Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Naturegirl1999]

There have been.

but it's usually around the theme of carnivorous plants rather than parasitic plants. See for example adaptations of
The Day of the Triffids. The best one is the UK mini-series. There was an American B-movie version which is very bad and doesn't follow the plot of the book.

I’ve seen Little Shop of Horrors, the plant wasn’t a parasite though

[Reelya]

I didn't say it was. Parasitic plants eat other plants. Movies focus on plants that eat animals. There's no drama in parasitic plants. What's it going to be about? A horror movie that your oak tree is being eaten alive by moss?

[Naturegirl1999]

Parasitic plants in the movies could grow inside the hosts and/or control them, carnivorous plants are free living, while parasites use their host as both housing and food. Lions are not considered parasites of zebras, they’re predators. The larvae of various wasps are parasites since they eat their food from within the animal.

[Reelya]

It could, however plants don't really move, so when they want to do that, they go with animal parasites.

But you can look up "parasitic fungus horror movie" and get some of those. Fungal spores just makes more sense than a full blown plant growing inside someone.
https://movie-monster.fandom.com/wiki/Splinter_Fungus

[feelotraveller]

Different hat, no wide black belt, white fur somewhat absent, different body morphology (yes coke santa is plump but in that Nast image he is an obese balloon - not the image coke projected or has become the mainstay in the common mind) sack rather than backpack, different buttons.

This has everything in it, including the white fur trim on the coat. Every single element of the Sundblom Santa is already present here.

Yeah except for everything I mentioned several posts earlier.

And I'm not surprised you found a couple of images of santa with mistletoe, since it is highly associated with christmas just as santa is.  As I said above maybe it does happen rarely and I've just failed to notice it.  But it is not that common.

As far as I can tell you are avoiding any real engagement with the discussion and just want to pull comments out of context to rubbish them.  You asked for changes, I listed several and you've gone on full steam ahead repeatedly saying there are absolutely no changes without engaging with them (apart from the mistletoe).  I do agree the glasses are new but also not essential, an added extra but not a change to the core.  However I'm pretty sure that kids will commonly list amongst the things santa has: a floopy red cap (nightcap), a wide black belt, a sack of toys, none of which are characteristic of Nast.

[bloop_bleep]

You two have been naughty children. Santa will give you both coal this year.

[Reelya]

You seem to be talking about the exact floppiness of the red hat, the exact wideness of his belt etc, rather than having a red cap and a dark belt however. It's the same fucking character, and now it's down to quibbling about extremely minor details that are already within the parameters for even modern depictions of Santa. Like I said, such things are a far cry from your original claim that Coca Cola in any meaningful way redefined this character. His hat is floppier and his belt is wider are what you come up with when there's literally nothing better to point out.

Maybe if he didn't have a belt before but does have one now, or didn't have a red cap before, but has one now, those would be some kind of point about something. I clipped your entire post in context however, and that was what I was replying to. No, modern Santa didn't erupt whole-cloth out of Coca Cola marketing in a way that is directly contrastable with traditional European depictions. As for the sack, well Nast Santa has a backpack full of toys in both images I linked. While that's not exactly a sack, I don't think it's evidence that Coca Cola redefined what people think Santa looks like 'in all conceivable metrics' or anything like that. That's about accessories, not the core character design. (EDIT: and important point: Nast's Santa wears the backpack because of his roots in promoting unionism during the Civil War, that's a military pack. Other artists of even the 19th century depict Santa with the more common sack).

In fact, you're defending that point but can only come up with what are very minor cosmetic details which aren't even on the level of it being a different character. Which proves the entire point.

