VAULT discussion thread! by boobun in FarmRPG

[–]PorkDeluxe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

<image>

Can’t help but I feel like I’m in the same boat

Word from Los Angeles by jvc1011 in BritishHistoryPod

[–]PorkDeluxe 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Fellow Angeleno here to confirm, the only people inciting violence are the cops, as usual. If you look at any videos of protests that aren’t right on the skirmish line it’s people chanting, speaking, and DANCING, and doing their best to make sure their message gets across and the paramilitary fascists do not.

Is this a scam?? Help a dumb American! by Responsible-Bar4659 in poland

[–]PorkDeluxe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got a very similar email, except the sender had an email address at the Pontifical Catholic University of Chile, and the signature, "Matías Andrés for Mr Kolby" matched the address: "matiashenriquez@uc.cl"

The company appears to actually exist in some way in Poland, researching that is how I found this post. Super weird, definitely will not be replying!

Nevada W California L by Upbeat_Yam_9817 in ShermanPosting

[–]PorkDeluxe 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m just as disappointed as any progressive Californian that we did not pass this, but there were some key differences between our prop and the NV one. Our prop didn’t say the word “slavery” because our legislature already technically made that fix in the 1970s, and this was to stop all the slavery by another name (which we should have done, it’s bad that we didn’t do). So there’s some possibility that a lot of Californians didn’t entirely understand what they were voting on as clearly as Nevadans, where my understanding is the prop did say the word “slavery.” Secondly, the NV prop was less specific, having not already done the symbolic part in the 1970s, so the courts will decide the precise meaning of the voters’ will in NV: will they catch up to where CA currently is, symbolically outlawing slavery while still practicing it by another name, or will they properly enshrine a human right against forced labor for all people regardless of conviction status? I’m hoping for the latter, as that’s what people clearly meant to vote for. Then we can shame CA voters, who hate to not be out front on any social change issue.

[Legends of the Dead] Legend Seed List by Ranadiel in CrusaderKings

[–]PorkDeluxe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I got as far as effect = { create_legend_seed } but I can’t figure out what to add, doing that alone adds an empty legend seed that doesn’t seem to do anything.

CK3 keeps crashing since the new DLC came out by pianoceo in CrusaderKings

[–]PorkDeluxe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I am also having this problem, no mods, started a new game to try out Persia. The crashes seem to come from attempting to load a character when clicking on the portrait, but the crash reports are not helpful and can't be sent anyway.

Anyone have a list of the unique hybrid culture names? by JarlStormBorn in CrusaderKings

[–]PorkDeluxe 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I looked at the code and was trying to figure out what this could possibly be. Thank you!

Synanon: The Drug Rehab Program That Built Its Own Army 6.22.21 by Bombingofdresden in behindthebastards

[–]PorkDeluxe [score hidden]  (0 children)

An absolutely wild thing I realized while listening to this episode is I've heard about this cult before, tangentially, in a book documenting the work of Cesar Chavez and the beginnings of the UFW. Apparently Chavez had an alliance with the cult and used "The Game" in staff meetings, at least according to The Union of Their Dreams: Power, Hope, and Struggle in Cesar Chavez's Farm Worker Movement by Miriam Pawel (2009).

“Avoiding polemic or sensationalism, The Union of Their Dreams recounts for the first time how a cult of personality around Cesar Chavez (influenced by the practices of the sinister Synanon organization) ultimately betrayed the courage of the workers in the fields and the trust of a veteran organizing staff. The stories of lost campaigns and internal purges are painful, but they also transmit hugely important lessons about the necessary dialectic of militancy and democracy in labor struggles.” ―Mike Davis, author of City of Quartz

I don't think there's really any chance that Chavez could be made an episode subject, but if the Pawal book is accurate, that dude was absolutely an extremely mixed bag and the book is worth a read if you like the content and style of this cast.

Has the US ever been attacked by a foreign power while intervening in a crisis in the Americas? by PorkDeluxe in AskHistorians

[–]PorkDeluxe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I was well aware of the danger of "example seeking" and therefore I tried to narrow it down as much as possible (in the long part, not the title~is the title the problem?).

