NetFlix Shows...

[Millhouse]

(07-17-2016, 10:49 AM)xxlt Wrote: OP touts Christina RIcci show. I would pretty much watch her read a phone book, but am not as a rule into the slash and chop genre, so I am in a quandry...

Scanned rest of thread and saw no mention of the best original series I have found on Netflix: "Grace and Frankie." Any one of the leads (Fonda, Tomlin, Sheen, or Waterston) could carry a series, but all four in a well written, funny, and timely show is just a delight. Only complaint: only two short seasons so far...

Just watched Black Snake Moan again today. I mean, yeah.

[Bengalzona]

(07-16-2016, 06:31 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And if anyone likes the shoe, it is based on a series of books by Bernard Cornwell.

The way the show portrays shield wall formations and training in medieval combat is one of the best demonstrations of this. The shield wall was the primary warfare tactic in Europe at this time. 

[Bengalzona]

(07-17-2016, 02:56 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You all should give Stranger Things as try.  It's a new Netflix original.  It's a mystery/horror type of show.  Cool thing is it's set in 1983.  Best way I can describe is it's a Steven Speilberg meets Stephen King meets X Files type of show.  Currently has a crazy high rating on IMDB.

If you like 80's stuff and any those descriptions then I highly recommend this show.

Yeah, I've been checking that out. Not much into horror anymore, but this show transcends a single genre. They do a really good job capturing the time period (especially the opening credits.... very 80's!!) and keeping the story rolling along. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-18-2016, 12:03 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: The way the show portrays shield wall formations and training in medieval combat is one of the best demonstrations of this. The shield wall was the primary warfare tactic in Europe at this time. 

And you thought facing an enemy with rifles was a frightening possibility.

[Millhouse]

(07-15-2016, 04:57 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: I recommend "The Last Kingdom". It's based on the history of early England. A lot of good history in the show, but it is also entertaining.

Saxon England was divided into seven kingdoms: Northumbria, Mercia, East Anglia, Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Wessex. One by one, they were overrun by the Vikings in the 9th century. All but one: Wessex, a backwater farming community living among the marshlands. Alfred, the king of Wessex, harried the Vikings with guerrilla raids and eventually assembled and trained and army capable of meeting the Vikings in battle. Eventually, Alfred and his offspring would unify the former Saxon kingdoms into England. That would last until the time of Cnut and William... but those are different stories.

Just finished it last night, thought it was good overall. Had a few cameos in it from faces Ive seen in other movies, biggest being Rutger Hauer in first episode. But yeah I liked it. It was actually very good for being a made for t.v. series in the U.K. I could tell there were times they had a limited budget to work with, but did the best they could with it though. 

But what drew me to it was that I am just getting into that part of history. I've studied/read countless books on American Civil War for many years, then Colonial times, Revolution, westward expansion, WW2 and Vietnam as well. Then I got into Ancient Rome, and the classical age. The story of King Alfred is important because it bridges that gap of the dark ages after Rome fell and the medieval period that was just about to begin in England once it was unified under Alfred. And that is important for us because without it who knows how history would have evolved if England never came together like it did under him.

[JustWinBaby]

Narcos is back Sep 1st!!! New trailer out

[Millhouse]

(07-21-2016, 03:58 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote: Narcos is back Sep 1st!!!  New trailer out

Sweet! Big fan of the first season. 

Also just watched Stranger Things. Another great series. Hopefully they will announce a season 2 soon, one of my favorite new shows out there.

[Millhouse]

(07-18-2016, 06:18 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah, I've been checking that out. Not much into horror anymore, but this show transcends a single genre. They do a really good job capturing the time period (especially the opening credits.... very 80's!!) and keeping the story rolling along. 

Just read this at Rollin Stones, you will like. http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/features/stranger-things-how-netflixs-hit-resurrects-the-1980s-w429804

[Bengalholic]

(07-17-2016, 02:56 AM)Wes Mantooth Wrote: You all should give Stranger Things as try.  It's a new Netflix original.  It's a mystery/horror type of show.  Cool thing is it's set in 1983.  Best way I can describe is it's a Steven Speilberg meets Stephen King meets X Files type of show.  Currently has a crazy high rating on IMDB.

If you like 80's stuff and any those descriptions then I highly recommend this show.

We just finished watching this. Definitely liked it. Thought it had kind of an 'Abrams - Super 8' vibe. The Duffer brothers did a pretty nice job with it.

[CINwillWIN]

The IT crowd....



Stuck on this as of late, great, smart, comical...two thumbs up here!

[Bengalzona]

(07-18-2016, 05:07 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Just finished it last night, thought it was good overall. Had a few cameos in it from faces Ive seen in other movies, biggest being Rutger Hauer in first episode. But yeah I liked it. It was actually very good for being a made for t.v. series in the U.K. I could tell there were times they had a limited budget to work with, but did the best they could with it though. 

But what drew me to it was that I am just getting into that part of history. I've studied/read countless books on American Civil War for many years, then Colonial times, Revolution, westward expansion, WW2 and Vietnam as well. Then I got into Ancient Rome, and the classical age. The story of King Alfred is important because it bridges that gap of the dark ages after Rome fell and the medieval period that was just about to begin in England once it was unified under Alfred. And that is important for us because without it who knows how history would have evolved if England never came together like it did under him.

The rest of Europe inherited the shield wall from the Romans, who had inherited it from the Greeks. But the Romans were the real masters of it. They had a couple of clever tricks. 

