(Thread IKs:
Nuns with Guns)
|
Captain Invictus posted:Vinny, Alex, and Brad recently left Giant Bomb, and it was a bummer. Finally, I can listen to three white men talk about video games. Finally. I wish they had more ambitious plans than just “what they did at Giantbomb but with a Patreon”
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Videogames are not art. Thank you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:21
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Finally, I can listen to three white men talk about video games. Finally. are you always like this
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:36
|
|
|
Alaois posted:are you always like this Not usually
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Finally, I can listen to three white men talk about video games. Finally. they have families to take care of, they dont really have the wiggle room for innovation at this second.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:03
|
|
|
Dias posted:i swear i don't mean to harp on and on about that lady but this is just too good i mean i like last of us 1 and 2 enough but gently caress its over rated as gently caress. so of course this dip believes its the deepest game. Sydin posted:There's an unfortunately large amount of people who tied up their identity in gaming as a lifestyle, so the most popular media critic in mainstream culture saying games are not worthy of being considered "art" becomes an attack on those people, not just the medium. Which is why you get a lot of Capital G Gamers still banging on about some off-hand comments a dead guy made over a decade ago. this. i think anything can be art because its subjective but i also just don't give a gently caress anymore because i play games as a hobby and for dumb/fun story time. i think you can find artistry and cool details and care in the biggest and dumbest of AAA games along with the small indie games. so idk or care. i just wish we had better critics because we seem to have more dumb ones then smart ones. Dapper_Swindler fucked around with this message at 03:19 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:14
|
|
|
Quinn Curio is once again talking about Snakey wizards. Quinn Curio- "Uh, Rowling Why Does Slytherin Still Exist?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeS1pITHufo And Broey Deschanel takes a look at method acting. Broey Deschanel - "The Problem of Method Acting" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVWGyuBFgzw
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
The major thing I learned from the whole Roger Ebert thing is that the vast majority of people with strong opinions about games being art understand neither art nor games and are just looking for cultural legitimacy for their hobby. That, and self identified gamers really need to understand that critics are not supposed to be arbiters of objective facts but people presenting an informed opinion on a piece of media. Also this overshadows my major beef with Ebert as a critic, which is that his critique of A Clockwork Orange is off-base: He criticized the movie for "glamorizing" the violent acts of Alex and his droogs, but I always felt that was a deliberate choice on Stanley Kubrick's part and that the violence in that film is meant to be regarded as horrific, regardless of how classy the music and cinematography used to portray it is. But I'm content to just disagree with Ebert's take and not launch some weird vendetta against him to uphold the sanctity of my choices in media consumption.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 03:57
|
|
|
KingKalamari posted:He criticized the movie for "glamorizing" the violent acts of Alex and his droogs gently caress did ebert predict the current trend of people who think that depiction of something must mean endorsement of it
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:10
|
|
|
depictions of violence in mainstream media in 1970 were much more tame in comparison to kubrick's pretty brutal scene. reading it, ebert is questioning whether or not the violence is "glamourized" by its use in this movie as a aesthetic backdrop with only surface level presentation where the violence is (for ebert, and im inclined to agree a little) just for the sake of it. he's pretty critical of how kubrick utilizes it in the storytelling because its just for its own sake. he does on to explain how kubricks camera work reads as a loving portrait of this character rather than an examination or critique of him. i dont agree with ebert all the time but i appreciate his approach to cinema that covers more than one direction and provides a different and usually thoughtful pov. the full ebert review is online and you can read it yourself quote:Alex is violent because it is necessary for him to be violent in order for this movie to entertain in the way Kubrick intends. Alex has been made into a sadistic rapist not by society, not by his parents, not by the police state, not by centralization and not by creeping fascism -- but by the producer, director and writer of this film, Stanley Kubrick. Directors sometimes get sanctimonious and talk about their creations in the third person, as if society had really created Alex. But this makes their direction into a sort of cinematic automatic writing. No, I think Kubrick is being too modest: Alex is all his. e: this is a pretty interesting review actually lol.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:19
|
|
|
Bleck posted:gently caress did ebert predict the current trend of people who think that depiction of something must mean endorsement of it his critiques were usually along the lines of movies both having their cake and eating it too in regards to deploring violence while still having the audience led to strongly identify with the protag through filming techniques. he described "clockwork orange" as being an ideological mess for that reason and I mean...yeah I get it even if I don't agree. he seems to have a lower opinion then me of the general audience's ability to glean that you are supposed to feel gross by identifying with the protag. which again, given the perception among way too many people of the ebic badassitude of Walter White and Fight Club... e: 
