Login or register


Last status update:
Gender: male
Age: 28
Date Signed Up:8/21/2010
Last Login:12/22/2015
Location:admins basement
Content Thumbs: 6 total,  24 ,  18
Comment Thumbs: 2970 total,  3604 ,  634
Content Level Progress: 16.94% (10/59)
Level 0 Content: Untouched account → Level 1 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 68.99% (69/100)
Level 229 Comments: Mind Blower → Level 230 Comments: Ambassador Of Lulz
Content Views:1253
Times Content Favorited:1 times
Total Comments Made:710
FJ Points:3173

latest user's comments

#15 - Picture 06/24/2013 on Fabulous Reich -1
#15 - I know it doesn't matter, but blue shift was after opposing force...  [+] (3 replies) 06/24/2013 on To stop a Gaben, +4
User avatar
#16 - rotucex (06/24/2013) [-]
So it's kind of weird that first they made glorious Opposing Force, and then just "meh" Blue Shift
#38 - anon (06/24/2013) [-]
Blue Shift focused on muh grafix
User avatar
#28 - BeVuTz (06/24/2013) [-]
Both expansions were actually developed by Gearbox, with the help of Valve. As to why they were so different quality wise, I have no idea.
#2 - If they had magical abortions, surely they had magical rape.  [+] (28 replies) 06/24/2013 on Harry Potter +82
User avatar
#7 - dedaluminus (06/24/2013) [-]
They did. That's how Voldemort came about. He was conceived under the effects of a love potion and was therefore incapable of love, which is why he was such an douchecanoe. Magic rape is WAY worse than regular rape.
User avatar
#12 - viscerys (06/24/2013) [-]
Could they not have just shot Voldemort in the face? Something that's always confused me about Harry Potter. Why not get guns?
#68 - jarofdirt (06/25/2013) [-]
User avatar
#28 - redflame (06/24/2013) [-]
They Shoot Voldemort
Books ends
No money
User avatar
#14 - snowshark (06/24/2013) [-]
Because unfortunately, Harry Potter isn't fantastically well written. It's not bad and the story is pretty engaging but it's full of contradictions and plotholes. Most of them come from the justification of the traditionalism of the wizarding world and the technology of the muggle world.

Granted, Voldemort had a ton of ways to escape death (8, actually) but given that they were systematically tracked down and destroyed by about 5 people (Regulus Black, Dumbledore, Harry, Hermione and Ron) the problem of Voldemort coming back shouldn't have been even half as problematic as it was.

They're fun stories but they really don't hold up to scrutiny. Especially how little the wizarding world knows about the muggle world.

Not to really hold it against Rowling though, since the Fantasy and Science-Fiction genres are RIFE with plotholes and contradictions which are the result of either laziness or oversight on the part of the writers when they attempted to create a fantastical fictional universe that improvises with the laws of physics.
User avatar
#39 - daniboyi (06/24/2013) [-]
"Harry Potter isn't fantastically well written"
Yet world famous and, even if people disagree or denies it, just as known as Lord of The Rings.
I admit there are plotholes, but give credit where credit is deserved.
#40 - butterisgood (06/24/2013) [-]
Being famous doesn't necessarily mean it's good.
User avatar
#41 - daniboyi (06/24/2013) [-]
True, but it gives a good hint in that direction.
Then again. Good or bad is a matter of opinion. Who am I to argue if you find it good or bad? You dislike it and I like it.
User avatar
#57 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
I'll point out that a common misconception people have is that liking something automatically makes it good. Enjoyment and quality are two separate factors. Quality is judged objectively by the industry standards whilst enjoyment is judged by the individuals subjective tastes.

I have liked HP since the first book but as I have aged I have spotted numerous gaping flaws with the books that make them only 'very good' as opposed to 'fantastic/brilliant/magnificent'.

That's not to say they're bad by a long shot but they fall short of being fantastic.

I should point out, I'm not saying they need to be world-changing or life-affirming like 1984 or Of Mice and Men. Those are different genres entirely. No, what I focus on is less the message and more the construct of the story itself, quality of writing and plot, use of language and so on.

E.G: Toy Story has a HORRIBLE message to it. Buzz realises he's not the man he thought his was but Woody convinces him that he can still have purpose living a life of servitude to a being who won't even acknowledge him as anything more than a plaything. That is a terrible message. Don't be who you want to be, be a toy! However the message isn't important in the story, what is important is everything else.

