|
Yo SMG I know this is slightly off-topic, but I feel like I saw you or someone in this thread mention that you've never watched Evangelion, neither the series nor the movies. Why? That series is tailor-made for your gimmick. It's a show written by a man in the depths of despair after losing his father and even to this day has left an undeniable impact(lol) on the entire anime culture if not media as a whole, and is perhaps one of the most debatable and interpretable series ever. Especially considering the fascismchat in this thread, I'd love to see a Cinema Discusso analysis thread on Eva as a series + movies(there's four, soon to be five movies, however the series has to be watched before the movies).
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:51 |
|
|
I think I recall SMG just saying that he doesn't like anime. Still, I'd like to see him take on Eva.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:13
|
|
|
Hey, to each his own. But if there's one anime SMG ought watch, it'd be Eva. I would GENUINELY be interested in reading his interpretations of it, because it's like nonstop subtext.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:14
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:It's a shame you don't like communism, because you'd pass very well for a Trotskyist with that emphasis on condescending to the masses and justified anti-intellectualism. It's almost as though the person writing that text might have done so intentionally. So as to make a point about co-opting ideas and language.  Also thanks! If you weren't aware, yes, SMG is having fun on two levels. He gets to muck about with analysis, which is his primary interest and itself a lot of fun (not to mention the bread and butter of the Cinema Discusso subforum), and he also gets to have fun with taking the unwary for a runaround. By which I mean he's trolling and having a laugh. It's not a fiction or even subtext to the discussion, he outright admitted it a hundred pages back. Which is why I like his posts so much. He's extremely honest and imbued with an impish sense of fun, even if I often disagree with his conclusions. Sure, it's fair to say it's his gimmick, but he's one of the few people who post with a gimmick and can spin gold out of it. Sorry if you hadn't caught on sooner, but there's nothing wrong with engaging the SomethingAwful comedy website forums on a purely textual level. And when people say they think SMG is overrated, they're not talking about his analyses, they're talking about his gimmick. No, literally. That's it. Oligopsony posted:I'd actually agree that the names - at least at the "they were both religious" level - are one of the stretchier elements. I also think any one of the Jesus parallels with the baby Kaiju is likely to be tendentious, but that the sheer concentration of them is probably not. Me too. I feel like I've just died at a gig.  To be fair, it's a personal bias of mine not to give too much faith in the abilities of the writer. Though the quality of the script and the quality of research are two entirely different things, and it's entirely possible Mr. Beacham didn't just stumble onto it accidentally. And, heh, Baby Kaiju Jesus did die so that mankind could be saved (but so did Gipsy Danger Jesus). But really, I know it's your interest but I'm loathe to subscribe to religious analysis in a work because religious text and subtext is, well, if not a well and done thing it's certainly victim of a lot of laziness both from the side of the critic and the creator. Regardless of authorial intent, it's extremely difficult to take it seriously precisely because it's rife for abuse by people who, say, want to take the easy way out when writing college papers (not a dig at you, but rather speaking from experience). It's an entirely irrational reaction, to be sure, but it's one caused by being in close proximity to the sort of people whose sincere arguments makes media analysis a joke. Except to those sincerely interested in the matter, but that interest has much less to do with the material being critiqued and more to do with the enjoyment of forming the analysis in the first place. I'd be down exploring man's relationship with God through times of crisis and faith's place in a world increasingly faithless, but I feel haphazardly assigning religious significance wherever a slightest correlation could be found merely cheapens religion into a source of EZ Bake symbolism. (See: Neon Genesis Evangelion.) Speaking of which. 