Famethrowa fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:37
|
|
|
Sarcopenia posted:Quinn Curio is once again talking about Snakey wizards. Boy this is hilariously timely after listening to the Shrieking Shack going over that chapter of the book a few weeks ago so it's still fresh in my mind that 99.2% of the Slytherins in the school joined the wizard nazis immediately as soon as Voldemort showed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
to be clear I was joking, I respect Ebert a lot and I feel like he probably wouldn't have believed that in the way a lot of modern folkem do
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
fun hater posted:depictions of violence in mainstream media in 1970 were much more tame in comparison to kubrick's pretty brutal scene. reading it, ebert is questioning whether or not the violence is "glamourized" by its use in this movie as a aesthetic backdrop with only surface level presentation where the violence is (for ebert, and im inclined to agree a little) just for the sake of it. he's pretty critical of how kubrick utilizes it in the storytelling because its just for its own sake. he does on to explain how kubricks camera work reads as a loving portrait of this character rather than an examination or critique of him. My counter-argument is that the origin of Alex's violent tendencies isn't really necessary to the thesis of the movie, which isn't so much seeking to answer "What makes a man behave badly?" so much as explore "Is doing bad things to a bad person to rehabilitate them morally justifiable?". That said, I definitely agree quite strongly that, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with Ebert's take, it's an interesting and thoughtful POV and I think having these sorts of discussions about the media we consume is much more important than determining a static rating of the quality of a work. I feel like there's far too many people out there who look at critics for an "objective" authority on taste and quality, overlooking that the actual opinion about a piece of media is less important than the arguments used to support that opinion.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 04:50
|
|
|
Dias posted:It's more extended cuts of their YT videos with stuff they didn't feel fit very well (or that screwed up the algorithm) and exclusive bonus stuff. That's actually Nebula tho, CuriosityStream is a documentary streaming service, but since it's priced in dollars I never actually tried it out. People say the interface for Nebula isn't great, I think it doesn't have notifications for videos. CuriosityStream is kinda trash. They basically bought up the rights to a bunch of old educational documentaries (the kind of random filler you’d see on PBS at 3:00am) and those make up the overwhelming majority of their library. These docs were cheaply made even for their time, often not terribly rigorous, and at this point essentially every science doc they have has become completely outdated (stuff like “scientists hope that one day we might discover the Higgs Boson”). Like, it’s not as bad as some of the things that folks have to shill on YouTube. But even at $20/year it kinda feels like a ripoff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:04
|
|
|
Raycevick made a video about Control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yke-E_xcEJk Important things I learned from this video: 1) At least some of his relatives buy into conspiracy theories. 2) He loving hates Pokemon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:10
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Bizarre Podcast has updated once again!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:18
|
|
|
Oh and the other part I wanted to mention is that I'm wondering if at any point they're just going to call Magician's Red Blaziken.achillesforever6 posted:It's the mark of a good podcast in that I hate how long it's going to get till they get to things I want them to review Yeah, what parts are people really excited for? Aside from both D'Arby's and the final battle, I'm just excited for part 4 and for the two of them to struggle to explain what even the gently caress is happening in the climax of Part 5. It'll be episode 26 vs Kars all over again. Also, one thing I thought about. Kars made his hand into a butterfly and it flew off before he regrew it. Couldn't that butterfly turn into another Kars on Earth?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:29
|
|
|
It probably shouldn't be forgotten that Kubrick himself pulled A Clockwork Orange in the UK in the early '70s after it inspired a couple of copycat murders. You basically couldn't see the film here from 1973 until his death in 1999. (To be honest, I mostly agree with Ebert's review of it. I don't particularly like A Clockwork Orange, it's my least favourite Kubrick movie. The book is much better. Kubrick just seems to kind of miss so much of the book's details and it just all comes off rather empty, like it's really just about nothing else but watching Alex and the droogs at work and there's little to sustain it otherwise.) Mind you, god knows why he gave A Clockwork Orange 2 while also giving the original Death Wish a 3, despite them both being these quasifascist violent fantasies in his eyes. I mean, at least Orange is directed by Kubrick and not Michael loving Winner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:46
|
|
|
What's the story with Kubrick's movie and chapter 21 of the book?
