|
bewbies posted:well it doesn't have to be a HISTORICAL movie. I would totally pay to watch a movie that was nothing more than battleships lining up one-on-one and fighting each other in a bracket style tournament you will get your movie, but the ships will be crewed by anime schoolgirls
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
bewbies posted:well it doesn't have to be a HISTORICAL movie. I would totally pay to watch a movie that was nothing more than battleships lining up one-on-one and fighting each other in a bracket style tournament i will fund this idea
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Why hasn't this been in a movie yet? I want high quality battleship battles. Sink the Bismark? I grew up watching that and Midway with Charlton Heston. I may or may not be able to recite the entire Midway script from heart.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
P-Mack posted:you will get your movie, but the ships will be
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:38
|
|
|
So wait, what exactly happened in that Battleship movie if it wasn't Battleships being Battleships?
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:43
|
|
|
Grand Prize Winner posted:How is Maximilian viewed in Mexico? From US-centric pop-history (and not much of that really talks about him, or Mexico in general, which is a drat shame) he seems like a well-meaning but not too competent European aristocrat in a time and place where being a European aristocrat is a somewhat poor idea. Now that I'm no longer drunk, I can answer this question properly. Again, it depends on who you ask. In the broadest terms, he is extremely unpopular among the far left circles, while the far right loves him. When I'm in Mexico and hear someone praising what he did, my first reaction is that I'm talking to a supporter of the FNM. While he did try to enact liberal reforms, during his life he was only popular among the extremely conservative parts of the population, and spent his entire reign fighting against Benito Juárez and, indirectly, the United States. In what I've read, my own opinions and the feeling I get from people I talk to, he was a German twat who was not very good at anything but making people mad at him, and at best he was a puppet of the French Empire who loved his country but couldn't see that his love was not reciprocated. Also he killed thousands of people without due process because they were Juárez supporters, so he wasn't very benevolent either. Whether you think all of that is a tragedy because he was forced into doing this in order to crush a persistent and illegal rebellion, or a crime done by a tyrant who was desperate to hold onto any ounce of power will depend on where you fall on the political spectrum. There was a telenovela about his life, for what that's worth. And interestingly enough, while he was viewed as a puppet state and usurper of Benito Juárez's legitimate government by the United States, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain regarded his empire as the legitimate government of Mexico.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:48
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:So wait, what exactly happened in that Battleship movie if it wasn't Battleships being Battleships? Aliens. I'm dead loving serious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:So wait, what exactly happened in that Battleship movie if it wasn't Battleships being Battleships?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:So wait, what exactly happened in that Battleship movie if it wasn't Battleships being Battleships? The battleship fought an alien ship but with the most hilarious scene of 80 year old vets slow walking with rock music to go take up their old positions because they were the only ones who knew how to work an Iowa class. And then they drifted the battleship to do a sick slow mo drift drive by of the aliens. I'm not kidding, all of this is a factual description of a high budget picture.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Probably in large part because battleship-on-battleship action almost never happened outside Jutland. Remake Sink the Bismarck. Problem solved.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:04
|
|
Hope for a Guadalcanal movie that focuses on the navy, maybe, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
Cyrano4747 posted:The battleship fought an alien ship but with the most hilarious scene of 80 year old vets slow walking with rock music to go take up their old positions because they were the only ones who knew how to work an Iowa class. I had to double check the internet movie data based to check to see if this was Japanese produced. Nope. So uh. You sunk my battleship?
