Map Thread XXII

I view doing shit like this as damaging to society and I did say OR make him realize his mistakes.
[ROCKWELL_FREEDOM_OF_SPEECH.JPG]

Having pop culture works carry the message that war is hell and our differences need to be solved peacefully for our children to have a future is a good thing, actually.

It is doubly effective when done in a normie-pandering manner which avoids getting anyone’s partisan hackles up.

Twitter and Reddit notwithstanding, 85% of the American electorate is not prepared to shoot their neighbors and family over politics, nor to see them shot by a government claimant, and cultural work like this help to further isolate and marginalize the ones who want that to happen.

There’s no more effective inoculation against tyranny than endless reminders that everyone on “the other side” is a person too.
 
Which is pretty stupid, a Civil War is inherently political and it would be between groups that are predominantly siding with each of the two parties.

Frankly I hope this movie crashes and either ends this guys career or makes him realize his mistakes.
d55ab492-30eb-4d9e-883f-654bbc13d8b9_text.gif


Admittedly though, I managed to get a pre-screening of the film and its... Kinda silly by the end?

A bunch of journalists go to interview the President Dictator as rebels encroach on Washington and they are sort of trying to get an interview before the President is captured and killed. The stuff as they make their way across the country is pretty interesting and harrowing, but the race to the White House ending is a bit odd. Like its just the President and his body guards, but he doesn't try to leave or evacuate at any point, he's doing this whole Hitler in Berlin thing as an Alliance of states advance on him?

I think just having a bunch of people trying to leave America falling into a civil war might have been a better premise as opposed to going to Washington to sort of confront the President? The parts of the story that work are the interactions with America in a violent and lawless state, the less interesting stuff ironically is the political and military element. It feels like it lacks a bite.
 
Last edited:
Man, it's been over half a year since I last put out a series of wanks. But new thread, etc. and here at last we have some new ones. First, a couple Frances (the republican one owes quite a bit to Randy McDonald's Commutate Global and @carlton_bach 's Saint Simon)
@B_Munro How much territory was held by Britain at its max in 2)?
The Ottoman territories that OTL became mandates were not British but Indonesia and the Philippines were ITTL plus greater Canada.

That leaves Britain, France, Portugal, Russia (by land) and Japan as the only colonizers TTL
 
Last edited:
Admittedly though, I managed to get a pre-screening of the film and its... Kinda silly by the end?

A bunch of journalists go to interview the President Dictator as rebels encroach on Washington and they are sort of trying to get an interview before the President is captured and killed. The stuff as they make their way across the country is pretty interesting and harrowing, but the race to the White House ending is a bit odd. Like its just the President and his body guards, but he doesn't try to leave or evacuate at any point, he's doing this whole Hitler in Berlin thing as an Alliance of states advance on him?

I think just having a bunch of people trying to leave America falling into a civil war might have been a better premise as opposed to going to Washington to sort of confront the President? The parts of the story that work are the interactions with America in a violent and lawless state, the less interesting stuff ironically is the political and military element. It feels like it lacks a bite.
I think the attempt at being non-partisan is to blame. Politics does not have a bad guy waiting for the heroes to infiltrate his lair so he can tell them just how evil he is, it's driven by real people with serious motivations based in their perception of reality. Most Americans would agree that the country's institutions are fragile and prone to subversion by private actors (even if some may word it as accusations towards certain minorities) and most Americans again would agree that gross corporate and financial interests mostly drive that subversion. If there's any elements of the film that'll appeal to regular people it will be those based on American society crumbling. The US does not understand dictators, an American strongman is a non-starter not because it's impossible but because it just doesn't have any emotional punch. It's comedic more than anything, contemporarily because a certain someone was seen by the mainstream as more ridiculous than dangerous. That's a sign that the country is still safe enough to openly mock the people in charge. So a nervous sweat at a dictator kicking back in the Oval Office? We're not there yet.

So if you're going to make a civil war movie there's three options:
  • One, you make it around the failure of the American state in the face of private interests, overwhelminging financial and religious. Maybe you incorporate the only significant demographic of people actually threatening civil war, a few far right wingers, and point them out as useful idiots. Focus on public services failing and how it affects normal people or as you said follow people fleeing from that. Anything but the nuances of uncompelling fictional power balances because honestly no one cares. It's not supposed to be tense, it should make you frustrated and angry at the real world equivalent.
  • Two, make a civil war movie about superheroes fighting each other.
  • Three, don't make a civil war movie at all because the concept kinda sucks. Americans are so disconnected from war that it really doesn't mean anything to them (outside of most veterans and some immigrants/refugees) that aside from shock value and maybe hitting on some actual insecurity based on a national shortcoming the premise is not pulling it's weight. Those insecurities are better addressed elsewhere too. The Big Short is borderline personal and it's Steve Carrel spending half the movie yelling about banks, not footage of tanks rolling through Times Square.
Sorry for derailing the thread guys.
 
