›
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

The Crimean War

AndrewAndrew
in News
Shit was crazy
image
«134

Comments

  • Jack DraigoJack Draigo
    Shit's gonna get crazy.
  • WalkerWalker
    Why don't we get war paintings like that anymore?
  • AprecheApreche
    Walker said:

    Why don't we get war paintings like that anymore?

    War photography replaced war paintings. I know that photography existed during the Crimean war, but it's not like they had tons of people running around with DSLRs. Video is also huge. It actually wasn't until Vietnam that a major war was filmed or televised in any really significant amount. That's not that long ago!

    Another factor is that war simply doesn't look like that anymore. Painting a realistic painting of a modern war will not look epic like that. Granted, there are still plenty of things to paint that will be amazing paintings, just not epic battles.

    Lastly, I'm not sure how big photorealistic painting is right now. I do remember seeing some paintings from the Iraqi war. They were abstract paintings that carried the emotions of the war without physically depicting them.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Vietnam? We had big name directors involved during WWII filming propaganda films on location in the war.
  • AprecheApreche
    HMTKSteve said:

    Vietnam? We had big name directors involved during WWII filming propaganda films on location in the war.

    The amount of, and quality of, actual WWII footage is vastly lower than that of Vietnam. Black and white newsreels vs. nightly color television broadcasts.
  • RymRym
    Desert Shield/Desert Storm was basically broadcast live from the bombs' POV. It seems very standard now, but that was BIG DEAL when it was happening.
  • HMTKSteveHMTKSteve
    Apreche said:

    HMTKSteve said:

    Vietnam? We had big name directors involved during WWII filming propaganda films on location in the war.

    The amount of, and quality of, actual WWII footage is vastly lower than that of Vietnam. Black and white newsreels vs. nightly color television broadcasts.
    For reals? You do know that television did not catch on in the US until the late 40's? Color TV did not catch on until the mid to late 60's.

    So, yeah, no TV footage but plenty of film footage of WWII.

    I'll give you TV coverage (Korea wasn't covered nearly as well as WWII or Vietnam) but for film WWII wins.

  • StarfoxStarfox
    Propaganda
    image
  • Josh BytesJosh Bytes
    Everything I learned about the Korean war I learned from the MASH TV series.
  • MattMatt
    There is tons of WWII footage. The point that Scott is missing in Vietnam's significance was that for the first time, those photos and videos were available back home the very next day. The citizens got to live right alongside the war like never before, and they did not like what they saw.
  • AndrewAndrew
    edited March 2014
    Ukranian soldiers have balls of steel.


    image
    Post edited by Andrew on
  • GregGreg
    Matt said:

    There is tons of WWII footage. The point that Scott is missing in Vietnam's significance was that for the first time, those photos and videos were available back home the very next day. The citizens got to live right alongside the war like never before, and they did not like what they saw.

    Also, there was a huge difference in what aspects of the war they were shown in. WWII newsreels tended not to show the brutalities like Vietnam coverage did.
  • muppetmuppet
    The television coverage, and extremely poor reception of, the Vietnam war is a very large part of the reason that contemporary coverage of the US military is extremely sanitized by comparison. They used to read the daily casualty counts on television, show images of burned bodies, screaming children, etc. None of that now. We have "embedded correspondents" who are groomed and filtered.

    The internet has a little more veracity, but is also heavily propagandized at every opportunity.
  • MattMatt
    Andrew said:

    Ukranian soldiers have balls of steel.
    image

    Admit it though, it does look like the cameraman on the right has the viewfinder in his mouth.

  • RymRym
    I like how the derpy Barney looking guy firing the warning shots gets increasingly "nip it in the bud" agitated, and his CO is like "dude, chill."
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    muppet said:

    The television coverage, and extremely poor reception of, the Vietnam war is a very large part of the reason that contemporary coverage of the US military is extremely sanitized by comparison. They used to read the daily casualty counts on television, show images of burned bodies, screaming children, etc. None of that now. We have "embedded correspondents" who are groomed and filtered.

    The internet has a little more veracity, but is also heavily propagandized at every opportunity.

    It reminds me of how a buddy of mine said that in order to get the true feel of what's going on during the second Iraq war, you basically need to watch Fox News and Al Jazeera and take the average of what they portrayed.
  • WalkerWalker
    Apreche said:

    Walker said:

    Why don't we get war paintings like that anymore?

    War photography replaced war paintings. I know that photography existed during the Crimean war, but it's not like they had tons of people running around with DSLRs. Video is also huge. It actually wasn't until Vietnam that a major war was filmed or televised in any really significant amount. That's not that long ago!