I think people are wedded to the myth that Coca Cola remade Santa in their image because it rubs them the right way as a parable which reflects their concerns about capitalism and consumerism, but it's not really defensible from available evidence. Coke's Santa is just a minor variant on already-existing Santas, so the fixation on Coca Cola is clearly not warranted. Nast's claim, as the creator of the modern idea of what Santa is, is much more defensible, and the fact that his earlier versions aren't as "Santa-ish" as the latter ones only serves to make the case stronger that he first codified the character's major modern traits. Anyone who does in fact spread the Coke myth is doing so precisely to play off the red-and-white Coke / Santa, color scheme thing, they're clearly not concerned with things like hat-floppiness or belt-thickness.

If you're saying they removed a sprig of mistletoe from his hat and made his hat slightly floppier and his belt a touch wider, that might be so, however at this point it's devolved into proving nothing about anything, because nobody looks at the Nast Santas and sees anything except Santa, and very few people would even notice there's anything amiss. Pretty much any kid, you show them the Nast Santas and ask who that is and they're going to immediately say "that's Santa!" and if you ask if they notice if anything is off they probably couldn't tell you what that is. Which basically disproves the important part of the Coca Cola theory.
(EDIT: the theory in the form you originally presented it is just plain spreading misinformation, since the underlying implications are clearly that we now think Santa is red and white due to Coca Cola, which I why I pulled you up on that).

EDIT 2: And remember, it's not just the Nast Santas - there's a good 50 years in between Nast and Sundblom in which other artists were all depicting Santa too, and it's clear to see that plenty of people were drawing and painting Santa in a manner immediately recognizable to us today, well before any Coca Cola thing. Just google Santa and any year to find examples pre-Coca Cola.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2014/dec/18/here-comes-santa-claus-a-visual-history-of-saint-nick-in-pictures

https://www.wpclipart.com/holiday/Christmas/santa/Santa_illustrated/Santa_in_snow_1918.jpg.html

[MrRoboto75]

why not settle this with a nice, refreshing bottle of Coca Cola^(TM)

[Rolan7]

Because Dr Perky (off-brand Dr Pepper) tastes almost as bad for a lot cheaper?
(I don't know why I can't stand Coke or Pepsi)

[Egan_BW]

It tastes like it's trying to fight my mouth, which is good for some reason!

[methylatedspirit]

In my Economics class, one of my classmates sent me this:


One of the questions was to find T. Can you find T? I certainly can't; I believe there isn't enough information, at least when it's approached as a math question. You're literally given only one point for the lines, and no slope nor y-intercept is given. How am I supposed to work with that? I assumed that the supply "curves" (lines) are parallel (as they usually are in Economics), but it's still not enough to find a solution.

EDIT: Oh, and there's an indirect tax of 2... currency units per item.

[Naturegirl1999]

In my Economics class, one of my classmates sent me this:


One of the questions was to find T. Can you find T? I certainly can't; I believe there isn't enough information, at least when it's approached as a math question. You're literally given only one point for the lines, and no slope nor y-intercept is given. How am I supposed to work with that? I assumed that the supply "curves" (lines) are parallel (as they usually are in Economics), but it's still not enough to find a solution.

Agreed, a grid and numbers on the axes are needed (axes like plural for axis not the weapon/cutting tool)

[MrRoboto75]

If the tax is 2, then the total tax burden is the rectangle from 4.8 to T to 70.  Consumers pay 4.8-4, or .80 cents of the tax. Producers must pay the remaining burden, 1.2 bucks.  4-1.2 leaves me with $2.80, which should be the revenue producers get after the tax.  4.8 minus T should represent how far the supply curve shifted due to the tax, which should be the tax rate.

I think that's correct, I majored in this but micro was like 5 years ago and post grad I barely ended up using what I learned.

[methylatedspirit]

I've re-read my notes to check. I think that's right. So then:

The distance from 4.8 to T is equal to the total tax rate (2),
The distance from 4.8 to 4 is equal to the tax burden on the consumer,
The distance from 4 to T is equal to the tax burden on the producer.

Then the whole question becomes far easier and it's just the same as solving 4.8 - T = 2 for T. T = 2.8, so it's consistent with your answer.

[scriver]

I just want somebody to make a Nasty Santa joke