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The battleship fought an alien ship but with the most hilarious scene of 80 year old vets slow walking with rock music to go take up their old positions because they were the only ones who knew how to work an Iowa class. $200 million dollars. That movie cost $200 million dollars to make. I will forget the faces of my parents and the names of my friends before I forget that Battleship, a movie based on a boardgame that features an international coalition fighting off an alien invasion that use literal pegs as weapons, cost $200 million dollars to make.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Any movie that has an Iowa pull a handbrake turn into a full broadside is alright by me TBH.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Any movie that has an Iowa pull a handbrake turn into a full broadside is alright by me TBH. Needed more Eurobeat, it already was a crossover between Initial D and a board game, might as well go all the way.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:18
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Any movie that has an Iowa pull a handbrake turn into a full broadside is alright by me TBH. Everyone knows thanks to WoWS that you should NEVER show your broadside to an enemyin an Iowa because the citadel is too high and easy to hit. So I say it's totally awful for realism reasons. Realism that WoWS has taught me.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
I'll give battleship credit for one thing; the double amputee in the movie is a real life combat veteran so props to them for having him in the move.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Cythereal posted:Probably in large part because battleship-on-battleship action almost never happened outside Jutland. OK, come on, there's a couple more: Dreadnought battle cruisers at Dogger Bank. Battle of Calabria (wildly disappointing) Bismarck vs Hood (one-sided) Sinking of Scharnhorst (ragingly one sided) If you consider predreads, Battle of Moon Sound. So there's one good one with dreadnoughts on both sides, and one good one with predreadnoughts. A movie about Dogger Bank would be kind of rad actually. edit: confused Scharnhorst and Tirpitz
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:A movie about Dogger Bank would be kind of rad actually. I'd totally watch a film about Dogger Bank. At least from what I remember of reading about it in Castles of Steel it'd make a pretty exciting watch. I'd also watch a film about Jutland to be honest.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:Any movie that has an Iowa pull a handbrake turn into a full broadside is alright by me TBH. Yeah, I own it. It's one of those movies that's great for getting drunk and starting half way through or having as background noise while cleaning guns. edit: bonus, you can get it for $.99 these days. Hell no I wasn't going to pay full price for that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I'd totally watch a film about Dogger Bank. At least from what I remember of reading about it in Castles of Steel it'd make a pretty exciting watch. A twenty minute sequence of Beatty becoming progressively more upset and going through every curse a sailor knows while sitting on the deck of a destroyer as he realises everyone misunderstood his signal flag and he can't order the fleet back on track would be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Yeah, I own it. It's one of those movies that's great for getting drunk and starting half way through or having as background noise while cleaning guns.  it at some point to watch when utterly bored and went in expecting garbage. The garbage I got was of far higher quality than I was expecting, and TBH I'd go so far as to rate it as "genuinely fun".
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:08
|
|
|
Nine of Eight posted:A twenty minute sequence of Beatty becoming progressively more upset and going through every curse a sailor knows while sitting on the deck of a destroyer as he realises everyone misunderstood his signal flag and he can't order the fleet back on track would be hilarious. I'd be up for that. For bonus points at the end include the part where Beatty's flagship (Lion) fucks up with its anchors so it has to come around again to even more cheers and applause, whilst he stands there squirming in a mixture of mortification and impotent anger. I suppose if you like tragicomedies you could always go for the old chestnut of the Second Pacific Squadron, with the last stretch being Tsushima? e: Fixed the names 
Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 02:23 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:21
|
|
|
Soup Inspector posted:I'd be up for that. Wasn't that a Beatty thing in Lion? edit: I want an SMS Emden movie.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:23
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:There was a telenovela about his life, for what that's worth. And interestingly enough, while he was viewed as a puppet state and usurper of Benito Juárez's legitimate government by the United States, Austria, Prussia and Great Britain regarded his empire as the legitimate government of Mexico. That's probably because they were loosely involved in his installment in Mexico.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:22
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:Wasn't that a Beatty thing in Lion? Ah, I think you're right Sorry, been a while since I last read the book! e: Fixed? Unless I hosed up and the Lion shenanigans took place after an entirely different battle. Soup Inspector fucked around with this message at 02:27 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:24
|
|
|
Arquinsiel posted:I I remember the SA film reviews thought it was pretty good
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 02:56
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I've not seen Fury but I know the Tiger they used in the battle scene was the one from bovington, IE the world's only running Tiger I. That's a case where using the actual vehicle may have made the movie worse. The Tiger battle would very accurate - if they were fighting a Tiger II. A Tiger II would also have been much more likely, as Germany didn't have more than a very few Tiger I tanks left at the time the movie takes place. The entire scene reeks of "we wrote this before we got access to a real tank, so we just swapped it in without changing anything", which is a shame because (despite the creators being inspired by Death Traps) it otherwise has only one or two glaring flaws. This is unusual for a historical fiction film.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Gnoman posted:That's a case where using the actual vehicle may have made the movie worse. The Tiger battle would very accurate - if they were fighting a Tiger II. A Tiger II would also have been much more likely, as Germany didn't have more than a very few Tiger I tanks left at the time the movie takes place. The entire scene reeks of "we wrote this before we got access to a real tank, so we just swapped it in without changing anything", which is a shame because (despite the creators being inspired by Death Traps) it otherwise has only one or two glaring flaws. This is unusual for a historical fiction film. It may be possible that Fury was originally written with the assumption that the tank used would be an older Sherman with a 75mm short-barreled gun. Its performance in the Tiger duel is closer to how a 75mm gun would have been (the Easy 8's 76mm should have been penetrating without needing to shoot the rear at point blank range) and they claim that the crew has fought in the same tank since the invasion of North Africa, which isn't historically accurate to real crew rotations but would have at least been possible if the tank in the movie wasn't something that began production in 1944.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 03:59
