GustavBahler wrote:Paid 20 bucks on PPV for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon. Waste of $$$ IMO.

Read a bunch of books on Napoleon. My favorite is "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler. Really in depth look at his battle tactics.

Anyway, most of it is about Napoleon and Josephine. Little else given enough weight. Like his brilliant marshals. Nothing on Fouché, who was J Edgar Hoover, before he was. Lots of interesting subplots discarded in service of a melodrama.

Even the buildings looked sandblasted.

Didnt want a hagiography, Napoleon didnt deserve one. Just a more in depth look at the man. Would have been worth an extra hour running time.

I liked the part when Phil Jax teaches Napoleon the Triangle!

I guess if your well read on Napoleon and then catch a 2 or so hour movie your left a bit empty given your knowledge base.
Was it at least factual for what they depicted?

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Paid 20 bucks on PPV for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon. Waste of $$$ IMO.

Read a bunch of books on Napoleon. My favorite is "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler. Really in depth look at his battle tactics.

Anyway, most of it is about Napoleon and Josephine. Little else given enough weight. Like his brilliant marshals. Nothing on Fouché, who was J Edgar Hoover, before he was. Lots of interesting subplots discarded in service of a melodrama.

Even the buildings looked sandblasted.

Didnt want a hagiography, Napoleon didnt deserve one. Just a more in depth look at the man. Would have been worth an extra hour running time.

I liked the part when Phil Jax teaches Napoleon the Triangle!

I guess if your well read on Napoleon and then catch a 2 or so hour movie your left a bit empty given your knowledge base.
Was it at least factual for what they depicted?

Nope, very Hollywood. The battles were exciting, but were very loosely based on how they were actually won. Long gaps in years missing, where Napoleon looked like he hadnt aged throughout the film.

The Battle of Waterloo has Wellington acting like he had to stop for a battle on the way to the store.

Not against a Brit making a film about Napoleon, some great ones out there, but it was the wrong one. You saw very little respect for his acomplishments. Napoleonic Code was adopted in many countries, some to this day.

Napoleon is also credited with the founding of Egyptology (looting as well) but in the film Napoleon was portrayed as barely being interested in the subject.

I dont need a film to be completely historically accurate. Its a drama. But Scott could not hide his disdain for Napoleon in the film. Hard to show his lasting impact on the world, for better and worse if you mainly focus on his relationship with Josephine, and gloss over the rest.

Crazy story! I wouldn't have lasted more then 2 days honestly.

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:

Nalod wrote:

GustavBahler wrote:Paid 20 bucks on PPV for Ridley Scott's "Napoleon. Waste of $$$ IMO.

Read a bunch of books on Napoleon. My favorite is "The Campaigns of Napoleon" by David Chandler. Really in depth look at his battle tactics.

Anyway, most of it is about Napoleon and Josephine. Little else given enough weight. Like his brilliant marshals. Nothing on Fouché, who was J Edgar Hoover, before he was. Lots of interesting subplots discarded in service of a melodrama.

Even the buildings looked sandblasted.

Didnt want a hagiography, Napoleon didnt deserve one. Just a more in depth look at the man. Would have been worth an extra hour running time.

I liked the part when Phil Jax teaches Napoleon the Triangle!

I guess if your well read on Napoleon and then catch a 2 or so hour movie your left a bit empty given your knowledge base.
Was it at least factual for what they depicted?

Nope, very Hollywood. The battles were exciting, but were very loosely based on how they were actually won. Long gaps in years missing, where Napoleon looked like he hadnt aged throughout the film.

The Battle of Waterloo has Wellington acting like he had to stop for a battle on the way to the store.

Not against a Brit making a film about Napoleon, some great ones out there, but it was the wrong one. You saw very little respect for his acomplishments. Napoleonic Code was adopted in many countries, some to this day.

Napoleon is also credited with the founding of Egyptology (looting as well) but in the film Napoleon was portrayed as barely being interested in the subject.

I dont need a film to be completely historically accurate. Its a drama. But Scott could not hide his disdain for Napoleon in the film. Hard to show his lasting impact on the world, for better and worse if you mainly focus on his relationship with Josephine, and gloss over the rest.

what is it about Napoleon that fascinates you?

The contradictions

IDK about this one..

Lin-Manuel Miranda is adapting a stage musical version of “The Warriors,” Sol Yurick’s 1965 novel. That book inspired a 1979 cult action thriller directed by Walter Hill that is even more widely known.

Details for the project are still murky, but an individual with knowledge of Miranda’s plans confirmed his involvement. Both film and novel center on a fictional street gang in New York City, who travel from the Bronx to their home turf in Coney Island after they’re framed for the murder of a respected gang leader. The film of “The Warriors” isn’t a musical, but it does feature songs by Barry De Vorzon, Joe Walsh and Arnold McCuller. Though the movie projected an arresting image of urban decay (and was shot as the city teetered on the edge of insolvency), Yurick’s novel provided an even darker look at street life

GustavBahler wrote:Some good news for those of us who have to deal with Tinnitus

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wellness/interactive/2024/tinnitus-treatment-lenire-bimodal-neuromodulation-duo/

Article is behind a paywall.

Hopefully there’s something to it, but there are new treatments discovered like every month.

And none ever pan out or lead anywhere.

Or is this current season self-contained, with no spoilers for previous seasons?

A new cobweb on the ceiling? Blast it into the next room!

Got this thing yesterday, and it is hysterical. Essentially a no-heat blow dryer on steroids.

BigDaddyG wrote:RIP to the homie Carl Weathers. 😢

F***.

ToddTT wrote:Curiosity... I know we have some financially savvy folks in here.

Imagine signing on with one of the big name firms for their financial management. Wanting to diversify a sizeable position in stock "X".

They immediately move the entire position into an account where management fees are regularly charged. This fact eluded me.

Stock "X" is doing great, so diversification efforts for stock "X" are put on hold at my request, about a year later.

This "hold" goes on... for like another 10 years.

So basically, I've paid management fees for what amounts to a non-managed position.

Is this normal? Ethical? Criminal?

Shame on me for not asking more questions, and spending more time trying to understand the confusing-as-f*** statements from them.

By the way, I switched firms in the last few months.

if you have that kind of money, I guess you were ok with it. I remember learning about accredited investors.

I don't have that kind of money, but if I did, the one question I would ask is fiduciary.

I do want to add- that from their standpoint- they were providing ‘active expert’ guidance. Did the stock do well over that 10 year period? If it didn’t, I guess you could argue they should have acted in some fashion.

If it did well, then they kept an ‘active on it’.