|
It's a holistic approach.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
I would be able to like GoT much more if it wasn't trying to drown me in tits. We've discussed it before, but they do it to the point that I'm getting the very clear message they think I'm too dumb to pay attention otherwise. So it just ends up just insulting me as a viewer and a woman. I like a lot of the actors and I think the art direction can be very nice, even when it's not ripping off Ida. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:06
|
|
|
Think of it as a meta commentary on the world you live in right now. Geez HBO sure does think it needs to sell this with tits. See, it's holistic. Nothing is ever pure, least of all media.
doverhog has a new favorite as of 23:21 on Mar 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:17
|
|
|
The best thing GOT ever did was show old lady titties to piss off all the fantasy fans who can't handle any nudity that isn't a teenage girl
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:20
|
|
|
doverhog posted:Think of it as a meta commentary on the world you live in right now. Geez HBO sure does think it needs to sell this with tits. See, it's holistic. Nothing is ever pure, least of all media. I'm cool with some tit. It does nothing for me, but I can ignore it and that's fine. I, Claudius had some tit and was a good show. But drat. Low Desert Punk posted:The best thing GOT ever did was show old lady titties to piss off all the fantasy fans who can't handle any nudity that isn't a teenage girl I also appreciate the brief scene with an old dude's wang that meant THERE ARE TOO MANY DICKS IN GOT LIKE, DICKS ALL THE TIME. I think I saw one other dick and the whole thing and was left very confused about all this non-stop dick GoT apparently has. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
If you want a good drinking game, go to a Game of Thrones forum (Reddit especially), find a discussion on one of the female characters, and take a shot every time they call her a bitch or a oval office
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
They also showed dongs to really stick it to those people. I can imagine how owned those people were when it happened
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:27
|
|
|
Dudes reacting to dicks is consistently one of the funniest things this world has to offer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:31
|
|
|
Puritans really made for a weird modern day America
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
And a final lol at GRRM electing to keep "people loving and marrying barely pubescent girls" for historical authenticity in a world with dragons, zombies, magic and no functional economic system 
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
People still do that today in backwards countries, so it doesn't seem that out there, even with dragons. Perhaps you should engage in some real life political activism instead of literary criticism.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2017 23:57
|
|
|
There was never a mystical age of cinema without remakes. Hell, between 1907 and 1959 they made Ben-Hur three loving times. (A record soon to be shattered by Spider-man, no doubt)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Low Desert Punk posted:If you want a good drinking game, go to a Game of Thrones forum (Reddit especially), find a discussion on one of the female characters, and take a shot every time they call her a bitch or a oval office My favourite example of that is people's reaction to Skylar in Breaking Bad. Yeah, she's such a bitch because the idea of her husband being a meth kingpin is pretty scary to her.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:40
|
|
|
Das Boo posted:Dudes reacting to dicks is consistently one of the funniest things this world has to offer. Make your guy friends watch the Starz version of Spartacus. It's equal opportunity nudity so there's dicks and boobs everywhere. It also has what is probably my favorite gay relationship as depicted on TV of all time. Not to mention an amazing final season. You know what, everyone go watch Spartacus.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:Make your guy friends watch the Starz version of Spartacus. It's equal opportunity nudity so there's dicks and boobs everywhere. It also has what is probably my favorite gay relationship as depicted on TV of all time. Not to mention an amazing final season. You know what, everyone go watch Spartacus. It's literally the worst drama I've seen on television.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 01:02
|
|
|
I like that Starz pirate show.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 02:15
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:That is the spirit of science fiction: to take the most recent scientific understandings and try to spin a story about them, to use them to express ideas and themes. Low Desert Punk posted:Video games are a loving terrible storytelling medium, at least as they've been used so far. Barring a few examples, even the best video game plots would be average at best if told in any other medium. Pick posted:Fantasy remains a completely garbage-tier genre. hard counter posted:I dunno, some films definitely seem to be intended to just be fun in that they engage the viewer visually and emotionally all the way through and they will explicitly make decisions to enhance those elements even at the expense of doing something more cerebral. Those kinds of films fall apart at any extended analysis because it just spotlights any holes you might've not cared about before even if you can still discuss the things you did like intelligently. Rigorous