Harry Potter is world famous and beloved by both fans and critics alike but that doesn't make it infallible.
#42 - butterisgood (06/24/2013) [-]
I don't have a problem with it, i'm just saying not all famous things are good (jersey shore, twilight, TMZ), but like you said, it's a matter of opinion.
#37 - anon (06/24/2013) [-]
Just out of curosity, have you The Dresden Files by Jim Butcher?
It's better about the whole magic, non-magic users, and yes, guns. Better, but still not perfect.
User avatar
#64 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
I absolutely love that series.
User avatar
#62 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
Eh, perfection is for God and Shakespeare. Imperfection is for the world of men and I'm glad of it.

I've read a little, but I've never got to the end which bugs me. I picked it up late in the year and then the holidays kicked in and I've never had the drive to pick it up since... which sucks.
User avatar
#31 - vatra (06/24/2013) [-]
And Nevile, he didn't really do any hunting down, but he killed the snake. Though, If I'm including him, guess I should include Crabbe too because he burned down the room of requirement.
User avatar
#60 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
Aye, I forgot to include him (ironically, so did the movie) but he did play an integral part in the story. Honestly he was the Vegeta of the series. He's kinda shoved to the side, always comes up second best and nobody really pays much attention to him in-universe but he has the most development and is more capable than most give him credit for.

Whilst Harry is as bland as cardboard, being very simple and identifiable for the sake of being a simple protagonist, Neville is subtle and nuanced and I really hate that the HP series focussed on aggrandising this one kid who spends his whole life with everyone telling him he can do everything and getting helped out the whole way rather than this spat-on, shat-on bumbler who, in all honesty, is my favourite character.

You'll find that a lot, though. Often writers make their protagonists very empty so that the audience can better identify with them, leaving the really weighty, interesting and deep characters to the sidelines when the truth is, they're the ones worth reading about.
User avatar
#63 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
Very true, if you make your protagonist a set defined personality, then it will only appeal to those with similar personalities.
User avatar
#67 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
I disagree. I feel that a protagonist doesn't need to be identifiable so much as they need to be understandable. You need to understand why they're doing the things they're doing. That is easiest when they're not very deep or when they don't need to think too hard about things or when the audience identifies with them.

Identifiable characters are just a plot-device used to make writing easier because it saves time having to put your audience in a place where they understand an unusual character but the truth is... that's one of the best parts of stories. Understanding characters you don't normally understand.

E.G: V for Vendetta. We understand exactly why V does the things he does even though at the beginning of the film he's an enigma. He is, by most accounts, a madman caught up in vengeance but his madness is understandable and, because he uses the betterment of the British public as justification, we root for him when in truth, not everyone he killed deserved to die. From the police to the coroner, whose to say they did not do good in their lives.

It's this kind of depth of analysis that you can go into (even if it's only a shallow look) that makes having these kinds of main characters so good and yes, V is a main character. He's not the protagonist by any account, but he is as important to the movie as Evie, even if he's not onscreen as much.

The same can be said for Citizen Kane, Iron Man, Seven Psychopaths, Oceans Eleven and so on. Having deep and interesting characters is what makes stories so good. (Not the only factor, of course, but for me it's a very big one.)
User avatar
#73 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
I should have clarified that I meant for a story written in the way that the Harry Potter series is written, we don't see much of Harry's thoughts. So he needs to be a little bland so the reader can place themselves in that position. On the other hand, say the Dresden Files, most of the story is in (also named) Harry's head. So he is and has to be a very deep and interesting character. It is the difference between two writing styles, immersion as the main character, and the main character pulling you along in the story. Personally I prefer the second style. Also you can't really have the immersion style in film, someone is already filling that role.
User avatar
#79 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
I disagree with the last point. Though it is very uncommon a film could immerse the viewer as the main character through a first person view and perhaps some narration (like how video games do it).

Granted, it's not a recipe for success but it's still a method that has been used before. Just not to any great effect. The big problem is that it doesn't suit the immediacy of film. Whilst the second method you mentioned suits film's pacing perfectly as the characters need to pull the audience along due to the constrained running time; the former doesn't as it doesn't allow the audience the sense of choice that text and video games do.

In text you can choose roughly where the character is standing and what the room roughly looks like through your imagination and in games you choose through the world offered up to you through the game. Though the character is guided time and again this way and that by the plot, it allows immersion. In film the audience controls nothing. Not what they see or hear or feel. This makes film a very impersonal medium (but also a very desired medium for actors, directors and art-fanatics because of how much influence they can have on the vision the audience sees (i.e. total).