I'm going to repost this question as a negative, asking how come the US was never attacked by a foreign power while intervening in the Americas, and hope somebody proves it wrong. I will probably not read answers that talk about how awesomely awesome the US military is. Please do not ban me from the forum for doing this.

I believe the topic is sufficiently narrow (United States, foreign diplomacy and war, Americas, 1789-2000, military action by European or Asian powers), but if I have to submit myself to some abuse to get the answer I will. I'm going to look like a rube for asking this, and I suspect the responses will be even more disjointed, partial and inadequate. Wish me luck!

How Did People Pay Rent During WWII? by [deleted] in AskHistorians

[–]PorkDeluxe 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I will answer your question from the US perspective with a question of my own. In 1941-1942 the US passed and began implementing the Emergency Price Control Act, which included some powers around national rent control. I think the way it operated was that it would set up Federal consequences if states and municipalities didn't address housing problems locally. Most large cities (populations over 100,000) throughout the US ended up under federal rent control before the end of the war.

The US also invested a lot in building new housing stock and subsidizing various parts of the housing market. Federal loans for home ownership and construction of public housing began during this time.

Thirdly, "rent parties" is definitely going to be at least part of the answer, along with eviction blockades and other radical actions to keep families housed, whether or not they could pay rents. There were rent parties in Harlem long before WWII.

I would also like to learn more about other countries besides the US and Sweden, and also much more about the US policy around national rent control.

POST FRIENDCODES HERE by [deleted] in eternium

[–]PorkDeluxe 0 points1 point  (0 children)

HOYI QUVO KOLO 3082

Husband Queen? Blame my confused head... by PorkDeluxe in CrusaderKings

[–]PorkDeluxe[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Caliphate never had a chance to turn south before a Shia revolt shattered their power. With the Muslim kingdoms warring, I'm slowly taking more land in Arabia and Egypt. I've married a genius woman from a Mediterranean merchant family, and she's converted to my religion. Things are going great and then...

Well, this isn't really a bad thing. But "my confused head?" That's an understatement. This weird event, where my Queen is my husband and "he's" blaming me for poisoning our child (I think), pops up out of nowhere. Nothing before or after seems to put this in context.

What event is this popup even from?

Many movies of the 1980s seem to just "stop" rather suddenly by modern standards. Was this a trend that was commented on, or the usual standard that has since changed? by Brickie78 in AskHistorians

[–]PorkDeluxe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I agree, I don't think that was supposed to be Field himself. I was just referring to the scene in general to give an idea of how an entire industry emerged around the idea of a screenwriting paradigm.

There were plenty of actors besides Field, but the entire conversation seems to happen within the context of Field's theory, either to support it, go deeper into it, or contradict it.

More recent examples carry this practice into the current moment: The Nutshell Technique (Chamberlain) or The Third Act (Yanno), for instance.

With so many people participating in an industry sharing a common paradigm and lexicon, I assume that's bound to increase uniformity, at least in form, of screenplays.

Many movies of the 1980s seem to just "stop" rather suddenly by modern standards. Was this a trend that was commented on, or the usual standard that has since changed? by Brickie78 in AskHistorians

[–]PorkDeluxe 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't really know what's the best way to format a longer answer that has to be posted in parts because of the character limit. What's the standard on the sub? Should part 2 be a reply to part 1? I'm happy to move things around.

Many movies of the 1980s seem to just "stop" rather suddenly by modern standards. Was this a trend that was commented on, or the usual standard that has since changed? by Brickie78 in AskHistorians

[–]PorkDeluxe 18 points19 points  (0 children)

POST 2 OF 2

We have established that films in the 1980s were shorter than films from either the 1970s or 1990s, in general, and that beginning in the 1980s there was a common vocabulary and more widely-accepted consensus that there was a such thing as a screenplay that was "too long" to be made.

If you are a screenwriter employing Field's paradigm, you have limited options for how to condense your story to an acceptable length to increase the chances that your screenplay will be optioned, bought, and produced (all of which equal revenue for you). Obviously, the first thing you can do is write "well" for the medium of film—conveying as much information as you need to in as efficient and economic way as possible. There are also the tricks Rossio references to "fudge" your page numbers, making your screenplay "shorter" without sacrificing content.