dissection will do nothing for a film like Star Wars except reveal how sophomoric the entire experience was from its awful, awkward, stilted dialogue to its childish presentation of conflict but people still love those films anyway. An in-depth analysis seems to miss the point because we're all more-or-less aware of those issues but we choose to ignore them because the rest of the film succeeds. You sorta do have to shut off your brain to some criticisms to get why some people feel the way they do about those films even if you can still talk meaningfully about the parts you liked. hard counter posted:That's something I really dislike about current news sectors and modern journalism. Sure people have been using references to ground current events for ages, previously those choices tended to be drawn from classical literature, fables, religious texts and the like which at first glance just seem like older, more pompous versions of the same materials pop culture draws from but the issue was that a lot of those references belonged to, and were studied in, systems of classical education - everyone studied similar works and were educated to know the intended meaning behind those works. hard counter posted:Someone could also confidently make a reference to Crassus knowing that the reader would be knowledgeable about his life and his supposedly ironic death since the readers probably went through the same traditions of standard western education. hard counter posted:Pop culture ... isn't studied in a classroom setting hard counter posted:Imagine if some satires weren't explicitly called out for being what they are, like A Modest Proposal is in most classrooms, you'd definitely get some people misinterpreting Starship Troopers the movie and misusing it as a pop culture reference. hard counter posted:Being consumed unequally means that if someone in a news article keeps making Harry Potter references, for example, they'll be lost on me since I read all of two books before I decided they weren't for me. By making such specific references you're just communicating to niche and that kind of communication should just be dropped from professional settings. I don't wanna have to decipher a line like Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra just because the journalist is a huge sperg who consumes and views the world entirely through the lens of star trek and that poo poo is okay in the modern era.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 04:31
|
|
|
I don't like the guy that comes into the unpopular opinions thread to nitpick everyone's Wrong Opinion
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:Everything you just said is wrong. Absolutely any text can be meaningfully and valuably analysed and doing so doesn't ruin it, because it's possible to like something despite its flaws - you don't have to wilfully ignore them. Also, analysis doesn't just expose flaws, it also exposes positive qualities. If you're only looking for flaws then that's what you'll find, but if you're doing a thorough analysis then you'll also look in depth and gain a greater appreciation for the things that a text does well. I think you may have misread that part of my post, I spoke specifically about works that make explicit decisions at the expense of other elements to be fun and emotionally & visually engaging. These films succeed in delivering a solid 2 hour experience but begin to fail apart when any refrigerator logic sets in. That subset of films doesn't benefit from further analysis because its positives were already communicated in the immediate experience of the film. Some Michael Bay movies are somewhat enjoyable popcorn flicks where the common advice for getting the most out of them is usually don't think too much. I don't know how many positives you would expose next to the overwhelming number of negatives if you sat down and really thought about Transformers 3 instead of just enjoying the visuals and melodrama for what they are. It really seems like some films aren't designed to hold up to scrutiny though I recognize there are gems out there that made excellent choices and subtle decisions that do better with closer attention, those kinds of works aren't just the masterpieces but include some low budget genre films too. quote:Sure, if by "everyone" you mean a small subset of the population lucky enough to have access to that kind of education. Those references were only universal if you assume that anyone who wouldn't have been familiar with them wasn't important enough to talk to (which those making the references obviously did). Education in the classics and history was actually pretty common and for the most part continues to this day and you also posted that things are getting even more standardized in the classroom? That's why I think if you're going to drop references in a professional setting to ground current events or whatever you shouldn't drop an analogy to the last season of Walking Dead to do it. There are more broadly known examples than whatever's trending lately in geek culture. If the journalist works for a geek magazine or whatever where the target audience is entirely savvy nerds then I can understand it but not in a formal setting. It makes unreasonable assumptions of a mass audience. quote:A Modest Proposal was widely misinterpreted when it was first published though? That's almost literally the point? We now broadly understand its intent thanks to being included in most curricula. Using satirical examples from modern pop culture more easily lends themselves to mass misinterpretation and don't make for as effective communication. quote:What references do you think are universal though? All media is directed at a particular audience, you just apparently don't notice when that audience is you. Classics, history and other staples, even the relatively new additions, of standardized education are going to be much better sources for analogies and references if the intent is to be understood since we almost always have at least that in common if we're also watching the same English-speaking news channel. There's no guarantee but you're better off than quoting a line from last night's episode of Game of Thrones if you want to use pop culture reference instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 07:12
