Warning: This blogpost contains major spoilers, and assumes you've already seen the Estonian-Georgian film Tangerines.
In a recent IMDb post, a user wondered, if Ahmed had grown to like Niko a lot, which caused Ahmed to shoot the Russians. Here's my response:
(As was specified in the post's thread, it was only heavily implied that these were Russians, because it's not said so on-screen.)
And so, near the end, Ahmed was playing his part as he did before (covering for Niko), but the Russians were actively provoking Ahmed (who had been fighting as a mercenary on their side), and were very disrespectful towards him, because they didn't believe that he was a Chechen and on their side.
As far as I could see, they were ready to kill Ahmed anyway, but then Niko intervened, and then Ahmed killed the Russians.
So, it wasn't because Ahmed had grown close to Niko, but that in the nick of time, Niko saved Ahmed's life, and they had to protect themselves and their hosts Ivo and Margus.
Before things went downhill, Ivo had thought that he could de-escalate the situation as he did before, but Niko saw from the window, that these weren't mercenaries, so he essentially knew better.
All in all, it didn't end well in the film.
As it is, it's a fairly realistic film about war, because death happens, and usually, both sides lose in one or another way. Or that neither side wins convincingly.
While it's not rare, that one of the parties wins, then recent history has shown, that a definite victory does not happen often. That's why it's called a win, because chances are, that one could lose, too. The victors may realize the subsequent loss only after war ends, and after some time has passed to reflect on the events; especially, if it was not a just war.
pühapäev, 28. veebruar 2016
laupäev, 9. jaanuar 2016
ID4/IDR: Economy during the interwar period
This is just a speculation, and mostly a reply to an IMDb thread post about Independence Day: Resurgence.
The first IDR trailer is out since December, but the film won't be out before Summer 2016.
The post started out, that the economy would tank, and the many U.S. carmakers would go bankrupt and would cease to exist.
I think the government(s) would have bailed out any and all carmakers, because they manufacture transport vehicles, which are crucial to rebuilding the infrastructure. Really important manufacturing locations are also kept away from large population centres.
For a short while, the model selection would be either less varied or less luxurious overall, and based on what parts are available at any time. Basically, a logistics's nightmare.
The production emphasis would have reoriented towards making parts for existing cars, and manufacturing transport and military vehicles. Cargo transport is actually more important, as it's responsible for supplies of, like, everything.
Because of petrol shortages, commuter transport in the U.S. would become very widespread. Trams, trolleybuses, trains, etc. would be more prevalent; provided there'd be enough electricity available. I haven't specifically mentioned petrol-based buses, because the military infrastructure would take those off city lines at any time for their own purposes.
Reverse-engineering alien tech can also help. It seems that they did a lot of that presumably under the U.S. aegis, as the world united.
After WWII, the Soviet war loot (aka contributions) from Germany — including a number of German scientists — allowed the Soviet Union to keep up technological parity to some extent until about mid-to-late 1970s, when self-imposed isolation (and some export restrictions) allowed the split between the West and the Soviet sphere to became more visible.
'Common-mold' products would be more widespread. People would certainly splurge less, and concentrate more on essentials, such as food, medicine, clothes and maintentance of creature comforts. Interestingly, lots of manufacturing would not have been moved to China.
Of important note is, that in 1996, many companies that were supposed to rely on redundant tech, had not made any, or had not finished deploying backup contingencies that were done during the onset of Y2K. If the ID4 situation had happened on 9/11 instead, the U.S. and many other countries would have been better-prepared to recover. (As it happened, many companies continued running on 9/11, because their tech infrastructure switched to using backup locations.)
Presumably, there would very likely be a holdout of people who would never use alien-based tech, and they would even try to maintain and improve native technologies. The Amish might probably be an example of that. So I wouldn't be surprised, if many of the common people would have chosen to only keep [consumer] tech from 1996 and somewhat before. Nowadays in the real world, there are people who make this a lifestyle choice to live like people once did in 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s even.
Locations that were not as affected by alien attacks, would be burdened with supplying food and medicine and everything else. There would be rationing until after production rates would have recovered to sufficient levels.