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 05:58
|
|
|
Kubrick's adaptations aren't accurate to the books because they were never really intended to be - the contents of the book were only ever treated as a scaffold for the contents of a Kubrick film about themes Kubrick was interested in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:05
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:Boy this is hilariously timely after listening to the Shrieking Shack going over that chapter of the book a few weeks ago so it's still fresh in my mind that 99.2% of the Slytherins in the school joined the wizard nazis immediately as soon as Voldemort showed up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:15
|
|
|
they're not just the house of racists who love pure bloodlines, they're also the house of ambition, and cunning! which is why you literally never see either of those things every actually shown by the house past "I want to be a powerful politician/rule the country".
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:19
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Kubrick's adaptations aren't accurate to the books because they were never really intended to be - the contents of the book were only ever treated as a scaffold for the contents of a Kubrick film about themes Kubrick was interested in. I saw this and was interested in finding out more Kubrick posted:There are two different versions of the novel. One has an extra chapter. I had not read this version until I had virtually finished the screenplay. This extra chapter depicts the rehabilitation of Alex. But it is, as far as I am concerned, unconvincing and inconsistent with the style and intent of the book. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the publisher had somehow prevailed upon Burgess to tack on the extra chapter against his better judgment, so the book would end on a more positive note. I certainly never gave any serious consideration to using it. Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:20
|
|
|
Early American publication of the book removed chapter 21, hence Kubrick not reading it until well after he started filming.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:23
|
|
|
thetoughestbean posted:Finally, I can listen to three white men talk about video games. Finally. they were among the first to do the podcast thing, and these same people(alongside jeff gerstmann and ryan davis) were the people who pioneered the video stuff back in the early days of the internet at Gamespot. so it's cool that they still want to do that sort of thing and aren't just totally burnt out entirely from games stuff. plus they're going to be doing some stuff alongside Austin Walker and Rob Zacny at Waypoint, which, well, Vinny and Austin together has produced some of my favorite content on the internet, so I am excited they are currently at 8,344 patrons, which is incredible. Captain Invictus fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:34
|
|
|
The lack of chapter 21 in A Clockwork Orange really affects how one reads the story. Personally I couldn't imagine reading it without the Chapter because it is a really twisted way of contextualizing every horrendous thing Alex does as being the work of teenage rebellion. But i know others who hate the ending because they feel that Alex growing up and getting bored with the old Ultraviolence robs him of the agency he was just given back at the end of chapter 20. Kubrick's dismissive attitude towards the ending reads to me like he'd already made up his mind about what the book's message was and refused to accept that Burgess had other things in mind so therefore it was clearly a publisher's fault forcing Burgess to change the ending so it was happier. People set in their ways can be stubborn. Arc Hammer fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 06:44
|
|
|
Supersonic Shine posted:Raycevick made a video about Control: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yke-E_xcEJk His opinion is pretty much the same as my experiences through the game. Control's had a lot of interesting narratives and concepts, but the combat bored me so much I dropped it and never picked it up again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 07:46
|
|
|
TheFlyingLlama posted:they're not just the house of racists who love pure bloodlines, they're also the house of ambition, and cunning!
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 08:02
|
|
|
Alacron posted:This, but in a broader sense I saw it as a criticism of how much game companies cozy up to the military by trying to completely remove the glamour from it. Basically a big old "this industry is seriously hosed" kinda take. While it would be asinine to imply that Spec Ops somehow exists in a vacuum apart from the Call of Duty games, I do hate that it was latched onto as this fundamentally anti-CoD piece, to the point where people attempted to claim every last little quirk of the game is some galaxy brain intended artistic statement. See: "The gameplay is bad on purpose, because war bad.  " which is untrue on about every possible level. Or the bizarre narrative that was concocted that the game was advertised as a generic mil shooter as some clever attempt to trick dumb Calladoody players into playing Real Art for once. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody tried to spin the multiplayer mode that literally everyone glosses over as some genius commentary when in actuality it was just your classic publisher interference forcing them to tack it on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 08:14
|
|
|
Archer666 posted:His opinion is pretty much the same as my experiences through the game. Control's had a lot of interesting narratives and concepts, but the combat bored me so much I dropped it and never picked it up again. I found the combat incredibly irritating and just not fun and the big gauntlet after the maze was absolutely awful. But man I loved every other aspect of the game. So like, exactly the same as Alan Wake. TLOU is the same where I find the combat is really weak but I love the story. Every game's combat should just be Bloodborne
