I wouldn't say Bradbury is a Luddite in that he's against the concept of technology but that he's against what he feels it implies. He's against depersonalizing anything, and making things less "real." I think it's a valid opinion to value the feel of paper in your hands over an e-reader, but I do agree that he's taking it a bit far.
I support this fear strictly in theory. We, to my knowledge, haven't seen it actually happen because fortunately most digital distributors are younger, more progressive thinking groups. However, when anything monopolizes anything, it does genuinely endanger the minority in case it disagrees with the majority. I've yet to see a video game get banned from Steam or a movie movie or book denied digital access, but we shall see...
I don't understand the conflicted opinions about whether or not it's "okay" to watch Ender's Game in light of Card's policies. Does he take any actions about this? Has he petitioned his governor or congress member to write laws further restricting the freedom of homosexuals? I think it's important to separate an author's personal opinions and life choices from their work if possible. Not many people agree with him, but the entirety of the Ender-verse bears no discernible homophobia, and therefore can be consumed on the personal level that we all take it for anyway. I'm not saying anyone is wrong for boycotting anything relating to Card, but I don't agree with it.
And I mean hey, have we all chosen to ignore that Lovecraft was a huge racist?
And I mean hey, have we all chosen to ignore that Lovecraft was a huge racist?
I'm going to admit to being jealous of this guy, but I am wary about the ego factor. In one of the interviews, Phoenix apparently stopped chasing after a man screaming at a woman and threatening her with violence in order to grab a photo op with some teenagers. I don't doubt he's doing mostly good, but geeze. I do hope he continues to go out there and do right by the people, but at the same time it raises a million questions about the efficacy of a vigilante and their actual impact versus someone who focuses on a professional beneficial occupation.
No... I do NOT picture Willis playing Armitage. I think he might pull of a close version of him, but it wouldn't be anything noteworthy. Meh, I just really hope that if they make the movie, it won't absolutely suck. Gibson's stories would be so hard to translate to film.
Hell no. I wish I knew where to find more pictures!
Who's to say that people unaccountably love anything? Is sentiment not a legitimate source of value? If someone experiences a meaningful reaction, or a reaction that is important to them in some way, I don't see how anyone can claim any kind of objective decrying of the art, to claim that it's kitsch.
I've thought long and hard about this topic. I'm squarely between whining about Literary pretension from high art and bitching about stuff like Britney Spears. If all I'm doing is passing the bullshit down the line, then something is inherently wrong with my logic. I could rant at you via a lifetime of essays about why these things aren't "kitsch", but the same arguments I would use for my beloved fiction and franchises can be applied to anything.
Long story short: I don't think value in art can ever be objectively appraised, and gauging the validity of readers' reaction in any objective sense is incredibly dubious. So, if someone loves it, they love it. If it has value for them and some incredibly deep meaning, how can anyone tell them they're wrong? Even if the value is being created through their personal experiences and mental finagling, is that not the same thing that's put into a piece of art and what people need to do to pull it back out? Is anyone's, even a groups, interpretation of something more accurate than another?
I've thought long and hard about this topic. I'm squarely between whining about Literary pretension from high art and bitching about stuff like Britney Spears. If all I'm doing is passing the bullshit down the line, then something is inherently wrong with my logic. I could rant at you via a lifetime of essays about why these things aren't "kitsch", but the same arguments I would use for my beloved fiction and franchises can be applied to anything.
Long story short: I don't think value in art can ever be objectively appraised, and gauging the validity of readers' reaction in any objective sense is incredibly dubious. So, if someone loves it, they love it. If it has value for them and some incredibly deep meaning, how can anyone tell them they're wrong? Even if the value is being created through their personal experiences and mental finagling, is that not the same thing that's put into a piece of art and what people need to do to pull it back out? Is anyone's, even a groups, interpretation of something more accurate than another?
MacFarlane can't, and I mean he seems to be physically incapable of not doing this, write a story that isn't loaded with masturbatory crap in the worst way possible. Of course an artists personal sensibilities and opinions will seep in to their work, but he takes it to a level of "I'll do whatever the fuck I want" that is ridiculously crass and obnoxious.
I'm sure that he could do a few things very well with a Star Trek series, but I think he's missing a few integral "things" to create what he's seeing.
I'm sure that he could do a few things very well with a Star Trek series, but I think he's missing a few integral "things" to create what he's seeing.
Dude, this isn't about the video, it's about the trolling comment at the end of it in response to Kotaku posting in a news headline that the Joker dies. That's something nobody can avoid if they're taking even a cursory glance at this website. If I come to a gaming blog for gaming news, I don't expect to see a massive spoiler pasted unavoidably on the front page. Owen's remark is just insult to injury.