The state of refugees and internally displaced persons would be something akin to what Syrians and Iraqis are experiencing.
And then there's the question of what happened to some of the aliens that crashed. The trailer and the War of 1996 website suggest that some concentrated in Congo.
Update: The IDR website does get occasional updates, so the story along the timeline evolves.
As with any movie website, The War of 1996 site uses the latest technologies; so, compared to most other sites, it's obviously one of those that have actual system requirements with regard to hardware and sofware. More about that is detailed in a post in my technology-oriented blog.
The first IDR trailer is out since December, but the film won't be out before Summer 2016.
The post started out, that the economy would tank, and the many U.S. carmakers would go bankrupt and would cease to exist.
I think the government(s) would have bailed out any and all carmakers, because they manufacture transport vehicles, which are crucial to rebuilding the infrastructure. Really important manufacturing locations are also kept away from large population centres.
For a short while, the model selection would be either less varied or less luxurious overall, and based on what parts are available at any time. Basically, a logistics's nightmare.
The production emphasis would have reoriented towards making parts for existing cars, and manufacturing transport and military vehicles. Cargo transport is actually more important, as it's responsible for supplies of, like, everything.
Because of petrol shortages, commuter transport in the U.S. would become very widespread. Trams, trolleybuses, trains, etc. would be more prevalent; provided there'd be enough electricity available. I haven't specifically mentioned petrol-based buses, because the military infrastructure would take those off city lines at any time for their own purposes.
Reverse-engineering alien tech can also help. It seems that they did a lot of that presumably under the U.S. aegis, as the world united.
After WWII, the Soviet war loot (aka contributions) from Germany — including a number of German scientists — allowed the Soviet Union to keep up technological parity to some extent until about mid-to-late 1970s, when self-imposed isolation (and some export restrictions) allowed the split between the West and the Soviet sphere to became more visible.
'Common-mold' products would be more widespread. People would certainly splurge less, and concentrate more on essentials, such as food, medicine, clothes and maintentance of creature comforts. Interestingly, lots of manufacturing would not have been moved to China.
Of important note is, that in 1996, many companies that were supposed to rely on redundant tech, had not made any, or had not finished deploying backup contingencies that were done during the onset of Y2K. If the ID4 situation had happened on 9/11 instead, the U.S. and many other countries would have been better-prepared to recover. (As it happened, many companies continued running on 9/11, because their tech infrastructure switched to using backup locations.)
Presumably, there would very likely be a holdout of people who would never use alien-based tech, and they would even try to maintain and improve native technologies. The Amish might probably be an example of that. So I wouldn't be surprised, if many of the common people would have chosen to only keep [consumer] tech from 1996 and somewhat before. Nowadays in the real world, there are people who make this a lifestyle choice to live like people once did in 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s even.
Locations that were not as affected by alien attacks, would be burdened with supplying food and medicine and everything else. There would be rationing until after production rates would have recovered to sufficient levels.
The state of refugees and internally displaced persons would be something akin to what Syrians and Iraqis are experiencing.
And then there's the question of what happened to some of the aliens that crashed. The trailer and the War of 1996 website suggest that some concentrated in Congo.
Update: The IDR website does get occasional updates, so the story along the timeline evolves.
As with any movie website, The War of 1996 site uses the latest technologies; so, compared to most other sites, it's obviously one of those that have actual system requirements with regard to hardware and sofware. More about that is detailed in a post in my technology-oriented blog.
pühapäev, 15. november 2015
Claire and Frank (possible spoilers, you've been warned)
Based on information from IMDb forums and Season 3 synoposes
Not actually spoilers, but a theory nonetheless, so half-spoilers.
Rape is one of the reasons Claire might have decided not to have children.
I think Frank is the one in the marriage who is unable to procreate. It's possible Claire might have tried and not had any results from Frank. (I wonder, though, if Frank knows it himself.)
All that would then explain why Claire had had three abortions; because despite having had an otherwise healthy marriage with Frank, she could have been conceived by other men (the day-after pills don't always work), but a different-looking child would eventualy become obvious. And then there's DNA testing.