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:Re: dictatorship/monarchy, I think it's good to look at it like the greeks would. Aristotle says that there's monarchy (simply rule by one), and that there's a good form, kingship (rule by a virtuous ruler within a defined legal structure) and a tyranny (rule by one person who usurps the authority or inherits a usurped authority, who is above the law). I think there are lots of possible approaches to separating them, but I think in most cases the comparison will rest on some combination of the legitimacy of rule and the manner of rule, and I think that is a good encapsulation. It's a decent way to distinguish the concepts, but the problem I see is that there have been a lot of monarchies or pseudo-monarchies where usurpation is practically a necessity of the system or at least there are well defined proper and just avenues through which to usurp the thrones. The civil wars which inevitably followed the death of a Roman emperor without a clear heir are the most familiar examples, but we see similar phenomena in many times and places, including the Achaemenid empire. In Korea and other places where there was no predetermined heir, brothers often engaged in short military campaigns with relatively limited bloodshed for the right to the throne, While in SE Asia brothers tended to settle the inheritance issue amongst themselves with late night palace massacres. Such crises, though regular and even expected, always occurred well outside any sort of formal legal system. Today we see de facto Monarchies like that of the Kim's in Korea following clear, if extra-legal, paths of succession. One can hardly say Kim Jong Un has usurped his authority, but his right to rule Korea also does not exactly come from some clearly defined process by which his ascension was inevitable, in fact I'd say his gradual assumption of authority rather resembles the way Caesars gradually assumed the purple in the Principate. Even in the best most clearly defined Monarchies there's always a great deal of vagueness to do with the full extent of their power. In theory you can get away with almost anything, but break the unwritten rules and you'll be hanging from a lamppost so fast you won't even notice as the ladder is kicked out from under your feet. Distinguishing tyranny from Monarchy is simply a rhetorical exercise, and frankly its not much easier distinguishing either from Democracy, as any aspiring populist demagogue will tell you.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:00
|
|
Squalid posted:It's a decent way to distinguish the concepts, but the problem I see is that there have been a lot of monarchies or pseudo-monarchies where usurpation is practically a necessity of the system or at least there are well defined proper and just avenues through which to usurp the thrones. The civil wars which inevitably followed the death of a Roman emperor without a clear heir are the most familiar examples, but we see similar phenomena in many times and places, including the Achaemenid empire. In Korea and other places where there was no predetermined heir, brothers often engaged in short military campaigns with relatively limited bloodshed for the right to the throne, While in SE Asia brothers tended to settle the inheritance issue amongst themselves with late night palace massacres. I think this is getting overly worked up about the grey area, actually: it's not really that big of a theoretical problem for a lot of people, historically, really until the renaissance or later because of the development of ideas of popular sovereignty. There are strongly perceived differences between tyrannical and dictatorial government and other more traditional forms of authoritarian government consistently throughout history, and that erosion only really begins with the development of ideas of popular sovereignty. To take probably the most salient example, the American revolution, the problem for most explicitly is not the existence of monarchy per se, though there are theoretical objections, but to the arbitrary nature of the political power being exercised by the state, which is another (very Roman) way of trying to discuss unfreedom. I think to collapse the two categories is to miss an awful lot, or at least to make a political statement of your own not reflected in the attitudes of the historical people who lived under these systems of government. The idea of what constitutes the difference between tyrannical or despotic or dictatorial government from traditional monarchy might be semantically hazy, or vary in times and places, but it definitely is real. ed: Your reply also seems to focus too strongly on just the 'usurpation' angle of the definition I offered. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 04:17 on May 8, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:It may be possible that Fury was originally written with the assumption that the tank used would be an older Sherman with a 75mm short-barreled gun. Its performance in the Tiger duel is closer to how a 75mm gun would have been (the Easy 8's 76mm should have been penetrating without needing to shoot the rear at point blank range) and they claim that the crew has fought in the same tank since the invasion of North Africa, which isn't historically accurate to real crew rotations but would have at least been possible if the tank in the movie wasn't something that began production in 1944. You could be quite right - that would also have made the scene make sense. My assumption was based on the fact that they probably didn't know they were going to get the Bovington Tiger until fairly late in the development process.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
Don Gato posted:Needed more Eurobeat, it already was a crossover between Initial D and a board game, might as well go all the way. Youtube agrees with you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUgI5LfCEME
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 05:42