|
|
|
hard counter posted:I think you may have misread that part of my post, I spoke specifically about works that make explicit decisions at the expense of other elements to be fun and emotionally & visually engaging. These films succeed in delivering a solid 2 hour experience but begin to fail apart when any refrigerator logic sets in. That subset of films doesn't benefit from further analysis because its positives were already communicated in the immediate experience of the film. hard counter posted:I don't know how many positives you would expose next to the overwhelming number of negatives if you sat down and really thought about Transformers 3 instead of just enjoying the visuals and melodrama for what they are. hard counter posted:Classics, history and other staples, even the relatively new additions, of standardized education are going to be much better sources for analogies and references if the intent is to be understood since we almost always have at least that in common if we're also watching the same English-speaking news channel. There's no guarantee but you're better off than quoting a line from last night's episode of Game of Thrones if you want to use pop culture reference instead.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 07:42
|
|
|
Tiggum posted:No, I know what type of films you're talking about and I still disagree. To go with the Michael Bay example, there's a lot of stuff that he does really well in his films and a lot of choices made in the production of the Transformers movies that are interesting to look at and discuss I guess we'll have to agree to disagree here, I don't think the usual suspects from someone like Bay's filmography gain anything from looking deeply, especially if you're analyzing the whole film honestly without willfully ignoring some things. He does have films like The Rock which might fare better but something like transformers 3, like the film itself, would gain nothing positive but a long beating from an honest analysis imho but I can def see how the analysis itself would be an entertaining experience if you like knowledgeable people dissecting things. quote:But Game of Thrones is current, popular and accessible. If you try to use an example from school, well, an audience of 40-year-olds went to different schools with different priorities and different curricula than an audience of 20-year-olds, and many of them will have forgotten whatever it is you're referencing anyway, but there's a pretty good chance that they're all broadly aware of what Game of Thrones is about. To me the fact that references to pivotal moments in American history are so prevalent in mainstream American journalism indicates they're more successful at making a point and even literary references to works like Animal Farm/1984, Lolita, Frankenstein, Pride and Prejudice are more likely to have an impact imho than one to Big Bang Theory or even GoT since their meanings are a little more flexible when they're still running and fewer people have HBO than people that have gone through standardized education. Whenever pop culture references weasel into formal journalism it always feels awkward and gaudy to me so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree if you happen to like them and think they can be as poignant. I guess I'm just biased because I think it's important that people out of school still look into reading/consuming highly influential works, histories, biographies, etc that people have been discussing a long time that still fascinate modern people. You might not have the benefit of school guiding you anymore but these works tend to have a lot of material available already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 08:39
|
|
|
doverhog posted:This is getting too deep into GoT to really respond to, but, you didn't respond to what would qualify as a deconstruction. I did, indirectly. Deconstruction takes literary phenomena and demonstrates their fallacy by tracing them to the substrate from which they were constructed. It then compares the infinite complexity of the substrate with the reductive thesis contained in the literary structure. E.g. in the case of The Hound, he is a character who fully conforms to the norms of the genre even if there is opportunity for him to show the reductionist nature of the good and evil dichotomy. Instead he follows the omnipresent archetype of a character with two sides, who has a rough, violent personality, and a masked caring, humane personality - instead of these sort of dialectically combining to create a full human out of literary structural archetypes, he just switches between them as the story requires, with the justification of childhood trauma (similar to the famour Ender's Game thesis of innocent murderer) allowing him to inhabit these two separate characters while retaining sympathy and ostentatiously innocence. In fact the "dark side" of the character is usually used to enhance the heroic side of him, to make him more heroic by allowing him to use means off limits to a conventional hero for decent ends, without suffering moral degradation thanks to his convenient schizoid nature (also absolving the audience from feeling bad about rooting for a violent monster). It's an amalgamation of old "structures" playing into social and literary conventions, with no progress towards deconstructing them by showing the artificial limits of our understanding of the world they foster. steinrokkan has a new favorite as of 09:19 on Mar 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:17
