Ozoneocean wrote:
??? They paint the Americans as underdogs? Against the Japanese? Oh dear.

The Japanese had more carriers, it could easily have gone the other way! For a couple of years anyway. Until, as Bravo says, the USA ramped up its war manufacturing capacity and re-engaged and took the Pacific back.

Which Suicide Squad? I liked the first one. I didn't finish the second one unfortunately. -not because I didn't like it, there were other factors.

The newer one from 2021 with “The” in front of “Suicide Squad” because let's get the two movies easily mixed up! Good solid planning there, guys.

There is a bit of a modern misconception about carriers though based on post-war views of them. At the time battleships were still the premier capital ship and the heart of any battlefleet.
They were incredibly hard to sink and only vulnerable to other battleships, multiple torpedoes, sea mines, and the very largest bombs (which couldn't attack them while they were moving).
The USA had a LOT of them.

Another misunderstanding is that aeroplanes were a battleship's worst enemy. It was only the torpedo that was dangerous. A plane was merely a delivery mechanism. To attack a battleship successfully they first needed to get past powerful defensive screen of fighters and antiaircraft fire, and then came the very hard task of trying to sink those ships.

Even if they weren't defended, like the HMS Repulse and HMS Prince of Whales, it still wasn't easy. While aircraft carriers went down like boats made of balsa wood and filled with nitroglycerine.

The US relied on and used carriers so effectively in the Pacific not because they were the wonder-weapon of the day but rather because after the Pearl harbour sneak attack that was all they had to be the backbone of their Pacific fleet.

…I used to be in far too many battleship groups on Facebook and got deep into this.

————————–

I've been watching The Consultant on Amazon Prime.
Bloody hell! Why are there SO many dark psychological thriller/horror series on streaming services? Its basically all they make. One or two crappy comedies and unlimited dark thriller/horror series and movies.
It's tired. It's lame. It's not clever.
The Consultant hits all the predictable beats and plot points you expect from the genre.

Ozoneocean wrote:
There is a bit of a modern misconception about carriers though based on post-war views of them. At the time battleships were still the premier capital ship and the heart of any battlefleet.
The USA had a LOT of them.


…I used to be in far too many battleship groups on Facebook and got deep into this.

Typical wrong headed thinking you see in battleship groups. The US in June of 1942 did not have a SINGLE battleship to send to Midway. They were either laid up in Pearl or busy elsewhere. There were only five available. Really need to read the new scholarship on the carrier war, Japanese design and strategy and the newish trilogy on the Pacific war. Your information is out if date and full of misconceptions found all over social media.

—
Saw the Simon Pegg trilogy again Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz and World's End. Love them. Some of the comedy is great and a lot of the satire hits home.

bravo1102 wrote:

Typical wrong headed thinking you see in battleship groups. The US in June of 1942 did not have a SINGLE battleship to send to Midway.

I think you miss-read what I wrote XD
Quite understandable because I go off on a few things and digress.

I was speaking generally about battleships VS carriers, that info is all correct, also the reason for the use of Aircraft carriers by the US because that was all they had rather than them being the best weapons or ones they wanted for the job.


But yes, you're right of course in that they didn't have any battleships to field for a while after Pearl harbour and none for Midway - I just naturally assumed they did, because I'd never bothered to look into Midway specifically. XD

————

I watched Finding Steve McQueen the other night.
It's about the true story of some people who did a bank robbery in the early 1970s that stole money from Nixon indirectly. The guy at the centre of the story loves Steve McQueen and wants to be him… Just a bit of a fan.
It's also a love story with him and a woman he meets in a town he settles down in.
The film is well acted and it's interesting but it's told out of sequence so it's all over the place and hard to follow initially.

The out of sequence this has been a fad for a while and it's really damn annoying. You can become very invested in a story or characters if you can't really follow their development because it's always getting cocklocked.