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:I think this is getting overly worked up about the grey area, actually: it's not really that big of a theoretical problem for a lot of people, historically, really until the renaissance or later because of the development of ideas of popular sovereignty. There are strongly perceived differences between tyrannical and dictatorial government and other more traditional forms of authoritarian government consistently throughout history, and that erosion only really begins with the development of ideas of popular sovereignty. I think it can be useful to focus on the grey areas because if you can show that almost every real example of something falls somewhere on a spectrum between two categories and with an even distribution then it is likely they are arbitrary defined and not coherently distinguishable. It's like looking at a color spectrum and trying to draw a line between yellow and green, obviously we distinguish the two colors but where we specifically draw the line is meaningless, spectra that are nearer each other will necessarily be more similar than distant bands, regardless of what side of the line they fall. More generally though that talk of smashing figher jets with hammers got me thinking about the nature of state power and how much for flexible and open to negotiation the law really is even in our modern highly bureaucratic and regularized modern system of government, and how much more so it was in the past when unwritten constitutions and traditional custom governed almost everywhere. I mean there are a lot of people who will say (unconvincingly) that Lincoln was a tyrant for revoking habeas corpus and continuing to do so despite a Supreme Court ruling that it was unconstitutional. Later J Edgar Hoover's COINTELPRO campaign against the Klan, which eviscerated the organization in the late sixties, was blatantly illegal, but we don't call LBJ a tyrant for supervising these kinds of efforts, even if similar heavy-handed police surveillance is one of the first things we point to when call out a foreign dictator. As a society the United States has mostly just papered over these hiccups in our formal legal order or pretended they never even happened, but in lots of other societies there's not even a singular agreed upon theory by which to distinguish the proper and improper exercise of authority. For example in Medieval Scotland tribal authority coexisted with the feudal order, following a completely different theory of proper government, and in modern Yemen tribal authority competes with the modern Republic for legitimacy. With competing definitions of Justice and proper behavior, a leader can be both a tyrant and just leader simultaneously, depending on what code they are judge by.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 07:16
|
|
Squalid posted:I think it can be useful to focus on the grey areas because if you can show that almost every real example of something falls somewhere on a spectrum between two categories and with an even distribution then it is likely they are arbitrary defined and not coherently distinguishable. It's like looking at a color spectrum and trying to draw a line between yellow and green, obviously we distinguish the two colors but where we specifically draw the line is meaningless, spectra that are nearer each other will necessarily be more similar than distant bands, regardless of what side of the line they fall. I think what you need to do is think about these ideas more genealogically and more subjectively. Rather than searching out the ideal platonic form of the definition (though I suspect there are commonalities), think about competing traditions of thinking about this question, carried on by people in different times and places - some overlapping, some competing, and the different ways in which those traditions might approach your question. I think the search for too unitary of a definition to apply leads you in to this trap: quote:Distinguishing tyranny from Monarchy is simply a rhetorical exercise Which I think is a big, bad one.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
For example, there are cultural norms - enshrined in law or not - that accept the premise that extraordinary powers can be exercised by the state in certain circumstances, particularly in the event of war or emergencies, which is how people tend to view Lincoln (or FDR, say). And there is validity to the claim that he behaved, if not tyrannically, at least aggressively or in a somewhat authoritarian way: he is considered by many impartial observers as a founder of the so-called imperial presidency. Meanwhile, we might not call LBJ a tyrant - a word in any case nobody would really use in his historical context - but he is a broadly criticised president on a number of such issues, and that criticism applies many times over to Hoover. In any event we often have a very limited cultural vocabulary and appetite for describing authoritarian conduct in western societies internally, and have for a long while, probably for somewhat complex and varied reasons; in other historical societies where the hazard was much greater and more constant, there was much greater wrestling with this concept. In any event, I think this quote:With competing definitions of Justice and proper behavior, a leader can be both a tyrant and just leader simultaneously, depending on what code they are judge by. Disinterested fucked around with this message at 08:54 on May 8, 2017 |
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 08:00
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:I assure you there was many reasons why Pearl Harbor was widely panned, not just "bad cgi" Arquinsiel posted:This seems unlikely, given that War Horse is about the adventures of a horse in the first world war. Source: went to the Tank Museum on May Day. I have pics I can share with the thread later. Yvonmukluk fucked around with this message at 08:12 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 08:08
|
|
|
Why does a horse need a tank, anyways?
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 08:53
|
|
Mantis42 posted:Why does a horse need a tank, anyways? After reading about the conditions of the hundreds of the wounded dying horses staggering about on the aftermath Waterloo battlefield, I'd say even horses have earned a tank.
|
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:24
|
|
|
I mean the logical interpretation of armoured cavalry to be concurrent with mechanized infantry is that you have a man riding a horse riding a tank.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 18:28 |
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:After reading about the conditions of the hundreds of the wounded dying horses staggering about on the aftermath Waterloo battlefield, I'd say even horses have earned a tank. Dead horses are the glue that holds an army together - Napoleon, probably
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 10:47
|
|