Runa fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
BKJ really needs to have Chau's balisong through one of its palms or sticking out of it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:04
|
|
|
I don't have a problem with SMG's gimmick. But when he gets all Simpsons-ey; interesting and amusing for a while, but drags on for 20 years(or in this case, like 50 pages) too long that it gets tiring. If he's still doing it now, that's a bit much for a single string of discussion. If you were able to read all that for 80 or so pages, all the more power to you, but I kinda stopped reading this thread after like three pages of fascismchat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:14
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:BKJ really needs to have Chau's balisong through one of its palms or sticking out of it. More blasphemy? I like your style!  Captain Invictus posted:I don't have a problem with SMG's gimmick. But when he gets all Simpsons-ey; interesting and amusing for a while, but drags on for 20 years(or in this case, like 50 pages) too long that it gets tiring. If he's still doing it now, that's a bit much for a single string of discussion. If you were able to read all that for 80 or so pages, all the more power to you, but I kinda stopped reading this thread after like three pages of fascismchat. Yeah, can't blame you. I stuck around since I've been watching toychat and boxofficechat like a hawk, but poo poo's been ridiculous. EDIT: [Fuckit, I've moved this removed bit to the new post, it's only right.] Runa fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Aug 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:30
|
|
|
My gimmick is victory!T.G. Xarbala posted:I will say the thread's habit of drawing conclusions from correlation rather than causation in media text leads to rampant intellectual dishonesty that strikes the lay reader as absurd precisely because it is so. Attributing the scientist references to a religious understanding rather than a coincidence of the writer's search for Historical Scientist Names to reference puts a lot of credit on Beacham's shoulders. And PacRim is not a movie known for intelligent writing. Visual intelligence abounds, however, but that is mostly Del Toro's domain. Quite a few of the great minds throughout the ages pondered matters both spiritual and scientific and often made no distinction between the two, and this leads to unfortunate misunderstanding when someone attempts to mine history for names to reference when the person writing the text didn't put that thought into it and someone who does know picks up on a connection that was lost to the person at the writing desk. Beachham is irrelevant - what is relevant is that when people hear "Newton", they understand the 'clockwork universe' of Newtonian physics. Gottfried Leibinz is more obscure, but not unknown: his Monadology was illustrated recently in the film Source Code, as he's nowadays closely associated to virtual reality and cyberspace theories. This basic dichotomy is evident in the film, as Newton deals with the slimy latex props while Gottfried gazes into glowing CGI wireframe simulations. But what these two have in common is their belief in mechanical pre-determinism on the one hand and, on the other, pre-established harmony. Gottlieb's character outright says that math is the handwriting of God or whatever. That they are really talking about theology and a "grand design" is overt. I think also that they are both wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:Except to those sincerely interested in the matter, but that interest has much less to do with the material being critiqued and more to do with the enjoyment of forming the analysis in the first place. quote:SuperMechagodzilla posted:I think also that they are both wrong. (Incidentally, when Newt mentioned his Kaiju drift theory I knew it was going to happen (duh), but when Gottlieb propounded his certainty in the event sequencing I thought he was going to be proven wrong, and thought falsely that I was vindicated when he received the phone call that it was only a double event. Did others have the same experience?)
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 02:23
|
|
|
Oligopsony posted:(Incidentally, when Newt mentioned his Kaiju drift theory I knew it was going to happen (duh), but when Gottlieb propounded his certainty in the event sequencing I thought he was going to be proven wrong, and thought falsely that I was vindicated when he received the phone call that it was only a double event. Did others have the same experience?) Nah. One of the reoccurring ideas in PC is that one person isn't always right and the best results come from the melding of multiple personalities and ideas. Them both being right was the only way for it to make sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But what these two have in common is their belief in mechanical pre-determinism on the one hand and, on the other, pre-established harmony. Gottlieb's character outright says that math is the handwriting of God or whatever. That they are really talking about theology and a "grand design" is overt. I think also that they are both wrong. Good point! My apologies to all. It's just hard to internalize when the movie itself is begging the audience to mock them. And when the citizens of Hong Kong are looking for a greater purpose to their peril, it's hard not to look at a kaiju corpse and just see dosh. People looking for God through crisis is overt, and given that both scientists are searching directly and indirectly for meaning through their work I'll concede that to Oligopsony. My kneejerk skepticism was unwarranted. Though you'll certainly disagree with me when I subscribe to the idea of Gipsy Danger Jesus rather than Baby Kaiju Jesus. Humanity looked to God for an answer and He answered. Old Testament style. Oligopsony posted:Is anybody in this thread acting for reasons other than entertainment? If so they're probably not making the best use of their time. Don't I know it! Also, I was pretty sure Gottlieb's theory was going to be pan out since it would've been such a waste if he were wrong.