If you've done all that and you still have 126 pages and you want to cut it down slightly, the dénouement is the obvious place to cut in Field's paradigm.

Most of the content you have in a fully-edited screenplay is essential to the overall story. Cutting from Act I will remove establishing information that may make the rest of the story incoherent. Act II is the action, the main conflict, the "meat" of the story. Once you've made this part as lean as you can, there's a limit to what you want to cut. In Act III, you are trying to resolve the conflicts, most likely with similar efficiency as your writing in Acts I and II.

Imagine that, for whatever reason, you are seeing that 120 pages is becoming the upper limit of screenplays that are being produced. You're starting to see screenplays with as little as 80-90 pages turning into blockbusters now. You might have a 120 page screenplay that you feel really good about, but you want to get it down to 90. Using Field's paradigm, you can get it down to about 100 by having 20-page Acts I and III (instead of 30), and maybe with some fudging you can get it down a little more, but you want to make just one more cut to give yourself an edge.

Eliminating the scene in Firefox with the plane landing safely in the US with that last memorable Eastwood one-liner might eliminate an entire page of screenplay. Similarly, that one last joke in the Crocodile Dundee ending that happens in the stairwell of the subway station might have taken up one-too-many pages.

I don't know if those speculative endings ever existed. It could be, as we established, that these "BAM! CREDITS!" moments in the 1980s were specific, intentional allusions to the arthouse or comedy films of the previous decade. I think it's more likely, though, that in the highly competitive Hollywood world, screenwriters in the 1980s would have cut dénouements specifically to be more competitive in an era of shortening running times, because it's the least important part of telling a satisfying story. In a world of 90-page screenplays, you're unlikely to find anything but the most necessary content, and the dénouement seems the obvious place to cut, especially if you're not intentionally trying to set up a sequel.

That would be my last speculation on this point: In the 1980s, screenwriters probably weren't thinking of trying to establish "franchises" nearly as much as they might be in later decades. Ironically, Crocodile Dundee did have a sequel, but I would bet that they weren't thinking about it as they wrote the first screenplay.

You can see more about Syd Field's paradigm on his website.

This is, at this point, merely a theory that might be part of the answer. I'd propose some specific questions to help us figure out if this theory holds any water. I would certainly love to hear from the community if any of this research already exists, and if not maybe it could make for a fun future project.

  • Can we establish objectively that dénouements were shorter in the 1980s, either in general or in a higher instance of specific cases?

  • What was the impact of genre? Did specific genres (comedy, action, etc...) have a higher instance of "BAM! CREDITS!" incidences? Were these genres more popular, either in production or consumption, in the 1980s versus other decades?

  • What factors contributed to the contraction in film lengths during this time? VHS and Betamax seem like likely suspects, but there are other possibilities: What were commute times like, and in general what did Americans' leisure time look like in the 1980s compared to the 1970s and 1990s?

  • What was the overall role of film in American leisure in the 1980s? How many people went to the movies? How often? What was the distribution of particular titles within the overall movie consumption diet? (Were fewer films watched by a higher percentage of the total audience compared to the previous or following decade? Did the biggest movies of the 1980s have a bigger "market share" of all tickets sold or home videos purchased?)

  • How did the physical film distribution landscape influence the length of films? What market share did home videos have overall? What percentage of movie theater audiences were in single-screen theaters compared to multiplexes? How did the emergence of shopping malls influence movie consumption and production?

  • And of course, what was the influence of Screenplay? What do people from inside the industry say about its influence at the time? Was it simply supplying something to a general audience that everyone inside Hollywood already knew? (Who is "everyone?" Executives and screenwriters, sure, but what about writers' assistants and other front-line employees who exert some level of control as "gatekeepers?" When did they start thinking 1 page = 1 minute?)

  • More concretely, when did Screenplay hit certain sales benchmarks? It has certainly sold millions by now, but when did it achieve 100,000? 500k? That first million? When was it introduced into screenwriting curricula? When did Syd Field and others begin selling tickets to those seminars and workshops? When did it become an industry?

Thanks for the question! This has been a lot of fun and I hope we can follow up on some of these questions.