Print

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

[pisskop]

Oh shit. You okay?

Nah he died

Thanks all of you.  Im fine, a little whiplash.

My car though . . . its a good thing I was saving for a new one, I'll just say.

[Doomblade187]

Ouch. Remember to get checked out, whiplash can mess you up.

[hops]

Unless you live in America then dying is a preferable alrernative to payin the medical bills.

[Greiger]

*facedesk*

Muzzle brakes don’t redirect gases backwards to reduce recoil, they redirect gases sideways! If you were to the redirect gases backwards, you’d end up spraying hot gas (plus other particulate) into the shooters face. I’m not a gunsmith but even I know something as simple as that.

I’ve always heard of Wikipedia being wrong, but this is the first time I’m seeing it in person.

Before you facedesk, it's good to make sure you're right. Muzzle brakes with swept back gills are quite common, as I'm sure a minute of googling will attest.

Not a Tank expert but I think they are often directed backwards on tank cannons as well, because the tank crew will be nice and safe inside the large moving metal house that does not give a crap about a short dusting of 1000 degree gasses.

P.S. That sounded more hostile than I intended.  More of a muzzle brakes are also used on large gun systems ans not just on man portable weapons, and the article may have been talking about the larger systems.

[Reelya]

Quite a few staff of our company saw a preview of “The Lion King,” discussed this subject and came to the conclusion that you cannot avoid having these similarities as long as you use animals as characters and try to draw images out of them. ... Therefore, our company's general opinion is 'The Lion King' is a totally different piece from 'The Jungle Emperor' and is an original work completed by the Disney production's long-lasting excellent production technique.

But that also sounds like an attempt to avoid getting embroiled in a lawsuit, since it's mirroring Disney's own language back at them.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 "original work" was the main marketing spiel for the Lion King. And the rest before that sound pretty identical to the statements made by Disney people. Then it follows it up with some truly suck-up language. When someone is backing you up, but they also sound like they're repeating your PR points, it doesn't come across as really authentic.

And the fact that Disney themselves put a Cease and Desist order on the Kimba movie that came out around the same time (and which was completely based on part of the 1950s comic series that hadn't been adapted before) suggests Disney doesn't actually believe their "they're totally different" argument. There's also the fact that Roy Disney (Walt's brother) was online referring to the character as "Kimba" not "Simba" during early pre-production, which is historical documentary evidence.

This lists some of the similarities, i'll cite a few less-known ones:
http://www.neatorama.com/2015/04/06/The-Lyin-King/

* The main characters’ names are remarkably similar: Simba and Kimba.

* Both are orphaned as cubs and destined to become rulers.

* Each lost their father in treacherous circumstances.

* In The Lion King, Scar enlists the aid of three hyenas (Shenzi, Banzai, and Ed). In Kimba the White Lion, Claw enlists the aid of two hyenas (Tib and Tab).

* One of Simba’s friends is a hysterical yet comical bird (named Zazu). One of Kimba’s friends is a hysterical yet comical bird (named Pauley).

* In The Lion King, Simba turns to a wise but eccentric baboon (named Rakifi) for guidance. In Kimba the White Lion, Kimba turns to a wise but eccentric baboon (named Dan’l Baboon) for guidance.

* Simba has a cute girlfriend cub named Nala. Kimba has a cute girlfriend cub named Kitty.

* Simba’s chief nemesis is Scar, an evil lion with a scar over his left eye. Kimba’s primary nemesis is Claw, an evil one-eyed lion with a scar over his blind left eye.

* Kimba and Simba each speak to the spirit of their father, who appears in the clouds.

The image of Simba standing on Pride Rock in The Lion King is almost identical to an image of Kimba as a grown lion, standing on a jutting rock surveying his kingdom in Kimba the White Lion.

[Maximum Spin]

The official story is that some of the people working on the project knew about Kimba and in at least one case thought they were making a licensed translation, while the directors had never heard of it, so they ended up incorporating influence from the people who thought it was related without realising where those ideas came from.

To be honest, this sounds completely plausible. Failures in communication like that happen all the time.

[Reelya]

Idk read some lists of similarities, e.g. i linked one in my last post, and that doesn't even consider a ton of other things, e.g. most of the shot-for-shot comparisons.