Claire's biological clock ticking, she decides to get preggers anyway. That's why she wants to separate from Frank and a possible divorce, because she is very certain the child is not his in the first place.
If she's pregnant, then it's possible she might be using it as pretext to disassociate herself from Frank, because she knows that he killed Russo and Zoe. If the murders are eventually revealed as such, she can later claim some plausible deniability. The moodiness might be caused by pregnancy or might even be intentional to throw Frank off the loop, because she needs her female moodiness and the pregancy to disassociate herself from him.
Not actually spoilers, but a theory nonetheless, so half-spoilers.
Rape is one of the reasons Claire might have decided not to have children.
I think Frank is the one in the marriage who is unable to procreate. It's possible Claire might have tried and not had any results from Frank. (I wonder, though, if Frank knows it himself.)
All that would then explain why Claire had had three abortions; because despite having had an otherwise healthy marriage with Frank, she could have been conceived by other men (the day-after pills don't always work), but a different-looking child would eventualy become obvious. And then there's DNA testing.
Claire's biological clock ticking, she decides to get preggers anyway. That's why she wants to separate from Frank and a possible divorce, because she is very certain the child is not his in the first place.
If she's pregnant, then it's possible she might be using it as pretext to disassociate herself from Frank, because she knows that he killed Russo and Zoe. If the murders are eventually revealed as such, she can later claim some plausible deniability. The moodiness might be caused by pregnancy or might even be intentional to throw Frank off the loop, because she needs her female moodiness and the pregancy to disassociate herself from him.
neljapäev, 29. oktoober 2015
Corrida (Estonia, 1982)
Synopsis
Osvald and Rita, a successful academician with his young wife and former secretary go to live away from city sprawl on a small island and enjoy their idyllic marriage.Suddenly, a young man Tarmo appears from the sea.
Rita suggests from the outset that he's her ex, and the handsome Tarmo begins to capture her fancy, much to Osvald's chagrin.
The ensuing bad seas trap the three on the island, and both Tarmo and Osvald and Rita are aware of the situation between the three.
Constrained in one place, Tarmo and Osvald become in time more acquainted with one another: Tarmo shows that he's familiar with Osvald's work, but also critical; while Osvald realises that Tarmo is intelligent, he does not let Tarmo know this, and chooses to taunt him back.
Still harboring feelings for Rita, and believing that Osvald stole her from him, Tarmo encourages Rita to bring out her youthful streak in order to woo her to his side.
Rita's is only able to interpret Tarmo's encouragement of youthfulness in one way, but begins instead to let out her primal self, which turns for the worse.
Alone with Osvald, Tarmo lets slip that Rita has a child from before their marriage, and confides further that he doesn't know if he wants to raise another man's child.
Rita's deteriorating conduct has turned her restless, then uncontrollable, cruel and indifferent.
Tarmo sees that Rita is unable to handle herself in a critical situation, and realizes that she's not intelligent enough to do so in the first place, and therefore not really worthy of his attention.
Having made up his mind, Tarmo leaves the island.
(In the interim, Tarmo and Osvald appear to have resolved their dispute, as Osvald is more willing to put up with the restless Rita than Tarmo, who, as a young man, has more choices before him.)
Text in this post is under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA-3.0).
pühapäev, 21. juuni 2015
How we remember a movie
In reply to this post on IMDb
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
I've never seen the original Jurassic Park film at the cinema, so I think I finally saw it on tv once. But then seeing that film turned out to be such a non-event, that I probably forgot that I ever saw it whole, and so mostly remember getting to see it in parts in my old home. It's as if seeing the original did not make any impression on me. Except "It's a UNIX system! I know this!".
I kinda think that this may be related to how one watches films, and whether it's alone or with someone, and then also where and in which setting. When I see a particular film or documentary at home, then I take the time to watch it, and invest the necessary mental resources to think along.
Another interesting point is whether I've consumed any similar [visual] content on the same day: Of the two movies I might have seen in a day, which one of these will I remember seeing? Will I remember one or the other, or the one I saw later?
neljapäev, 12. märts 2015
How would I have spiced up Star Trek: Voyager
I would have wanted Kim to be kicked out (there were many opportunities), for Kes to stay, and then become the most awesome BFFs with Seven of Nine.