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 02:57
|
|
|
DStecks posted:I loved this movie, and this is a weird complaint, but did anybody else find the sound mixing to be godawful? I found dialogue frequently hard to hear, and when it was audible it had a weird, muddy quality to it. I left the theatre not knowing half the character names, and not a single Kaiju codename. I had a similar problem, after the first time I watched it I only knew three character names (Raleigh, Mako, and Herc) and totally missed a few lines of dialogue. Second viewing in a different theatre was much better (not sure if that's because I was paying closer attention to details or a difference in the theatres), but I was still kind of wishing there were subtitles.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:09
|
|
|
I was crazed enough to watch PR at three different IMAX theaters and one in regular 3D and ATMOS surround sound, all in the NY area. Two of the IMAX theaters, Sheepshead Bay and Lincoln Center had pretty good sound and I didn't miss any dialogue. AMC Empire in Manhattan, which had ATMOS, actually had so-so sound; lastly I went out of the city to IMAX Palisades, of course it being in the burbs it had the lovely, muddled sound which was mega-sad because IMHO it had the best 3D as its screen was the largest of the bunch. In all cases I showed up early and got the middle seats either half or 3/4ths of the way back. Does anyone who works at an IMAX know whether or not there's anyone who's in charge of maybe modifying the sound, like actually having someone 'tune' the movie sound in advance? Or are the speakers in a set format and they just tune it once somewhere in a lab and pray all the different IMAXes wind up putting out something audible?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 04:57
|
|
|
Those dumb, loud scenes of flying concessions at the start of a movie are there so the operator can calibrate the 3D effect and also tune the audio balance and volume. They're supposed to, at least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:07
|
|
|
Annan posted:I had a similar problem, after the first time I watched it I only knew three character names (Raleigh, Mako, and Herc) and totally missed a few lines of dialogue. I ended up seeing it three times because I enjoyed it so much. And honestly it took till the third for me to get all the dialogue down. At the very least the issue for me was odd/strong accents combined with non-standard names that made it difficult to process the first few times around. I mean ain't nobody expecting someone to be named Stacker Pentecost, it didn't help that Herc Hansen spoke in low tones a lot, etc. At first I just said welp I have no idea what he said but I get the gist, then later after realizing they were saying names or I knew the context having seen it before, my mind picked it up. I don't know if audio quality affected that at all, I mean if I can understand a dude with a heavy Dublin accent just fine then I'd think I could hang with the Aussies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 05:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But what these two have in common is their belief in mechanical pre-determinism on the one hand and, on the other, pre-established harmony. Gottlieb's character outright says that math is the handwriting of God or whatever. That they are really talking about theology and a "grand design" is overt. I think also that they are both wrong. I think the claims in CD in general of "things randomly being in movies on accident because laziness" has an ideological root. The desire for considering things in an ostensibly grounded, atheistic rationalism that rejects an intelligent design of the universe is expressed in a rejection of intelligent design occurring in any system they don't understand, despite irrefutable proof of a creator (directors, concept artists, editors, actors). Nerd consumers want to get immersed in "a universe" that is merely a backdrop for shared characters existing independently of creator figures. They exist in the abstract. A Batman they don't like isn't caused by bad writing, or bad art. It's caused by bad scholarship. Clearly the necessary research hasn't been done, because True Geek Scholars understand Batman and some rear end in a top hat wrote false things about him. Is it some kind of consumer-centric neo-Dadaism? Batman and Superman are "real" but they don't, they CAN'T mean anything, because one or more people involved in the process doesn't deserve what we might otherwise understand as the use of symbols in storytelling to talk about ourselves? Zack Snyder's just a frat boy, he slept through art class or something. Just throw it all on the screen, whatever, gently caress this movie.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