The whole thing sounds like official damage-control logic, for PR reasons, not legal reasons. And the reason they felt they could take whatever they like from it, is this:

Disney may have “borrowed” the idea, but they were legally protected. Mushi Productions, the company that made Kimba the White Lion, went bankrupt in 1973 and U.S. rights to the show ran out in 1978. That means Kimba was in the public domain.

Which is clearly within Disney's oeuvre: appropriate anything that doesn't have copyright protection. But for anything newish, then you want to do PR to state that that's not what you're doing, for obvious reasons. While it might be legally o.k. to appropriate something because of a copyright loophole, you don't want to be seen to be doing that.

It's not just that they have a bird, a baboon, etc, it's that they have the exact same animals as the MC's friend group, and each one fills the same role. If Simba's best friends had been a talking zebra and a hippo, they'd have more credibility that they didn't just rip the setting off completely. But they went with a wise old baboon mentor, a small colorful wise-cracking comedy-relief bird, and a cute lion cub girlfriend. Meanwhile, his dad died tragically, and talks to him from the clouds (referenced in The Simpsons jab at Disney), and his dad's old rival who they both face off with, is a crafty lion (with a scar on one eye) with hyena henchmen. It's a little past the "well it's set in Africa, so of course the animals are similar" right here.

[heydude6]

*facedesk*

Muzzle brakes don’t redirect gases backwards to reduce recoil, they redirect gases sideways! If you were to the redirect gases backwards, you’d end up spraying hot gas (plus other particulate) into the shooters face. I’m not a gunsmith but even I know something as simple as that.

I’ve always heard of Wikipedia being wrong, but this is the first time I’m seeing it in person.

Before you facedesk, it's good to make sure you're right. Muzzle brakes with swept back gills are quite common, as I'm sure a minute of googling will attest.

Not a Tank expert but I think they are often directed backwards on tank cannons as well, because the tank crew will be nice and safe inside the large moving metal house that does not give a crap about a short dusting of 1000 degree gasses.

Spoiler: lot's of pictures (click to show/hide)

Notice what all of these tanks have in common? They all have sideways muzzle brakes. None of them are rearwards. The tan Sherman you see at the beginning has a muzzlebreak that kind of looks backwards, but if you look at it closely (such as in this high resolution image, or if that's not good enough here's a picture of the back) then you can't really say it goes backwards (I'll be honest, the angles aren't the best, but after tons of trawling the internet this is the only tank muzzle break I found that looks remotely controversial.

Want to know why? Because when a tank fires, this happens (though imagine it with tanks rather than an artillery gun):



See all that gas? See all those vulnerable troops behind the cannon? Wouldn't it be terrible if that gas was vented towards those troops? And that's only the visible stuff. After the hot gases vent out of the muzzle brake, there's also a shock wave.

Back blast is a serious concern when it comes to military cannons. You don't hear about it often because most soldiers are smart enough to keep a safe distance from tanks, but people do talk about it.

Here's an excerpt from an old military study where they were asking tank personnel about their experiences in tank so they could figure out what improvements to make in the next model. This is page 16.

SELECTED QUOTATIONS FROM THE SURVEY WHICH ILLUSTRATE THE PROBLEMS
PROBLEMS OF THE COMMANDER

2. I was acting as a tank commander on an M-4 tank with a 76-mm gun. We were firing on the range in October 1951. Each time the gun was fired the back blast not only carried a great amount of concussion back into my face, but also hot gases. The most objectionable feature of the back blast was the small particles of metal rotating band that were blown back with great force which lodged metal particles in both my face and hands. Even though binoculars were used, one particle lodged in my nose about 1/4 inch from my eye. Another officer actually had a particle blown into his eye and was hospitalized for about two months. This officer was sent to specialists who were unable to remove the particle and it may eventually lead to the loss of his eye. The combination of the flash, concussion, and flying metal from the rotating band make it difficult for the tank commander to accurately spot the hit of the round in order to make adjustments in the fire on the target. If goggles are used, it makes it almost impossible to use the binoculars which are necessary.

Anyway, before I continue my discussion, I need to concede a few points:

• The main reason for my initial outrage was caused by that section particular of the article being about cannons (such as tank cannons), and as someone who has an above average knowledge of that subject, I spotted the blatant lie and felt moved to make a post on the subject.
  
