However, this debate about "canon/ noncanon gets a bit sticky and is it really worth it in the broad scheme of your life to get so uptight about MXO? Who says I'm ranting about it outside of the forums? Who says I'm giving up the other aspects of my life for this debate, or rather do it more than for partaking in this game and these forums at all? Who says MxO can't be a part of your broad life?
zeroone506 wrote:@Paperghost Such obsession is certainly funny, but I don't like how you use these extremes to mock a serious attitude to a fictional universe. "Just a game", "just disposable entertainment" - nice, really. I mean, that's nice, if so. But I also think serious fiction and people's perception of fiction as some sort of alternate reality they take seriously shouldn't be dismissed as "fanboy obsession". Immersion into fictional universes/stories is serious business. If you have some fiction that is written seriously and perceived seriously, like dunno, Tolkien or something, and someone messes with it (and I don't mean an innocent parody), I totally understand if fans get disgusted, and I find it right. The Matrix is one of the more serious franchises out there, don't you think? Why shouldn't fans be aggravated if someone messes with it? Geez. I haven't read the comics, and I haven't played PoN. I've always wanted to catch up on it, but now I've started doubting. I really thought PoN was a serious extension of the Matrix universe, with alternate storylines and stuff. I had heard of an alternate ending, and thought it would really be something impressive and revealing. But hey, if the Wachowskis just wanted to fool about a little, then it wasn't. Funny. But hey, now I have more pocket money for a double bass machine its the obsession with it having to be "serious" - how many times to do you mention "serious" above? - like that adds any additional weight or meaning, through being "serious" in and of itself - that I will continue to relentlessly mock when it manifests itself in the most ludicrous forms. does it make something more useful, or worthy, or important, if we treat it more "seriously" and make sagely noises around it while rubbing our chins and putting on our best "serious face" because we think the object in question deserves our serious face? Okay, lol. There are things that are meant more seriously or less, and things that are being taken more seriously or less. That's the reality of life. It gets funny when the perception is inadequate to the intentions, or when people take their serious attitudes outside of the appropriate area. In other words, treating a self-ironic comedy as the second coming, or including Star Trek or Matrix in your real life, is funny. meh, forget that. i had enough of that kind of thing in art school and you know what it produced? bad, pretentious art that sucked. if someone wants to mess with something, and not in a parody fashion, but in a "let's see what kind of damage we can do to this one" fashion then great. go nuts, smash it down, tear it up and come up with whatever you come up with. it might be great, or it might suck, but if you hold back because you don't want to treat the source material "irreverently" or fast and loose, you're probably limiting the scope of whatever it was you were attempting to come up with in the first place. Maybe I would've liked it? You're limiting the scope of what you can do, which includes limiting the scope of damage you can do - which is a positive thing. Why take the risk of destroying something? Why is responsible treatment of art wrong? Your attitude implies that everything in art is just fun, and, you know, bullocks to everything, nothing matters anyway. An attitude I can't really share. There are people to whom art means more. "The Matrix is one of the more serious franchises out there, don't you think?" why? serious how? the films seem fairly laced with parody and humour themselves. are those moments of humour, parody and wit - some of the best moments in the films - to be lost in the more worthy sea of seriousness because thats more important? There are far more humorous movies than the Matrix. But that wasn't my point. I didn't mean "serious" in the sense of "humorless". It wasn't even in the sense of "lack of self-irony". It was more like "meant seriously" - know what I'm sayin'? You can just throw out an entertaining movie with some smart ideas for fun, or it can mean something to you. The Matrix seemed like a series that took its allusions and contents seriously, and looked like it had thought behind it. theres a huge difference between someone who appreciates a work of art on all its different levels, its flaws, its strengths and everything that makes it what it is, and those who will stab you in the face because you pronounced Jar Jar Binks name wrong. the endless, rolling flames of hell await those people. i will be there to jab them with pitchforks. Yea, but it's not the same as complaining about the presence of Jar Jar Binkz because it ruins the standard or level of previous Star Wars movies for you. Which is totally comprehensible. its not some worthy, self righteous, second coming we're discussing here anyway. we're discussing a bunch of films - the first of which is awesome, yet still full of problems - the second two, less so and i fear the years will not be kind to the third. Just your opinion. Although I agree with you to some minor degree, it's not a fact that the first movie rocked and the sequels were worse. Does everything have to be either the apocalypse or just a bunch of meaningless T-rated fun? A piece of art/fiction that is meant seriously to some degree - what's so absurd about this? a bunch of films that the creators themselves happily reserve the right to mock as and when necessary - if they can do it, why can't we? it doesn't diminish the film in question. in fact, if it survives the beating it comes out stronger. but really, i've dealt with hardcore matrix nerds, and hardcore comic nerds - now THERE'S a challenge - who will rant and rave over THE most ludicrous details that ultimately just dont matter one bit. There are details that do matter something, especially if they were created with thought - maybe you just don't value them. " But hey, if the Wachowskis just wanted to fool about a little, then it wasn't. Funny." why? how can you base a judgement on how it "wasn't funny" (in the context of what you're playing, and how it relates to the fanboy explosion of rage that became evident in many places once people started to complete the game) when you haven't even played it other than what you've read about it? sorry man, if you played it through when it came out, while aware of the crazed levels of fanboy excitement surrounding what could possibly be in the ending, then you will have got it, and you will have laughed. it seems to me to be a case of, oh my! how DARE those horrible W bros do this to their own film! how dare they insult it in this manner!! It wasn't... impressive and revealing, because the Wachowskis wanted to mock and razz rather than seriously contribute to their creation, or whatever. It's funny that I had thought the opposite all the time, and believed the promotion texts. I mean, seriously, if you have a game that has the intention to have fun and parody, it's okay. I also love parodies on things I like, including the Matrix - "Scary Movie 3" was less impressive, but the MTV Movie Awards one roxxored. The problems start when the parody is directly included into the "original", because then people rightfully get disappointed. The second movie has been called a "parody of itself at its best" by some dumb critic (sorry, he