T.G. Xarbala posted:If you weren't aware, yes, SMG is having fun on two levels. He gets to muck about with analysis, which is his primary interest and itself a lot of fun (not to mention the bread and butter of the Cinema Discusso subforum), and he also gets to have fun with taking the unwary for a runaround. By which I mean he's trolling and having a laugh. It's not a fiction or even subtext to the discussion, he outright admitted it a hundred pages back. Which is why I like his posts so much. He's extremely honest and imbued with an impish sense of fun, even if I often disagree with his conclusions. Sure, it's fair to say it's his gimmick, but he's one of the few people who post with a gimmick and can spin gold out of it. Sorry if you hadn't caught on sooner, but there's nothing wrong with engaging the SomethingAwful comedy website forums on a purely textual level.  the guy who can't read Zizek trying to lecture people about why SMG is funny.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 07:21
|
|
|
OldPueblo posted:I ended up seeing it three times because I enjoyed it so much. And honestly it took till the third for me to get all the dialogue down. At the very least the issue for me was odd/strong accents combined with non-standard names that made it difficult to process the first few times around. I mean ain't nobody expecting someone to be named Stacker Pentecost, it didn't help that Herc Hansen spoke in low tones a lot, etc. At first I just said welp I have no idea what he said but I get the gist, then later after realizing they were saying names or I knew the context having seen it before, my mind picked it up. I don't know if audio quality affected that at all, I mean if I can understand a dude with a heavy Dublin accent just fine then I'd think I could hang with the Aussies. Even more than dialogue, rewatching it meant I got to notice a lot more of the background details and incidental world-building that sort of gets lost when you're not already familiar with it. There's just so much going on. It does help that it's filled to the brim with enough visual information that you can get a lot more out of it if you're not relying solely on the dialogue to deliver the story.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 08:02
|
|
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:
the guy who does read Zizek trying to lecture anyone about why SMG is relevant or insightful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 10:18
|
|
|
Do you guys mean 'read' or 'read'?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
I wonder what Zizek himself thinks of Pacific Rim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:27
|
|
RBA Starblade posted:I wonder what Zizek himself thinks of Pacific Rim. He loved it. So half the posters here will have to commit seppuku.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Sarkozymandias posted:I think the claims in CD in general of "things randomly being in movies on accident because laziness" has an ideological root. The desire for considering things in an ostensibly grounded, atheistic rationalism that rejects an intelligent design of the universe is expressed in a rejection of intelligent design occurring in any system they don't understand, despite irrefutable proof of a creator (directors, concept artists, editors, actors). Just to expand on this really interesting post, but not necessarily in a direct parallel, with regards to people trying to identify with characters in the abstract and the inclusion/exclusion of a creator(s). It kind of comes back to something I'd said to Xenomorph in a sense in relation to the movie, but hadn't really expressed the point adequately, why do you need to commodify the experience(Kaiju/Alien/Prometheus/Toys/movie itself etc). This again comes back to a colour relationship within Pacific Rim with Black(experience, knowledge) and White (ignorance, innocence) and the general premise in a lot of science fiction movies asking that same question or at least trying to invite the audience into doing so. To bring up something from a discussion earlier with regards to Alien and Aliens, In Alien, Ripleys encounter with the creature leaves no question in her mind the dangers inherent in the company and their desire to commodify the creature with a blatant disregard for human life. In Aliens the same mistake is made again but on a larger scale, the company wants to turn the creature into something of value, which in a capitalist society(Real/Simulacra) is a concept divorced from humanity in the abstract. Human beings can add value to the commodity(Alien/Kaiju/Jaegers/Toys/Food/Health Care etc) but are themselves without value and often discarded with contempt, regardless of want or need they will be used to give value and that is why they are tolerated at all and god-forbid they should disrupt that harmony as it would bring about the end of the world(Kaiju and their relationship with both Humanity in the movie and the masters). So shut up and take my money, I guess, this isn't to say the movie is good/bad, fun/unfun, earnest/cynical or that you shouldn't buy the toys/games/soundtrack