So it's not impossible, it's very possible. It's just highly ineffectual.
User avatar
#85 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
You make an excellent point, I honestly haven't seen a movie with the immersion style, I've seen an anime that had one episode like that, it was the longest thirty minutes of my life.
User avatar
#86 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
Aye. It's not good but it's a thing that certainly exists. I imagine a director somewhere might make it work but when the audience has no control over the content of the film it helps for them to be situated in a 3rd person view to allow them a better view of both the things happening around the characters and the effect that is having.
User avatar
#87 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
Exactly. Though, I honestly doubt it will ever be successful in film.
User avatar
#88 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
Agreed. But it's best not to say never.

On an interesting note. Isn't it fantastic how the 'escapist genres' of science-fiction and fantasy are represented?

Science-Fiction tends to dominate the film world and has done for a while now. Even since before Star Wars popularised the Sci-Fi action flick film had been chocked full of science-fiction, fuelled by man's endless desire to see the uncertain (i.e. the future.) Before Star Wars, most Sci-Fi in cinemas was very slow and based on Drama such as 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes and Silent Running.

The genre was full of really interesting deconstruction of humanity and such. However fantasy wouldn't see a real place in live-action outside of family entertainment until the 2000s with Lord of the Rings.

However when you look over to the east and how things developed with Anime, whilst Science-Fiction was definitely a MASSIVE part of anime culture, far larger than any other genre until the late 80s, fantasy has also never been really neglected or shoved to the side in anime like in live-action.

The question is if it was to do with the limitations of the SFX or the wants of the audience or (as is most likely) a mix of both. It really is fascinating to see how the escapist fictions developed in cinema over the past 100 years.
User avatar
#91 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
Very true, at first the concept was limited due to current human innovation and strove to be places that didn't exist, as we advanced we came back to our own world, but changed things like the laws of physics or the way the world developed. It is interesting that as we gained the ability to go and see farther and farther away, that our entertainment made its way back home.
User avatar
#95 - snowshark (06/25/2013) [-]
Aye. The 70s and early 80s were a great time for science fiction. Really showing the aspirations of man. However now it's all obsolete because we're already in the future most of those films predicted. Granted, we're not in space but we're in an age where technology has developed greatly along the lines most beloved and most feared in Science-fiction.

However, now science-fictions isn't really as escapist as it was, rather we see escapism taking us back to a simpler time. Harry Potter, Game of Thrones, Lord of the Rings. When the world around our characters incites as much wonder and beauty as was seen previously in Science-Fiction.

However we do appear to have our limits. The cinematic comic-book universes are still firmly tied into science-fiction. The only fantasy character in The Avengers was Thor and he's a very simple and identifiable character whose magic is very simple. He flies, hits hard, has a heavy hammer and controls storms.

The most fantastic we ever saw really work was the X-Men and their powers, whilst clearly fantastical and not scientific, were accepted because they fit within an identifiable setting as opposed to Superman's complete alienation to the setting around him through his strength or Green Lantern's goofy shape-magic ring.

The X-Men also allowed us to view these abilities as people were really getting used to them as opposed to dropping us straight into them. The people of the world and the characters themselves do not treat their abilities as nothing as Superman does with his in most of his movies.

Hrr... the more I talk about it the more factors I think about that really confuses the message. (But that's sociology for you.)

Either way, Science-Fiction has been reduced to an excuse for fancy special effects these days as opposed to a backdrop for social inspection. I'm not too upset about this though as the film industry, like culture, needs change (for better or for worse).
User avatar
#97 - vatra (06/25/2013) [-]
Very true, I love the X-Men, Each mutant actually gets story development, it is so complex yet it flows so well (usually), their world is complicated but makes sense. Currently I'm working on something similar, it is a medieval/steampunk world where every ability/power you can imagine exists as well as just about every sentient humanoid and creature. Humans without abilities (so our normal) make up a very small percentage of the worlds' population.
User avatar
#15 - viscerys (06/24/2013) [-]
I guess that explains it...
User avatar
#16 - snowshark (06/24/2013) [-]
Explains but not really justifies, sadly. There are fantasy stories out there that maintain consistent logic but the more fantastic the world, the harder it is to logically justify everything. Even Tolkein couldn't quite manage it and he's credited with being one of the most important minds in fantasy history.