Profile for Evnissyen
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
| Displayed name | Evnissyen |
| Member number | 15187 |
| Title | Warrior |
| Postcount | 178 |
| Homepage | http://www.gonelawn.com |
| Registered | Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
Recent posts
Pages
| Author | Recent posts |
|---|---|
| Macintosh Architecture Poll in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, May 7 2008 13:43
Profile
Homepage
At the moment, I'm using an imaginary Mac. It's sort of like a phantom limb. I know it's gone, but I refuse accept it. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, May 7 2008 13:23
Profile
Homepage
I haven't yet... I'm on it, though! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, May 5 2008 12:01
Profile
Homepage
Drew: A tin ear?? Hah! Ask me about music, some day. For Nirvana: I'll only argue that manipulation cannot, in itself, be art. Manipulation can only be craft, and it's generally not a respectable craft for good artists. Manipulation can only degrade a work of art, whether you notice it or not or enjoy it or not, for the very reason that it interferes with the very device that turns an artist's work into art: the [relatively] free mind of the interpreting audience. Slarty: Yeah, when I used the phrase "over-the-top", in reference to Titus, I meant it as a compliment in the way that Fellini, whose work I love, was over-the-top (honestly: How many directors can get away with telling his/her actors/actresses to say anything they like and then dub something else in afterward, totally out of sync with the person's mouth, and have the picture come across as a brilliant work of high art?)... but when I said Taymor's film was "a little too much"... I guess that outlines the sort of delicacy you encounter when you're going for campy or even when you're going for wildly-creative. Fellini could pull it off. I'm not sure if Taymor, as imaginative as she is and as much as I love her work, has learned yet how to pull it off as a director. (I've just put a library request out on Oedipus Rex, by the way, so I'll get to see a little more of her work, although that film is dated earlier than Titus... I did, by the way, think that Frida was an excellent movie and very well done. But now you've inspired me to go read the play (Titus Andronicus), too, before watching the film again... I remember glancing at the play after I saw the film the first time, just to see if all that stuff was really what Shakespeare actually wrote... and was surprised (and amused) at how faithful her film seemed to be to the actual text. (And finally: No, I don't think any of us thought we'd be debating this, post-Hobbit, even me. Do I get punished for starting all this? I don't think it was my fault, but... well, whatever. It's not the first time a bunch of people have jumped on me for suggesting something slightly unpopular. I'm sort of used to it, by now.) Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 4 2008 20:40
Profile
Homepage
Drew: I'm not oppressed by sound, I'm oppressed by thoughtless applications of sound that destroy what might otherwise be a good or even a great film. Salmon: Exactly my point: There're good soundtracks and there're bad soundtracks. I thought I'd already expained that at least twice? Including what makes a good soundtrack and what makes a bad one? Ephesos: Although I understand your point: With good, clever writing, I don't see why you'd need to remind an audience that it's okay to laugh at something? Slarty: First: 'Emotional manipulation' should never be confused with a simple presentation or exposure of humanity with might or might not effect an audience emotionally. One is dishonest, the second is honest. Second: Yes, you have a good point about how the play is interpreted. To be honest: I haven't read the play; I've simply trusted the opinion of somebody else, whose opinion I trust strongly, who has read Titus Andronicus, along with most of Shakespeare's other works... so in that aspect I was relying, really, on somebody I view as a trustworth 'authority'. Anyhow... you have a point with how certain works come to be viewed and critiqued and canonized or dismissed... I've long had an argument, myself, with the literary canon... I think it's long overdue for a change. There are a number of authors that should be removed and a number who should be added, in my opinion. What I meant when I said that Taymor "wasn't able to save it" was a number of things. First, the ending: It was funny as hell, but the thing with... do I remember this right.... a fork penetrating somebody's hand? Was a little too much... plus there were parts of the film that just seemed... well... less than Shakespearean. The part with the woman writing in the dirt with her arm stubs... I think I remember thinking: Why does she finally do this now and not before? And again: that scene was a little overdramatized. There was a little bit of that almost campy drama that was just a little too much. I guess that's just my taste, or my first impression. I guess it's time for a second viewing. Yes, definitely. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| SPAM in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 4 2008 19:15
Profile
Homepage
I think the lesson I've learned here is that there's virtually no subject matter that SPAM cannot be turned into. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, May 4 2008 19:01
Profile
Homepage