|
|
|
The Hound is not heroic, he is a self loathing broken alcoholic mess who flees battle to go rape or kill Sansa, has a nervous breakdown, and runs away, and later threatens Arya with "I should have raped your sister". He is never good, and any parts there may be are always, at best, mixed. The more interesting question is why does the fandom love him so much. I guess the idea of an insane man who will kill everyone except you is hot or something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 09:31
|
|
|
Again, I only watch the show, so it's quite possible the book series is more nuanced and they dropped much of the interesting themes in adaptation. Anyway, this would need much more boring posting to address, so I guess we'll leave it at that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:04
|
|
|
hard counter posted:Rigorous dissection will do nothing for a film like Star Wars except reveal how sophomoric the entire experience was from its awful, awkward, stilted dialogue to its childish presentation of conflict but people still love those films anyway. My dissection of your post reveals that you are a moron. hard counter posted:I don't think the usual suspects from someone like Bay's filmography gain anything from looking deeply, especially if you're analyzing the whole film honestly without willfully ignoring some things lol
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:Nope, afraid not. Jurassic Park, while it got some details wrong, did at least try to represent dinosaurs in a new light using then-up-to-date science. Before JP, most American adults (and adults in other countries) probably thought of dinosaurs as just Godzilla, slow, lumbering behemoths that live in swamps and roar. But JP updated dinosaurs and introduced them in a new light. That is the spirit of science fiction: to take the most recent scientific understandings and try to spin a story about them, to use them to express ideas and themes. The theme of JP is that screwing around with nature and trying to control nature is wrong, its too complicated and we know too little, we need to check our hubris and respect what we dont understand, lest we create chaos. To best illustrate this theme, it was important to make the dinosaurs as real as possible, to show people that dinosaurs werent just big dumb movie monsters but were actually complex living things. And to do this, they had to surprise people and to subvert their expectations. "Oh, you think dinosaurs were slow and cold-blooded and dumb as rocks? Guess again". So using the most recent and latest paleontological findings to make the dinosaurs more believable, more than just monsters, was important to express the theme that we can't control them, they exist independently of our ideas of them. They made Velociraptors 10 times bigger to make them scarier. The second part of your post is just retarded but hey, it's Blue Star so there ya go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 10:21
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:They made Velociraptors 10 times bigger to make them scarier. That was Michael Crichton that done did that, Spielburg was just being true to the books. I said it wasnt perfect and they got details wrong, its the bigger picture that counts. Nobody had ever seen anything like the JP velociraptors before: fast, warm-blooded, intelligent, social. Dinosaurs, before JP came out, werent supposed to be that way. Same goes for the T.rex. The dilophosaurus is probably the one real counter example since Crichton pretty much invented the idea that it could spit venom. But for everything else: brachiosaurus, triceratops, t.rex, etc., it was fairly accurate for 1993. Not perfect, since its still a movie, but better than anything seen before. They got other details wrong: the hands are the wrong posture, and in early visual effects shots, they were going to give the velociraptors long lizard-like tongues that kept flicking in and out. But overall, they did a pretty good job of representing dinosaurs with then-up-to-date science. It would've been more accurate if the velociraptors werent called velociraptors, but like i said, thats one of the details they got wrong. Utahraptor is closer to the proper size. Not sure why you think the second part of my post is "retarded" (nice slur, btw).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:13
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:They got other details wrong: the hands are the wrong posture No normal audience member cares about poo poo like this.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:No normal audience member cares about poo poo like this. Blue Star has well established they are no normal human in any sense of the word. The same people bitching about dinosaur hand angles and feathers are the ones saying "wow, that gun is a model 1952s which only holds 7 rounds per magazine, while he clearly fired 8 before reloading". Yes, their points are technically correct, but they are missing the point that movies are supposed to be entertaining first and technically correct only if it adds to the entertainment (unless the premise of the movie is based on historical accuracy, i.e. documentaries or "based on a true story" retellings).