Ronald D. Moore should not have been induced to leave Voyager.
If I had the wisdom that I lacked when I was younger, which was during the show's run — and if I were something like an exec or executive consultant like Gene Roddenberry was — I would in addition have spiced the show up this way:
• Neelix should have by accident succumbed to his own food;
• Chakotay should have left (=died in an accident, or kidnapped, or joined his genetic ancestors);
• Janeway would have become more and more homesick and then deranged, at which point the crew would remove her from command. Tuvok would then have made an awesome acting captain and make good decisions on advice from Kes and other crew.
But that would have made him the second black captain, since Sisko was already captain on Deep Space Nine. This arrangement would maybe have looked superfluous back then, but perhaps in the longer run this would have made a positive effect towards 2014 and 2015. (OTOH, there was an African-American President in the "Deep Impact" feature, and another one played by Dennis Haysbert in "24".)
And since this was the first Trek show with a female captain, it was bound to end in success.
I think Kes, in turn, would have eventually become a non-commissioned officer of Starfleet and an accomplished doctor and scientist. Maybe eventually captain of USS Voyager by the end of the show.
Yea, I really have a soft spot for Kes and Jennifer Lien.
And so, because of the absence of Kim and Chakotay, I would have introduced the first regular gay character on Star Trek and had the first gay kiss happen there to make tv history again, and pre-empt Dawson's Creek.
Ronald D. Moore should not have been induced to leave Voyager.
If I had the wisdom that I lacked when I was younger, which was during the show's run — and if I were something like an exec or executive consultant like Gene Roddenberry was — I would in addition have spiced the show up this way:
• Neelix should have by accident succumbed to his own food;
• Chakotay should have left (=died in an accident, or kidnapped, or joined his genetic ancestors);
• Janeway would have become more and more homesick and then deranged, at which point the crew would remove her from command. Tuvok would then have made an awesome acting captain and make good decisions on advice from Kes and other crew.
But that would have made him the second black captain, since Sisko was already captain on Deep Space Nine. This arrangement would maybe have looked superfluous back then, but perhaps in the longer run this would have made a positive effect towards 2014 and 2015. (OTOH, there was an African-American President in the "Deep Impact" feature, and another one played by Dennis Haysbert in "24".)
And since this was the first Trek show with a female captain, it was bound to end in success.
I think Kes, in turn, would have eventually become a non-commissioned officer of Starfleet and an accomplished doctor and scientist. Maybe eventually captain of USS Voyager by the end of the show.
Yea, I really have a soft spot for Kes and Jennifer Lien.
And so, because of the absence of Kim and Chakotay, I would have introduced the first regular gay character on Star Trek and had the first gay kiss happen there to make tv history again, and pre-empt Dawson's Creek.
kolmapäev, 11. märts 2015
Sisko and Eddington, Federation and the Maquis. Cardassians and Bajorans.
In response to this comment on YouTube.
The thing Sisko must have been worried about, is this: The predecessors of the Maquis — then the citizens of the Federation — had near the Federation-Cardassian border reasonably successfully colonised several worlds lush with vegetation, and as it happened, the Federation conceded exactly those planets to the Cardassians, who had just left Bajor, which they had occupied and which liberated itself.
Cardassia, on the other hand, had a very flimsy civilian economy, and people there were starving (never mind the military), which fact the clip alludes to, along with one other episode on TNG.
So, having made the just-liberated and ostensibly still a resource-rich Bajor a protectorate, the Federation in return conceded those colony worlds to the Cardassian Union, in order to ensure that Cardassia would not attempt invading Bajor again. (Well, the discovery of the Bajoran wormhole made things quite a bit more complicated.)
The colonists, in turn, were not properly informed about this, and they felt that the rug had been pulled out from under them, which they protested against on the basis of having had a justified expectation that they could keep these colonies to themselves indefinitely. I guess the borderspace colonies were initially allowed to form in order to keep a presence near the Federation-Cardassian border, and avoid the Cardassian Union from attempting to grab uninhabited Federation space.
