good things that were overshadowed by his condoning of dirty tricks and social opinions common to the time which would make him Shitlord Tier Level today (but were also common to many liberal heroes of the era). Also he has been demonized by Boomers to this day to the point where it's a joke. Guys like Matt Groening still hate Nixon to a silly degree. He was a competent President in many respects. He even believed in Single Payer Healthcare IIRC.FilthyImp posted:Another analogy to stopping JFK9-11: Camelot doesn't fall, American disillusionment doesn't start ratcheting up. One problem is of course do things could easily get worse if we don't go through the disillusionment of the assassinations and Watergate. Just like if you prevent 9/11 does the lack of survellence and awareness allow for a greater terrorist attack 10 years later?
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Astroman posted:Nixon did do some good things that were overshadowed by his condoning of dirty tricks and social opinions common to the time which would make him Shitlord Tier Level today (but were also common to many liberal heroes of the era). Also he has been demonized by Boomers to this day to the point where it's a joke. Guys like Matt Groening still hate Nixon to a silly degree. He was a competent President in many respects. He even believed in Single Payer Healthcare IIRC. Yeah, the views about Nixon always feel completely polarized to the watergate scandal, which makes views about his presidency largely reductive. And it's so prevalent that offering an alternative viewpoint is just automatically disregarded (much like criticism against gandhi in indian society where he is deified).
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Ravane posted:Yeah, the views about Nixon always feel completely polarized to the watergate scandal, which makes views about his presidency largely reductive. And it's so prevalent that offering an alternative viewpoint is just automatically disregarded (much like criticism against gandhi in indian society where he is deified). Nixon also escalated the war in Vietnam, bombing additional sovereign nations, so when you say he has good foreign policy, it seems like a troll.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 01:53
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Nixon also escalated the war in Vietnam, bombing additional sovereign nations, so when you say he has good foreign policy, it seems like a troll. He not only escalated the war but he deliberately sabotaged peace talks so that he would win the 1968 election.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
blue squares posted:Nixon also escalated the war in Vietnam, bombing additional sovereign nations, so when you say he has good foreign policy, it seems like a troll. I didn't know that he bombed other sovereign nations, I'll have to do research on this. But my understanding is that he inherited this war, a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place, a war that was only fought because America is an interventionist country. And America was already losing the war, and in the face of the cold war, America looking like the weaker nation in front of the USSR was a no-go. Which is why I think he justified escalating the war. I'm not supporting that, but these are all tough decisions, it's hard to criticize when I don't know what he could have done alternatively. Hell, we didn't have to go into war at all, we could criticize Kennedy for putting the US in vietnam in the first place. But we don't do that and Nixon seems to just be the scapegoat for everything Vietnam related. I still think he had pretty decent foreign policy comparatively to the presidents that came before him. Specifically I'm speaking about his visit to china: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_Nixon_visit_to_China, which marks the first time a US president ever went to China and it was imperative in de-escalating Cold War tensions because it dramatically shifted the balance of power that the US had over the USSR.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Ravane posted:I didn't know that he bombed other sovereign nations, I'll have to do research on this. But my understanding is that he inherited this war, a war that shouldn't have been fought in the first place, a war that was only fought because America is an interventionist country. And America was already losing the war, and in the face of the cold war, America looking like the weaker nation in front of the USSR was a no-go. Which is why I think he justified escalating the war. If you really want to know about Nixon, the oft-recommended book Nixonland is fantastic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 14, 2016 02:33
|
|