    Another factor is that war simply doesn't look like that anymore. Painting a realistic painting of a modern war will not look epic like that. Granted, there are still plenty of things to paint that will be amazing paintings, just not epic battles.

    Lastly, I'm not sure how big photorealistic painting is right now. I do remember seeing some paintings from the Iraqi war. They were abstract paintings that carried the emotions of the war without physically depicting them.
    Turns out there's still some quality war painters out there. It is very interesting to see the different focus and tone of modern vs. old school war art.

    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
    image
  • ChurbaChurba
    edited March 2014
    muppet said:

    None of that now. We have "embedded correspondents" who are groomed and filtered.

    What's with the scare quotes? Either way, No on both counts. They're not groomed by anyone, and the only filtering is for operational security matters. And cue you saying "Oh but they get to say what counts as operational security so I'm right!" but no, that's not the case. You can write about whatever the hell you like(within the usual rules of ethics, truthfulness, etc), but if you say "and tomorrow, we're rolling into Bazra to do it again" then that's what they'll censor.
    Post edited by Churba on
  • George PatchesGeorge Patches
    Russia test fired an ICBM, pretty much making this situation as bad as it can be.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-test-fires-icbm-amid-tension-over-ukraine/
  • Luke BurrageLuke Burrage
    A test they planned in 2010?
  • nothingnothing
    edited March 2014
    Luke Burrage said:

    A test they planned in 2010?

    Whilst thats true, perhaps one might consider replanning in the light of recent events. Just to keep world peace and that.
    Post edited by nothing on
  • muppetmuppet
    Churba said:

    muppet said:

    None of that now. We have "embedded correspondents" who are groomed and filtered.

    What's with the scare quotes? Either way, No on both counts. They're not groomed by anyone, and the only filtering is for operational security matters. And cue you saying "Oh but they get to say what counts as operational security so I'm right!" but no, that's not the case. You can write about whatever the hell you like(within the usual rules of ethics, truthfulness, etc), but if you say "and tomorrow, we're rolling into Bazra to do it again" then that's what they'll censor.
    It may not be overt, but there's a big difference between a journalist independently reporting in a war zone, a la Vietnam, and a guy who works, eats, sleeps, shits, laughs, cries, etc, with a bunch of soldiers and then reports on them.
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    This is one of the rare times where I have to agree with muppet, to a point. If you're an embedded journalist living the same lifestyle as those who you are reporting on, human nature dictates you'll develop a sympathy for them that you may not normally have if you're purely an objective, outside observer. Yeah, it's possible for a journalist to maintain that level of objectivity, even when embedded, but it's certainly more difficult than if you're just tagging along as part of some independent journalism crew.
  • chaosof99chaosof99
  • AndrewAndrew
    image
  • muppetmuppet
    Dragonmaster Lou said:

    This is one of the rare times where I have to agree with muppet, to a point. If you're an embedded journalist living the same lifestyle as those who you are reporting on, human nature dictates you'll develop a sympathy for them that you may not normally have if you're purely an objective, outside observer. Yeah, it's possible for a journalist to maintain that level of objectivity, even when embedded, but it's certainly more difficult than if you're just tagging along as part of some independent journalism crew.

    On top of this subtle propaganda technique (which is what it is, whether you believe it's intentional or not), you also have much heavier filtering of what gets on the TV stateside (mostly an effect of having only half a dozen mega-corporations owning 99.9% of the channels). An awful lot of the country, believe it or not, still relies on television for the majority of their news (or at least their first impression of the news.)
  • Dragonmaster LouDragonmaster Lou
    To be fair, at least when it comes to national news on TV, it's always been at most a half dozen mega-corporations that controlled things. Back during Vietnam, you had ABC, NBC, and CBS, and maybe PBS, and that was it. Nowadays, you have CNN and Fox (gag) in addition to those four, so it's arguable that it's actually improved, at least when it comes to choice for TV news.
  • GregGreg
    1814: Napoleonic Conquest of Russia
    1914: Guns of August
    2014: 2nd Crimean War

    Conclusion: big shit happens in **14
  • AprecheApreche
    People are always trying to simulate the Super Bowl in Madden. Someone needs to simulate this biz in Europa Universalis or Civ V.
  • muppetmuppet
    Lou we went from burnt bodies and casualty counts on TV to basically feel good stories about the All American football star hero military, with the rare "unfortunate but superficial effect of war" introspective. A lot more has changed than adding some stations.
Sign In or Register to comment.