was just dumb), and this was meant in a negative sense. Because it was actually the real sequel, not a parody. ......i mean, whatever. if the creators can razz their film in any way they see fit, why can't I? if they wish to poke fun at the dangerous levels of fanboyism regarding their product, why can't I? You can. But would you like to see Morpheus or the General dancing around in a mini-skirt, not in some parody but right in the story? Because otherwise it would limit the scope of your art? my example about the PoN game isn't some sweeping statement about anybody and everybody anyway - its a specific reference based on actual experience revolving around a specific group of people that took things way, way too far with regards what they thought the ending of that game would entail. if they happen to look upon these posts now and don't like my attitude towards them and how I laughed my socks off at that ending, well, its too bad for them. they pretty much wandered into a self fulfilling prophecy. It's too bad I wasn't involved into the hype - maybe I really would've expected something great, and be disappointed with the reality. I don't know if I'd dislike it, or put it off with a laugh. It's always funny when people take things all too far, though. you...or I....or especially the creators....can do whatever they feel like with it. nothing is above poking fun of, and we shouldn't treat any sort of art as any sort of "holy relic". Its funny you mention Tolkien, because thats one of the best examples of rampant, laughable fanboyism I could think of. How badly did many of the obsessives want to hate peter jacksons interpretation of the books before they'd even seen it? how sweet was their begrudging admissions across forums worldwide that, actually, he'd done a pretty *CENSORED* fine job of it overall? So LOTR was just a disposable trilogy Tolkien threw out for fun and out of boredom, in your opinion? Sorry man, you're way off. This is one of the best examples of the writer and the fans taking a piece of fiction very seriously, and rightfully so. Those weren't some stupid fanboys, rather people who admired and had analysed Tolkien's work. Peter Jackson did a censored great job with the trilogy as movies, and on many artistic levels. I won't delve into that too much. But just they put such an awesome piece of work into desigining all places and persons as authentically and detailedly as possible, they allowed very heavy and unnecessary deviations from the books. It was good as an "interpretation", but not as an authentic screening - which is what it pretends to be. Jackson and co. misunderstood many plots and characters. Tolkien fans had all their reasons to criticize this. Just as it's wrong to live your life after Austin Powers, it's wrong to put such works as Tolkien's as some fun that doesn't deserve and deeper attention or respect. Sorry. a fictional universe is nice, but thats all it is and once i'm doing doing whatever i'm doing it with, bam, i'm back in this one and i don't care about it anymore. all art is entirely disposable, and nobody should take it so seriously...especially when it was created by someone else...that they can't step back and laugh at the absurdity of attempting to treat it as something more than it is and become obsessed with the smallest, irrelevant details to the point of pointlessness. Yea, no one says you have to live the fictional universe in your life. On the other hand, I remember myself being excited and tensed between episodes of TV series or movie sequels, so dunno. Art is disposable? Well, some people consider art what makes the life interesting at all, or us human. Maybe you should consider how the world would be without art? A much more boring place. i think it was phillip k d_ck, or maybe another writer, who (at a convention) had someone come up and engage him in an hour long conversation about how some piece of technology couldn't ever work in the 25th century to power some device as part of a larger scheme in one of his books (or something), because the power source he cited wouldn't work with the materials he mentioned in the story. eventually, he turned to him and said, "we make it all up out of our heads, you know". You know what this means? That writer didn't take it all so seriously with the realism, and thus, the fan's treatment was inappropriate. Simple enough. Hulk was transformed by gamma radiation because the creator thought the word sounded cool. "Minority Report" or "I, Robot", as far as I know, where designed with far more thought. So when a fan starts discussing how gamma radiation couldn't cause this or that effect, it's not the same as someone discussing how certain things in those two movies are not realistic. This doesn't only go for SF ideas, also for historical accuracy, authenticity to the original or any aspect of life, and eventually, character development and story continuance. This is self-evident. Always remember to bring this up when *appropriate* situations call for it, otherwise it's nonsensical.
@Paperghost Such obsession is certainly funny, but I don't like how you use these extremes to mock a serious attitude to a fictional universe. "Just a game", "just disposable entertainment" - nice, really. I mean, that's nice, if so. But I also think serious fiction and people's perception of fiction as some sort of alternate reality they take seriously shouldn't be dismissed as "fanboy obsession". Immersion into fictional universes/stories is serious business. If you have some fiction that is written seriously and perceived seriously, like dunno, Tolkien or something, and someone messes with it (and I don't mean an innocent parody), I totally understand if fans get disgusted, and I find it right. The Matrix is one of the more serious franchises out there, don't you think? Why shouldn't fans be aggravated if someone messes with it? Geez. I haven't read the comics, and I haven't played PoN. I've always wanted to catch up on it, but now I've started doubting. I really thought PoN was a serious extension of the Matrix universe, with alternate storylines and stuff. I had heard of an alternate ending, and thought it would really be something impressive and revealing. But hey, if the Wachowskis just wanted to fool about a little, then it wasn't. Funny. But hey, now I have more pocket money for a double bass machine
You're limiting the scope of what you can do, which includes limiting the scope of damage you can do - which is a positive thing. Why take the risk of destroying something? Why is responsible treatment of art wrong? ...because the very best art usually takes risks? depends what your definition of "responsible treatment" of art means. To me, it means very little. then again, i address art as a creator and participant so that along with my art training will influence my view of this heavily. i just treat all art with a very fast and loose attititude because its useful to the artistic philosophy i employ when creating whatever i happen to be creating myself. ultimately, even the very best paintings are just more clutter taking up space on walls. do we actually need any more paintings? Your attitude implies that everything in art is just fun, and, you know, bullocks to everything, nothing matters anyway. An attitude I can't really share. There are people to whom art means more. art means a lot to me, because i happen to work and exist in that environment. however, at the same time i happily treat it with a complete lack of respect. i've also had more than a lifetimes worth of having to deal with overly pretentious and up themselves artists, and frankly most of these people open themselves up quite happily to ruthless mockery. i never said that everything in art is "just fun", by the way. when i say "treating it irreverently" or "fast and loose", i'm not equating those with "fun". but anyone who's worked in the fine arts - specifically in the visual or painterly field for any length of time - will understand my point of view and likely agree with it to some degree. if somethings important to you, fine - but i see no need to make a big deal out of it or externalise it to the point where it becomes being obsessed with silly details for the sake of it. and the obsession with crazy, tiny details that just don't mean very much is complete anathema to me. There are far more humorous movies than the Matrix. But that wasn't my point. I didn't mean "serious" in the sense of "humorless". It wasn't even in the sense of "lack of self-irony". It was more like "meant seriously" - know what I'm sayin'? You can just throw out an entertaining movie with some smart ideas for fun, or it can mean something to you. The Matrix seemed like a series that took its allusions and contents seriously, and looked like it had thought behind it. ...doesn't mean i can't treat it like an above average action film with some interesting cod-philosophy ideas and nice fightscenes though, does it? the film happily bears the weight of all interpretations. it just seems to me that the "seriousness" of the films, and the subsequent treatment of everything therein, are used as a stick to beat people with when they dare to suggest that, you know, a lot of stuff in the films just doesn't mean very much in a wide variety of ways. you see it in this obsession with "canon", endless obsessions with whether its still 1999 or how the entire matrix is just the megacity, and subsequent flames galore heaped upon anyone who doesn't agree with those ideas, or indeed (shock, horror) thinks that in the grand scheme of things those elements of the films don't matter one bit, especially in relation to some online pc game. Yea, but it's not the same as complaining about the presence of Jar Jar Binkz because it ruins the standard or level of previous Star Wars movies for you. Which is totally comprehensible. meh. half an hour of jar jar binks in one film "ruins the standard or level" or previous star wars films? i don't really think the walking, talking toy line that is the ewoks from Jedi is any great leap above jar jar, and he's hardly the pinnacle of awfulness that brings the entire franchise crashing down around its ears. having said that, i think jar jar does suck, yet i can happily watch the films and not have them ruined by him. indeed, i can also watch the phantom menace itself and not have that film ruined by his presence. why is that? what makes me able to handle the films in this way, yet others go completely overboard over something so pointless? i mean, i likely know about as much as those films as the kind of person i'm talking about. i have an encyclopedic knowledge of those films, know the script, the action sequences, the philosophy behind it, the history of the film and all the cultural and cinematic references it harks to - yet i don't get all stroppy and OTT about jar jar somehow blighting the significant artistic landscape that is star wars. it just seems to be people get way too crazy about this stuff. if they want to, fine. but it doesn't float my boat. Does everything have to be either the apocalypse or just a bunch of meaningless T-rated fun? A piece of art/fiction that is meant seriously to some degree - what's so absurd about this? nothing, but then i'm not saying it has to be brainless or the apocalypse. i'm saying that approaching what is, after all, one good film and two uneven films with this awestruck, its-a-miracle-and-will-save-us-all attitude that i see so, so frequently, is just very odd. it also tends to get in the way of discussion that might involve some criticism and / or pointing out that ultimately, a lot of stuff in there just doesn't matter. i've seen it on forums, at conventions, in Q&A sessions, in university lectures and more besides. its just weird. i'm not talking about whether the film is meant seriously or not. i'm going to approach and watch and absorb a film in the same way whether its meant to be "taken seriously" or be taken as a bit of fun, or a diversion, or early 20th century surrealist humour. i'm talking about how seriously people can (and do) take it. There are details that do matter something, especially if they were created with thought - maybe you just don't value them. but we're not talking about stuff in the films that has some clear "worth", or are important in some way because it relates to something quantifiable in the film. we're talking about the stupid stuff. the stuff no one would reasonably be expected to care about. the size of supermans "S Shield" on his chest in Superman Returns, or why Aragorns blade was a certain type of silver in the film when it was this kind of colour in the book, or why the agents finish each others sentences at the start of reloaded. i mean honestly, who cares? in the case of the agents, theres no apparent real deep reason for it. they just did it because they probably thought it would be cool to do. yet someone, somewhere, will write a sixty page essay about the agents finshing each others sentences and then stand atop thunder mountain berating anyone who dares suggest that, you know, in the grand scheme of the matrix trilogy, it might not - whisper it - make any real difference, or have any real importance. It wasn't... impressive and revealing, because the Wachowskis wanted to mock and razz rather than seriously contribute to their creation, or whatever. It's funny that I had thought the opposite all the time, and believed the promotion texts. I mean, seriously, if you have a game that has the intention to have fun and parody, it's okay. I also love parodies on things I like, including the Matrix - "Scary Movie 3" was less impressive, but the MTV Movie Awards one roxxored. The problems start when the parody is directly included into the "original", because then people rightfully get disappointed. ...seems to me the only people that were severely disappointed with the ending were the people i already mentioned. i mean, too bad for them for taking a playstation game so seriously and honestly thinking there was going to be some near biblical reveal at the end of it. also, surely the whole point of the ending would have been lost if they'd presented path of neo as some sort of "parody" from the outset. wheres the surprise in that? But would you like to see Morpheus or the General dancing around in a mini-skirt, not in some parody but right in the story? Because otherwise it would limit the scope of your art? i don't see what this has to do with the point you addressed, because i'm asking why i can't poke fun at the dangerous levels of fanboyism that surround this product. razzing the films doesn't seem to have anything to do with getting a dev to make morpheus dance in a skirt. but in terms of creative freedom, if a dev could justify it in some way then sure, go nuts. tranny him up. So LOTR was just a disposable trilogy Tolkien threw out for fun and out of boredom, in your opinion? huh? i never said anything about tolkien creating the books for a bit of a laugh. i'm talking about the laughable fanboyism....as evidenced by the fans who go too far.....over his books. This is one of the best examples of the writer and the fans taking a piece of fiction very seriously, and rightfully so. ...depends how "seriously" the fans take it and how they express that "seriousness". a lot of times, i've seen first hand experience of that expression that is neither healthy nor is it productive to themselves or those around them. It was good as an "interpretation", but not as an authentic screening - which is what it pretends to be. Jackson and co. misunderstood many plots and characters. Tolkien fans had all their reasons to criticize this. again, criticise it, sure. but we both know theres a world of difference between the people you're talking about and the people i'm talking about, who will threaten to kill you because you dared suggest that it might not matter if jackson got the colour of gandalfs beard wrong. Just as it's wrong to live your life after Austin Powers, it's wrong to put such works as Tolkien's as some fun that doesn't deserve and deeper attention or respect. Sorry. once again, i never said lord of the rings was some piece of "fun". Art is disposable? Well, some people consider art what makes the life interesting at all, or us human. Maybe you should consider how the world would be without art? A much more boring place. well i have a fine arts degree specialising in painting, sculpture and film so i have thought about it a fair bit. and i came to the conclusion that you can take what you want from it, and enjoy it or hate it but ultimately, it IS just a bunch of disposable stuff designed to pass your time in some way, shape or form. a famous artist once said, "the best thing in an art gallery are the windows". i never said the alternative to my point of view is a "world without art". i'm just saying, its just a bunch of stuff. good stuff, some of it. but a bunch of stuff all the same. and i don't see the need to approach any of it as some untouchable, holier-than-i item that i need to somehow "show respect for". So when a fan starts discussing how gamma radiation couldn't cause this or that effect, it's not the same as someone discussing how certain things in those two movies are not realistic. not sure why you mentioned "two films" there, but i'm not referring to anything in the matrix movies with that "make it all up out of our heads" quote, i was actually referring to the matrix online and this thing about canonical correctness, and numbers attached to forum postings about stuff that happens in a game. ultimately, rarebit does indeed "make it all up out of his head" and i just don't see that it matters that much. as always, your mileage may vary.
zeroone506 wrote: You're limiting the scope of what you can do, which includes limiting the scope of damage you can do - which is a positive thing. Why take the risk of destroying something? Why is responsible treatment of art wrong? ...because the very best art usually takes risks? depends what your definition of "responsible treatment" of art means. To me, it means very little. then again, i address art as a creator and participant so that along with my art training will influence my view of this heavily. i just treat all art with a very fast and loose attititude because its useful to the artistic philosophy i employ when creating whatever i happen to be creating myself. ultimately, even the very best paintings are just more clutter taking up space on walls. do we actually need any more paintings? Colorz? Colorz! I'm afraid we're getting too abstract here. It is a rather vague and subjective line you draw between things that destroy or help a piece of art. One point of view is that medieval castles, fantasy creatures, fly monsters and superhero motives along with laser weapons ruin what made the movies, or the first one, great, another one is that it enriches it in a good way. The first film also lacked the pathos of the sequels. When I watched the first movie, the Oracle's character appeared disturbing to me, lol. Now, MxO is generally more humorous, even in a somewhat silly way, than whatever image one might have of the movies. The Effectuator turning people into objects? Maybe I can survive this. Twin legs /russdancing? Gag! I guess this amounts to one's opinion of what helps and what disturbs. The artist can follow this opinion when deciding to "take a risk", the viewer can judge the product after it. Your attitude implies that everything in art is just fun, and, you know, bullocks to everything, nothing matters anyway. An attitude I can't really share. There are people to whom art means more. art means a lot to me, because i happen to work and exist in that environment. however, at the same time i happily treat it with a complete lack of respect. i've also had more than a lifetimes worth of having to deal with overly pretentious and up themselves artists, and frankly most of these people open themselves up quite happily to ruthless mockery. i never said that everything in art is "just fun", by the way. when i say "treating it irreverently" or "fast and loose", i'm not equating those with "fun". but anyone who's worked in the fine arts - specifically in the visual or painterly field for any length of time - will understand my point of view and likely agree with it to some degree. if somethings important to you, fine - but i see no need to make a big deal out of it or externalise it to the point where it becomes being obsessed with silly details for the sake of it. and the obsession with crazy, tiny details that just don't mean very much is complete anathema to me. When I say "serious", I did not mean "humorless". Ergo, concordantly, when I say "fun", I don't mean "fun", I mean lack of this seriousity that is not the lack of humor, and maybe lack of respect. Maybe you find it a good artistic idea to put a Schlager bridge into a metal song, or a classical piece - there will be many, including myself, who will dislike it, and for whom it'll disturb the piece. Then, the talk about respect, style and seirousness will rise. Details are important in art. Those who have a rougher perception or lower pretensions might care less about it. Since you're a professional musician (even if only composer, dunno), you understand this. Mocking the importance of story continuity (?) is the same as mocking smaller demerits in a music performance. Except, of course, the musician doesn't mean it all so seirously, then it becomes nonsensical. Or what details are you talking about? You can just throw out an entertaining movie with some smart ideas for fun, or it can mean something to you. The Matrix seemed like a series that took its allusions and contents seriously, and looked like it had thought behind it. ...doesn't mean i can't treat it like an above average action film with some interesting cod-philosophy ideas and nice fightscenes though, does it? the film happily bears the weight of all interpretations. it just seems to me that the "seriousness" of the films, and the subsequent treatment of everything therein, are used as a stick to beat people with when they dare to suggest that, you know, a lot of stuff in the films just doesn't mean very much in a wide variety of ways. Yea, you can think whatever you want. Another question is if what you think is right. So, just on the premise that the Wachowskis did put more thought into it and its details than you seem to think, you would be wrong not realizing it, and mocking those who do. On the other hand, if the Wachowskis really were leading people around by the nose randomly putting in some seemingly deep dialogues, you would be right and they wrong. Another nice example would be "Lost" - you know, with lots of fans speculating about what's going on, and referring to small details when necessary. If the writers are just fooling about with all these mysteries, those fans may be mocked. If they place value on continuity and details, and put thought into it, it's vice versa. you see it in this obsession with "canon", endless obsessions with whether its still 1999 or how the entire matrix is just the megacity, and subsequent flames galore heaped upon anyone who doesn't agree with those ideas, or indeed (shock, horror) thinks that in the grand scheme of things those elements of the films don't matter one bit, especially in relation to some online pc game. Ok, lol or what? Those aren't small details, but crucial questions about the nature of the fictional universe this is about. This "some online pc game" at least pretends to continue the story and expand/explain the universe. WoW is just some PC game. And yea, flaming is silly. Putting interpretations and opinions about story as facts, with or without flaming, is also silly. Flaming is never necessary, saying "you're wrong" and backing it up, if it makes sense, usually suffices :) But please make the effort to separate flaming from simply caring about these details, or what? Yea, but it's not the same as complaining about the presence of Jar Jar Binkz because it ruins the standard or level of previous Star Wars movies for you. Which is totally comprehensible. meh. half an hour of jar jar binks in one film "ruins the standard or level" or previous star wars films? i don't really think the walking, talking toy line that is the ewoks from Jedi is any great leap above jar jar, and he's hardly the pinnacle of awfulness that brings the entire franchise crashing down around its ears. having said that, i think jar jar does suck, yet i can happily watch the films and not have them ruined by him. indeed, i can also watch the phantom menace itself and not have that film ruined by his presence. why is that? what makes me able to handle the films in this way, yet others go completely overboard over something so pointless? Hmm. I used to watch Episode I as a little kid, and I remember I liked it. I haven't seen it for years, so I don't know if I'd hate Jar Jar now. I think I'd find him okay, or even like him. The Ewoks, rationally, aren't necessarily less silly than Jar Jar, aswell. Actually, they're a great argument against the Jar Jar critics, I think I even brought it up somewhere. Then again, a part of me thinks that the Ewoks and the otherwise light ending of Episode VI disappointed the darkness created by V, and the catastrophe in III. The point is, you can dislike all of this, and because it's a part of the whole, consider the quality of the whole lower. That's just logical. If you care about the product's quality or have some sort of attachment to it, it can piddle you off. If you don't, you can distance yourself from it and go aobut your life when you've left the theater. That's also logical. Does everything have to be either the apocalypse or just a bunch of meaningless T-rated fun? A piece of art/fiction that is meant seriously to some degree - what's so absurd about this? nothing, but then i'm not saying it has to be brainless or the apocalypse. i'm saying that approaching what is, after all, one good film and two uneven films with this awestruck, its-a-miracle-and-will-save-us-all attitude that i see so, so frequently, is just very odd. it also tends to get in the way of discussion that might involve some criticism and / or pointing out that ultimately, a lot of stuff in there just doesn't matter. i've seen it on forums, at conventions, in Q&A sessions, in university lectures and more besides. its just weird. So what, you're talking about how people overdo it. I've never said I agreed with stuff like this, I find exaggerated obsession and fanboyism silly aswell. There are details that do matter something, especially if they were created with thought - maybe you just don't value them. but we're not talking about stuff in the films that has some clear "worth", or are important in some way because it relates to something quantifiable in the film. we're talking about the stupid stuff. the stuff no one would reasonably be expected to care about. the size of supermans "S Shield" on his chest in Superman Returns, or why Aragorns blade was a certain type of silver in the film when it was this kind of colour in the book, or why the agents finish each others sentences at the start of reloaded. i mean honestly, who cares? in the case of the agents, theres no apparent real deep reason for it. they just did it because they probably thought it would be cool to do. yet someone, somewhere, will write a sixty page essay about the agents finshing each others sentences and then stand atop thunder mountain berating anyone who dares suggest that, you know, in the grand scheme of the matrix trilogy, it might not - whisper it - make any real difference, or have any real importance. In case of Aragorn's sword, I am not so well informed about that universe, but *if* the material and appearence would have some historical or geographical background, the people caring about it (not more than it deserves, still) wouldn't be so off. A fictional universe with such an amount of realism and detail can be a fascinating creation, and logically, people care about them. As for the Agents... no, don't think it would be anything special. Then again, collective Machine mind, or something? But yea, don't think so. People who pay attention to such details shouldn't proclaim them as indisputable truths and flame sceptics, that's true; maybe you aswell shouldn't put them off as trivial and mock those who disagree. This just in general now. Although the size of the S shield is a ridiculous discussion topic, I agree =p It wasn't... impressive and revealing, because the Wachowskis wanted to mock and razz rather than seriously contribute to their creation, or whatever. It's funny that I had thought the opposite all the time, and believed the promotion texts. I mean, seriously, if you have a game that has the intention to have fun and parody, it's okay. I also love parodies on things I like, including the Matrix - "Scary Movie 3" was less impressive, but the MTV Movie Awards one roxxored. The problems start when the parody is directly included into the "original", because then people rightfully get disappointed. ...seems to me the only people that were severely disappointed with the ending were the people i already mentioned. i mean, too bad for them for taking a playstation game so seriously and honestly thinking there was going to be some near biblical reveal at the end of it. A playstation game, in its essence, can be an interactive storytelling medium, maybe you should stop putting it off as something unserious in principle. Enter the Matrix was such one, aswell, and it didn't mock or parody anything. And attention, logical fallacy! The people who would be all obsessed before, would be really, really severely pissed off. Those who just place value on the franchise without any fanatism, would be disappointed aswell, but according less intensively. Why "biblical revelation", it could be just a crucial story revelation, or not? also, surely the whole point of the ending would have been lost if they'd presented path of neo as some sort of "parody" from the outset. wheres the surprise in that? Yea, but after that, it's clear that it was razzing and nothing of high pretensions. But would you like to see Morpheus or the General dancing around in a mini-skirt, not in some parody but right in the story? Because otherwise it would limit the scope of your art? i don't see what this has to do with the point you addressed, because i'm asking why i can't poke fun at the dangerous levels of fanboyism that surround this product. razzing the films doesn't seem to have anything to do with getting a dev to make morpheus dance in a skirt. but in terms of creative freedom, if a dev could justify it in some way then sure, go nuts. tranny him up. Yea, but it seems as you'd mock the people who would be inevitably pissed because of this, and classify them as obsessive fanboys who give too much dam_n. Fine, it'd be their artistic freedom, but people, including me, would be pissed, and have a totally understandable reason to be so. Remember, the event this debate started with wasn't a separate parody, it was a real event with a real story character, or at least pretended to be one. It was also not strictly separate from ""canon"", as I suppose PoN was. As it's been pointed out by CW, I think, it is thus not the same as PoN. Of course, the Effectuator isn't the same as the General in many aspects, and I'd like to point out again that I didn't particularly hate this event. So LOTR was just a disposable trilogy Tolkien threw out for fun and out of boredom, in your opinion? huh? i never said anything about tolkien creating the books for a bit of a laugh. i'm talking about the laughable fanboyism....as evidenced by the fans who go too far.....over his books. But the way you described the fanboys and their arguments against the movies, it seemed as you were referring to the real, sane fans who knew to value the novels. And if this serious attitude is wrong, the books automatically become less serious, in your perception. Maybe I misunderstood you. This is one of the best examples of the writer and the fans taking a piece of fiction very seriously, and rightfully so. ...depends how "seriously" the fans take it and how they express that "seriousness". a lot of times, i've seen first hand experience of that expression that is neither healthy nor is it productive to themselves or those around them. It was good as an "interpretation", but not as an authentic screening - which is what it pretends to be. Jackson and co. misunderstood many plots and characters. Tolkien fans had all their reasons to criticize this. again, criticise it, sure. but we both know theres a world of difference between the people you're talking about and the people i'm talking about, who will threaten to kill you because you dared suggest that it might not matter if jackson got the colour of gandalfs beard wrong. That for sure =ppp But, you know, criticizing, or being emotionally affected by something, that is still healthy. It just corresponds to being emotionally affected by something at all. There were people who were pissed at what Jackson did to Faramir or the Frodo-Sam relation, or other things - that is no absurd fanboyism by any means. Art is disposable? Well, some people consider art what makes the life interesting at all, or us human. Maybe you should consider how the world would be without art? A much more boring place. well i have a fine arts degree specialising in painting, sculpture and film so i have thought about it a fair bit. and i came to the conclusion that you can take what you want from it, and enjoy it or hate it but ultimately, it IS just a bunch of disposable stuff designed to pass your time in some way, shape or form. a famous artist once said, "the best thing in an art gallery are the windows". i never said the alternative to my point of view is a "world without art". i'm just saying, its just a bunch of stuff. good stuff, some of it. but a bunch of stuff all the same. and i don't see the need to approach any of it as some untouchable, holier-than-i item that i need to somehow "show respect for". Fine, maybe I don't want to delve into philosophical discussions about art and its value in life any further, for now. At least, it's a premise for your opinions I can accept. So when a fan starts discussing how gamma radiation couldn't cause this or that effect, it's not the same as someone discussing how certain things in those two movies are not realistic. not sure why you mentioned "two films" there, but i'm not referring to anything in the matrix movies with that "make it all up out of our heads" quote, i was actually referring to the matrix online and this thing about canonical correctness, and numbers attached to forum postings about stuff that happens in a game. ultimately, rarebit does indeed "make it all up out of his head" and i just don't see that it matters that much. as always, your mileage may vary. I brought up "Minority Report" and "I, Robot" as two movies that treated the future on a comparably thoughtful level. Those are two movies, I think. On the premise that MxO is less seriously meant than the movies, both in style, thought or "canon", you would be right by my own logic. Maybe I don't quite agree with this premise or take it for granted, yet. Maybe it's not the case. Or maybe I just don't want to think that :) Anyways, if you'd be right, it would be a reason for disappointed to some, or not?
You're limiting the scope of what you can do, which includes limiting the scope of damage you can do - which is a positive thing. Why take the risk of destroying something? Why is responsible treatment of art wrong? ...because the very best art usually takes risks? depends what your definition of "responsible treatment" of art means. To me, it means very little. then again, i address art as a creator and participant so that along with my art training will influence my view of this heavily. i just treat all art with a very fast and loose attititude because its useful to the artistic philosophy i employ when creating whatever i happen to be creating myself. ultimately, even the very best paintings are just more clutter taking up space on walls. do we actually need any more paintings? Colorz? Colorz! I'm afraid we're getting too abstract here. It is a rather vague and subjective line you draw between things that destroy or help a piece of art. One point of view is that medieval castles, fantasy creatures, fly monsters and superhero motives along with laser weapons ruin what made the movies, or the first one, great, another one is that it enriches it in a good way. The first film also lacked the pathos of the sequels. When I watched the first movie, the Oracle's character appeared disturbing to me, lol. Now, MxO is generally more humorous, even in a somewhat silly way, than whatever image one might have of the movies. The Effectuator turning people into objects? Maybe I can survive this. Twin legs /russdancing? Gag! I guess this amounts to one's opinion of what helps and what disturbs. The artist can follow this opinion when deciding to "take a risk", the viewer can judge the product after it. Your attitude implies that everything in art is just fun, and, you know, bullocks to everything, nothing matters anyway. An attitude I can't really share. There are people to whom art means more. art means a lot to me, because i happen to work and exist in that environment. however, at the same time i happily treat it with a complete lack of respect. i've also had more than a lifetimes worth of having to deal with overly pretentious and up themselves artists, and frankly most of these people open themselves up quite happily to ruthless mockery. i never said that everything in art is "just fun", by the way. when i say "treating it irreverently" or "fast and loose", i'm not equating those with "fun". but anyone who's worked in the fine arts - specifically in the visual or painterly field for any length of time - will understand my point of view and likely agree with it to some degree. if somethings important to you, fine - but i see no need to make a big deal out of it or externalise it to the point where it becomes being obsessed with silly details for the sake of it. and the obsession with crazy, tiny details that just don't mean very much is complete anathema to me. When I say "serious", I did not mean "humorless". Ergo, concordantly, when I say "fun", I don't mean "fun", I mean lack of this seriousity that is not the lack of humor, and maybe lack of respect. Maybe you find it a good artistic idea to put a Schlager bridge into a metal song, or a classical piece - there will be many, including myself, who will dislike it, and for whom it'll disturb the piece. Then, the talk about respect, style and seirousness will rise. Details are important in art. Those who have a rougher perception or lower pretensions might care less about it. Since you're a professional musician (even if only composer, dunno), you understand this. Mocking the importance of story continuity (?) is the same as mocking smaller demerits in a music performance. Except, of course, the musician doesn't mean it all so seirously, then it becomes nonsensical. Or what details are you talking about? You can just throw out an entertaining movie with some smart ideas for fun, or it can mean something to you. The Matrix seemed like a series that took its allusions and contents seriously, and looked like it had thought behind it. ...doesn't mean i can't treat it like an above average action film with some interesting cod-philosophy ideas and nice fightscenes though, does it? the film happily bears the weight of all interpretations. it just seems to me that the "seriousness" of the films, and the subsequent treatment of everything therein, are used as a stick to beat people with when they dare to suggest that, you know, a lot of stuff in the films just doesn't mean very much in a wide variety of ways. Yea, you can think whatever you want. Another question is if what you think is right. So, just on the premise that the Wachowskis did put more thought into it and its details than you seem to think, you would be wrong not realizing it, and mocking those who do. On the other hand, if the Wachowskis really were leading people around by the nose randomly putting in some seemingly deep dialogues, you would be right and they wrong. Another nice example would be "Lost" - you know, with lots of fans speculating about what's going on, and referring to small details when necessary. If the writers are just fooling about with all these mysteries, those fans may be mocked. If they place value on continuity and details, and put thought into it, it's vice versa. you see it in this obsession with "canon", endless obsessions with whether its still 1999 or how the entire matrix is just the megacity, and subsequent flames galore heaped upon anyone who doesn't agree with those ideas, or indeed (shock, horror) thinks that in the grand scheme of things those elements of the films don't matter one bit, especially in relation to some online pc game. Ok, lol or what? Those aren't small details, but crucial questions about the nature of the fictional universe this is about. This "some online pc game" at least pretends to continue the story and expand/explain the universe. WoW is just some PC game. And yea, flaming is silly. Putting interpretations and opinions about story as facts, with or without flaming, is also silly. Flaming is never necessary, saying "you're wrong" and backing it up, if it makes sense, usually suffices :) But please make the effort to separate flaming from simply caring about these details, or what? Yea, but it's not the same as complaining about the presence of Jar Jar Binkz because it ruins the standard or level of previous Star Wars movies for you. Which is totally comprehensible. meh. half an hour of jar jar binks in one film "ruins the standard or level" or previous star wars films? i don't really think the walking, talking toy line that is the ewoks from Jedi is any great leap above jar jar, and he's hardly the pinnacle of awfulness that brings the entire franchise crashing down around its ears. having said that, i think jar jar does suck, yet i can happily watch the films and not have them ruined by him. indeed, i can also watch the phantom menace itself and not have that film ruined by his presence. why is that? what makes me able to handle the films in this way, yet others go completely overboard over something so pointless? Hmm. I used to watch Episode I as a little kid, and I remember I liked it. I haven't seen it for years, so I don't know if I'd hate Jar Jar now. I think I'd find him okay, or even like him. The Ewoks, rationally, aren't necessarily less silly than Jar Jar, aswell. Actually, they're a great argument against the Jar Jar critics, I think I even brought it up somewhere. Then again, a part of me thinks that the Ewoks and the otherwise light ending of Episode VI disappointed the darkness created by V, and the catastrophe in III. The point is, you can dislike all of this, and because it's a part of the whole, consider the quality of the whole lower. That's just logical. If you care about the product's quality or have some sort of attachment to it, it can piddle you off. If you don't, you can distance yourself from it and go aobut your life when you've left the theater. That's also logical. Does everything have to be either the apocalypse or just a bunch of meaningless T-rated fun? A piece of art/fiction that is meant seriously to some degree - what's so absurd about this? nothing, but then i'm not saying it has to be brainless or the apocalypse. i'm saying that approaching what is, after all, one good film and two uneven films with this awestruck, its-a-miracle-and-will-save-us-all attitude that i see so, so frequently, is just very odd. it also tends to get in the way of discussion that might involve some criticism and / or pointing out that ultimately, a lot of stuff in there just doesn't matter. i've seen it on forums, at conventions, in Q&A sessions, in university lectures and more besides. its just weird. So what, you're talking about how people overdo it. I've never said I agreed with stuff like this, I find exaggerated obsession and fanboyism silly aswell. There are details that do matter something, especially if they were created with thought - maybe you just don't value them. but we're not talking about stuff in the films that has some clear "worth", or are important in some way because it relates to something quantifiable in the film. we're talking about the stupid stuff. the stuff no one would reasonably be expected to care about. the size of supermans "S Shield" on his chest in Superman Returns, or why Aragorns blade was a certain type of silver in the film when it was this kind of colour in the book, or why the agents finish each others sentences at the start of reloaded. i mean honestly, who cares? in the case of the agents, theres no apparent real deep reason for it. they just did it because they probably thought it would be cool to do. yet someone, somewhere, will write a sixty page essay about the agents finshing each others sentences and then stand atop thunder mountain berating anyone who dares suggest that, you know, in the grand scheme of the matrix trilogy, it might not - whisper it - make any real difference, or have any real importance. In case of Aragorn's sword, I am not so well informed about that universe, but *if* the material and appearence would have some historical or geographical background, the people caring about it (not more than it deserves, still) wouldn't be so off. A fictional universe with such an amount of realism and detail can be a fascinating creation, and logically, people care about them. As for the Agents... no, don't think it would be anything special. Then again, collective Machine mind, or something? But yea, don't think so. People