Zompist Bboard Again

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:32 am

Rounin Ryuuji wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 8:17 am I was assuming they read it, but given the confusion, maybe "encountered" might be a better word if they picked it up and read part of it, but didn't manage to finish for some reason or other, and it felt very novel (pun not originally intended, but acknowledged)?

Umh, no, perhaps you're not familiar with the genre in question? You basically interact with the book. If you forgive me for using a rather crass metaphor, these books relate to old-school role-playing games like Dungeons and Dragons the way masturbation relates to sex with someone else. You're basically playing a role-playing game where you're the only player character, and the book is kind of the DM.

Oh, I was reading the post as referring to a book of the same genre of films as was in question.

I would probably still say I "Read" the book if it were a Choose Your Own Adventure style, "Played" would only be if it involved dice rolling and other actual mechanics, and "Used" if you were using the material it contained to write a story.

Raphael wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 7:39 am Not sure if there were any high profile movies coming from Hollywood in that genre at all before the early 2000s LOTR Trilogy, except The Wizard of Oz.

I dunno, "Willow" was in mainstream cinemas and made it to Germany, and I guess "The Princess Bride" or "Conan" would also count? And what about animated films like "The Black Cauldron"? Yes, none of them can compare to LOTR in popularity, but then not a lot of non-genre films can compare either,

Yeah, I seem to find several good heroic fantasy movies from the Eighties: Conan, Legend, Ladyhawke, Neverending Story, Princess Bride, Willow... But then the well seems to dry up in the Nineties, until LOTR which made the genre mainstream again.

My remark is really specific to movies: I can find tons of great fantasy novels, comics and games from this era.

Oh, I loved the Choose Your Own Adventure books as a kid too! I used to pick these from the library a lot... I even played what I think was the very first one (The Warlock of Firetop Mountain.)
I even tried writing my own. (An interesting project that failed due to lack of persistence.)

I believe there was a real craze in France when I was a kid.

Not a whole lot of fantasy movies in the 90s... The ones that come to mind are The Mummy and The 13th Warrior.

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:45 pmNot sure if there were any high profile movies coming from Hollywood in that genre at all before the early 2000s LOTR Trilogy, except The Wizard of Oz.

Seriously, Excalibur anyone? (It was the #12 on the list of top-grossing films of 1981--right above Time Bandits, which as you may recall had a few fantasy elements of its own.) Take one look at the cast and tell me with a straight face that it wasn't "high profile".

(Moreover, a contemporaneous review of it stated, "Excalibur is a shockingly large film and an incredibly intricate and fascinating piece of cinema. It is a fine prologue for the spate of fantasy films waiting in the wings for release this year." [My emphasis.])

OK, I take back what I said about fantasy movies. I got confused between "movies I've paid a lot of attention to" and "movies the world paid a lot of attention to".

I've just read a handful of New Testament apocrypha: the Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Pilate. What's funny is that they triggered a very specific neuron in my brain: this is Gospel fanfiction.

These apocryphal texts read exactly like bad fanfics: some people describe them as "the hidden truth" but they feel more like the work of some guys who were frustrated by what the canon Gospels didn't talk about, and decided to fill in the blanks themselves. The winks to canon events. The self-indulgence. The tweeness. The seemingly great ideas that first make you think "oh, it would be so nice if that happened", and later "well, now I get why the real author didn't actually do that". Like a bad fanfic. There is nothing new under the sun.

Ryusenshi wrote: ↑Sun Sep 04, 2022 9:47 am I've just read a handful of New Testament apocrypha: the Protoevangelium of James, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and the Acts of Pilate. What's funny is that they triggered a very specific neuron in my brain: this is Gospel fanfiction.

We didn't have a word for it for a long time, but fic has been a plague upon us all for ages.

These apocryphal texts read exactly like bad fanfics: some people describe them as "the hidden truth" but they feel more like the work of some guys who were frustrated by what the canon Gospels didn't talk about, and decided to fill in the blanks themselves. The winks to canon events. The self-indulgence. The tweeness. The seemingly great ideas that first make you think "oh, it would be so nice if that happened", and later "well, now I get why the real author didn't actually do that". Like a bad fanfic. There is nothing new under the sun.

The people who wrote them, in this case, might've felt they had some connection with God which actually inspired them to write these things. That doesn't mean they weren't also doing all those things you mention (I think they very likely were).

I've come across the idea somewhere that the three other canonical gospels were fan fic on Mark.

hwhatting wrote: ↑Thu Sep 15, 2022 10:59 pm I've come across the idea somewhere that the three other canonical gospels were fan fic on Mark.

I kind of have the impression that John was largely written to incorporate theology that had been worked out in the time before it was written.

Annie Ernaux was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature. Cue a certain amount of nationalistic pride here in France. I'd never read any of her books and she sounded reasonably interesting so I picked up The Years on the way back from home.

I finished it last night; it's short and relatively interesting.

Ernaux is a pretty radical left-winger, so reactions were interestingly politized. Left-wingers are overjoyed and really happy that Houellebecq didn't get the Prize; right-wingers grumble and complain and comment out loud that Houellebecq deserved the prize more.

The irony about the Houellebecq/Ernaux debate? As far as I can see both are telling the exact same story, one from a male perspective, the other from a female one.

I don't know if I can really recommend the Years. Serious French literature involves a frightful amount of narcissim, depression and navel-gazing. (Plus a lot of excrutiating sex scenes written in such a way as to turn you off sex forever.) If you can stomach that, it might be interesting. Perhaps especially so for people who'd like to push their conworlds to the contemporary era: it's an excellent testimony of how it felt like to live through the last 80 years or so.

