Page 80 of 80 FirstFirst ... 3070787980
Results 3,161 to 3,168 of 3168

Thread: Other than Bioshock

  1. #3161
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,565
    Well, saw the first episode of The Alienist (online https://www.thealienist.com/ ) and it's not easy to watch. It's good, but *graphic*. It gives a good look at the time period, how currupt the cops where, racism and sexism are common and it has a strong atmosphere. In a couple places things look a little like Columbia. sm

  2. #3162
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,061
    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Seems like an interesting concept. It's just that MMOs are designed to be timesinks regardless of their direction. Only kids and teenagers have that kind of time these days, or people who are not interested in other games. This genre is just not for me.
    I never thought about that. Do you think it's possible to make and MMO that isn't a time sink? Do MMOs need to be a time sink? I know they're expensive to make but does that mean they need to be played for hours and hours?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    There are a few companies, yeah. The biggest one is a cinematic workshop that makes trailers for big games. AC: Origins was their latest one, but they did League of Legends and Witcher 3 content as well.
    Would you enjoy working on making trailers after going studying CGI development? It sounds kind of underwhelming to me. I would at least want to get into animated film production if I did a degree in CGI development.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    We don't have game studios of our own (aside from a few indies), but there are smaller outsourcing companies, plus neighboring countries are starting to develop their own industry either through Western investments (Ubisoft has departments in Ukraine and Romania), or state subsidies (CD Projekt Red in Poland). I can technically apply for any of these, or any Western studio in the EU. The hard part is the lack of entry level positions, but that's true in any other field.
    Would you consider working in an indie game studio? TBH I don't like most indie games. I find them too gimicky and unsatisfying. I don't think I would be satisfied working on a project that I'm not invested in.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    The CGI industry doesn't stop at entertainment though. There's also a market for it in archeology, medicine or education.
    Are you interested in any of those fields? CGI sounds like a versatile field but if you get a job in a demonition that you don't really like then it might not be so great.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I think Disney films are about more than just princesses. In fact, that's probably the only part I don't like in them. I like fairy tales, memorable villains, catchy music, and overall artistic quality. Barely anyone could replicate that up until the early 2000s or so. When you look at what the alternative was to Western animation in the Eastern Bloc it's not hard to imagine why Disney movies felt like magic to people. So, princess or not, I gladly took it.
    Which Disney film villains do you find to be memorable and why? I find most Disney film villains to basically be a little more than simple archetypes.

    Also what do you think about Disney remaking its classic films in live action (like Beauty and the Beast)? It seems unnecessary to me other than to make easy money.

    What do you think of the live action films compared to their animated counterparts? Do you think live action takes away from their original artistic animated quality? Do they reuse the music or remix it? I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the Disney films so I can't judge.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    My favorites would be Atlantis, Sleeping Beauty and the Little Mermaid. All of these have outstanding music and atmosphere. And even though the latter two feature insufferable title characters, everything else around them has good entertainment value. Atlantis holds up as a fun adventure movie on its own, and is probably the most enjoyable for an adult out of all of them.
    The Little Mermaid is one of the Disney films assigned to get a live action remake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...animated_films

    Do you think live action can recapture the same kind of atmosphere that you enjoyed in the original animated film?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    My least favorite is easily Frozen. Not only does it have nothing to do with the source material, it was more preoccupied with subversing tropes than telling an actual story. They wasted a classic tale for this.
    And it became Disney's highest grossing animated film so I have a feeling we can expect more films like Frozen in the future.

    What do you think about Disney's latest films? Do you think they're going in a direction that you dislike?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    That the same description fits Joel, or any other average male person. Determination isn't considered a gender specific quality. Ellie acts tough, swears like a sailor, is generally aggressive, and reacts to emotional distress with violence and shouting. If you swapped her genitals, no one would suspect a thing. That doesn't make her unrealistic, just unusual, as far as gender characteristics go.
    As a female yourself, did you notice these things as you were playing the game?

    One thing I've noticed about Ellie is that a lot of female gamers seem to like her but I wonder how genuine their liking is. I think women nowadays are being pressured into accepting the tough strong female character so much that they feel obligated to praise it whenever they see it even if the female character herself isn't so great e.g. Rey from the new Star Wars films. She's basically a Mary Sue but she's supposed to be a strong female character that's supposed to inspire girls?

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    There are a bunch of good ones but the quality varies wildly there as well. In recent years The Killing Joke and Batman & Harley Quinn were both poorly written for example. Bruce Timm is good for art but he's a bad writer and no one seems to have the courage to dump him.
    My favorite would be Assault on Arkham, as it's basically a better version of Suicide Squad. I'm also curious about the upcoming Batman Ninja just for how outlandish it is. I like these kind of artistic risks.