"Playing with the audience's emotions" is little more than a substutute for good writing and adept directing. When the writing cannot compel the audience into thought: always turn to the soundtrack and Hollywood gimmicks. Essentially, Hollywood has dumbed down their movies so much that the audience has become nearly incapable of independent thought when they're in the theater: They need everything spelled out for them and they need a soundtrack to tell them how to feel. Any symbolism that is presented in a film must be "gotten" by the audience in the first viewing. If Roger Ebert truly does feel that films should be manipulative: Then as a 'seasoned' critic he's either a fool or an idiot. Of course, I haven't a high respect for very many film critics, anyhow. Their brains mystify me. As I've said.. does anybody here miss laugh tracks? Anyhow, it's obvious that some of the people here do not understand what I'm trying to say. I'm speaking as an artist and a lover of film. So... any suggestion that I want to rid the world of the art of film is just a little bit more than silly. First: The beauty of film is the fact that it combines the human senses in a way that no other art form -- even plays -- can. I believe that a film should neglect nothing. And this means treating every element of the film with sensitivity, intelligence and imagination. A bad sounddtrack can kill a film far more easily than a good soundtrack can make a film. In regard to the "artist's vision": it's so common for people to want to know "what the artist is trying to say". We all do it, but it's really a futile desire, because the point of art is to promote thought. (Forgive this second plug, but if you go here (bottom of the page), I think you'll find a decent explanation. Art, by necessity, is interpreted by the audience, and is incapable of being dictated by the artist. If communication is the your intention -- or providing some sort of immutable 'message', then the artistic route is a very, very impractical one. Better to try essay or, if you're into film, documentary. In short: The ART is not in the artist, it is within YOU, THE AUDIENCE. Slarty: I saw Titus, too, and I've always had great respect for Julie Taymor. I think that her choosing to adapt what is widely considered Shakespeare's worst play is the height of guts... unfortunately, even she wasn't able to save it, oh well; but there was a good deal of interesting stuff in there. It was definitely a gutsy, imaginitive, even over-the-top film. Now here's the problem that I have with Shakespearean productions: I think that these plays were meant to be performed like real dramas (and comedies). These actors who intone Shakespeare's lines as if they were holy text, in the most phony manners conjurable, drive me crazy. I'm one of these people who think that a Shakespearean play should be felt by the audience, not simply 'appreciated'. Take a really violent play like Macbeth: If I'm watching a performance of this play, I don't want to be awed by the actors' enunciation or the beauty of the lines. The text is a vital part of it, sure... but as far as the performance goes: I want to be curled up in my seat, anxious and terrified. But is it any soundtrack that does that to you? Of course not: It's the performance, and the writing. That is the point I'm trying to make, here. Sorry to be so expansive, but the scale of misunderstanding here is... oppressive. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| SPAM in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 3 2008 15:57
Profile
Homepage
Ironically, although the "insane" and other "unfit" people -- clearly not including obsessive, insecure politicians like Mr. A.H. -- were, under his philosophy, best kept far away from the gene pool (I haven't read his highly-regarded work, so perhaps somebody else can enlighten me)... there is a theory, and some evidence I suppose, that chemically-induced insanity via excessive amphetamine use became the norm among the highest authorities, including Mr. A.H. who supposedly relied on it for keeping up his enthusiasm and so forth. That said... why are we discussing this? Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 3 2008 14:07
Profile
Homepage
Randomizer: Yes; and I've known people who like to watch subtitled movies without any sound at all. And honestly: Who here hasn't watched The Wizard of Oz with Dark Side of the Moon substituting? Aristotle the Hemmed-In: If absurd it is, then thanks, because I love the Absurd! And as far as promoting "mechanical" writing, well, the sort of material I read and promote on my website is quite the opposite; I prefer writing that is psychologically and organically explorative and daring and, most of all, emotional. But this is all sort of beside the point... . Therefore, back to business... . Unfortunately, Hollywood has already succeeded in telling its audience what they like and what they do not like. Money is powerful stuff. That aside... Thuryl: Yes, you're right: Kubrick did know how to use sound, as does Tarantino. And if I remember correctly: wasn't Reservoir Dogs a film containing just about no music, except for that central song which we all remember so vividly, which was critical for character description as well as story development. Tarantino's choice of music for that scene was what made that scene so powerfully memorable. (Tarantino also writes great dialogue. Yet, apart from all of that, he's no Stanley Kubrick. I do not like any of his films, except of course for Pulp Fiction, which is great all the way through (including a very good soundtrack), and also that segment he did for Four Rooms, which was okay (his segment, not the film as a whole).) So... what I'm saying is not that 'soundtracks are bad', but that there are good soundtracks and there are bad soundtracks. Good soundtracks are the result of thought and sensitivity, and they're used to describe a character or a scene, or even mood (but it has to be done right), wherever those things cannot be described independently. A