TV/Movies Megathread

[Syt]

Speaking to a friend about it and I am embarrassingly hyped for Wuthering Heights

Although I absolutely loved the Andrea Arnold adaptation which is the bar for me.

It's also one of those books I read at like 17 and was like "this is what love is!" and then I read it in my 30s and was like "these people are unhinged", so I might read it again before the film. (I have this with Jane Austen too - she is the only author I regularly re-read and part of it is just because the characters/perspectives I sympathise with change every single time.)

I think Monty Python already had the definitive version.

[grumbler]

A new Bob Mortimer appearence on 'Would I Lie to You' :

Would I Lie To You Series 19 Programme 2

Not available in the US. It'll soon be on youtube, though, I am sure.

[mongers]

A new Bob Mortimer appearence on 'Would I Lie to You' :

Would I Lie To You Series 19 Programme 2

Not available in the US. It'll soon be on youtube, though, I am sure.

Yeah I don't know how you guys get around iplayer uk restrictions, VPNs?

[Norgy]

The BBC is quite generous on YouTube, I've found. Same with Channel 4.

Oh. And GBNews. 

[celedhring]

For pretty random reasons I rewatched the first movie of the Abrams Star Trek reboot. It's an ok entertainment - and I think the movie has the best post-Voyager Star Trek theme, but it has this annoying Abrams thing of plot fireworks and trying to be too clever by half, as ineffeectual replacements to a good sense of adventure and human emotion.

Anyway, the basic conceit of the film - that a nonmilitary vessel traveling back in time two centuries would be a formidable threat to the navies back then - I always found to be intriguing.

How realistic would that be in reality? I assume our merchant vessels only carry small arms, but an oil tanker in 1850 would absolutely dwarf everything, and with a double hull and I presume a million other safety measures to avoid spills, it might be impervious to cannon fire from that era?

[Norgy]

"Wake Up Dead Man".

The first Knives Out movie was quite funny, I thought. This one, well, not so much. It was long-winded and the humour did not hit home here.

[grumbler]

(snip)

How realistic would that be in reality? I assume our merchant vessels only carry small arms, but an oil tanker in 1850 would absolutely dwarf everything, and with a double hull and I presume a million other safety measures to avoid spills, it might be impervious to cannon fire from that era?

It certainly would not be impervious to cannon fire of the era (even Warrior was not). CSS* Virginia is generally considered to be the first vessel to be proof against the cannon of its era.


* Yes, I know "CSS" is an anachronism, but it's a useful one.

[viper37]

How realistic would that be in reality? I assume our merchant vessels only carry small arms, but an oil tanker in 1850 would absolutely dwarf everything, and with a double hull and I presume a million other safety measures to avoid spills, it might be impervious to cannon fire from that era?

the ship's hull wouldn't be thick enough, I guess.

I had to ask AI.
A modern tanker may have 60mm of steel for its hull, double hull.  Obviously, fully structural steel shell.

The CSS Virginia would have had 100mm (2x 51mm) of steel plating added on 610mm of wood.


I didn't dare to ask ChatGPT who would win. 



I guess a wooden sailing ship could have its sails ripped to shread by a light cannon onboard an oil tanker.  But the cannons of that ships could do some real damage to the tanker. Grumbler could confirm.

The Virginia and the Monitor slugged it out and did themselves some damage without sinking, with cannons equivalent to that of other sailing ships of the time.  The difference was their thick steel plating.

So, if a tanker got in there, they would likely suffer a breach before they could damage either ship.  Light canons usually mounted on such ships that travel through dangerous parts wouldn't dent their armor.
On a wooden ship, while canon balls do sink ships (duh!), I'm not sure light fire can effectively go through a thick pine wooden hull at distance and sink this ship before the canon balls do real damage.  And at close range, there is still small arms fire for exposed crew.

But two centuries lead us exactly to 1826.  A few years earlier, the war of 1812, no steamboats, no ironclads, blackpowder only.  There, they stand a better chance at survival.  Better manoeuvrability, machine guns, automatic rifles,  their hull might even be thick enough.  A ship of the line would have 60-75cm of wood for its hull.  About the same as the Virgina, but not steel on top.

[viper37]

Ok, now, I'm done.  Youtube is going to spam me with Battleship clips. 

[Syt]

Started Season 2 of Jack Ryan on Prime. An evil dictator in Venezuela, Russian ships under false flags smuggling arms(?) .... uhm, maybe a bit too topical at the moment.

[Sheilbh]

For pretty random reasons I rewatched the first movie of the Abrams Star Trek reboot. It's an ok entertainment - and I think the movie has the best post-Voyager Star Trek theme, but it has this annoying Abrams thing of plot fireworks and trying to be too clever by half, as ineffeectual replacements to a good sense of adventure and human emotion.

Anyway, the basic conceit of the film - that a nonmilitary vessel traveling back in time two centuries would be a formidable threat to the navies back then - I always found to be intriguing.

How realistic would that be in reality? I assume our merchant vessels only carry small arms, but an oil tanker in 1850 would absolutely dwarf everything, and with a double hull and I presume a million other safety measures to avoid spills, it might be impervious to cannon fire from that era?

I suppose it slightly depends on the type of vessel or what's "normal". From my understanding commercial vessels in the 18th century for example were armed - not enough to take on a warship, but it was an era of piracy and the trade in enslave which both required violence on the part of "normal" trading ships. I suspect that's a different "normal" than a world with broadly secure international sea lanes.

It may be that a regular merchant vessel now would be difficult to destroy but have basially zero firepower. While a (lightly) armed 18th century ship dropped into the 16th century might be very effective (more mobile, more accurate firepower etc).