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
I like Tiggum and Blue Star's opinion pieces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
veni veni veni posted:They made Velociraptors 10 times bigger to make them scarier. They actually based the raptors on Deinonychus, which are larger (but still smaller than a human) 
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:They actually based the raptors on Deinonychus, which are larger (but still smaller than a human) People like dinosaurs because they're big. If I'm going to watch a movie about turkey sized dinosaurs I might as well watch a movie about actual turkeys. Production would be cheaper too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:42
|
|
|
Just make a movie about geese and ostriches going psycho, they're the modern day raptors and compys anyway
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:52
|
|
|
Sentient Data posted:Just make a movie about geese and ostriches going psycho, they're the modern day raptors and compys anyway Jaws, but about a cassowary
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
Henchman of Santa posted:Jaws, but about a cassowary Claws
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:24
|
|
|
Blue Star posted:
Because expecting them to entirely change the visual style of something that rides that much on it's visual style is ridiculous. And you are right. Retarded is a lovely rear end word and I shouldn't have used it. Sorry.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
If it ain't kung-fu or if the Marx brothers aren't in it, it's probably a waste of time to watch it. Like I watched "M" and while it was good, I feel like I stuck around mostly because it's one of those films you have to watch, but honestly "Crippled Avengers" is a much better movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
yeah I eat rear end posted:Blue Star has well established they are no normal human in any sense of the word. The same people bitching about dinosaur hand angles and feathers are the ones saying "wow, that gun is a model 1952s which only holds 7 rounds per magazine, while he clearly fired 8 before reloading". Yes, their points are technically correct, but they are missing the point that movies are supposed to be entertaining first and technically correct only if it adds to the entertainment (unless the premise of the movie is based on historical accuracy, i.e. documentaries or "based on a true story" retellings). Yeah, I like gun-based action movies, and the very liberal use of firearm realism isn't a deal breaker. I prefer it if the movie goes John Wick and is 'realistic' (the second one falls into much more Hollywood silliness), but I'm not deeply upset when a dude is flung through a window by a bullet impact because I'm not a total dweeb. Grandmother of Five posted:I like Tiggum and Blue Star's opinion pieces. Tiggum is fine, though he needs to sort out his rampant depression so he can enjoy things a bit more. Blue Star is a trans hating piece of poo poo and every opinion they have is worthless.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
Odd question, but what are people's opinions of Louis Theroux? I happen to like his documentaries but I'm sure some British goon will come around with, "We hate him here!" QI was torn down, which, while I like QI, I found...quite interesting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 12:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 23:08 |
|
|
bean_shadow posted:Odd question, but what are people's opinions of Louis Theroux? I happen to like his documentaries but I'm sure some British goon will come around with, "We hate him here!" QI was torn down, which, while I like QI, I found...quite interesting. He's a national drat treasure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2017 12:16
|
|