This is like what I talked about in the tension/conflict threads- the incorrect idea that conflict is all that drives a story. Progress ALSO drives stories, without that things go nowhere and just sit still.

Across the Spider-verse was a true delight. Where otherwise you'd celebrate an anticipated team up of 3 alter-egos from 7 movies in an 8th film, this one gives you dozens in one film (even if we don't count the 1st Spider-verse movie, this would feel pretty wholesome) and does it with ease. In regards of diversity it'd be an alt-right nightmare, yet none of it feels forced, because having a wide variety of the same character is the most natural thing, it's not about which version should get more spotlight, you're too busy getting captivated by imagination taking shape and the countless possibilities it takes shape in.

On the average superhero film, you expect some battle to be the highlight and you accept that the visuals will mostly serve as means of support to the otherwise predictable plot. Here the visuals are part of the world and storytelling, they pulsate with it so there's no need for so many fast cuts to make it look interesting and no need for epic battles to feel like you've got a 140 minutes well-spent. Also, it touches on interesting, comlpex questions, like the role of the individual in a society, what could responsibility look like and rising above an established system that everyone seem to accept. So far the main antagonist is a concept rather than a character. Based on these alone, it's very promising in regards of depth and that's a lot from a genre that's getting identified as shallow and money-oriented, so the 3rd installment is definitely something to look forward to.

In comparison, I was able to watch about half an hour from the Super Mario movie and it felt outright painful at times, so I did myself a favor and turned it off. I have absolutely no idea what people see in this aside from the most basic gaming references to this one franchise, but otherwise it felt like the unfunny, unoriginal low-budget summertime animated films you watch for the kid, but even the kid forgets about in a few weeks. Of course I can't talk about the whole movie and if anyone enjoyed it (it seems to be very popular) fine, I just don't think I'd want to subject myself to this any further.

I might have to watch that Spider verse thing.
The Flash looks interesting too despite the lead being a tool.

—
.I found all the Seasons on Portlandia on ABC iview, which is the Aussie government TV streaming platform.
So now I'm rewatching it 😚😁

Unfortunately I don't love it like I did when I first saw it I LOVED it when I saw it originally…
I think it's because it was very “then” and society and tech has moved on since. Also I really super identified with it at the time because I had known all those types of people all through the 90s and into the 2000s, and been one of them in a way, but now there's some distance.
Anyway, I still find it funny but I find a lot of it silly and annoying while back in the day I thought it was all pure 100% genious.

I watched Pulp Fiction for the first time since I saw it in theatre …. because I keep seeing clips of it on youtube shorts. pretty good movie, would never be made today. hollywood writers are fucking hacks nowdays . I forgot that Bruce Willis was in it.

It really holds up I'd say. Despise what people say about Tarantino he really does know what he's doing.
—

Up to season 3 of Portlandia now and it's better than the first 2. I haven't seen the later seasons so this should be novel.

I'm watching some episodes of season 20 of Grand Designs too. Kevin McCloud, the host, sounds so posh, but he has such a SHIT haircut… Ugh. I can't get over how Hoad it looks on him… Super short wispy grey on his balding head. Looks like a nutsack.

I sort of like the show but I watch it with trepidation because the period of that season involves Covid lockdowns so you're just waiting till the 2020 part of the builds where they have to be shut down for a while and how that affects them.

I wish Kevin would let his hair grow a bit and get a better haircut and also dress better.

mickey mouse went to Vietnam really good

Watched Nimona. It was pretty awesome. Not Spider-verse awesome and it lacked some serious details / explanations for key events, but it was way better in regards of animation than the average stuff made for streaming platforms or by nonames studios. The message was good and universal, the LGBT characters and themes fit right in with a story about fearmongering, issues with self-worth, prejudices and stuff. Unless you're one of those who gets instantly triggered by such diversities, you'll have a good time. And I found out it's based on a webcomic / graphic novel. One that doesn't even look any more “professional” than the average ongoing comic here, so it kinda makes you feel motivated and glad that a fellow creator can make it this big!