    What good writers do you think DC has other than Paul Dini? I'm not very familiar with any of the others.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    It requires a lot less people and has a much looser oversight from studio high-ups, therefore having more creative freedom. A single writer can basically play around with the universe how they want. That's great if you have a good writer, not so much if you have a bad one (that's how we can get interesting ideas like Gotham by Gaslight and uninspired crap like Batman vs Dracula). A live action film's hierarchy is much more bloated, a single person can't ruin or save it but there are also a lot of studio meddling and conflicting visions at play. I wouldn't say one is easier than the other.
    Why not? It sounds like you've said that creating a good animated film is easier than creating a good live action film.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I'm generally against reboots, so I don't like the idea. They should just stop with the teamups for a while and focus on making better starting points for their characters before attempting to do another. Maybe make some more lighthearted content, use some different people. There are a lot of comedic heroes in the DCU. It doesn't have to be Guardians of the Galaxy, just a bit less grimdark than recent movies. I think part of the reason why Wonder Woman performed well is because it wasn't about depressed people being miserable for 2 hours.
    What do you think about the DCEU's cast? Do you think they can all do light hearted films because some of the actors look like they can only do grimdark films to me (Affleck and Cavill).

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I don't like this whole direction that they started with The Force Awakens so I didn't have any expectations at all, but they still managed to underwhelm that, lol. By far my biggest problem with this trilogy is that it completely undermines everything from the six movies before it (and even Rogue One). Their plots are all pointless now. Since the Empire is now better and more destructive than ever and the Dark Side rules over the galaxy again, Anakin/Vader bringing balance was for nothing, the protagonists of Rogue One died for nothing, Obi-Wan and Yoda put all their hopes on Luke for nothing, Luke redeemed his father for nothing, and the rebels defeated the Empire sacrificing countless lives for nothing. The galaxy is even worse off somehow.

    As an added bonus, the heroes of the original trilogy (the big three that the nostalgia crowd supposedly worships) lived their whole lives under oppression and constant struggle, only to die a lonely and miserable death without achieving anything at all. The big celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi? It's a joke now. They didn't really win and they're all gonna die anyway. Star Wars has many themes, but I doubt that pointless, neverending struggle was supposed to be one of them. I honestly have no idea why people are okay with this.
    I asked a guy who likes the new films about this and he said that the studio was probably afraid of taking risks so they decided to just copy the Original Trilogy with a few differences. This is why the previous films had to be undermined. In order to copy the Original Trilogy they needed to reset the films back to the status quo at the start of A New Hope and the only way to do that was to resurrect the Empire and have them be a powerful threat.

    I just think that makes the Sequel Trilogy pointless but hey some people love their nostalgia so they're okay with seeing the old films remade with modern technology.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    Generally poorly written plot and forced humor aside, most of your problems (and other people's problems) with the movie stem from the fact that the two directors of the two movies so far didn't collaborate on anything. Rey's parents, Snoke, Luke's character, Finn, Poe, Kylo Ren's Vader worship: they were all set up to be important by JJ Abrams. But since Johnson had free reign as well (for some reason), he decided to throw out all that and replace it with his own direction of "bet you didn't see this coming, haha" like some juvenile pissing contest.

    I think it just blows the mind that the world's biggest movie franchise owned by the biggest entertainment giant has zero planning behind their biggest cash cows now. Apparently any director can independently tear out/ignore chapters that they didn't like in the predecessor and put in whatever they want instead. How is Disney allowing this? Directors trolling each other with their own versions of the same galaxy? Is that what Star Wars is about now? Trolling? It's incredibly careless, and will definitely harm them on the long run.
    I think Disney got overconfident after The Force Awakens because it grossed over $2 billion. That's why I think they gave Rian Johnson a lot of leeway. I think they just took it for granted that The Last Jedi would also gross the same amount. However The Last Jedi grossed a lot less so I think Disney should be more careful with Episode 9.

    The problem is that I think it may be a bit too late. I think Rian Johnson ruined what J.J. Abrams had planned for the series so I don't see Abrams being able to resolve Episode 9 satisfactorily.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    If nothing else, it should be a massive red flag if Mark Hamill himself says that they're butchering his character (there are dozens of videos of this on YouTube). He's been playing Luke Skywalker longer than these clowns were even alive, understanding the character is literally his job. Yet they ignore him. Amazing. I feel bad for the guy.
    It's amazing that Hamill still managed to give off a convincing performance of Luke even though it was an out-of-character Luke. It shows what a talented actor he is.

    BTW I have to ask: do you like any of the new characters introduced in the Sequel Trilogy? I don't like any of them. I think they could have been interesting but they're made into Mary Sues or given inconsequential story lines and that doesn't do them justice.