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 09:04
|
|
|
Sarcopenia posted:I thought that Quinn made a really good point when she pointed out that the Weasley twins mainly possess traits that align really well with Slytherin and how Malfoy's two dumb, bodyguard friends don't seem to possess any of them what so ever. Really emphasizes that the snake kids are legit just evil. Like Sirius Black just happens to be the only non racist in his entire bloodline and then just happens to get into Gryffindor. Hmmmmm That HP musical almost had a good idea when it put the main characters IN Slytherin. Pity that didnt really matter for the plot at all. Plus while Malfoy did get some dramatic development, the average slytherer(?) is still ludicrously vile.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 09:34
|
|
|
As far as 'Ebert opinions that are ostensibly wrong but are actually more insightful than people give credit for', when I finally decided to check out his review for Fight Club I was surprised at how much I agreed with it (even if I'm obviously more charitable/disposed towards the film)quote:The movie is visceral and hard-edged, with levels of irony and commentary above and below the action. If it had all continued in the vein explored in the first act, it might have become a great film. But the second act is pandering and the third is trickery, and whatever Fincher thinks the message is, that's not what most audience members will get. "Fight Club" is a thrill ride masquerading as philosophy--the kind of ride where some people puke and others can't wait to get on again. That last statement could honestly be as much a glowing review as it is a damning indictment of the film. Hell, there's a comment on the site that's even harsher than Ebert: quote:"Fight Club" is preaching against violence while masturbating to it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 11:04
|
|
|
KingKalamari posted:The major thing I learned from the whole Roger Ebert thing is that the vast majority of people with strong opinions about games being art understand neither art nor games and are just looking for cultural legitimacy for their hobby. That, and self identified gamers really need to understand that critics are not supposed to be arbiters of objective facts but people presenting an informed opinion on a piece of media. There's also a lot of anti-intillectualism within geek culture. It refuses to look very deeply at the media it consumes and drives out anyone that wants to critique it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 12:31
|
|
|
Alacron posted:Okay, just finished watching this. As a kid I used to read these trashy 100 spookiest mysteries/deadliest disasters compendium books and as I started watching I had something tickle my mind (past the 'Hey, I know that place!' recognition of the isle of May as being a place you could see from my hometown on clear days) so a couple of minute in I was suddenly, "This is about the K boats isn't it?" as it triggered a memory of reading one of those books covering an incident I've given no thought to or further reading on for like thirty years. What a loving shitshow though. Britain sure loves its establishment cover ups.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 12:57
|
|
|
Sarcopenia posted:I loved the clip of Rowling desperately trying to say that Slytherins aren't inherently nazis and then immediately stating that they just have a strong need for selfpreservation. They're not inherently bad. Just inherently racist, bigoted and obsessed with pure bloodlines. Beautiful comedic timing. Rowling retconning on the spot in the podcast that the snake house showed back up at the final battle is peak Just Kidding. Hashtag not all Slytherins.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 13:14
|
|
|
As someone who only experienced the plot of Harry Potter through the Shrieking Shack, looking at just the text on its own I was honestly impressed at how consistently unsympathetic House Slytherin is and how the books never throw a single bone to the massive fanbase that was desperately holding out for Slytherin Not Being That Bad. I would almost take it as commentary against people trying to see the good points to the Wizard Nazi faction if it wasn't for....all the context in real life.
mycot fucked around with this message at 13:33 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 13:30
|
|
|
Ghostlight posted:Kubrick's adaptations aren't accurate to the books because they were never really intended to be - the contents of the book were only ever treated as a scaffold for the contents of a Kubrick film about themes Kubrick was interested in. this. like i think the shining book is creepier and better as a story, but the movie is at least interesting/solid as its own thing. even if i think Nicholson is miscast(as much as i like him in it) Dawgstar posted:Rowling retconning on the spot in the podcast that the snake house showed back up at the final battle is peak Just Kidding. Hashtag not all Slytherins. did they? i mean malfoy sorta has a face turn but thats more because he is the dumb racist kid of "quiet" nazi parents and then when wizard hitler comes back, he sees all the horrible poo poo first hand with no mask of civility. idk as an adult, the whole shittyness of wizard society in the later books annoys me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 13:39
|
|
|
Welcome to Hogwarts, the safest place in the wizarding world! Right over there are the dorms for the campus Nazi party. You have Potions class with their leader at 2:00pm. Don’t be late! Seriously, don’t.
Augus fucked around with this message at 13:44 on Jun 8, 2021 |
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 13:29 |
|
|
Trying to locate either a coherent politics or fictional world in Harry Potter is a dead end. Also Malfoy is at his best when he's basically a child version of this guy:  Dressing down the Griffindors, making humourous badges, and reading cuttings from the day's paper.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2021 13:47
|
|