I watched Silicon Valley. This is the show Big Bang Theory was trying to be. A group of engineers develops a game-changing technology and struggle to find an application for it that will give them a payday and not hand over control of the world to the Evil Empire.

Fans of the Office and Parks and Rec will like this. I laughed a few times. I don't find many shows or movies funny, so take that for what is worth. After a few seasons, I got tired of the technobabble. The later years of TNG relied too heavily on that.

I am a hardware guy, so I did not understand most of what Richard or Danesh said, and almost everything Gilfoyle said.

The funny thing is that the show ended a few years ago, and they wound up building ChatGPT 4.

sleeping_gorilla wrote:
I watched Silicon Valley.

That show is SOOOOO good! Love all the actors in it.

——-

I rewatched Blades of Glory. It really is a cool film :)

Watched season 3 (part one) of the witcher. No wonder Henry Cavill decided to leave the show, the writing is terrible and the tone is all over the place.

I went to see the New Indiana Jones film. Social media has been trashing this movie right and left, calling it the nail in the coffin for Disney. More than Star Trek or Star Wars I love Indiana Jones and I thought the movie was…

Pretty good! I was entertained, I liked Helena and Teddy and the cameos from the original actors. It was better than Crystal Skull, which I did not hate as much as most people. Very well-directed and visually beautiful, it really looked and felt like the old movies. Worth watching in the theatres.

sleeping_gorilla wrote:
I went to see the New Indiana Jones film. Social media has been trashing this movie right and left, calling it the nail in the coffin for Disney. More than Star Trek or Star Wars I love Indiana Jones and I thought the movie was…

Pretty good! I was entertained, I liked Helena and Teddy and the cameos from the original actors. It was better than Crystal Skull, which I did not hate as much as most people. Very well-directed and visually beautiful, it really looked and felt like the old movies. Worth watching in the theatres.

Interesting! Our Quackcast today was influenced by that. None of us have seen it but I'm suspicious of people's attitude towards it- i.e. the dislike.

Ah the Crystal Skull…
It was not a total garbage fire, but it has so many uneven bits that it didn't fit together very well. It had some good parts and some very lame parts. All the CG sequences near the end were too much so it felt like a video-game cut sequence. Coming from a brilliant, gritty, fun, traditional action film series famously filmed on location, that had a hint of supernatural, to something that was mainly filmed in a studio with green-screens, wire suspension, CG animation, actual aliens a temple being swallowed up in a magical vortex just didn't have the same feel anymore.

——-

I'll go further and say that everyone tends to be shit with computer effects. Sure if they're good you don't notice them but the trouble is that we DO notice so much of the time and computer aided editing effects allow creators too much control- I'm talking movies, comics, illustration, music, photo editing, even designs from 3d prints or C&C machines for fabrication.
We ALL can suffer from this pernicious plague of perfectionism and control until everything in planned to the inth degree and is exactly how we want it to be without compromise- which creates a products that looks and sounds blargh and extremely limited.

Computer effects are almost like overcompensation for bad cinematography. One example I know is putting in complimentary colors filters where everything is orange and blue and nothing in between.
Lots of CGI effects are also “just because we can do it”. I've watched some Bollywood historical epics and they're actually absurd (even allowing for the musical numbers) Let's not go into the impossible video game flying most CGI aircraft pull off effortlessly.

bravo1102 wrote:
Lots of CGI effects are also “just because we can do it”. I've watched some Bollywood historical epics and they're actually absurd (even allowing for the musical numbers) Let's not go into the impossible video game flying most CGI aircraft pull off effortlessly.

