Movie Critical Analysis.

[Animavore]

Works as a critique of JJ Abrahams in general.

[Animavore]

I guess watching video essays which help me understand or articulate why I wasn't a fan of TROS are my flavour of the week this week. This one goes into how they messed up Kylo Ren's story. In TROS they gave him a redemption story but TLJ had went through pains to portray him as someone without redemption. He killed his Dark Lord thngy, whatever, and still choose the Dark Side. In TROS when Rey heals him my brain expected him to get up and attack her for her stupidity. Not have a Damascus moment and become all good. They should've followed the thread of Ren taking over as Supreme Leader to its logical conclusion.

[felltoearth]

[quote="Animavore";p="2752142"]I don't know where to put Lindsay Ellis's new one.

[/quote]


That's a good one.

[arugula2]

[quote="Animavore";p="2752145"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BD5mLw0A8vI

Works as a critique of JJ Abrahams in general.[/quote]
I can’t generally tell what points he’s massaging, or to what extent... but he does say that one major issue is Rey’s decision to take on the name Skywalker, and not Organa. He finds this inexplicable, considering Skywalker is Luke’s family name and Organa is Leia’s... But a quick search leads me to believe it’s not that tidy. According to canon, supposedly, Leia’s full name is Leia Skywalker Organa Solo. Organa was an adoptive family name given to her in order to disguise her identity as a child. She honors it because she honors her adoptive parents... but that doesn’t make Skywalker any less her name, and no less hers than Luke’s. So for Rey to honor Leia by taking on her name Skywalker is not at all mystifying to me, and I sure can’t tell why it’s mystifying to this critic, and to the point of making it a major contention. Seems half-baked.

[arugula2]

[quote="felltoearth";p="2752196"][quote="Animavore";p="2752142"]I don't know where to put Lindsay Ellis's new one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NViZYL-U8s0[/quote]


That's a good one.[/quote]
I can’t think of a reason why she wouldn’t suggest over and over that there are ways to get at the works without paying for them. I get why she wouldn’t want to promote piracy, even implicitly (though in this case, since she’s sympathizing a lot with people for whom the works in question are “important”... she might’ve made a very subtle exception). But how about borrowing the book from a public library? Libraries sure do need all the help they can get, and what better opportunity for her to do 2 good things, than this very topic? Libraries even have digital rentals (though probably not HP). Or 2nd hand bookstores (to which she alluded as a way to get rid of books... but they do both!). She could also promote works/authors that might fill a niche, were one to “give up” JKR works. I came up with these 4 ideas in minutes, surely less time than she took to create this video. One wonders if this was mainly a way to use JKR’s notoriety to promote her own book (of whose imminent publication, or the writing of, I believe she reminds us 6 times!).

[felltoearth]

I believe Libraries pay royalties for books in their collection, even if just sitting on the shelf. Libraries discard books that are no longer popular (or excess inventory). If circulation drops and each branch has say 10 copies of Harry Potter, they will reduce it levels that match circulation. Hence, JK gets a smaller piece of the royalty pot.


______________________________________
Sent to somewhere using a shitty app. Sorry for the tags and/or dupe posts.

[arugula2]

[quote="felltoearth";p="2752298"]I believe Libraries pay royalties for books in their collection, even if just sitting on the shelf. Libraries discard books that are no longer popular (or excess inventory). If circulation drops and each branch has say 10 copies of Harry Potter, they will reduce it levels that match circulation. Hence, JK gets a smaller piece of the royalty pot.


______________________________________
Sent to somewhere using a shitty app. Sorry for the tags and/or dupe posts.[/quote]
From what I can tell, some countries use Public Lending Rights, which guarantee royalties to authors & publishers based on circulation (so, checkouts, and not the book sitting on the shelf per se) but not all. Idk if there are other arrangements. I also can't tell if the USA participates (Canada does, and EU countries apparently exercise the option independent of one another). Assuming there's an answer out there & someone can keep track, it's still an item she could be promoting selectively. So the list looks something like this: 1) (piracy) without naming it, wink wink, and obviously a general call to actively support authors, just not the yucky ones. 2) Library loans where there is currently no PLR practiced; a public database should indicate how many copies a library has available (which can inform borrowing strategies, for people who want to avoid triggering new purchases). 3) Oh btw, here are some works/authors you may enjoy, in the same vein - and in many cases, much more talented. 4) Second-hand bookstores (which iirc she mentions as a way of getting rid of books, but not as a way of acquiring books royalty-free).

I'm going to add 5) Borrow from someone.

All in all, it strikes me as self-promotion, with so much lost opportunity to provide solutions to the described problem (people's attachment to works by problematic authors) - almost like the problem was an afterthought.

[arugula2]

Animavore, I've wondered something, and I see you lurking so I'll just ask here: how come the Swedish colors in your avatar? I seem to remember it's always been this way, too.

[Fallible]

Sweden were playing England in the World Cup. Can’t have an Irishman supporting England.