    I kind of like Finn in The Force Awakens and I saw a lot of potential in him as a reformed Storm Trooper. However they threw him under the bus in The Last Jedi. It looked like they didn't know what to do with his character after The Force Awakens.

    Rey was always a Mary Sue but I thought they might give her an interesting story. However they seem to be pushing for some romance between her and Kylo Ren and I just think that's ridiculous because Rey saw Kylo Ren kill Han Solo for no reason. There should be no reason for her to fall in love with him. I don't want Rey to be one of those women that have Stockholm Syndrome and keep going to an abusive boyfriend.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I've seen a few episodes, but it's not very interesting. I wasn't alive in the 80s (especially not in the American 80s), so that atmosphere doesn't do much for me. It has good production value and aesthetics, some good actors, but not much more than that. It clearly builds its appeal on 80s nostalgia and random Stephen King stories molded into one without much coherence. I don't mind that it exists though. It's new content, and isn't detrimental to any existing franchise or anything so they can have their nostalgia if they want. I'm not the target audience is all.
    Have you read Stephen King's books? I think they vary with quality. I think a few of his early books were good but his recent books seem stale. I don't see what's so special about The Dark Tower series. TBH I think Stephen King is a bit overrated as a writer. He's been writing his entire life but I don't think that necessarily makes you a good writer.

    Also have you read The Stormlight Archive? It's a very popular ongoing fantasy series. On goodreads, it ranks below Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings:
    https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/...st_100_Ratings

    It hasn't received a live action adaption yet but I think it's expected to get one some time in the 2020s. It probably has the franchise-generating potential of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. People expect it to be the next big fantasy series after Game of Thrones.

    The other popular ongoing unadapted fantasy series is The Kingkiller Chronicle that's written by Patrick Rothfuss (which you can see listed on the top of Goodread in the link above). It's also good but the problem with it is that the author is like Game of Thrones' author. He takes really long breaks and hasn't released a book since 2011 (which was the time the last Game of Thrones book was released).

    Also did you hear about how Game of Thrones has been going downhill in its latest seasons? The reason for this is because the show caught up with the novels and thus had to create original content and the original content is basically typical fantasy stuff. Some people are blaming the author for it. The last Game of Thrones book came out in 2011 which was the year that the first season of the TV show was released. The fact that the author hasn't gotten another book out since then is negligent of his responsibility as an author. At least Rowling was able to finish writing all her Harry Potter books before the films could catch up to them.

    Also do you still write fanfiction or do any kind of writing in general? A few weeks ago I found out that Brandon Sanderson (the author of The Stormlight Archive) was a university writing professor and did classes on creative writing. His lectures have been recorded and uploaded to YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...eture+playlist

    These are the best writing lectures I've ever seen. I've learnt so much from them. I highly recommend for you to watch them if you'e still interested in writing.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I'm excited. My thoughts on the first season are about the same as yours, I also found the villain and the conclusion to be underwhelming. I still enjoyed it though. Fables is an interesting world with a rich character roster, perhaps they will be able to write a better storyline this time.
    I hope so. The thing is that Telltale's gameplay system hasn't really evolved for the past 5 years or so. That means that The Wolf Among Us Season 2's enjoyment will have to largely come from its story.

    Quote Originally Posted by biccs_pudding View Post
    I played LoZ: Breath of the Wild for about an hour on someone else's Switch, and while the gameplay didn't grab me I see why so many people are all over it. It's a very pretty timesink. If it was a two-hour-long animated movie I'd like it a lot. It's a lot like a traditional fairy tale. Why is no one doing this? There was some rumored Netflix project a few years ago, what happened with that?
    Maybe it's because people look down on fairy tales? Also games nowadays are trying to be edgy and realistic and that doesn't mold well with fairy tales.

    I'm not a big fan of fairy tales so I have to ask: what do you think it is about them that make them so appealing to so many people? I mean fairy tales have pretty simple stories.


    Also have you heard of Disney acquiring X-Men from Fox? This means Fox's X-Men franchise is pretty much over (the New Mutant film is going to go to waste). Disney says they want to introduce the X-Men into the MCU. I'm not really looking forward to that. Personally I never felt X-Men never fitted well in the MCU because why wasn't all the bigotry and oppression they experienced present in other Marvel universes? Why didn't people call Spider-Man a mutant and call for him to be arrested?


    Also this guy has uploaded a few videos on BioShock Infinite over the last few months:
    https://www.youtube.com/user/Attlas93/videos

    He's pretty negative (sounds like he joined the backlash bandwagon) but it was nice to see new videos on BioShock Infinite on YouTube.