great actor, for example, can convey volumes without music, gimmicks or explanatory dialogue. The sort of full orchestration that people like Spielberg use are useless, phony and manipulative. They're about as valuable as laugh tracks. Remember laugh tracks? Does anybody here think that laugh tracks are still valuable? I mean... apart from trying to make an unfunny show seem to be funny? And Dikiyoba: Any music inherent in the Rings books should have been expresed in the films on their own merit, without any external imposition. By artistic necessity: the audience members should be the conductors and interpreters of the film; the film should not be conducting and describing the audience. Can anybody here honestly tell me that all that orchestral crap in the Rings films truly added to the movie, that it actually enriched your feeling for the characters and the story? Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Oscars! (for Mad Scientists) in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 3 2008 13:27
Profile
Homepage
No no no no... not Oscars... Nobel Prizes. In reality, not fantasy-land: The Nobel board should arrange a new prize for mad scientists, because, well, I don't think there are enough of them (and we can't include schizophrenics like poor ol' John Forbes Nash . . . I'm talking real mad scientists... mad, I tell you! Mad!!! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The great artists in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Saturday, May 3 2008 13:16
Profile
Homepage
Nikki & Slarty: Thanks for cluing me in to Miyazaki. I just watched Spirited Away and I thought it was an excellent film (apart from the wretched soundtrack, but I'm guessing that was Disney's contribution). Very imaginative. Also, Noface reminded me some of the ghostly characters in Mark Hosford's drawings. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 1 2008 20:22
Profile
Homepage
Hollywood's view of the soundtrack is to direct the audience how to feel at any given moment. They treat their audience like children. If they stopped doing that, then the audience would grow up. They'd start accepting things like... (shudder) ...widescreen. There're two filmmakers that come to mind who really know how to use soundtracks. The first is David Lynch: This man, for all his faults (and I love Lynch) is an absolute master of sound. The second is Ingmar Bergman. Ingmar Bergman suggested the superiority of incidental sound over imposed sound. Bergman was interested in telling stories and exploring human character, not shallowly manipulating an audience. As for "mood": this is supposed to be created -- as in literature and the visual arts -- by the story and the characters. If a film is well written and and the characters are well-explored and well-played, then you do not need any music whatsoever... unless the music itself makes an inherent comment on the character. (The brilliant French film "L'Eau Froid" (literally "The Cold Water") comes to mind, in the latter case... one of my favorite films of all time. Also, there are a lot of directors... even American ones... who know very well how to use sound, and it's not imposed sound intended to manipulate the audience. [ Thursday, May 01, 2008 20:28: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Wow in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 1 2008 19:58
Profile
Homepage
I've been uncharacteristically afraid to ask that question, and I've sort of figured it was a very old running joke among long-timers and beta testers here on the SW boards. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| we will be deleting all accounts with a post count of zero in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Thursday, May 1 2008 19:52
Profile
Homepage
Yeah, people... haven't you ever heard of inclusiveness?! [ Thursday, May 01, 2008 19:53: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Game Wallpapers? in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, April 30 2008 20:42
Profile
Homepage
No! No no no! No GIFTS in Geneforge! Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Game Wallpapers? in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, April 30 2008 19:47
Profile
Homepage
If we need to go into the Wallpaper realm, then I vote for Geneforge, too. I mean, essentially: Avernum is a relatively generic rpg. Geneforge has a unique storyline and a unique scenario. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Wednesday, April 30 2008 19:41
Profile
Homepage
I will say this in regard to the Rings trilogy; particularly the first which is the one I'm the most familiar with: I was disappointed that the technology and in particular the soundtrack (were I the director I wouldn't've had a soundtrack) overwhelmed the story, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the whole point? What I mean is: I was interested in the characters. I wanted to know more about them (especially since I did not read the books); I wasn't as interested in watching spectacular special effects, and I like to think I know how to watch a movie; I don't need a soundtrack to tell me how to feel at a given moment. So... for me, The Fellowship of the Rings film was a bitter disappointment. I knew Jackson's potential and I knew he had a passion for the books... so... ...why? Enough of me. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 20:28
Profile
Homepage
Indicative: Yes, I can see all that now, but when I was a young kid it went right by me. Aslan was just Aslan, he wasn't a stand-in for Jesus Christ. Gavin: Right, I don't actually know, since I haven't studied the man biographically. You're right that he could've been simply retelling an old story, as Shakespeare and his company did... or the Christian allegory could've simply emerged naturally as artistic expression... or he could've had an agenda. Until somebody sets me straight (or I look it up on Wiki?): I don't know.... . It's all a great big mystery!!! [ Tuesday, April 29, 2008 20:36: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 18:00