(I have a feeling that this is what the Federation and the Cardassia Union had had a war over. The externality of that war was, that eventually it became untenable for Cardassia to maintain their occupation of Bajor.
I know there was a peace agreement between both the Federation and the Cardassian Union, but I kinda think Cardassia was on the losing side (note how O'Brien complains about inferior technology on DS9, so this must have been a factor).
There's more: Memory Alpha has it that there was a long-standing and expensive skirmish between Cardassians and the Klingon Empire.
The peace agreement was then just a way to make sure that Cardassia does not completely lose face, or lose the conflict with the Klingons, and that the Federation won't look too belligerent.
But then Bajor happened, and this completely changed the political picture, which meant that some of the Federation borderspace planets had to be transferred to Cardassia, which ceded Bajor.)
The colonists should have seen the writing on the wall.
The colonists should have known that they were positioned at the edge of Federation space next to a belligerent force, despite what at best was a tenuous peace treaty.
Therefore, in order to keep Bajor more or less secure, conceding the colony worlds was just the lesser evil of pragmatism.
In that view, along with aid programmes to ostensibly feed the Cardassians, the Federation must have had humanitarian concerns, which in all actuality was just appeasement, and Eddington saw that through. (Note that even food replicators can be repurposed.) The Federation, though, could not afford another war, now that the Borg threat was looming.
Eddington and the Maquis could not understand this bigger picture, and that in turn made them very stubborn and difficult for the Federation to deal with.
The thing Sisko must have been worried about, is this: The predecessors of the Maquis — then the citizens of the Federation — had near the Federation-Cardassian border reasonably successfully colonised several worlds lush with vegetation, and as it happened, the Federation conceded exactly those planets to the Cardassians, who had just left Bajor, which they had occupied and which liberated itself.
Cardassia, on the other hand, had a very flimsy civilian economy, and people there were starving (never mind the military), which fact the clip alludes to, along with one other episode on TNG.
So, having made the just-liberated and ostensibly still a resource-rich Bajor a protectorate, the Federation in return conceded those colony worlds to the Cardassian Union, in order to ensure that Cardassia would not attempt invading Bajor again. (Well, the discovery of the Bajoran wormhole made things quite a bit more complicated.)
The colonists, in turn, were not properly informed about this, and they felt that the rug had been pulled out from under them, which they protested against on the basis of having had a justified expectation that they could keep these colonies to themselves indefinitely. I guess the borderspace colonies were initially allowed to form in order to keep a presence near the Federation-Cardassian border, and avoid the Cardassian Union from attempting to grab uninhabited Federation space.
(I have a feeling that this is what the Federation and the Cardassia Union had had a war over. The externality of that war was, that eventually it became untenable for Cardassia to maintain their occupation of Bajor.
I know there was a peace agreement between both the Federation and the Cardassian Union, but I kinda think Cardassia was on the losing side (note how O'Brien complains about inferior technology on DS9, so this must have been a factor).
There's more: Memory Alpha has it that there was a long-standing and expensive skirmish between Cardassians and the Klingon Empire.
The peace agreement was then just a way to make sure that Cardassia does not completely lose face, or lose the conflict with the Klingons, and that the Federation won't look too belligerent.
But then Bajor happened, and this completely changed the political picture, which meant that some of the Federation borderspace planets had to be transferred to Cardassia, which ceded Bajor.)
The colonists should have seen the writing on the wall.
The colonists should have known that they were positioned at the edge of Federation space next to a belligerent force, despite what at best was a tenuous peace treaty.
Therefore, in order to keep Bajor more or less secure, conceding the colony worlds was just the lesser evil of pragmatism.
In that view, along with aid programmes to ostensibly feed the Cardassians, the Federation must have had humanitarian concerns, which in all actuality was just appeasement, and Eddington saw that through. (Note that even food replicators can be repurposed.) The Federation, though, could not afford another war, now that the Borg threat was looming.
Eddington and the Maquis could not understand this bigger picture, and that in turn made them very stubborn and difficult for the Federation to deal with.
Tellimine:
Postitused (Atom)