  3. #3163
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,061
    @biccs_pudding

    Also something I for got to add to my previous post was that recently I've been looking at the concept of games as art. A lot of people want games to be art and others say that game can't be art.

    I looked at films, books, paintings etc that are considered to be art (or, more specifically, high art) and one thing I've noticed about them is that they have a strong message about a recent or timeless issue. For example, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four explored the effects of censorship in society. Christian Bale's The Dark Knight explored the effects of terrorism on society. I think everything as that's considered high art have some kind of narrative. I think even a good painting, which is a static image, can communicate some kind of powerful message when you take one look at it. I think the message to be communicated is very important for a medium to be considered art. I think the message has to transcend the medium. It has to be something that impacts society.

    This is why I think some people say that games can't be art. Some games while critically acclaimed (such as Mario) have no real narrative and I don't think a form of media can he considered art unless it has some kind of narrative. There are narrative based games but the problem with most of them is that they don't communicate a message on a recent or timeless issue in a way that can only be done in the video game medium.

    Traditionally games have just used cutscenes to communicate their story but that just leaves people asking why the game couldn't just be a film. I think it's important to incorporate the game's mechanics and gameplay in communicating the story. Games have started to do this in recent years to varying levels of success.

    ATM I think the only game that can be considered art is Spec Ops: The Line. It has a powerful message about a recent issue (PTSD that soldiers experience) and it uses its mechanics and gameplay (not only its cutscenes). It seems to be the only game that ticks all the boxes for games to be art IMO.

    Other games tick some of the boxes but not all of them IMO. Metal Gear Solid 2 has an interesting message about the effects of the internet on society and that is a relevant modern issue but its story is only communicated through cutscenes. The Souls series does a good job of communicating its story through gameplay but it's story is just some dark fantasy tragedy. It's not something timeless or relevant to our times.

    I think the biggest problem is that most game developers seem unwilling to take risks with the medium. Most games are set in fantasy and sci-fi worlds which disconnects them from reality. I'm not saying sci-fi or fantasy settings can't comment on real issues via metaphors etc but I don't think games focus on doing that.

    I think game developers need to learn to take more risks and comment on a modern issue. A BioShock-style game based on extreme liberalism rather than objectivism would be interesting. I think most game developers are just afraid of a backlash but I think they should be ready to take a risk. I don't think video games are the only medium where the artists seem afraid to take risks. I think the same fear largely exists in the comic book industry as well. As far as I know, there are very few comics that communicate a strong message on a timeless or relevant issue.

    Anyway what do you think?

  4. #3164
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    rapturerecords.tumblr.com
    Posts
    521
    I usually wait until the second episode to review things, plus it gives a chance to see the title sequence. The Alienist looks like it’s a limited series, however.

    Have not read the book yet, oddly enough, though I working my way through the Victorian murder mystery books that end in “-ist”.

    It’s almost like Ripper Street meets Copper for the tone and police brutality with some of the clinical nature of The Knick, all of which take place straddling the century.

    Thankfully, it’s not so lackadaisical with the technology as the Murdoch Mysteries. It seems to give even weight to then-new advances like fingerprinting and toolmarks as well as “lesser” advances like phrenology and photographing a dead man’e eye to record the last image it saw.

    Perhaps I watch too many British historical dramas, but a couple of the characters seemed to not to vary much from their modern accents like Dakota Fanning, Roosevelt, and the two Jewish detectives. I didn’t pick up on it as much in other American-Victorian dramas like Copper, The Knick, The Pinkertons etc. Maybe it’s an artistic choice.

    Overall, the atmosphere and set design is excellent. There isn’t a strong Beaux Arts or Neoclassical influence on the architecture like Columbia. Lots of claustrophobic tenements and brownstones which give a hemmed-in feeling most of the time with few wide-open spaces like the opera house. Might come down to the difference between stuffy Victorian and “progressive” Edwardian.

    It’s very much a series to watch at night mostly because I have to crank up the brightness since everything seems so crepuscular.
    Last edited by Upgrade; 3 Weeks Ago at 03:56 AM.

  5. #3165
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Rapture
    Posts
    172
    Any news about Ken's new game or Ghost Story Games ?

