Mihaloliakos SquareNaziPants, something I made in protest of the neo-nazi party Golden Dawn getting inside the Greek Parliament.

Ananonymos · 3 days

Thanks for the reply.

Sounds like the Golden Dawn is taking advantage of voter apathy and is not a national movement with a ton of support. Still though, it seems worrisome that there are enough voters willing to vote for them in the first place.

Ananonymos · 3 days

Can you explain what is going on with the Nazi party in Greece? I've heard it mentioned here in the US but nobody has explained any details.

What I really want to know is that if the Greeks are unhappy with the EU, and especially Germany, why in the hell would a Nazi party be a solution? Doesn't it seem ironic in the most terrible possible way?

Sorry, I know this is r/animation and not r/politics, but I've been dying to ask this question to someone who might know the answer for a while now.

Thanks.

Hoffspeaks · 4 days

Ingenious. But shouldn't The Hand be at King's Landing getting ready for the battle with Rob Stark not plotting the demise of Rob Liefeld?

GambitOfDesires · 10 days

I always hated that Brian de Palma ripped off Battleship Potemkin for that scene in the Untouchables. However, I have just always hated Brian de Palma.

Forensicunit · 12 days

I had no idea it was so difficult to derail a train. Had I been tasked with destroying German locomotive transport during WW2 we would have lost the war.

I love this subreddit, by the way.

terminal_veracity · 22 days

I'm on the Target instocks team and I guess this means I don't have to shoot outs for the Kindle anymore.

Glad I got my Kindle on discount while we still sold them.

Berg426 · 25 days

I'm having a hard time believing that I last saw the film in 1990 just before I joined the Navy 22 years ago when I was about 17-18 years old. Yet for some reason (parts of) the film always stayed with me - especially the scene with the women. However, now that you really got me thinking about it I do remember it being somewhat drawn out as well.

Berg426 · 25 days

Been years since I've seen The Beast of War about a Soviet tank crew. This is not a documentary but I remember it being quite good.

In doing some searching I came across an actual documentary called AFGAN: The Soviet Experience. I've never seen it but it looks like it is what you are looking for.

scotchburg · 26 days

Why? Treasure Island is free on the Kindle.

NFL_Mod · 28 days

You shouldn't laugh at your desk because desks aren't funny.

Piscator629 · 29 days

Just because we understand how something (mostly) works doesn't mean we should pass up the opportunity to see how it behaves in an environment we never been able to test in before. The worst that can happen is that we refine our knowledge of something even further.

Besides, Saturn's rings are a unique structure that are highly complex and depend on a huge variety of subtle and ever-changing gravitation interactions. There is nothing else quite like these rings (at least this dramatic) in the solar system and so getting to study good old Newtonian gravity at this scale is an opportunity worth taking.

Never hurts to learn even if you think you already know the subject matter.

GambitOfDesires · 1 month

Will do. Thanks for the recommendation.

GambitOfDesires · 1 month

Glad to see The Pledge get recognition. The Pledge was one of those movies that has never really left me - something about it just got under my skin and made it unforgettable. Looking back on it now I'd say most of why I loved that film so much was because of Jack's performance - especially where that performance leads the character.

If you haven't seen it and can stand a very slow paced film that's grim, upsetting, has a highly non-traditional ending, and is slow (did I already mention that?) then give it a chance.

MrBeausephus · 1 month

I believe the gum is more practical than it is symbolic.

Soldiers, especially during WWII, would often give candy to kids as a sign of friendship and good will.

In the film if the crew were shot down, most of the items in the kit, including the gum, could be used as barter to help them escape the Soviet Union (the territory they were flying over). Since it was well known at the time that people living in the Soviet Union did not have access or the money to allow them to have things like nylons and chewing gum, these kit items are wholly practical.

As for Turgidson always smacking on a piece of gum, I always assumed he was trying to quit smoking. Don't ask me why since there is noting in the film to make this connection, but it always felt like one of those unspoken character traits actor's like to give the people they are playing.

However, if one were to to read into the General's gum chewing, you could see it as a baseball player who sits in the dugout constantly chewing on some gum. This would fit with the theme of the fate of the world being just a big game to them.

cmz1973 · 1 month

I would too. Imagine just you and him walking past each wreck as he stops before each car and tells you a little about the accident, how he got the car and why he put it in that particular spot.

Would make for a fascinating afternoon.

cmz1973 · 1 month

I've tried to imagine if this story would have garnered any interest at all if it had been a different driver keeping these cars. If Jimmy Johnson or Michael Waltrip had a graveyard of junked cars on their property, would I (or anyone) have found this factoid remotely interesting or unusual?

In my opinion, I kind of doubt it.

The fact that the driver who has this 'graveyard' just happens to also be the son of a driver who was killed on the track, I believe, makes this story strangely fascinating.

