Jump to content
Double Fine Action Forums

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Scarecrow said:

Jurassic Park with Robots (Also Jurassic Park before Jurassic Park) wasn't a selling point in any of that for you?

I never thought of it that way until now.

Movie recommendations:

IMG_2055.JPG

IMG_2056.JPG

IMG_2057.JPG

IMG_2058.JPG

IMG_2059.JPG

Edited by Noname215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scarecrow said:

Please tell me you love Maeve as much as I do. Wait don't, you'd almost certainly be lying, my love for Maeve is seemingly boundless.

I'm honestly not sure who my favorite character is, but I'm definitely fond of Maeve and Dolores. I also liked Elsie a lot, too. The ladies in this show are on fleek.

And, of course, Anthony Hopkins, doing his Anthony Hopkins thing.

I can't remember why I saw the original, but I imagine I was probably just attracted by a robot uprising. Some people love zombies, I love robots.

Edited by Alcoremortis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always been very skeptical of the blending of the western genre with another. It worked on a few rare occasions like film noir (Blood on the Moon) and horror (Bone Tomahawk), but I'm not that big of a science fiction guy with the exception of Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury and Michael Crichton.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh man, I just watched that episode. Gaf practically predicted every single twist, those madmen!

14 minutes ago, Noname215 said:

I've always been very skeptical of the blending of the western genre with another. It worked on a few rare occasions like film noir (Blood on the Moon) and horror (Bone Tomahawk), but I'm not that big of a science fiction guy with the exception of Philip K. Dick, Ray Bradbury and Michael Crichton.

I like scifi a lot, but for some reason very few scifi books click with me, just Michael Crichton and Jules Verne mainly, though I suppose Scott Westerfeld has made that list now with Peeps. I think it's because a lot of scifi tends to ignore the human element in favor of the gimmick, which just makes it uninteresting to me. Movies tend to be forced to have more of that human element because if you've got a good actor, they'll bring it out even if there wasn't much to work with. And TV shows even more because if the show is going to survive, it needs to have characters the audience can like and understand. But for some reason a lot of scifi authors don't seem to understand that and focus so much on making the tech seem realistic that they forget the people also need to be realistic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Alcoremortis said:

I think it's because a lot of scifi tends to ignore the human element in favor of the gimmick, which just makes it uninteresting to me. 

This is why Bradbury is awesome. Unlike shitehawks like Asimov, he focuses on the human aspect rather than going full science porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Alcoremortis said:

I don't think I've actually ever read any Ray Bradbury. I'm always meaning to, but recently, I've just been writing non-stop.

My favorite novel of his is Something Wicked This Way Comes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have read almost zero Asimov, but the one book I remember (vaguely) reading seemed human enough, though it was of course dripping with science talk. Definitely wouldn't put it up there with my favorite Bradbury stories, but not worse than Bradbury's lesser works.

3 hours ago, Alcoremortis said:

I don't think I've actually ever read any Ray Bradbury. I'm always meaning to, but recently, I've just been writing non-stop.

Fahrenheit 451 is the classic place to start for Bradbury.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, AnAnemoneInAnonymity said:

I have read almost zero Asimov, but the one book I remember (vaguely) reading seemed human enough, though it was of course dripping with science talk. Definitely wouldn't put it up there with my favorite Bradbury stories, but not worse than Bradbury's lesser works.

Fahrenheit 451 is the classic place to start for Bradbury.

Everyone else got to read that one in high school, but for some reason it wasn't on the curriculum for my school.

(I imagine it had something to do with the fact that I went to an all-girls high school and all the English courses were designed to feature female authors and protagonists)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Alcoremortis said:

Everyone else got to read that one in high school, but for some reason it wasn't on the curriculum for my school.

(I imagine it had something to do with the fact that I went to an all-girls high school and all the English courses were designed to feature female authors and protagonists)

Same with me. A lot of friends had to read it in school but for some reason I was not one of those people. But I'm okay with that. Reading something for school has a way of making it feel like work, so I'm glad that I read it for my own enjoyment rather than someone telling me I had to read it... OR ELSE. I think the protagonist of 451 would agree. In fact, he might argue that if you haven't read it for your own fulfillment, then you haven't actually read it.

It's a good book for people who appreciate books---not just for their entertainment value, but for the knowledge and culture they contain.

Edited by AnAnemoneInAnonymity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember how back in my junior year of high school I had to write a 15-20 page paper for Literature class regarding a prevalent theme found throughout three novels by the same author that was taken from both culture and the author's own personal life. I chose the underlying religious themes throughout the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It was the first time I ever got an A+ in that class.