    By the way, what happened to that game : The Black Glove ?
    "Bring us the girl and wipe away the debt"

  6. #3166
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Limbo
    Posts
    3,565
    No news on Ghost Stories's new game yet. Thought they are/were hiring a Senior Programer and a Senior Ai programer. The Black Glove was put on hiutus since they couldn't raise enough money. sm

  7. #3167
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    A lighthouse in Budapest
    Posts
    2,288
    Quote Originally Posted by TSCR View Post
    I never thought about that. Do you think it's possible to make and MMO that isn't a time sink? Do MMOs need to be a time sink? I know they're expensive to make but does that mean they need to be played for hours and hours?
    Yeah, I think there's no going around that. SWTOR was by far the most expensive game to make in its time, and they quickly had to switch to the free-to-play model that other MMOs were already using to avoid a financial disaster. Padding the game with hours and hours of grinding to level up and get better gear is the only way now to bait people into playing longer and pay some extra for the good stuff along the way. I think the only real draw they still have is the social aspect, as in joining clans and teaming up with friends.

    Would you enjoy working on making trailers after going studying CGI development? It sounds kind of underwhelming to me. I would at least want to get into animated film production if I did a degree in CGI development.
    I'd be okay with that, yeah. Gaming as a medium has always been more appealing to me than movies or animation. If I can contribute to a game that people enjoy spending time with, be it a trailer, or assets in the game itself, that would be fulfilling enough for me.

    Would you consider working in an indie game studio? TBH I don't like most indie games. I find them too gimicky and unsatisfying. I don't think I would be satisfied working on a project that I'm not invested in.
    An indie wouldn't have much use of me as of now. As they're working with only a few people, each of them has to be experienced in as many fields as possible. These teams usually can't afford to have beginners around, and that's understandable.

    Are you interested in any of those fields? CGI sounds like a versatile field but if you get a job in a demonition that you don't really like then it might not be so great.
    Beggars can't be choosers. I'll do any sort of 3D to get started and gather experience to later get into a position I do like. Maybe I won't get a 3D job at all. Personal fulfillment is a luxury, not everyone gets lucky, but the bills still have to be paid.

    Which Disney film villains do you find to be memorable and why? I find most Disney film villains to basically be a little more than simple archetypes.
    Archetypes are popular because they work well in the more simple stories Disney focuses on. I think there's nothing wrong with that, as they usually compensate with endearing designs and comic relief sidekicks. I'd say most of their villains are instantly recognizable. The ones that stand out for me are Maleficent, Ursula and Jafar. On top of their design, each of them is the smartest character in their respective movie who are exactly as powerful as they claim they are. They easily outsmart the protagonists and actually manage to succeed with their plans, putting the heroes in a difficult and desperate place. This creates good tension and raises the stakes. I mean, Maleficent can call on the power of hell to transform into a giant fire-breathing dragon on a whim. That's pretty damn terrifying by itself.

    Also what do you think about Disney remaking its classic films in live action (like Beauty and the Beast)? It seems unnecessary to me other than to make easy money.
    An apt assessment. That's exactly what they are for. Cashing in on nostalgia is a trend these days.

    What do you think of the live action films compared to their animated counterparts? Do you think live action takes away from their original artistic animated quality? Do they reuse the music or remix it? I'm unfamiliar with a lot of the Disney films so I can't judge.
    I think they add nothing to them, they just do the same thing in an inferior way. At least Cinderella and The Jungle Book somewhat justified themselves with some changes to the story. It didn't make them better than the originals, but at least they tried. With Beauty and Beast, it's a step by step replica of the animated film, without the charm and visual style. Maleficent actually made me mad. They flipped one of their best villains on her head for the sake of some modern agenda.

    In a few years' time, no one's going to remember these movies and will just go back to the originals.

    The Little Mermaid is one of the Disney films assigned to get a live action remake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...animated_films

    Do you think live action can recapture the same kind of atmosphere that you enjoyed in the original animated film?
    No. And I don't think they should even try, but a lot of people are going to go see it anyway.
    The only movie I can see benefitting from a live action adaptation is Mulan. The scale of the story is larger than most Disney films, and the battle scenes could look cool. But if it's gonna be family-friendly it will probably ruin it.

    What do you think about Disney's latest films? Do you think they're going in a direction that you dislike?
    I'm not sure. With Frozen, Wreck It Ralph and the like, that particular branch of self-aware pop culture jokefests I'm not looking forward to at all (it all seems like a response to Shrek, that did all these things better imo). But on the other hand I did like Moana. I'm a bit relieved that Disney haven't completely abandoned their old way of adapting classic tales from various cultures. If there'll be more movies with Moana's direction I won't be complaining.

    As a female yourself, did you notice these things as you were playing the game?
    I didn't make note of it at the time, as it's not that important to the narrative. But it was pretty apparent, yeah.