Last edited:
Concept art for Isla Nublar by John Bell, who worked on the film (The island where Jurassic Park, World, and Fallen Kingdom took place) back when Jurassic World was called Jurassic Park IV.
Interestingly, there's a map in Fallen Kingdom of Isla Nublar that looks similar to this one, with the visitor/lagoon area being at the south of the island next to the ocean rather being in the center in the previous film.
JPmap.jpg

Here's his website where he showcased the map, he also did art for Across the Spiderverse, Rango, Cars, the first two Jurassic Park films, and much more
He was also selling the concept art map as a poster for $60.00 at one point, but is now sold out.​
 
Last edited:
I think the attempt at being non-partisan is to blame. Politics does not have a bad guy waiting for the heroes to infiltrate his lair so he can tell them just how evil he is, it's driven by real people with serious motivations based in their perception of reality. Most Americans would agree that the country's institutions are fragile and prone to subversion by private actors (even if some may word it as accusations towards certain minorities) and most Americans again would agree that gross corporate and financial interests mostly drive that subversion. If there's any elements of the film that'll appeal to regular people it will be those based on American society crumbling. The US does not understand dictators, an American strongman is a non-starter not because it's impossible but because it just doesn't have any emotional punch. It's comedic more than anything, contemporarily because a certain someone was seen by the mainstream as more ridiculous than dangerous. That's a sign that the country is still safe enough to openly mock the people in charge. So a nervous sweat at a dictator kicking back in the Oval Office? We're not there yet.

So if you're going to make a civil war movie there's three options:
  • One, you make it around the failure of the American state in the face of private interests, overwhelminging financial and religious. Maybe you incorporate the only significant demographic of people actually threatening civil war, a few far right wingers, and point them out as useful idiots. Focus on public services failing and how it affects normal people or as you said follow people fleeing from that. Anything but the nuances of uncompelling fictional power balances because honestly no one cares. It's not supposed to be tense, it should make you frustrated and angry at the real world equivalent.
  • Two, make a civil war movie about superheroes fighting each other.
  • Three, don't make a civil war movie at all because the concept kinda sucks. Americans are so disconnected from war that it really doesn't mean anything to them (outside of most veterans and some immigrants/refugees) that aside from shock value and maybe hitting on some actual insecurity based on a national shortcoming the premise is not pulling it's weight. Those insecurities are better addressed elsewhere too. The Big Short is borderline personal and it's Steve Carrel spending half the movie yelling about banks, not footage of tanks rolling through Times Square.
Sorry for derailing the thread guys.
We literally had a civil war HBO movie in the 90s starring phil hartman that was basically comedic Camp of the Saints but it never got theatrically released so people forgot about it.

 
This feels anti immigration tbh, it looks like the result of white Supremacist fears about America being full of minorities
I watched the whole movie and it's that really 1990s "Make fun of everyone" dark comedy deal that has, of course, 90s stereotypes. The movie is on youtube but yeah it's very very very 1990s
 
Ketchup World - The Way Ketchup Spread Across Altera
Altera_Ketchup_Infographic_AH.jpg


This is a less serious infographic from the world of Atlas Altera. It was developed by Zveiner and I to pay homage to ... ketchup—and its interesting history.

Some cool TILs:
  • Did you know thhe word ketchup or catsup likely comes from Hokkien, koe-chiap, for "pickled fish brine"?
  • Did you know that before the tomato form became synonymous with the term itself, there was also mushroom ketchup or even white (horseradish) ketchup (as shown by Max Miller from Tasting History)?
  • Did you know that the related sauces of A1 and HP are defined by using raisins and tamarind, respectively?
This mapping exercise is partly inspired by Weird (Fruit) Explorer, who sometimes experiments with making ketchup from obscure fruits he encounters. To a lesser degree, it's also informed by the tidbits from people like Max Miller and Townsends. And a recent TED-Ed video on the history of ketchup inspired me to revisit the Wikimedia-style map on ketchup I made awhile ago and turn it into this much more satisfying infographic.

Other more serious ethnobotany maps we developed:
 
It has been almost a decade that I do not read stuff about the ACW, so I am going to ask, didn't the CSA constitution ban political parties, and only allowed independent candidates to run, like Gaddafi's Libya?

Not OP but taking a guess, I figure this could have changed over time or that informal power blocs could have formed.
 
Top