Edited by Noname215

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shockingly, also the longest paper I ever had to write for an English class was ten pages in college. In two days, I churned out a comparison paper on the cynicism of William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience. Last English class I ever took and only A+ I ever got on an English paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Alcoremortis said:

Shockingly, also the longest paper I ever had to write for an English class was ten pages in college. In two days, I churned out a comparison paper on the cynicism of William Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience. Last English class I ever took and only A+ I ever got on an English paper.

I've written so many english papers that, if you stacked them up, you could build a house. xD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, AnAnemoneInAnonymity said:

I've written so many english papers that, if you stacked them up, you could build a house. xD

How much of that paper went towards rollin' up the Mary Jane?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Noname215 said:

How much of that paper went towards rollin' up the Mary Jane?

None of it.

Next question!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Alcoremortis said:

This is what happens when you are a STEM major. Any class that only requires writing essays is a "fun" class.

Oh I know. Not because I am myself a STEM major, but because I had to work with STEM students on their writing and had to tangle with their "STEM syndrome" attitudes toward the value of writing, to say nothing of tangling with some very frustrating professors who you would THINK would know better, but nope.

 

(Edit: Not all STEM students, but scoffing at / being dismissive of non-STEM academia seems to be a common pastime in that crowd.)

Edited by AnAnemoneInAnonymity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think part of that would come from seeing writing as an enjoyable hobby, not as work. Or, at least, I can say that much for myself. I write for fun all the time, both serious and fictional and when I wanted to fill my schedule with something fun, I'd invariably pick a writing-heavy history or music class. If recreational math were more popular, I'd bet there'd be a lot of people going the other direction on that comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a sort of ideological difference in the way that Englishy people understand the role of writing and the way sciencey people understand it.

For sciencey people writing about this or that experiment, the writing they are putting on the paper is not much different than just writing down a list of measurements they've taken. It is sort of seen as just recorded data. When you are writing for science, you are not constructing a narrative with individual commentary; you are constructing a model for understanding a thing, or event, or phenomenon. The words on the paper serve a function similar to a chart or a graph.

And that all makes perfect sense when you are writing an APA paper for the sciences.

But then you try to make one of those kids write something Englishy and they want to flip the chess board. And I don't mean writing just a "for fun" type of writing like a short story or poem. People enjoy that, or else they can just turn in someting half-ass and pretend like it was their best effort. But if you try to make them write something like a RHETORICAL ANALYSIS then they absolutely could not give less of a shit.

Basically, for a STEM writer, the writing, if it is for academic purposes or to be considered "worth it" / "useful", has to be like transcribed observation or recorded data or analysis of data etc etc or what is even the point?

But if you give them a sentence and ask them write about what that sentence SAYS versus what the sentence MEANS and what the author's INTENTIONS ARE, then it's suddenly like, to hell with this stupid english major nonsense where you nerds analyze words just to analyze words because you are english people who are useless and dumb.

Edited by AnAnemoneInAnonymity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno, I still found that fun when I was taking classes, though I tended more towards historical analysis stuff because that's what I was interested in. 

But I disagree that STEM writing is just numbers and data. Numbers and data are included, but it's no more the core of a written science paper than quotes from a book are the core of a written literature paper. A science paper is an argument and the data is the evidence presented to make the point. A science paper is also a story, telling the reader what the scientist did, why they did it, what they found, and making a persuasive argument for how that proves their point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Alcoremortis said:

I dunno, I still found that fun when I was taking classes, though I tended more towards historical analysis stuff because that's what I was interested in. 

But I disagree that STEM writing is just numbers and data. Numbers and data are included, but it's no more the core of a written science paper than quotes from a book are the core of a written literature paper. A science paper is an argument and the data is the evidence presented to make the point. A science paper is also a story, telling the reader what the scientist did, why they did it, what they found, and making a persuasive argument for how that proves their point.

I don't mean that STEM writing is JUST numbers and data. It's more about how the writing is viewed as an artifact.

So if you look at a lot of English writing and even at MLA documentation, a lot of emphasis is on the words of others. So MLA famously uses page numbers instead of publication year, because being current doesn't really matter in English/History. And in English/History, the writing or the words themselves are the artifact being discussed. Whereas in science you might be talking about observed behavior or the results of an experiment, in English you are---not to disparage English---a lot of times just using words to talk about some other words. This is even true when you get into other areas of the humanities like theology and philosophy. The humanities is more a realm of concepts and ideas, so words are really all you have. It's just words about words about words. It's turtles all the way down! Except the turtles are more words.

In science, the closest you get to that sort of thing is a literature review. Well, in academia anyway. Popular science writing is a whole different thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm really enjoying the course I'm on now as I'm learning a lot about how to approach the study of games an analytical angle starting with core concepts (which ended with the creation of a nice little essay on the use of agency in narrative games) and moving onto theories from other disciplines (film, literature & semiotics so far - currently studying rhetoric right now) as well as learning how to design games without worrying too much about creating them, though that will come next term and at the same time the theory portion moves onto socio-cultural contexts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scarecrow said:

Just passed an online course I've been taking the past month with a 92%, feeling pretty smart right now.