Damn. Thank you for all that!
Couldn't it be argued that the number of people involved in producing a centerfold is too miniscule to say that the women chosen in no way represent en masse appeal to the detail that they seem to be analyzing? I mean, even though it's their job to pick the sexiest women possible, even if 100 people directly oversaw a centerfold piece, that's essentially 100 opinions on one woman which is a horribly tiny number to draw conclusions about the preferences of an entire gender in an entire culture.
If someone receives shitty service their complaints are valid. Even though a lot of people complained with expletives, that doesn't change Kotoaku's initial "stepping in it." What's more, they trolled their readers. Even though they're technically professional bloggers, they have major influence in the industry and don't make it an official policy to be jackases to their fans, so they should be held to higher standards of professionalism. Yeah, this isn't the end of the world and my day isn't ruined, but if my favorite news outlet somehow screws with my experience with a product they specialize in, and then essentially post a "u mad bro?" comment, I'm gonna be a little upset.
Also, you've just spent about as much time as the average commenter in this and the other thread complaining. You're also complaining about people complaining. Take your own advice?
Also, you've just spent about as much time as the average commenter in this and the other thread complaining. You're also complaining about people complaining. Take your own advice?
Next time you choose to insult a large swathe of people for complaining, make sure you understand their complaints. People were first upset because Kotaku posted a spoiler from Arkham City in their headline. (Even if the Joker comes back, you can't argue that everyone's been robbed of the initial shock and awe of seeing a major villain kick it.) In this particular article, people are upset that Owen gave a verbal flip-off to everyone who initially complained. So, no, no one is upset about the content of a video, it's about the crass way the editors and writers have chosen to deal with their readership.
Kotaku editors usually rubbed me the wrong way, but holy shit. This is the kind of immaturity you're dishing out now? Unbelievable. Way to set the standards for intelligence in the gaming community.
If my 12th grade English teacher ever referred to herself as a gamer because she loves Joust and has an Angry Birds addiction, I wouldn't be upset or offended and I really wouldn't refute the label in certain respects even though she will never ever lend credence to the idea that games can bear literary significance or artistic validity. However, I can understand the frustration of the supposedly hardcore subset because, in their minds, they are the gatekeepers of gaming and yes, because so-called casual gamers don't seem to put as much energy into the hobby, it can be disconcerting when they start "using our cred." I think there is validity to the sense that there can be a "True Faith" to all of gaming, but in my mind that would be the gamer who branches out into all sectors of the hobby and whose love extends beyond pwning nublets. Of course, acting under the assumption that you are somehow more entitled to your opinions because you are "hardcore" brings you to snob territory where impish dispositions tend to stab at everyones good humor.
It's probably safest to fall back on a very old rule, "those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know," which in this case means that if you genuinely love the hobby, whether that be the whole thing or the casual piece or the hardcore piece, there's no need to bunch up your undies in a miserly fit simply because those contemptible people over there are playing with your toys and saying this or that about it. It's enough to be content in your love and what you do about it.
It's probably safest to fall back on a very old rule, "those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know," which in this case means that if you genuinely love the hobby, whether that be the whole thing or the casual piece or the hardcore piece, there's no need to bunch up your undies in a miserly fit simply because those contemptible people over there are playing with your toys and saying this or that about it. It's enough to be content in your love and what you do about it.
Whaaat? You mean the Catholic church wasn't a monolithic organization that served as a totalitarian organization? Nah...
Yeah I was seriously hoping they would manage to fit both Amy's, somehow, into the TARDIS. I mean, if they carry on the psychological scars into future episodes, then great, but I felt like even though this episode may have depicted some crushing realities about the Doctor and what he does (even though we've gathered as much over the years), there was more potential for interesting plot kinks and what not.
"Or the events of Miracle Day are a fixed point for the Doctor and he already knows how they turn out, so he's chosen not to intervene."
Doesn't the Doctor just fix whatever problems are presented to him via the TARDIS? I mean, if it never takes him to a time and location that would introduce these issues, how would he know about them? And even if he did, like you say, if Torchwood can fix them on their own then the Doctor doesn't need to be there to do anything.
Doesn't the Doctor just fix whatever problems are presented to him via the TARDIS? I mean, if it never takes him to a time and location that would introduce these issues, how would he know about them? And even if he did, like you say, if Torchwood can fix them on their own then the Doctor doesn't need to be there to do anything.
Japanese are way too vicious and unforgiving with their idols. I can understand trying to maintain the fantasy, but the sheer public bondage on their social lives and thoughts they need to go through to do it is ridiculous.
Maybe this explains why, while subsisting almost purely on home-made fries (with skin), I was so calm despite my impending financial ruin.