Currently reading: Harlem Shuffle by Colson Whitehead. A subversive crime novel set in 1964 Harlem that really brings the setting to life and explores a complicated boundary between being "straight" or "crooked," legitimate or criminal, for its main character. Enjoying it quite a bit.

Recently watched: Cyberpunk: Edgerunners. I largely concur with Mark's review thereof, except that I will (mildly) demur from this:

Zompist’s E-Z rant page wrote:Both game and anime are all about the ultraviolence. I’m guessing that that’s how the RPG plays too.

(emphasis mine) Not really true, or at least not necessarily true. Both the original system and its descendants -- I'm speaking personally from experience of Cyberpunk: RED -- have famously lethal combat systems, and Pondsmith went to great lengths to ensure that they simulated real-life firefights as closely as possible. One of the things that makes the original version somewhat famous is that veterans with experience of firefights contributed to it. This makes the tabletop version very much unlike juiced-up, anime-inspired creations like the show.

You certainly can be an ultraviolent cyberpunk if you want to... but you don't need to. In particular, while the attractiveness of some amount of chrome is obvious, there is no pervading sense of being totally helpless if you're not massively chromed and loaded up for "the old ultra-violence" like what David experiences in the show. There's room for a variety of playstyles including old-timey tropes from the original system like the "Rockerboy." Mostly, combat is something you want to avoid if you can (or at least, you need to be prepared for serious ensuing consequences).

ekesleight wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 2:46 pm You certainly can be an ultraviolent cyberpunk if you want to... but you don't need to. In particular, while the attractiveness of some amount of chrome is obvious, there is no pervading sense of being totally helpless if you're not massively chromed and loaded up for "the old ultra-violence" like what David experiences in the show

That's cool-- it just happens I like the stealth/hacking parts of cyberpunk. I'm glad they're in the original game, and still annoyed that they were so minimal in the video game.

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:43 pm

ekesleight wrote: ↑Sat Oct 15, 2022 2:46 pm You certainly can be an ultraviolent cyberpunk if you want to... but you don't need to. In particular, while the attractiveness of some amount of chrome is obvious, there is no pervading sense of being totally helpless if you're not massively chromed and loaded up for "the old ultra-violence" like what David experiences in the show

That's cool-- it just happens I like the stealth/hacking parts of cyberpunk. I'm glad they're in the original game, and still annoyed that they were so minimal in the video game.

One of the things that kept me from playing the video game was that it seemed so heavily calibrated as a shooter. I'm a Rockerboy in our CP:R campaign. I'm not totally helpless in a shoot-out but I vastly prefer to take the "face" route and circumvent violence. I've been successful so far.

I really enjoy the system. I was a Shadowrun player (and GM) back in the day (and have played 5th edition SR recently; 6th edition is apparently unplayable) and CP:R is actually much more rewarding for nonviolent play.

Linguoboy wrote: ↑Fri Sep 02, 2022 2:49 pm

Raphael wrote: ↑Thu Sep 01, 2022 1:45 pmNot sure if there were any high profile movies coming from Hollywood in that genre at all before the early 2000s LOTR Trilogy, except The Wizard of Oz.

Seriously, Excalibur anyone? (It was the #12 on the list of top-grossing films of 1981--right above Time Bandits, which as you may recall had a few fantasy elements of its own.) Take one look at the cast and tell me with a straight face that it wasn't "high profile".

One of my favorite films of all time. It gives us an early glimpse of Sir Patrick Stewart, a magisterial performance from Nigel Terry, and heaping helpings of ham from Dame Helen Mirren and Thomas Nicol Williamson (an actor whose genius I feel has been, unfortunately, largely forgotten). Features a Grail story that seems heavily inspired by Frazer's The Golden Bough, which might be rather outdated as a work of comparative religious study but sure as shit makes for compelling cinema. It's amazing.

I've now finished the last season of Derry Girls. A bit of an emotional rollercoaster. By the way, zompist, since you have Netflix now, just in case you're looking for Netflix recommendations, if your wife and you don't mind watching a sitcom as long as it's a good sitcom, I really recommend that show. However, if you go for it, I'd also recommend turning on the subtitles - even for English L1 speakers and very advanced English-as-an-additional-language speakers, the local accent can be difficult.

I'll try not to comment too much on the last season to avoid spoilers, but it's a generally very enjoyable experience, except for that one gut punch. No, I won't tell you what it is. A few minor notes: I think they overdid it a bit with the surreal elements in the first few minutes of the last episode. The music selection was a bit underwhelming this time - perhaps they already used up all the fairly good 1990s pop songs in the first two seasons? Oh, and it's a bit annoying that Netflix insists on presenting it as "a Netflix series", as if they, rather than Channel 4, had commissioned it.

One plot element that I would have loved to see, but didn't, would have been That would have been fun. But hey, you can't have everything.

Raphael wrote: ↑Wed Oct 19, 2022 10:27 am However, if you go for it, I'd also recommend turning on the subtitles - even for English L1 speakers and very advanced English-as-an-additional-language speakers, the local accent can be difficult.

This reminds me of how, when watching British TV with my (very American) parents, they insist on watching with subtitles, while I myself can understand it perfectly without them, even in the case of shows where they have characters speaking in (the TV version of) northern EngE varieties.

Ah, similarly, I remember my parents needing subtitles to watch a Denys Arcand (a Quebecois filmmaker) movie, which felt odd -- never had any problem understanding the dialogue. I believe Arcand himself, in reply to a rather insulting request that his movies be dugged, quipped that the French should watch his movies with subtitles and pretend the dialogue is in Serbo-Croatian.

It's a generational thing I believe. My generation was exposed to Quebec French a lot more.

Some band called “Sleestak”.