    One thing I've noticed about Ellie is that a lot of female gamers seem to like her but I wonder how genuine their liking is. I think women nowadays are being pressured into accepting the tough strong female character so much that they feel obligated to praise it whenever they see it even if the female character herself isn't so great e.g. Rey from the new Star Wars films. She's basically a Mary Sue but she's supposed to be a strong female character that's supposed to inspire girls?
    If Ellie was a real person, she'd be marginalized, I guarantee it. I have a hard time believing that the average female would genuinely "admire" her, but again, the average female isn't gaming. Female gamers are a different bunch, tomboys are overrepresented. Ellie's appeal to that particular group isn't surprising, she's basically them.

    Mary-Sue Rey might have been an attempt to bring more girls into Star Wars' male-dominated fandom, but I don't think it worked. Even if it had, her detrimental effect on the story was hardly a good trade.

    What good writers do you think DC has other than Paul Dini? I'm not very familiar with any of the others.
    If we're talking comics: Dini's my favorite, but I'm fond of Tom Taylor too. His story arcs got me into Injustice, he does good work on Marvel's All-New Wolverine as well. Sean Murphy's White Knight is also pretty good. Others praise Scott Snyder for the currently ongoing Dark Nights event, but I'm personally 'meh' about that one.

    As for animation: No clue. They change them too often. Glen Murakami's Teen Titans series stood out, but that was a while ago. We'll see if the upcoming series on DC's own streaming service will be any good.

    Why not? It sounds like you've said that creating a good animated film is easier than creating a good live action film.
    In an animated film, too much depends on a single individual at the top. They can single-handedly make or ruin a project. From a quality standpoint, that's way riskier than a live action movie's many layers of staff, where good editing, camerawork, actors, costumes, special effects etc. can greatly improve or at least distract from a weak script (like in the new Star Wars films). If an animated movie has a weak script, even the best animator in the world can't do much about it. They have much fewer tools to work with.

    What do you think about the DCEU's cast? Do you think they can all do light hearted films because some of the actors look like they can only do grimdark films to me (Affleck and Cavill).
    Lighthearted stories wouldn't suit those characters, I was thinking about different ones entirely. Like Plastic Man, or the Blue Beetle & Booster Gold pair. It's probably not going to happen but one can hope. Looks like they are even shelfing Gotham City Sirens for the time being. The only semi-comedic character in the current roster is Harley Quinn, but with her it's hard to go around the dark backstory (not that they should). Plus she's linked to at least 3 different movies coming in the next few years (Suicide Squad 2, Joker&Harley, her own spinoff, maybe even Birds of Prey), so they might tire out the character too fast.

    What I'm hoping they won't do is copying Marvel. Thor: Ragnarok was a big disappointment for me. You can't tell an impactful story while also actively making a parody of yourself. I'm big on comedy, but a mythological apocalypse event is definitely not the place for it. The Whedonism in Marvel films got way out of hand, now bleeding into Star Wars. Hurrah.

    I asked a guy who likes the new films about this and he said that the studio was probably afraid of taking risks so they decided to just copy the Original Trilogy with a few differences. This is why the previous films had to be undermined. In order to copy the Original Trilogy they needed to reset the films back to the status quo at the start of A New Hope and the only way to do that was to resurrect the Empire and have them be a powerful threat.

    I just think that makes the Sequel Trilogy pointless but hey some people love their nostalgia so they're okay with seeing the old films remade with modern technology.
    If your main drive as a movie creator is earning the highest profits possible, catering to as many viewers as possible, story integrity be damned, you already failed at your job before you shot a single scene. But maybe I'm just old fashioned.

    I think Disney got overconfident after The Force Awakens because it grossed over $2 billion. That's why I think they gave Rian Johnson a lot of leeway. I think they just took it for granted that The Last Jedi would also gross the same amount. However The Last Jedi grossed a lot less so I think Disney should be more careful with Episode 9.

    The problem is that I think it may be a bit too late. I think Rian Johnson ruined what J.J. Abrams had planned for the series so I don't see Abrams being able to resolve Episode 9 satisfactorily.
    It's too late now, I agree. But I doubt J.J. actually had any plans for the whole trilogy himself. It's not his style to think ahead, he's more of a "let's throw in a bunch of unconnected elements and see where it goes" type of person. His creative process got notorious after his pet series Lost fell to pieces by its end. Turns out they had no idea how to wrap up their own plotlines, so they either did it quite poorly or just not at all. I think the same happened here: J.J. threw a bunch of balls in the air, thinking that Johnson will know how to do something cool with them, but he then just slammed them all. Good game, team.