Bollywood films are crazy now with the CGI XD

Speaking of problems with CGI, I saw Mortal Engines last night.
Outline:
It's a post apocalyptic world. Most people live in giant vehicles that are cities on wheels or tracks. They travel over the land and hint each other down, consuming smaller cities or towns to keep them going.
The story concerns an evil scientist, and his plan to use an ancient weapon to destroy things…

Overall it's hard to get into, to feel the real drama of the situation and properly identify with the characters and their world They DO NOT work hard enough or spend enough time introducing you to things and giving us the “all is normal” version of the world before they mess it up with the conflict
Conflict has little meaning if we don't know or care about the stakes.

They removed changed and compressed some important parts from the source material which weakened the story. Crucially they switched the young man to be the main character when from the original version it was more the young woman. I didn't like that and it didn't work for me.

———

Ah, the CGI…
This is a good example of bad use of CGI because there is so much of it. It is actually well visually done for the most part, but the was the actors interact with it and the way the camera moves through the CGI world is all far too smooth which makes it dream-like and unreal. Lastly there was an andoird character that was mostly CGI, especially when he was walking. There's NO reason for that. It should have ONLY been a person in a costume with NO CG at all. It would have worked far better. As it was this character who was supposed to be awesome and powerful just always looked lame and terrible.

Apocalypto (2006) I guess I'm the target audience because I sat entranced the entire running time of the movie. It's really immersion into another culture that is quite alien to Europeans. I've loved studying pre Columbian Central American cultures since I was a little kid. Some of the shots of faces in profile are identical to much of the Mayan art I've seen. Even visited Mayan ruins on my last cruise.
Amazing movie. I found it on Amazon Prime after I'd finally seen Hacksaw Ridge. That's a fantastic true story of a Medal of Honor winner. Very graphic, again great immersion into the horror of a island battle in the Pacific War. I'm enough of a nut about that to know they used the wrong variant of Sherman tank. There were bits cut from the script because Gibson figured they were too unbelievable. He's made up for the ridiculous ahistorical crap of Braveheart and The Patriot.

But not the blatant antisemitism of The Passion of the Christ. That was out and out ridiculous.

Apocalypto is fantastic. I was so engrossed I could swear I heard the characters speaking english.

Just watched the Batman. Definitely the best movie take of batman. Genuinely surprised me.

It'd be useful if you described the plot of the thing you saw :P
I looked up the Wiki of Apocolypto it sounds good.

Only Murders In the Building was a good series with Steve Martin, Martin Short and Selena Gomez. 3 strangers become friends start a podcast together and discover who is committing the murders in their building, uncovering secrets and stories as they did it.
The only annoying part was that the murderer only came into the show about half way though.

——-

I've tried to make it through the second season but it bores me rigid each time. :(
The mean lady who was president of the resident's association was killed at the end of the first season and the trio was blamed (in a tacky turnaound). In this season they try and find out who it was but I can barely get through the episodes. So dull it's painful.

(April-July) of Summer 2023

All seen in crowded cinemas:

Mario Bros Movie
Renfield
Transformers: Rise of the Beasts
Joy Ride
No Hard Feelings
Oppenheimmer

*Surprisingly this is also the same order of the total amount of full-frontal nudity that appeared in each film.
**So much to unpack from that last film listed.

It'd be useful if you described the plot of the thing you saw :P

It was Batman, they are all the same, A billionaire dresses up in a gimp outfit and abuses the mentally ill.

Watching the witcher season 3.

wow.,,,its just so painful…

henry cavil looks depressed…the plot sucks…everything feels forced and convenient for the plot……ciri has mega plot armor…

the fights are meh.

just end this series plz….its not good…it lost its touch.
its not the same…also henry leaving is outrageous..

I started watching the episodes that just dropped, I turned it off. How did they make it so boring?

Watched the show “Powerless”, I remember it being billed as She-Hulk many years before the actual She-Hulk show and the idea of using a full CGI character was not plausible.

