CascadeOfLight [he/him]

  • 8 Posts
  • 713 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: May 13th, 2023

help-circle















  • Overall pretty good, I like the lining up of some corp-on-corp violence which hasn’t been seen in the franchise so far

    One weird nitpick though

    Her flashback where she’s watching a movie with her brother… and it’s fucking Ice Age, and not even the original but one of the sequels, took me out of it completely. One of the most crucial components to the identity of the series is the clunky 70s-style computer systems, which I just can’t possibly imagine being able to produce CGI movies like that.

    Like, is it suggesting that technology and culture in this universe matched the real world until at least 2012, and then just regressed back to clicky-clacky command line terminals everywhere? And also that kids would just be casually watching a movie that could have been over a hundred years old at that point? Peter Pan I get, cause it has a cultural position that’s kind of timeless, but Ice Age?? It just doesn’t feel like something that could exist in this universe, right?

    Edit: Okay, I started watching the second episode and there’s a callback?? Why would he say that? No one would say that! And then as she hacks the robot to deliver the response, Ice Age Sid fucking fades in to accompany the line???

    How the fuck is this a real frame from the newest entry to Ridley Scott’s Alien universe??? This is so jarring, it’s like a parody except you couldn’t make something this funny on purpose. There’s obviously a narrative slot here for the ‘shared media reference’ that these two characters can use to communicate, but it should probably have been something with a little more, I don’t know, gravitas or cultural permanence than the fourth entry in the Ice Age film franchise, and even then the execution didn’t need to be THIS.

    It’s also making me notice how much of the rest of the script and scenario is really kind of contrived, when before I think I was blinded by the excellent production. But whatever, I’m sure I can ignore it and keep enjoying this slop.




  • It's been a while since I last posted this, but it's an excellent read on Russia's opening strategy from the Marine Corps Gazette's Maneuverist Papers

    In short, at the start of the war, Russia was conducting three qualitatively different campaigns at the same time: the rush to Kiev in the north, avoiding urban areas to reach and encircle the capital as fast as possible- both for the chance of extracting a treaty in one blow, and also to pin all the troops in the region with the threat of attacking Kiev itself; actual territorial capture in the south, with city fighting in Melitopol, Mariupol and smaller towns in the vicinity, and the swift replacement of their civil structures by Russian-organized ones; and the roll-out and setup of artillery positions and logistics in the east, to prepare for a war of attrition against Kiev’s entrenched positions there.

    The article even argues that pinning the troops in Kiev so they couldn’t immediately reinforce the army on the field in the east was the more important of the strategic goals of the northward push, because by the time those troops were free and able to move eastwards, Russian artillery was firmly entrenched and the Ukrainian logistics network had been severely disrupted. They took a gamble at ending the war immediately, while also engaging in the rest of Ukraine on the assumption that gamble would fail, and using the movement entailed by that gamble to improve their chance of success in the other theaters. And in fact, as already mentioned, the gamble succeeded! The west had to step in and cancel the peace treaty themselves.

    Edit: And compare this with western military understanding, which seems to be “Bomb everything -> take the capital -> ??? -> win”. Being able to construct campaigns like this is clearly a legacy of Soviet military doctrine and understanding.