or whatever. Just it doesn't hurt to think about our behavior/views upon reflection(birth/death) or different interpretations of the media we consume within the context of being a piece(individual) of a whole(world), especially with regards to all Art. Something that came to mind about Pentecost, the human characters and their relationship with the Kaiju as a reflection of humanity and their failing through their actions(Kaiju are people to some of us). quote:No man is an island, To address a more recent point in relation to this about how do you empirically judge a movie, simple answer is you don't. This again comes back to the creative process involved in making and critiquing any work of art at all levels(good/bad/amateur/professional) and the importance of reference(vast library of images/ideas/concepts abstract and literal) they are key in how we construct images/ideas(symbols) within narratives(movies, paintings, video games, music etc). whoever the hell you want to attribute this to posted:Good artists copy, Great artists steal
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
Amazing things are happening now that Pacific Rim has hit Japanese theaters          
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:39
|
|
|
Raiju, I choose you!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
If I was named Raiju the Kaiju, I would want to go on a genocidal rampage as well.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
Carbolic posted:If I was named Raiju the Kaiju, I would want to go on a genocidal rampage as well. If I were named Raiju the Kaiju, I'd have my own saturday morning television show for children.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:49
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:He loved it. So half the posters here will have to commit seppuku. That's not really too surprising; he praised 300 for the 'emancipatory core' under the 'historical paraphernalia' of slavery, infanticide, etc. - a point that ties into his famous claim that Gandhi is worse than Hitler, and his broader point that cultural conservatives might be stupid but make for good allies in the fight against systemic inequality. As gone over before, Pacific Rim is an extremely similar film to 300 - thematically and aesthetically. But I'm not exactly despairing, since I've always argued that the heroes of 300 compare unfavorably to those in Battle: Los Angeles and Red Dawn. Still, this should serve to Illustrate that when I call the film 'fascist', I don't mean it as some horrible pejorative. I find it vastly preferable to Iron Man's weak-willed vacillation between liberalism and libertarianism, even if I obviously can't wholeheartedly agree with it. Remember that Zizek doesn't quibble over the details saying the 300 were swell guys and there's nothing wrong with slavery (worse, that the slavery isn't there - that calling it slavery is overthinking things). He's saying that the 300 were in a way a failure, but that we can still be inspired by aspects of them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
You guys want some cute PR fanart (of course you do!)?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:05
|
|
|
PerrineClostermann posted:If I were named Raiju the Kaiju, I'd have my own saturday morning television show for children. Don't get me started about watching another Ben ten reboot and some cross between teen titans and Mad and wondering how that crap gets made and a pacific rim show doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:12
|
|
|
emoltra posted:Amazing things are happening now that Pacific Rim has hit Japanese theaters Yes.    How about some SEX-SHI Bikini Pics?  You know you want this.  And definitely this! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 02:54
|
|
|
My eyessss 
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Cherno is such a cute little guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
Someone for the love of god close this thread.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Crunkjuice posted:Someone for the love of god close this thread. What do you have against equal-opportunity bikini-wearing? Sounds like you're not part of the group, and if you're not part of the group, you're not part of FASCISM
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 07:41
|
|
|
It's every man's right to wear a bikini. Are you trying to support radical feminism by suppressing a man's right to skimpy swimwear? Gypsy Danger died for that right!
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 07:45
|
|
|
Clipperton posted:He loved it. So half the posters here will have to commit seppuku. What's your source on this then?
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 09:34
|
|
|
Zizek is a fascist.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
On a completely different note - and my apologies if this has already been mentioned in the last 200+ pages - but it occurs to me that the huge chunk of twins and triplets trained from a young age at bodily coordination are probably ballet dancers. This really makes PR's Bechdel Test failure more egregious.
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 16:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:51 |
|
Prism Mirror Lens posted:What's your source on this then? I'm absolutely certain I saw it somewhere.
|
|
|
#
?
Aug 14, 2013 18:21
|
|