Even the way that the cars have their own resting places and aren't bunched up together like a typical junkyard feels sort of eerie. Each car is almost like its own unique tomb or shrine. I imagine Jr. riding around his property on an ATV and driving past these wrecks everyday while constantly being reminded of the ghost of his father. Yet the drivers all walked away from these wrecks, unlike his dad. In a way, it's touchingly sad.

I'm actually glad the Jr. has become the final caretaker of these cars and not someone else; Jr. just feels like the one driver who would give these cars some degree solemn dignity. Yet being constantly reminded of wrecks that other drivers walked away from (most of which a lot worse than his father's wreck) makes me sad for him too.

Granted I'm just speculating and have no way of knowing what Jr. is actually thinking, but the whole idea of him having these cars just feels like he's hanging onto some sort of ghost or demon.

Like I said, if this were any other driver I just don't think this 'graveyard' thing would even be a story, but since it's Jr. it seems like there may be something to read into a little here.

DubWainwright · 1 month

Though I've been loving the long, sprawling "audio books" he's been doing lately, Dan really is at his best when he laser focuses his attention on one very specific moment in history.

This episode in particular plays to Dan's strengths where he can explore the various themes of a historical event with granular detail, especially the social implications of how complicated they are when you really look at them.

'Logical Insanity' would also make a great introductory episode to anyone who is new to Hardcore History and Dan Carlin in general.

Dan is a great teacher and is an incredibly engaging speaker. His long-form shows (Thor's Angels, Death Throes of the Republic and Ghosts of the Osfront) are great as introductions to major historical events but Dan's intelligence and ability to explain the implications of just one historical event (Logical Insanity and Apache Tears) are what set him apart from pretty much anybody else. My wish is that he alternates more frequently between his epic, sweeping historical surveys with episodes such as this going forward.

GambitOfDesires · 1 month

Both?

I don't really think they can be compared. 2001 is a grand meditative study about the nature of man and technology and the our place in the universe. Star Wars is an action-adventure steeped in the epic tradition of heroes and myth.

Both have innovative special effects and both directors pioneered advances in the field of movie effects. Both films have wonderful scores too.

Yet rarely am I in the mood to watch both back to back as they serve two very different masters.

I think a tougher choice would be 2001 against Blade Runner or Moon or Solaris (either version) just as it's a tough choice between Episode IV against the original Matrix or Aliens or The Wrath of Khan.

Still though, Star Wars (and most sci-fi films) owe a lot to 2001.

roger_ · 2 months

He probably wanted too large of a percentage.

roger_ · 2 months

I always thought Arcturian was a type of pleasure android. At least that made sense to me since androids were common in the Alien universe.

TaciturnLobotomy · 2 months

Or they should put it on YouTube so that people can watch it any time of day.

techtakular · 2 months

The Quiet Earth and Silent Running.

I saw both of these films when I was a kid and they always stayed with me, especially The Quiet Earth.

techtakular · 2 months

I'm honestly curious as to what it is about Soderbergh's "Solaris" that many people don't like. I've read so many comments online and hear a lot of people say they didn't like it but I've never been able to pin-point why it's not appreciated.

The only reasoning I've been able to assume why people don't like it is because 1) it seems to be so different from Tarkovsky's version and 2) because of the love story. Is this right? And I'm asking completely honestly here because I really have no idea why people don't like it.

I've seen both versions quite a few times and I love them both. Tarkovsky's "Solaris" is a beautiful meditation that lingers over every thought and pulls you into the story while Soderbergh's version is beautiful because it implies all its themes instead of analyzing them at length.

In fact on the DVD commentary to Soderbergh's "Solaris" where he and the film's producer, James Cameron (yes, that James Cameron) have a fascinating discussion about the decisions that went into making the film.

Soderbergh points out how when he edited the film he basically tried to cut the film down to within an inch of its life. Scenes where there was conversations between characters he kept the camera on the person listening and not the person speaking (unlike most films). It really created a very eerie an unsettling feel that fit the premise of the planet (entity? lifeform?) Solaris trying to understand human nature as an observer but coming up just a little bit short - something obvious before even listening to the commentary.

I loved how Soderbergh really tried to incorporate the character of the Solaris planet into every inch of the film - even though in many scenes (as James Cameron laments on the DVD), he barely showed the planet outside the windows even though the CG people had to render the entire thing at great expense.

Tarkovsky (as is true with most of his films, especially Stalker) was much more meditative, almost as if you you were being hypnotized by the Solaris planet. He needed all those long takes to sort of drill into your brain to see what was in there.

Anyway, two very different styles but both which I thought were brilliant. In fact I was shocked when after seeing Soderbergh's film in the theater that nobody liked it. I thought (and I suppose I still do think) that I was missing something. I assumed I had seen a minor masterpiece but everyone else says they hated it.

Sorry for the long comment, but the push back against Soderbergh's Solaris genuinely baffles me and I'd really like to know what other people really think just to gain some perspective, however, unless I really missed the boat on this, I'm still going to consider it one of my favorite sci-fi films.

EDITED: spelling, clarity (I hope, anyway)

SodiumWage

TROPHY CASE

SodiumWage

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login