What kind of course?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just learned that Lin-Manuel of Hamilton fame is PRODUCING NAME OF THE WIND FOR FILM AND TELEVISION.

He is a gift to us all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AnAnemoneInAnonymity said:

Just learned that Lin-Manuel of Hamilton fame is PRODUCING NAME OF THE WIND FOR FILM AND TELEVISION.

He is a gift to us all.

I saw that, might be interesting. I have to say though everyone says Kingkiller Chronicles was so polarizing but I just felt so vanilla about it even though I enjoyed reading it. It's well-written, solid fantasy but Kvothe just seems like such a douche to me that I was never invested in the character. It seems that the show is going to have little to do with the books, but just have the same setting which I'm interested in. Though honestly I found it a rather bland fantasy setting overall. I haven't seen Hamilton but I've heard enough that I'm intrigued to see how he handles the music from KKC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brütal Ke$ha said:

I saw that, might be interesting. I have to say though everyone says Kingkiller Chronicles was so polarizing but I just felt so vanilla about it even though I enjoyed reading it. It's well-written, solid fantasy but Kvothe just seems like such a douche to me that I was never invested in the character. It seems that the show is going to have little to do with the books, but just have the same setting which I'm interested in. Though honestly I found it a rather bland fantasy setting overall. I haven't seen Hamilton but I've heard enough that I'm intrigued to see how he handles the music from KKC.

I have a few friends who felt the same way about it, but we can't all like everything equally. I am bored to TEEEARS by Robert Jordan---a confession that is nigh scandalous to my fellow nerds. But I'm happy to say it and watch them squirm. :overlord:

I really enjoy the Name Of The Wind books (I call them that because it's a good name and "Kingkiller Chronicles" is a stupid name) because I think Rothfuss spins a really good character-driven story. I try out a lot of fantasy but to me the characters are usually very bland and the stories are so overly obsessed with wanking to the descriptions of dragons and magic and unicorns etc that they forget to actually make the characters someone I could love or hate or feel any genuine feelings about whatsoever. If it's just some unicorns and dragons and then several things happen one after the other, then sure, some things happen, and it was fantasy, but I don't care at all. I used to hate quitting books, but I'm to the point now where if I'm a certain % through the book and I still don't care, then I just move on.

Anyway, all of that being said, and while I do find Rothfuss one of the better sci-fi/fantasy authors for strong characters, I also agree with you that one of the greatest weaknesses of the story is that Kvothe is kind of a douche. In a lot of ways he acts like a douche, but also there is something kinda douchey about him on a meta-level. It's one thing to have a protagonist who is "the one" when it comes to a certain thing. Like Luke Skywalker is "the one" with the force, or Lyra is "the one" when it comes to being the rare human who can use and read an alethiometer, miscellaneous zombie stories have "the one" who is immune to zombie-ism (I also count you in that category, Dragon Age Origins). But Kvothe is sort of a masturbatory protagonist in a lot of ways. Like you can imagine a twelve year old Rothfuss sitting at a keyboard typing

AND AND AND HE IS THE BEST AT THE RAREST AND MOST POWERFUL MAGIC

AND HE IS THE BEST AT PLAYING GUITAR

AND THE MOST BEAUTIFUL GIRL IN THE LAND WANTS HIM

BUT IT'S TOO COMPLICATED, SO HE JUST F***S AROUND INSTEAD, LIKE A DIFF GIRL EVERY NIGHT

HE F***S TWO TWIN SISTER NINJAS AT THE SAME TIME

THEN A DIVINELY BEAUTIFUL SEX GODDESS OF ANCIENT LEGEND WHO STEALS MEN AWAY INTO THE FEY AND THEN MURDERS THEM CAPTURES KVOTHE AND TAKES HIM TO THE FEY, BUT HE IS SO STUDLY AND SINGS AND PLAYS GUITAR SO GOOD, HE F***S HER FOR FIFTY PAGES AND THEN SHE LETS HIM GO BECAUSE HE IS THE BEST AT SEX SHE HAS EVER HAD AND SHE HAS EXISTED SINCE THE BEGINNING OF TIME THAT IS HOW GOOD KVOTHE IS

AND ALSO HE IS REALLY NICE (JUST IGNORE THAT HE IS A F***BOY)

etc etc

I totally get that criticism and it is 100% fair. Still, he is not the worst offender in that department. Don't even get me started on Lev Grossman's The Magicians and the sexuality in that book. Ugh. I could rant and rant and rant.

blah blah blah yadda yadda long anemone post etc etc

Curious to see where this tv/movie stuff goes!

Edited by AnAnemoneInAnonymity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...