[arugula2]

Perfectly sensible.

[JustStarDust]

I liked.

[Animavore]

[quote="Fallible";p="2752396"]Sweden were playing England in the World Cup. Can’t have an Irishman supporting England.[/quote]
This is why. I never bothered changing it. It was a Japanese pygmy flying squirrel at one point. And Mandy form The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy before that.

[theropod_V_2.0]

D42D14A7-677F-4504-AB12-CE36F365C24F.jpeg

From “The Good, Bad and Ugly”.

My wife was channel surfing and the ending of this movie was on. I paused the DVR and took this photo.

Note the hammer end of the cylinder holding the bullets and powder. Those bright little copper things on the ignition end of the cylinder are percussion caps to ignite the black power charge and force the bullet out of the cylinder and into the barrel. When all six of these charges in the cylinder are exhausted one must either replace the cylinder with a pre-loaded one, or load each bore with fresh powder and ball using the built in bullet ram just under the barrel (not shown).

Now note the gun belt filled with primer ignition self contained center fire cartridges. Not only would these brass cartridges not work in any way with the Remington revolver, the gun would blow sky high if a smokeless power propelled bullet were detonated. The forces at work in the two types of gunpowder is drastically different. Many times unburned black power is sprayed out the muzzle of any such gun, and black powder burns incredibly slow in comparison to nitro based smokeless powders. One way to “tune” the load in a black powder rifle is to fire to load over freshly fallen snow. The less black specks scattered the more efficient the shot.

The gun belt cartridges look very much like ammo for a .44 colt. A Remington New Army uses a .451 round ball. The .44 would “rattle” down the barrel and fly off on insane flight paths upon leaving the muzzle.

If there is a second gun it is never shown, and never used.

This is an epic fail of the prop master for this movie, and it’s not easily explained. How this made the final cut escapes me.

RS

[laklak]

Speaking of guns in movies, notice how many times the gun is a Walther P38. Maybe it's just that I own one but seems a LOT of movie villains use them.

[SafeAsMilk]

Don't forget Lupin III.

[Matt_B]

I appreciate that getting the guns right in films is going to be a big deal for some, but the fact that The Good The Bad and The Ugly is a ludicrously tall tale set during a period in history that tends to be extremely romanticized should give Sergio Leone a bit of leeway.

All in all, it seems a bit like criticizing Star Wars by saying the science presented in it is a bit shit. Sure, it is, but that's rather missing the point.

[Mike_L]

It's like the pump-action repeating crossbow wielded by Juliette Lewis in From Dusk Till Dawn.
The prop has the 'cool factor' and the scene is effective, but the construction of the bow is such that it would not have worked IRL.

(Working pump-action repeating crossbows can be made, though, as Joerg Sprave details in this video...)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1HM1nx_TmM

[theropod_V_2.0]

Well, a movie about gunfighters and their tools shouldn’t make such errors. Don’t get me wrong, it’s an awesome flick. Considering that there was an extended scene wherein Tuco makes his own Colt revolver from parts of several guns, and it shows how much attention to the smallest detail these gunfighters paid to their tools, the idea that one of his peers would be so equipped is ludicrous. In keeping with the Star Wars idea it would be like Luke wielding a Claymore instead of a light saber (which he’d sure need the help of the force to even swing).

RS

[arugula2]

Outside-box idea here: is it possible such an enterprising individual would carry those bullets simply because he’s acquired them? And he has vague plans for putting them to use in the right gun? (Haven’t seen the movie since... the 80s I think. So idk if he’s ever seen using them.)

[theropod_V_2.0]

It’s not just the cartridges issue. Cap and ball revolvers have serious issues in functionality that would make choosing one over a more modern pistol for quickdraw gunfights problematic. Sometimes upon firing the cap shatters and locks the cylinder, and only taking the revolver to half cock and rotating the cylinder backwards can clear the “jam”. Sometimes the gun must be broken down to get the cap fragments out of the mechanics so the cylinder can be cleared. Then there is the phenomenon of chain firing where the muzzle blast ignites adjacent chambers. Sometimes all six chambers will go off in one go. Then there is the matter of the cloud of smoke created when a black powder weapon is fired. This cloud obscures the shooters vision but not that of an opponent. All in all it’s hard to believe a gunfighter would choose such a revolver when far superior choices existed.

The only rational alternative would be for the belt born ammo to be intended for a repeating rifle. The only ones extant during the civil war was the Spencer, which fired .56 caliber rounds, so that’s out as the belt ammo is far too small and had rimfire ignition. The other rifle, the Henry, was a .44 but it also employed rimfire ignition.

This exposes a much larger issue that I had not consider previously. Few center fire revolvers were extant during the time period, so Lee’s pistol is the only period correct one depicted in the entire movie. Smith and Wesson built a rimfire .32 caliber, and a pin fire pistol from Belgium saw limited service.

It’s obvious the production team didn’t feel the need to maintain historical accuracy.

RS