Profile
Homepage
Incidentally, when I was a kid I loved C.S. Lewis' books. Especially The Dawn Treader. Of course, if it was Lewis' intention to fix Christian convictions within me, he failed miserably... . In fact, I don't know what C.S. Lewis' Christian 'intention' was, if in fact he had any at all beyond just expressing himself. That aside... no one get me started on the Rings films... ugh. And this is coming from somebody who liked Peter Jackson's earlier films, thought Heavenly Creatures was a brilliant film (I still do, despite some of the gratuitous Spielbergesque swooping), and really looked forward to the first Rings film. Oh, well. Until King Kong came along, I comforted myself in thinking he'd probably put up his best fight against Hollywood, without which he couldn't have made the Trilogy in as nearly the way he wanted to make it. [EDITED for unwarranted rambling] [ Tuesday, April 29, 2008 18:12: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Unlockable Drackon Story!! in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 00:44
Profile
Homepage
Maybe we can have some sort of Being John Malkovich sort of scenario, where you get to place yourself inside of any npc you wish? Such as Khyryk, for example? Or... who was the woman who got hooked on the canisters in G3 and ended up being kidnapped? I wouldn't mind playing her -- post kidnapping -- even if I am a guy. Or Shaila, the one who went crazy. Yes... that's the one I'd want to play. ...Except that she's too paranoid to leave her caves. It would be kind of limiting to play her, madness or no madness. Actually, in the Geneforge games I always end up playing a woman anyway, since the agents (and, in G4, the Infiltrators) are the most powerful. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| Canister use in Geneforge 4: Rebellion | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 00:25
Profile
Homepage
Like any good drug, you're not meant to keep track. Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The Hobbit in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 00:19
Profile
Homepage
I wonder how he's going to figure the Spanish Civil War into this one? Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The great artists in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Tuesday, April 29 2008 00:08
Profile
Homepage
Indicative: I don't know; I've seen that film, and I just didn't like it at all. Anyhow, here're some more pretty pictures from great artists: Dorothea Tanning  Ivan Albright (R.I.P.)  Louise Bourgeois  Antoni Tapies   Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| The great artists in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, April 28 2008 11:33
Profile
Homepage
Wait a minute, Nikki... . You aren't about to tell me Paul's dead, are you? Please don't tell me Paul's dead?! EDIT FOR CURIOSITY: Has anybody any other animators they think I (and anybody else) should look into? Preferably not children's films, and the weirder (and better written & more creative) the better. [ Monday, April 28, 2008 12:08: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| SPAM in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Monday, April 28 2008 11:00
Profile
Homepage
Yeah, naturally I follow American politics far, far more closely than foreign politics, even in England, France & Germany, or even Russia for that matter, or even Sweden for that matter. But that said: I've always thought Sarkozy was a jerk, ever since his reference to the French minorities as "scum" brought him to great international fame. I also was rooting for his opponent in the election... I watched their final debate and I thought Sarkozy came across as arrogant, egotistical and not so sincere, whereas his opponent (I do not remember her name) came across as sincere, capable and somebody who truly wanted to lead the French people more than she wanted make a name for herself... but what do I know? (Here in America it's Senator Hillarious who's the arrogant, egotistical one who holds her own ego above the welfare of the American people.) Alas, the jerk won... but I can't say if France is better or worse for it; I haven't been following. [EDITED for correction of an erring pronoun. Accuracy , accuracy!] [ Monday, April 28, 2008 23:37: Message edited by: Clavicle ] Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |
| A question. in General | |
|
Warrior
Member # 15187
|
written Sunday, April 27 2008 16:27
Profile
Homepage
Oh, don't worry about it. If global warming doesn't do it, the Yellowstone caldera will... or a killer asteroid. ...And then there's the next plague to worry about. These viruses don't vanish permanently, they mutate and return. The Black Plague literally did kill off a huge percentage of the human population. Those with innate immunity survived. ...which is where genetic engineering comes in. If I were in high school today and considering going into the sciences: I'd choose the field of genetic engineering. That's where the future is, I think. Safey: The proposal that I'm familiar with is the 'tractor satellite' you mentioned. I think that was the proposal they felt most satisfied with. (Another proposal, more problematic: a huge explosion just beside the asteroid... I think that would require the previously mentioned nuclear bomb, and an assurance that the asteroid is solid and not just a loose pile of rubble.) Posts: 178 | Registered: Saturday, March 8 2008 08:00 |