    BTW I have to ask: do you like any of the new characters introduced in the Sequel Trilogy? I don't like any of them. I think they could have been interesting but they're made into Mary Sues or given inconsequential story lines and that doesn't do them justice.
    I actually started to like Rey during her first scenes on Jakku in the Force Awakens. She seemed like a promising character who was stuck in a hopeless situation by no fault of her own. She started lower than even Anakin did, and he was a slave, so that's quite an achievement. I was thinking "wow, this blighter will have a long way to go, that'll be interesting", but then it quickly went downhill when she stumbled upon the Millenium Falcon of all things and happened to be a genius in everything. So that was that. Finn's origin didn't make sense to me, and everyone else was just too paper thin. BB-8 was cute, but I hated that he replaced R2 and C-3PO for no good reason *cough* merchandise *cough*.

    Rey was always a Mary Sue but I thought they might give her an interesting story. However they seem to be pushing for some romance between her and Kylo Ren and I just think that's ridiculous because Rey saw Kylo Ren kill Han Solo for no reason. There should be no reason for her to fall in love with him. I don't want Rey to be one of those women that have Stockholm Syndrome and keep going to an abusive boyfriend.
    Not to mention it would be yet another retread. We've already seen this story once with Anakin and Padmé, and cheesy dialogue aside, I think that dynamic was developed well enough, certainly better than this one. If a romance subplot was even their goal. I'm not even sure at this point.

    Have you read Stephen King's books? I think they vary with quality. I think a few of his early books were good but his recent books seem stale. I don't see what's so special about The Dark Tower series. TBH I think Stephen King is a bit overrated as a writer. He's been writing his entire life but I don't think that necessarily makes you a good writer.
    King is a hit or miss for me. I think he's a good writer who didn't get this famous by accident. He had some original and very interesting ideas over the years. He just reused them a bit too many times. I read maybe 8 books of his overall, but I'm pretty sure at least 3 of them had Indian burial grounds as the culprit, another 3 with aliens, and 2 with cults or just plain old Satan. He has a way with tension though. I much prefer him over edgy Lovecraft wannabes.

    Also have you read The Stormlight Archive? It's a very popular ongoing fantasy series. On goodreads, it ranks below Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings:
    https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/...st_100_Ratings

    It hasn't received a live action adaption yet but I think it's expected to get one some time in the 2020s. It probably has the franchise-generating potential of Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. People expect it to be the next big fantasy series after Game of Thrones.
    The premise looks interesting, I will definitely check this one out. Sanderson comes across as a straightforward guy in the videos you linked, so that's a good sign.

    Also did you hear about how Game of Thrones has been going downhill in its latest seasons? The reason for this is because the show caught up with the novels and thus had to create original content and the original content is basically typical fantasy stuff. Some people are blaming the author for it. The last Game of Thrones book came out in 2011 which was the year that the first season of the TV show was released. The fact that the author hasn't gotten another book out since then is negligent of his responsibility as an author. At least Rowling was able to finish writing all her Harry Potter books before the films could catch up to them.
    Yeah, that's irresponsible on Martin's part. It's fine if he doesn't care for TV and wants to sit on his stories for as long as he likes, but then he shouldn't have accepted HBO's offer to begin with. The producers are in a difficult place now because of him, I don't really blame them. Maybe they should have waited until the final book was on the horizon, but no one expected it would take this long.

    Also do you still write fanfiction or do any kind of writing in general? A few weeks ago I found out that Brandon Sanderson (the author of The Stormlight Archive) was a university writing professor and did classes on creative writing. His lectures have been recorded and uploaded to YouTube:
    https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...eture+playlist

    These are the best writing lectures I've ever seen. I've learnt so much from them. I highly recommend for you to watch them if you'e still interested in writing.
    I do still write occasionally, mostly just for my own entertainment. He's pleasant to listen to, I'll probably watch all of these sooner or later, but I don't expect to learn anything new. For someone who consumes as many forms of fiction as we do and takes the time to analyse them, these lessons are self-explanatory. One can easily absorb them by osmosis, without even realizing it. Structuring and laying out complex drafts for a story comes easy for me. Actually sparing the time to commit to them is the difficult part. I'm rarely invested enough to do that. He gives useful info about publishing, but I'm not interested in that.

    Do you write yourself?

    I'm not a big fan of fairy tales so I have to ask: what do you think it is about them that make them so appealing to so many people? I mean fairy tales have pretty simple stories.
    The simplicity itself is the main draw. Simple enough to be understandable regardless of the time period, but just complex enough to hold your attention (folks figured out the three arc structure very early). It's easy and accessible. Sort of like fast food. Sure, a well-made Cordon Bleu with wine and 3 different side dishes make for a fulfilling meal, but you wouldn't want to eat some new king-sized gourmet dish every single day. Sometimes you just want a tried and true cheeseburger. Maybe it's as simple as that.

