[Oleg Volk]

http://www.olegvolk.net/newphotos/tn4/boxcutter_s.jpg
Comments?

[sm]

Oleg, I like the contrast and message. I'm wondering if the second message in regard to airlines needs to be more ...simple.

"Today brigands armed with box cutters have proven successful against an airplane full of passengers" .

[Moparmike]

I like it, but whats a brigand? Remember I am a product of the public educational system.

Agree with 1973. You sort of have to lead people to the conclusion these days.:rolleyes: :scrutiny:

[SkunkApe]

I agree with re1973. I'd prefer "Today, what chance would brigands with box-cutters have against a hundred travellers?" for the second frame. The picture says it all.

Good stuff, as usual, Oleg.

[Brian Dale]

LH side: maybe substitute "knives" for "box-cutters?"

Great work, Oleg.

[sm]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=brigand

brig·and ( P ) Pronunciation Key (brgnd)
n.
A robber or bandit, especially one of an outlaw band.

I like the box cutter reference because of 9/11, Arming of pilots, and the kid of late whom admittd to putting the box cutters on a plane. Box cutters associate a terrorist image in people minds, think they always be associated with that image and 9/11 ... just my thoughts.

I'm thinking Oleg is conveying a message on persons being able to be resposible vs the gummit not allowing them to be. ie TSA, slow pilots training, gun laws...etc.

I like the contrast Oleg...good work as always

[Trisha]

Outstanding.

[tiberius]

They had box cutters 100 years ago?

[Dave R]

Excellent, excellent point. Disarmed passengers can't even resist boxcutters.

The image on the left doesn't create enough contrast for me though. The model does not look "1903" at first glance to me. The pistol is definitely appropriate...

And might an image of the Towers burning make the point on the right, stronger?

[sm]

duh, dumb me I see the box cutter on LH not being time relevent....

straight razor ?

straight razor of yore wielded by brigand vs box cutter today used by terroist

[lazhuward]

I really like the basic idea.

On the left, I'd prefer the chick to be holding the revolver in a passive position, sort of lying sideways on her leg; like she may have to use it in an extreme situation.

Everything else about the pic is great.

The subject should be handling the gun, though.

[ReadyontheRight]

It would be nice if the lady was traveling -- maybe walking outdoors by some trees -- and handling a firearm. Or putting it into a purse. OR she's putting the pistol into a purse while opening a door.

Left: "A century ago, brigands with knives and swords had no chance against even a single armed traveler."

Right: "Today, what chance do terrorists with boxcutters have against 100 unarmed airline passengers?"

Another winner Oleg!

[4v50 Gary]

Not that I'm an expert on fashion, but her hair style doesn't seem right for the Victorian era (photos of soldier's sweetheart or sister or mother often appears in the Civil War books I read). Unsure about the fashion too (most closed neck and buttoned high). Trivialities set aside, the message is great and I'd modify it along the lines of re1973 or readyontheright's suggestion.

[Standing Wolf]

I'm not sure what the message is.

I've seen the type face too many times. If it were an interesting Helvetica-esque face, I wouldn't object, but it's been used too many times by too many advertisers for too much stuff.

I don't understand the various point sizes.

I like the color a lot, although I think the aircraft would look better in the air. The model's hair style isn't a century old. Women wore their hair in much more elaborate styles even around the house in those days. Her dress and pose and expression are convincing.

Did I mention I like the color a lot?

[BluesBear]

In the olden days, in cooler weather proper ladies carried a "muff" in which to warm their hands. Many smaller revolvers of the day were advertized as "muff guns". Perhaps a photo of a lady with just the rearmost portion of the revolver in her hand just outside the muff would get the message across?

Also I second the razor idea. Perhaps a boxcutter shown under the airplane to reinforxe the razor blade?

I actually had to tell some people after 9-11 just exactly what a boxcutter was. :rolleyes:

[Stickjockey]

Have to agree about the lady's clothing. The pistol is mid/late 19th century(?) She should be in a high-collar, puffy-sleeved outfit with an hourglass corset and a bustle. Her current outfit looks to be about mid 16th/early 17th century.

Love the message, though.:D

[cordex]

Also I second the razor idea. Perhaps a boxcutter shown under the airplane to reinforxe the razor blade?
Hmm ...
That would seem to connect the revolver and the boxcutter as tools of the attacker.

How about three frames.
Frame 1: an individual in period dress walking along, or perhaps boarding a conveyance (train, boat, etc) with the overlayed image of the revolver.
Caption: A century ago, travelers could carry defensive tools to fight off attackers.

Frame 2: a picture of a metal detector, a guard wanding someone or maybe an X-ray machine. Something symbolizing the airport "security" arrangements.
Caption: Today, airline passengers are denied the means to defend ourselves.

Frame 3: The twin towers burning
Caption: This is progress? (or something like that)

Just my thoughts.

[MagKnightX]

First, a content comment: She does look more like a medieval barwench with better hygiene.

Second, a stylistic comment: the Rule of Thirds could be well applied here, in my opinion. Also, a larger airplane might be better.

[Alan Fud]

Another vote about the hairstyle -- she looks too current. Maybe have her put her hair up in a bun or something.

[Oleg Volk]

Got some other images which I'll try combining. Will simplify the caption, too...next version coming shortly.

[Mark Tyson]

I don't think I understand the message. Are you suggesting that we start allowing all passengers to board airplanes armed?

[Oleg Volk]

I don't recall any moves to outlaw carry on trains even after the "great train robbery"...why would places be any different. Bodyguards for VIPs carry on private planes, so they must think that an in-flight firefight is still alesser risk than a terrrorist takeover.

[BluesBear]

Why not Mark?

What maks an airplane any different that anywhere else?

I still think a metal detector is needed though.


BEEEEP!
"Excuse me ma'am are you carrying a firearm?"
"Yes I am"
"Do you have a CCDW license?"
"Yes I do, here it is."
(pause to actually read and confirm)
"Thank you ma'am you and your children have a nice flight."



:D

[Idaho]

I like the *notion* of comparing what was to a traveller available in the past to what is available today. However, my reaction to the photo and caption on the right was "NO CHANCE." Part of the reason I think the airport security regulations are ludicrous is that "today" (i.e. post-9/11) I believe that a terrorist armed with a box cutter, knife, pistol, or even machine gun is almost certainly going to be mobbed by the passengers, whether or not the passengers are armed.

I believe a big part of the reason 9/11 "worked" for the terrorists is that all the sheeple believed they would be flown to Cuba and held for a day or so as hostages, then they'd go home. Few imagined that the acts the terrorists had in mind were possible, so the passengers were passive. The story of Flight 93 shows what informed passengers will do.

So, if you are trying to say that modern travellers ought to be allowed to be armed (with which I would agree), then I don't think your caption does it.

Perhaps putting the modern photo into past tense would help - something to the effect that those on the planes on 9/11 should have had a chance to defend themselves, should have had arms allowed. If I can think of specific verbiage I will let you know.

Keep up the good work - I always enjoy seeing your latest product.

[4v50 Gary]

Speaking of corsettes...

When I was at Conner Prarie last week, the Clothing Curator, Erika, led a group of us on a tour of their storage area. She had arrayed on the table some period clothing for both men & women.

I didn't catch everything she said about corsettes but they evolved over the time. Originally they were designed for back support much like those things the delivery guys or wearhouse guys wear. The stiffener was either reed or bone. Their interpreters report them to be comfortable and supportive when having to do heavy chores. At one point the hourglass was in (can't remember when) but at another there was one that pushed the breasts way up and the desired figure was tapered like a cone. It all depends on the time frame.

Same with the dresses. The "puffy" sleeves were in for a while and then went out. Didn't pay too much attention as to when that was either.

Erika also had men's shirts out for us to see including an overshirt (worn over regular shirt & trousers) when working. They were pull over much like a sweatshirt and came down to about the knees. The buttons on the sleeves were very high on the cuff - that is, closer to the elbow than it is to the wrist like today's shirts (ha, I paid attention there).

According to her, Kevin Costner's Dances With Wolves is a terrible movie for period clothing. She pointed out that pants of the period went up to about where the nipple line is - much higher than what we wear today (provided we pull our pants up and don't let it sag and show our cheeks like the kiddies do).

My favorite is a bicorne (sp?) hat ala Napoleon. Unfortunately, there's no documents on it or clue as to when it was worn. I suspect it's either a militia or part of a "civic" uniform. From the holes on it, it appears to have had lace around it at one time.

Authenticity is a must and everyone at Conner Prarie is loaned one set of clothes after which they must fabricate their own (by hand) within a year's time. Said pattern and material must be approved in advance and the finished product is inspected before the interpreter is permitted to wear them. Little wonder Erika is called the "Stitch Nazi."

[Oleg Volk]

http://www.olegvolk.net/newphotos/tn4/boxcutter2_s.jpg
How about this?

[4v50 Gary]

Much better. :D

[C.R.Sam]

Hundred years ago only takes us back to 1903.

Candid photos from then are not common.
Posed photos from then are much more common.

A big difference.

My housewife/farmer grandmother usually looked much like Oleg's picture when dressed for Sunday.

My touring pianist grandmother looked a bit like that when at home. But was always more formal in hair and dress when in public.

My Mother was born in the 19th century. We do have a fair amount of photos from a hundred years ago. Well....my daughter has them now.

Sam.

[BluesBear]

Once common people traveled armed to discourage bandits.

Todays reguations, in some cases, actually encourage bandits
and hijackers
and terriorists

[Idaho]

I like the new version, though you might consider substituting "travellers" for "all lawful passengers".

[pytron]

New one is much improved. I had the same feeling as Idaho when I read the captions on the first one.

-Pytron

[Oleg Volk]

Updated. Also uploaded the hi-res version.

[Hkmp5sd]

In relating the past to present, slightly rephrase the 2nd comment and use a different image.

"A century ago, brigands armed with box-cutters had no chance against even a single traveller."

"Today, what chance do 200 travellers have against brigands with box-cutters?"

And then use the image of the aircraft splattered across the ground after the passengers attempted to retake the aircraft without weapons.

[Oleg Volk]

Need a high-res picture of a crashed aircraft.

[Gordon Fink]

I believe that a terrorist armed with a box cutter, knife, pistol, or even machine gun is almost certainly going to be mobbed by the passengers, whether or not the passengers are armed.

Yes, but it would be nice if the passengers could live to tell about it.

~G. Fink

[Mark Tyson]

Armed passengers? You guys may very well be right... but I don't think the general public will take this idea seriously, at least not yet.

It was a hard enough battle just to get a select group of pilots armed. Get the public used to armed civilians on the street first via CCW laws. As the predicted "shooting gallery" fails to materialize, then we can start pushing in this direction.

If you do pursue a poster/material on this theme, how about concentrating on flight 93. Ask "who stopped these terrorists?" Not the military, not the air force. It was the passengers.

[Baba Louie]

Once common people traveled armed to discourage bandits.
Today?
Simple is as simple does.
Let the viewer complete the message?
I like the latter over the former poster photo layout due to models setting, costume, hair and arms... but whadda I know?

Adios