  Unfortunately in my rage, I extrapolated my knowledge of tank muzzle brakes and began making predictions on small arms muzzle brakes. This was wrong and there are several backwards small arms muzzle brakes out there. Though from my preliminary experience with google, they do not seem to be as "common" as Il Palazzo implied. Here's an image of a backwards muzzle break for the Barret 82A1 50 CQ 20 inches
  
  
• With my "If you were to the redirect gases backwards, you’d end up spraying hot gas (plus other particulate) into the shooters face." analogy, I outright stated that the primary danger of back blast was to the shooter. That is not the case, the danger of back blast  is directed towards any allies that may be nearby. The previous sentence I wrote is a blatant lie told from sheer ignorance which was rightfully attacked by Greiger when he talked about the danger of backblast while one was inside a heavily armoured tank (the commander in my excerpt was likely outside when the incident happened). It is a shame that he then went on to say that muzzle brakes on tanks were typically directed backwards (in my google crusade, I have not found a single tank where this was the case), but information on tank back blast is very difficult to find on the internet so I should not fault someone for not knowing much about the subject.

With these concessions out of the way, let me get to my final point.

Wikipedia said in their article that modern cannons (such as tank and artillery cannons) use muzzle brakes to redirect the gases rearwards. This is false. No popular successful tank has ever used a rearwards muzzle brake to redirect gases (for the reasons that I just outlined above). Even if the editor was extrapolating his knowledge of small arms muzzle brakes to military cannon muzzle brakes, there is still a clear gap in his knowledge. No muzzle brake is purely 100% backwards, there is always at least some gases being vented to the side or to the top or even forwards. In this ad for a backwards muzzle brake, the vendor clearly states that "Three angled slots and three holes on the top will blast the majority of the energy out the sides (left and right) with a little gas sent up for recoil control". He only mentions the backwards thing in a single bullet point, while what I quoted was from the main pitch.

I would have been a lot less pissed off if the editor of the Wikipedia article simply said that muzzle brakes redirected gases sideways rather than rearwards. Not only would he have been factually correct when talking about the cannons, he also wouldn't have demonstrated the fact that he was ignorant of how the typical muzzle brake worked.

Anyway, thanks for reading my rant. I don't want there to be any bad blood between us, so I hope this is an adequate explanation of my side of the issue.

[overseer05-15]

ive never seen lion king. is it even worth watching

[Egan_BW]

I guess you could claim that the back part of a recoilless rifle is simply a very large rear-facing muzzle break. ;P

[Rolan7]

ive never seen lion king. is it even worth watching

Yeah, it's actually one of the better Disney films.  Ignoring that that involves comparing films across many decades, and that I haven't technically seen Hunchback, Hercules, or even Mulan.

It's certainly better than (original) Beauty and the Beast, and Pocahontas.

[heydude6]

I guess you could claim that the back part of a recoilless rifle is simply a very large rear-facing muzzle break. ;P

Can't really say because I don't know much about RRs, but backblast is still a serious concern.

[TamerVirus]

Listening to Philly police scanner. Sounds like the city is burning down in mad chaos. Didn't ya'll win?!?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Ah, but that is the unspoken dark side of an upset. If you live to see it pass into history, that high becomes lost to you forever. Die today, and the glory of this victory will be eternally unblemished.

[Reelya]

ive never seen lion king. is it even worth watching

I was going to quip that the only animated movie you need to see is Takeshi Koike's Redline from 2009 (15 minute review showcasing the animation - worth a look if you're interested in animation technique).

But then I noticed something in the comments, which was that Disney made an animated show called Motorcity a few years after Redline came out, and all animators who worked on that were required to watch Redline. Motorcity reviews positively talk about the stylistic and unique way that kinetic action is animated in Motorcity. However, the scenes showcasing this show a striking resemblance to Takeshi Koike's signature style, both his unique take on hand-to-hand combat scenes, and even down to shots such as a racing car that's going too fast, and has the chassis stripped away by wind pressure. (7 minute motorcity review, starting fron the relevant shots).

The stylistic and thematic similarities are pretty striking, and remember that the guy has a whole 20 episodes worth of shots to showcase the animation in Motorcity, yet most of the shots seem very similar to ones in Redline, which suggests the "money shots" (the cool action bits) from Motorcity were lifted directly from the Redline movie. note that Motorcity was canceled after only one season, for no real reason. Which could suggest that they were threatened with legal proceedings and settled privately.