who pay attention to such details shouldn't proclaim them as indisputable truths and flame sceptics, that's true; maybe you aswell shouldn't put them off as trivial and mock those who disagree. This just in general now. Although the size of the S shield is a ridiculous discussion topic, I agree =p It wasn't... impressive and revealing, because the Wachowskis wanted to mock and razz rather than seriously contribute to their creation, or whatever. It's funny that I had thought the opposite all the time, and believed the promotion texts. I mean, seriously, if you have a game that has the intention to have fun and parody, it's okay. I also love parodies on things I like, including the Matrix - "Scary Movie 3" was less impressive, but the MTV Movie Awards one roxxored. The problems start when the parody is directly included into the "original", because then people rightfully get disappointed. ...seems to me the only people that were severely disappointed with the ending were the people i already mentioned. i mean, too bad for them for taking a playstation game so seriously and honestly thinking there was going to be some near biblical reveal at the end of it. A playstation game, in its essence, can be an interactive storytelling medium, maybe you should stop putting it off as something unserious in principle. Enter the Matrix was such one, aswell, and it didn't mock or parody anything. And attention, logical fallacy! The people who would be all obsessed before, would be really, really severely pissed off. Those who just place value on the franchise without any fanatism, would be disappointed aswell, but according less intensively. Why "biblical revelation", it could be just a crucial story revelation, or not? also, surely the whole point of the ending would have been lost if they'd presented path of neo as some sort of "parody" from the outset. wheres the surprise in that? Yea, but after that, it's clear that it was razzing and nothing of high pretensions. But would you like to see Morpheus or the General dancing around in a mini-skirt, not in some parody but right in the story? Because otherwise it would limit the scope of your art? i don't see what this has to do with the point you addressed, because i'm asking why i can't poke fun at the dangerous levels of fanboyism that surround this product. razzing the films doesn't seem to have anything to do with getting a dev to make morpheus dance in a skirt. but in terms of creative freedom, if a dev could justify it in some way then sure, go nuts. tranny him up. Yea, but it seems as you'd mock the people who would be inevitably pissed because of this, and classify them as obsessive fanboys who give too much dam_n. Fine, it'd be their artistic freedom, but people, including me, would be pissed, and have a totally understandable reason to be so. Remember, the event this debate started with wasn't a separate parody, it was a real event with a real story character, or at least pretended to be one. It was also not strictly separate from ""canon"", as I suppose PoN was. As it's been pointed out by CW, I think, it is thus not the same as PoN. Of course, the Effectuator isn't the same as the General in many aspects, and I'd like to point out again that I didn't particularly hate this event. So LOTR was just a disposable trilogy Tolkien threw out for fun and out of boredom, in your opinion? huh? i never said anything about tolkien creating the books for a bit of a laugh. i'm talking about the laughable fanboyism....as evidenced by the fans who go too far.....over his books. But the way you described the fanboys and their arguments against the movies, it seemed as you were referring to the real, sane fans who knew to value the novels. And if this serious attitude is wrong, the books automatically become less serious, in your perception. Maybe I misunderstood you. This is one of the best examples of the writer and the fans taking a piece of fiction very seriously, and rightfully so. ...depends how "seriously" the fans take it and how they express that "seriousness". a lot of times, i've seen first hand experience of that expression that is neither healthy nor is it productive to themselves or those around them. It was good as an "interpretation", but not as an authentic screening - which is what it pretends to be. Jackson and co. misunderstood many plots and characters. Tolkien fans had all their reasons to criticize this. again, criticise it, sure. but we both know theres a world of difference between the people you're talking about and the people i'm talking about, who will threaten to kill you because you dared suggest that it might not matter if jackson got the colour of gandalfs beard wrong. That for sure =ppp But, you know, criticizing, or being emotionally affected by something, that is still healthy. It just corresponds to being emotionally affected by something at all. There were people who were pissed at what Jackson did to Faramir or the Frodo-Sam relation, or other things - that is no absurd fanboyism by any means. Art is disposable? Well, some people consider art what makes the life interesting at all, or us human. Maybe you should consider how the world would be without art? A much more boring place. well i have a fine arts degree specialising in painting, sculpture and film so i have thought about it a fair bit. and i came to the conclusion that you can take what you want from it, and enjoy it or hate it but ultimately, it IS just a bunch of disposable stuff designed to pass your time in some way, shape or form. a famous artist once said, "the best thing in an art gallery are the windows". i never said the alternative to my point of view is a "world without art". i'm just saying, its just a bunch of stuff. good stuff, some of it. but a bunch of stuff all the same. and i don't see the need to approach any of it as some untouchable, holier-than-i item that i need to somehow "show respect for". Fine, maybe I don't want to delve into philosophical discussions about art and its value in life any further, for now. At least, it's a premise for your opinions I can accept. So when a fan starts discussing how gamma radiation couldn't cause this or that effect, it's not the same as someone discussing how certain things in those two movies are not realistic. not sure why you mentioned "two films" there, but i'm not referring to anything in the matrix movies with that "make it all up out of our heads" quote, i was actually referring to the matrix online and this thing about canonical correctness, and numbers attached to forum postings about stuff that happens in a game. ultimately, rarebit does indeed "make it all up out of his head" and i just don't see that it matters that much. as always, your mileage may vary. I brought up "Minority Report" and "I, Robot" as two movies that treated the future on a comparably thoughtful level. Those are two movies, I think. On the premise that MxO is less seriously meant than the movies, both in style, thought or "canon", you would be right by my own logic. Maybe I don't quite agree with this premise or take it for granted, yet. Maybe it's not the case. Or maybe I just don't want to think that :) Anyways, if you'd be right, it would be a reason for disappointed to some, or not?
Cant harmless little Merovingian pawns even talk in private any more? *snigger*
Wooo! I've finally got my picture in a live event, that almost makes up for having to leave before Effy arrived, and by the looks of it he arrived just shortly after I left - grrr!! But whatever, I'm there with my party afro on, and I got a shout out live on air - woooo! It was a fun event, even though I missed the best part.