First, the Romans used large shields (scutum) that covered almost their whole bodies. The Greeks had round shields that left their legs exposed. That's why you sometimes see Greek hoplites with armored greaves covering their shins, while the Roman soldiers just wore sandals. That one thing may seem small, but the less armor you had to wear, the less it wore you down over the long haul. Also with the large shields, each Roman soldier could be expected to defend his area. The Greeks carried their round shields in their left arms and their phalanx spears in their right. This left a gap on the right side. Greeks would shelter behind their buddy's shield to their right. Eventually, the whole formation would drift right because of this (and because enemies would try to flank them on the exposed right side). The Greeks adapted to this. The Romans thought it was silly. The Romans would also use their shields on their sides to protect their flanks and the inner soldiers would left them over their heads to protect against arrow or missile fire. 

Second, the Romans armed their troops with two javelins (pila) and a short sword (gladius). Sometimes they also carried a stabbing spear as well (hasta), but this was less common. This may seem rather light armament, considering they were sometimes facing long phalanx spears, archers, cavalry, etc. But it was how they used what they had that made the difference. The Roman pila javelins are not what people normally associate as javelins. Rather than being slim and light, they had thick square wood shafts, long iron heads and were quite heavy. There was a reason for this. They were thrown into the enemy formations: the first at about 50-60 yards, the second at about 20 yards. If they hit some unfortunate people, that was fine. Obviously, they would do substantial damage and sometimes cause disruption in the enemy ranks. But the secondary use of these explains their design. They were made to puncture shields when they hit. Unlike arrows, the weight of these heavy javelins rendered rendered a punctured shield useless. When fighting another enemy with a shield wall, they could render a good portion of the enemies shields in the first couple of ranks useless with two volleys. After tossing the javelins, the Romans would lock up their large shields and extend the gladius blades through a tiny gap between shields. The whole Roman line would move forward like some kind of tank with blades poking in and out. It would have been fearsome to have seen if you were on the other side. 

For some reason, some of the lessons of the Roman shield wall (large shields, javelins, etc.) were lost during the dark ages. But they never forgot the shield wall itself. It would be the basis for less mobile, defense first type warfare in the West for centuries. 


Roman pila


Gladius


Roman scutum and shield wall.


Roman hasta, or thrusting spear.

[*michaelsean*]

I'm pretty sure I would have been an archer. I would have witnessed a battle with shield walls at like age 6, and said "Yeah I'm not doing that. Any other warrior jobs?" Even if my side lost, I'd likely get a spear in the back as I fled which beats a 2 foot seax being shoved in my groin.

[Bengal Dude]

(07-21-2016, 11:10 PM)CINwillWIN Wrote: The IT crowd....



Stuck on this as of late, great, smart, comical...two thumbs up here!

I enjoy this show. They were going to make an American version, with Richard Ayoade still playing Moss, but it just never came together.

[*michaelsean*]

Zona, is it possible the shields changed to reflect a more diverse form of fighting? It seems the Roman shield was very effective for the shield wall, but not so much for single combat. The Norse or Danes for instance could find themselves fighting at sea or raiding or being raided. Often these would result in single combat. Attaking and breaching a fortified site could also involve a lot of single combat.

[*michaelsean*]

Im going to give the IT Crowd a try. I've always the the one guy. I know he was in Bridesmaids and Family Tree, and Im sure Ive seen him in other things.

[Benton]

(07-24-2016, 05:37 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Im going to give the IT Crowd a try.  I've always the the one guy.  I know he was in Bridesmaids and Family Tree, and Im sure Ive seen him in other things.

I liked it, and I'm not even an IT guy.

Started Stranger Things this weekend. Just the second episode, but I'm liking it so far, but wish Netflix had a better rating system (like, any?). I started watching it with my daughter, but probably wouldn't have if I'd known I'd have to say "hey, look over there" and fast foward through the (so far) every episode of teenagers making out.

[Bengalzona]

(07-23-2016, 03:47 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Zona, is it possible the shields changed to reflect a more diverse form of fighting?  It seems the Roman shield was very effective for the shield wall, but not so much for single combat.  The Norse or Danes for instance could find themselves fighting at sea or raiding or being raided.  Often these would result in single combat.  Attaking and breaching a fortified site could also involve a lot of single combat.

That's a good point. Seems reasonable.

When stirrups came into use in the west (just before the time of William the Conquerer), heavily armored knights became viable and fighting on horseback became more common. The mounted knights favored smaller shields for obvious reasons. So, there was also that.

[CINwillWIN]

(07-25-2016, 10:59 AM)Benton Wrote: I liked it, and I'm not even an IT guy.

Started Stranger Things this weekend. Just the second episode, but I'm liking it so far, but wish Netflix had a better rating system (like, any?). I started watching it with my daughter, but probably wouldn't have if I'd known I'd have to say "hey, look over there" and fast foward through the (so far) every episode of teenagers making out.

Rest assured, they don't use horrible language and zero nudity.

Just finished this series (Stranger Things)...was pretty good. Left a lot of questions, but from what I have been reading, there willing to make a few more seasons along with another season two in the works right now. 

I liked the old cinematography, it looks and sounds like it was filmed in the 80's...just great. 

[CINwillWIN]

(07-25-2016, 08:33 PM)CINwillWIN Wrote: Rest assured, they don't use horrible language and zero nudity.

Just finished this series (Stranger Things)...was pretty good. Left a lot of questions, but from what I have been reading, they're willing to make a few more seasons along with another season two in the works right now. 

I liked the old cinematography, it looks and sounds like it was filmed in the 80's...just great. 

[*Nate (formerly eliminate08)*]

Giving "Stranger Things" more props. Very realistic how they made everything look like 1983, great actors.

Wynona Rider is still pretty hot. The little girl Eleven is awesome, great little actress. Like Mike the kid.

Watched all 7 episodes in one day since i had the day off and it was VERY addicting.

Loved the show and am very happy they have more in the works. Pretty dark cause it is based on MK Ultra.

Those shitheads shouldn't be messing with that stuff, screwed up to say the least.

Great show though...