This is a mistake that has apparently just been discovered this month, so answers are thin.
Here is the only decent one I could find:
“What appears to have happened here,” u/itsjustmonty_ reports, “is that the camera traveled slightly too far and somehow no one noticed while cropping the footage.” They include a string of uncompressed shots from the Blu-ray and a wild behind-the-scenes clip that shows a crew member off in the distance while filming the shot roughly 10 seconds in. In other posts, they reiterate that this was not their original discovery and they are simply reposting on Reddit to shed light on something that bubbled up from other corners of Star Wars fandom.
Regarding the real-life identity of Anakin’s overlooker, an early suggestion was that it could be Nash Edgerton, Ewan McGregor’s stunt double.
I essentially concur. This was a good, not great movie. It had big shoes to fill, and it didn’t, but even in falling short of Fury Road it is still better than 90% of movies.
Hemsworth as a goober failure of a villain was great. From the trailers I was very concerned that the movie was going to try and make him as big and scary as Immortan Joe. I am very happy the movie was smart enough to go another way.
Anya Taylor-Joy was for the most part great. She doesn’t have the physical build that Theron did in Fury Road. For the most part in this movie she had long hair and was wearing baggy or thick clothes, which disguised it. I think only in the ending where her hair was shaved and she was wearing a short sleeve top did it become distractedly apparent that she wasn’t on Theron’s level of gainz.
The pacing was strange, especially with the chapter title cards, which were frequent in the first half and then sort of disappeared as the move went on. I’m still not sure who the narrator was either. I think it was the old man with all the tattoos but am unsure.
Either way, worth watching. Unlike Fury Road, I don’t think watching on the big screen enhanced it in any way though. I will surely rewatch this movie at home at some point.
I tend to use World War Scenics because they are cheap and have a decent variety of colors. Honestly I don’t think grass tuft quality varies so much between brands to worry about finding the best one.
If you’re just starting to do bases, I’d recommend popping by WalMart or somewhere equal and buying cheap craft paints (for the US Applebarrel paint brand). Use these to paint and drybrush your bases. No need to use expensive hobby paints for a dirty base.
Do drybrush if any of the texture area will be visible, even if the paste is already a good foundation color.
Other than tufts, if you are making bases as somewhere with foilage, I’d recommend getting flock. Woodland Scenics sell jugs of flock in different mixes. Get one that looks right. Apply PVA glue to the base and then dunk it in the flock and gently tap off the excess and let it dry.
Not nearly as bad as you would think. The velocity of the rounds is slow. I’ve fired a full stocked M79 in a one handed dueling pose with no problems, and from that experience wouldn’t hesitate to fire a sawed off one.
Watch the video, it goes in depth on their tank production methods, and specifically the inefficiencies within it.
They dominated the battlefield with their abundance of mechanization.
Germany strongly pushed that exact propaganda, especially at the beginning of the war. They wanted their military to be perceived as bleeding edge. That perception has stuck, but it simply wasn’t true. Germany was not nearly as mechanized as it wanted to be perceived as. Any early advantage it had from stockpiles of pre-war production (of early war designs which were often outdated by mid or late war) were absolutely crushed by allied numbers, and America alone vastly outproduced for almost every year of the war.
The impression I’ve gotten from both past reading, and the video is that they had not at that time shifted to a modern assembly line industrialized kind of mindset. America had things like it’s automotive industry, which had pushed that earlier than in Germany.
Everything Germans made had a larger amount of handcrafting in it as a necessity of the workflow, and because of that handcrafting there was pride by the individual workers to make really fine quality. The “IDGAF, it meets spec, send it.” mentality of an American lineworker who was running more automated systems or compartmentalized parts of the work was more suitable.
On top of that, in the Nazi government, individual military leaders were jockying and sending all their own requests for modifications right to the factories. The US had a centralized system for modification requests that prevented that. I don’t think that was an intended feature by the Germans, but a situation that rose organically out of their lack of experience with production at scale.
Honestly it’s something that should be solved by tactics not engineering. The Germans in WW2 seemed hyperfixated on engineering to chase some sort of ever shifting ideal instead of settling for a “good enough” in terms of a standard design or baseline and running with it in production. Excellent academic video on the subject.
Directional charges mounted on armor as an anti-infantry defense measure have never really been anything I’m aware of having been institutionally adopted. It’s the kind of equipment that armor crews shouldn’t be putting themselves in positions to use. (Yes, I’m aware of the M113 MCCM carrier- totally different application than defense of the vehicle in combat.)