    Fairy tales condense elements that humans told, retold, and reacted to the same way throughout the centuries. Those people might be long gone, but by immortalizing the stories they shared, we still have a connection to them. I think this is a powerful thing. They're so pervasive that we are still clinging to them. Today's most popular fiction (Superheroes, Harry Potter, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings etc.) are still just bloated fairy tales if you think about it. Valiant heroes, evil wizards, monsters, magic, good conquers all. If you inserted Beowulf into a random Marvel movie and gave him a different name, no one would notice.

    Also have you heard of Disney acquiring X-Men from Fox? This means Fox's X-Men franchise is pretty much over (the New Mutant film is going to go to waste). Disney says they want to introduce the X-Men into the MCU. I'm not really looking forward to that. Personally I never felt X-Men never fitted well in the MCU because why wasn't all the bigotry and oppression they experienced present in other Marvel universes? Why didn't people call Spider-Man a mutant and call for him to be arrested?
    Yeah, I also viewed X-Men as a separate world from the rest of Marvel, that's how it works best. I liked Fox's approach to superhero movies the most. Their tone felt balanced, not too light, not too dark. I'm a bit upset about the acquisition, it probably means yet another reboot and streamlining the world into jokey-joke Whedon territory. I'm not sure what they're going to do with Deadpool's character. They'll just probably put him on the sidelines and pretend he doesn't exist.

    I looked at films, books, paintings etc that are considered to be art (or, more specifically, high art) and one thing I've noticed about them is that they have a strong message about a recent or timeless issue. For example, George Orwell's Nineteen Eighty Four explored the effects of censorship in society. Christian Bale's The Dark Knight explored the effects of terrorism on society. I think everything as that's considered high art have some kind of narrative. I think even a good painting, which is a static image, can communicate some kind of powerful message when you take one look at it. I think the message to be communicated is very important for a medium to be considered art. I think the message has to transcend the medium. It has to be something that impacts society.
    I'll have to disagree on that. "Art" is a very loose term that can encompass a lot of things, and some of it don't fit your criteria. Take the single most famous piece of art, the Mona Lisa for example. What message does it convey? What's the big impact it made on society? Nothing. It's a woman with a half smile. It's famous because of its painter, and the meta stories around it. The piece itself is nothing special, there were probably thousands more like it that didn't get even the tenth of the attention.
    Or take medieval tapestry about various battles, with their lack of perspective and their ridiculous, anatomically incorrect figures. They are priceless artifacts today, hanging in museums. Their value lies only in their age and rarity. They are time capsules of a period we would know less about otherwise. But I doubt any modern person would call them pretty or deep.

    It's a similar story with The Dark Knight. Its message about terrorism is nothing new, other media before it already did it, arguably even better. It got its popularity thanks to Heath Ledger's performance, and the unfortunate circumstances of his death right before the movie came out. The meta around it boosted the sales and influenced critics and moviegoers alike (after all it will forever be Heath Ledger's last and best role), and it made the movie special. Who knows if it had got the same sort of attention if Ledger was still alive?

    I think "art" has to be timeless, and has to have some kind of value. "Value" being up to future generations' interpretation. It has to be remembered and/or preserved for some reason (not only in a museum, maybe just in someone's basement), and that reason doesn't necessarily have to be beauty, depth, popularity, or message.

    Yes, games like BioShock or Deus Ex have a good chance of being remembered 100 years down the line, because they were milestones in the medium. What's also guaranteed to be remembered, is Pong. And Pacman. And the first Tomb Raider game from 1996. They were all the first in something. Pioneers, so to speak. The modern Tomb Raider games though? With their infinitely more detailed graphics, characters and plots? I doubt it. Spec Ops: The Line? Maybe. They're just not special anymore. If suddenly everyone starts churning out beautiful games with abstract ideas and deep narratives, none of them will stand out at the end of the day. And then maybe comes a smash hit from an unexpected developer, because of circumstances that converged at just the right time.

    So if someone claims that they're able to tell which new or recent games can be considered art and which cannot, I think they're talking out of their butt.


    On an unrelated note I watched both Blade Runner movies recently, and I think Villeneuve did a great job with the sequel. He managed to make an interesting movie out of a mildly interesting story at most, while respecting the original. The imagery was incredible, it easily carried the movie through its very slow pace. The upcoming Dune adaptation is in very good hands, I'm excited for what the guy does with it.

  8. #3168
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Fort Frolic, Rapture
    Posts
    5,595
    OK I am just going to say it. I loved the Justice League movie. I am not saying it was a perfect film; however, I had a blast and think the the cast was pretty spot on. I love Henry Cavill as Superman and think Jason Momoa was the Aquaman we needed.

    That and I have been playing Witcher III for months now.
    "And what happens if we run into ourselves?" "We won't" "How do you know that?" "Because we didn't"

Page 80 of 80 FirstFirst ... 3070787980

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •