Oh, it's Monday, isn't it?

Okay, it's one of those times again where events conspire to pile things on top of things. Thus, I have to cut this weeks post short.

I give you a really intersting interview with John Cleese:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-p44-9S4O0

So join me next time for more Eccentric Spheres and have a great week!

That's a big ape.

A couple of days ago, I watched King Kong (2005).

Many years ago, I saw the original 1933 version but to be honest, I remember very little of it. A few snippets here and there is all. Still, I got the impression that Peter Jackson did a pretty faithful retelling. Still, there are good and bad parts.

First the good. This is a very pretty film, even though it relies heavily on CGI. This is understandable considering Kong is a giant gorilla and he lives on an island full of forgotten creatures like dinosaurs. Not too many of those around, now are there? In fact, the CGI is better here than in many newer movies.

The actors are excellent for the most part, as are the props. A very slick portrayal of the early 1930's, no faults there. The movie is over three hours long, and it doesn't really ever get boring.

But there are problems. Some pretty big problems in fact. First up, Carl Denham. Denham is the character who drives the plot. The film maker who drags everyone else along on the expedition to Skull Island and the horrors that dwell there. The actor, Jack Black is unfortunately miscast. Black is a jovial guy, which suits half of Denhams personality, but the film really can't make up it's mind on whether he is a misguided but well-meaning or a villain. This becomes pretty jarring by the end of the film, as he again stares blankly at something while muttering his lines.

The biggest flaw however, is the pacing. For a three hour epic, it wastes a huge amount of time on drawn out scenes that serve little purpose being so long. Drawn out scene after drawn out scene showing the strange emotional relationship between Kong and Ann (the leading lady) become increasingly annoying as the movie draws to an end. Likewise, some of the action scenes are way too over the top. Sure, they need to bring the heat, but they don't just jump the shark, they throw the shark at you along with a few more for good measure.

All this sadly leads to nothing, as we all know the iconic scene where Kong climbs the Empire State Building and ultimately dies. The scene has become a meme, it's so famous. It has become a symbol of someone going berserk.

I mean, the original was filmed 72 years earlier. We all know how it has to end, and still they waste so much time trying to make an emotional impact it can never achieve.

Still, I don't hate it. I'll probably never watch it again, but I was sufficiently entertained the whole time. If you want a good bit of mindless entertainment, King Kong will do.

Until next time, have a wonderful week, and stay away from giant apes.

Practical Fashion

You have probably heard of Alexander the Great, right? I mean how many have actually been known as “The Great”? Not too many.

Anyway, the young Macedonian and his armies conquered the “whole known world”, by which they meant, everything until his armies said no. He did get to India, but his troops were too tired and worn out to conquer any more.

An important question is, how did they do it? How could they conquer so much? Well, that is a subject for a historian, which I'm not. Not to mention that the subject is quite a bit longer than what this blog post can handle.

Instead, we're looking at what the average soldier in Alex's army would have worn. Alex himself would have had the highest quality bronze armor, but the average dude could never have afforded that. In those days, a soldier had to supply his own gear, and the common man had no way to afford metal armor. So, what did they wear?

A professor at Wisconsin-Green Bay and his students have a very good hypothesis. They assembled thousands and thousands of images of urns, vases, wall paintings etc. from that time. The Greeks loved depicting anything and everything with their art. As a relevant example, a group of women harvesting flax, weaving it and then presenting armor to a man. This was an important clue.

Texts of the period, like the Iliad speak of linothorax, or literally linen chest. That's chest like torso, not a box for storing things.

The professor, Greg Aldrete, and his team got to work. The bought linen made by an artisan who grew her own flax and made cloth. No artificial materials used. Aldrete knew that the ancient Greeks used to glue, or laminate, linen for a variety of purposes. Therefore they chose to go that route and picked up lots of rabbit glue, which is glue made from, you guessed it, rabbits. Again, no modern chemicals.

At first they glued together a bunch of linen sheets, but they discovered that once it dried, they couldn't cut it. Not with knives and not with scissors or shears. Nothing short of an electric metal saw could go through it. They had to start again. Using the aforementioned pictures, they managed to make a tailors pattern and after some trial and error they assembled a bunch of tunics made from linothorax.

What they found was amazing. Not only is such a tunic comfortable to wear, but it's cool in the sun, and after a while it molds to the wearer and fits even better. And as for armor, it worked amazingly well. No period bow and arrow could pierce it! Wearing a 12 mm. linothorax tunic made you almost immune to any arrow manufactured between 600 B.C. and 200B.C. After that, metals got better and bows got stronger, so armor had to improve.

This discovery could mean a lot for understanding the ancient world. Yes, it's a theory, but it's a very likely theory. If you want to know more, here's the New Yorker article:

https://www.newyorker.com/books/joshua-rothman/how-to-make-your-own-greek-armor

So that's that. Glue and linen. Until next time, have a great week, and look out for conquering Macedonians!

It's a big world

Right, so I'm pretty sure I have talked about this before, but I can't find a shred of proof of this, so today's topic is:

Geoguessr

Geoguessr is a browser game that uses Google street view. Depending on your settings, the game drops you down somewhere in the world and it's your job to pinpoint that exact location. You are scored on how close you get. That's the simple explanation, but wait, there's more!

There are lots of different game modes. The world, Europe, the United States, Famous Places, specific countries, specific cities and on and on.

You can play alone, or partake in a challenge. When you generate a challenge, you get a link that you can send to your friends and then see who gets the closest. Now it is perfectly possible to cheat, and look up places in another window, but that's not fun.

How does one figure out where one is, you ask? Street and road signs, building and business signs, climate, plants, which side of the road people drive on, languages etc. It doesn't sound as much fun as it really is. But trust me, it's addictive.

Sadly, it can get a bit buggy. I've seen it spawn with a black screen, and then you're out of luck. I have also seen it load the previous map, but with another location in mind, and you have no clue. These are unusual occurrences though. Oh yes, it's completely free, so you loose nothing by trying it out.

The difficulty varies greatly from map to map. It can drop you down right next to Big Ben, or on a nameless highway somewhere in the U.S.

Here's a link to some great Geoguessr let's plays, featuring a special challenge, but I'll let Docm77 explain further. Keep in mind that his challenge is homemade, you don't have to play his way.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m2zrGL4tlCc&list=PLvh8CGg6LWwp5oCE7sS8ykLIZfW98Fa2U

Well that's that, go explore the world and all it's wonderful oddities. See how people actually live and see how close you can get. Until next time, have a wonderful exploratory week!