So rather than it being a law office that settles lawsuits against superheroes this is a vague R&D facility for Batman run by Bruce's dumber less attractive cousin Hoban Washburne. The cast overall is very good with Alan Tudyck, Dani Pudi, and Vanessa Hudgens (who is some serious eye candy in every episode *ahem*)

The show had some funny standout moments the funniest episode was when Lois Lane was reported dead and everyone declared it “no consequences day”, it was the purge as they waited for Superman to turn back time and save her. Wash's eleventh-hour discovery that his cousin was Batman was hilarious.

It's too bad Powerless did not get more episodes. It never quite caught its stride or made use of its cast. One of the few shows that had a stand-out opening credit sequence. A shame.

InkyMoondrop wrote:
Watched Nimona. It was pretty awesome. Not Spider-verse awesome and it lacked some serious details / explanations for key events, but it was way better in regards of animation than the average stuff made for streaming platforms or by nonames studios. The message was good and universal, the LGBT characters and themes fit right in with a story about fearmongering, issues with self-worth, prejudices and stuff. Unless you're one of those who gets instantly triggered by such diversities, you'll have a good time. And I found out it's based on a webcomic / graphic novel. One that doesn't even look any more “professional” than the average ongoing comic here, so it kinda makes you feel motivated and glad that a fellow creator can make it this big!

Watched it yesterday, it was okay. It made me chuckle how out of the gate it's as though the makers heard people moan about woke disney and were like “hold my beer”

What I find funny about old Hollywood (and some movies and tv shows kept this trend up until the late 80s even, I think) is that the beautiful heroines in their 30s just can't resist the heroes who are either in their 40s or 50s. And I'm so convinced that even if you looked like 30 at the time, if you were male, they just had to make you look older to get a role like that and nail it. And I'm convinced that a good portion of the reason why James Dean became such an icon was that he was in his 20s, as opposed to almost everyone they paraded around as part of the beauty standard. Perhaps they wanted to please their own EGOs or they wanted everyone to think only experience can count for something, but damn, I'm glad we aren't expected to identify with our grandfathers if we wanna see an action or adventure flick.

When you look at a young woman, you see a person who can have children. When you look at an older man, you see a person who has been working for decades and has wealth.

I think the age differences were because you could easily make a young woman look older and beautiful and that way they could match her with an established male star who was a major box office draw who people didn't generally consider “older” because they were so familiar with him. i.e. Bogart wasn't an “older guy” he was just Humphrey who people knew and loved.

There was a bit of the same thing with women but not nearly as much because the expected trajectory for them was that they would marry and have kids and quit the business, which most did.


I don't think there was a deliberate sexist patriarchal conspiracy or plan, it was just part of the culture then- which WAS sexist, yes, but not in any clever or planned way.

–=
I still have little idea about the whole James Dean thing but I don't think he was actually a big star in his day because he died before he became famous. It's more like a cult that developed around his few movies after he was already dead and the fact that he was dead probably fuelled his specialness? Though he WAS a pretty good actor and a handsome guy.

Ironically Humphrey Bogart actually was in a relationship with a considerably younger woman at the time. Lauren Bacall wasn't too much older than Audrey Hepburn. But then Hepburn and Bergman were also paired with Cary Grant. Cary Grant was looked upon as “timeless” so his age was not an issue. But William Powell or Fredric March couldn't do it by the late 1940s and they knew it. Gable was thought to be over the hill as well, but Cary Grant was timeless.

And contemporary critics found Bogart and Audrey Hepburn hard to swallow too (though Katherine Hepburn and Bogart were magic) Sabrina languished until they remade it with Harrison Ford, who also has a considerably younger wife. Calista Flockhart graduated college a year ahead of me. Even had her in one of my classes.

And then there was Paulette Goddard who was playing young women into her forties and getting away with it. Marlene Dietrich and Mae West were also older women who were paired with younger men. But then Paulette Goddard started her career in a relationship with a much older man; Charlie Chaplin. Movies imitated life which imitated movies.