The greatest tragedies are not the ones where the heroes fail outright all the freaking time.
Rich Berlew is not writing one of mankind's greatest tragedies, news at 11. It's still obviously kinda sad though, right? A lot of irony, and covered in lampshading humour, but it's there. V coincidentally wiping out the most secure gate guardians in a small side-story victory (that also had a multiple-sad ending)? Tragic.
It's just that, in winning, he sacrificed all the things that mattered to him.
Or, you know, it was a story of him losing everything that mattered to him.
PC, SJW, anti-fascist, not being a dick, or working on it, he/him.
Is there anyone in the audience who can tell me why Die Hard 2 just felt so... off?
I can't put my finger on that movie, but something about it just feels distinctly unsatisfying. I can tell you why Die Hard 1 and Die Hard 3 worked (or didn't work), but I can't do the same for DH2.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
The most important failing of Die Hard II is that John McClain is not alone or isolated. A requirement to be a good Die Hard movie is that John McClain has to rise to the challenge because nobody else is available. This is most explicit in Die Hard, where he's the only person who can make a difference because everyone else is either a terrorist, hostage, or outside the building. In Die Hard 3 he's isolated both by the demands of "Simon" and the general communication problems that it's possible to have in 1995. He's not literally locked in a building with terrorists, but the plot conspires to deny him backup at every turn and leaves the responsibility for action on his shoulders even though he doesn't want it.
In DH2 he's an LA cop in a Virginia airport and there is literally no reason for him to be participating in the whole thing after the SWAT team and military show up. Technically he should be sitting in a chair while the whole thing goes down. The moment the SWAT team shows up, he's officially doing things because he wants to, not because he has to.
The next problem is the bad guy's plan, a proper Die Hard movie is about the bad guys having a clockwork plan that relies on them knowing the good guy's playbook and using that knowledge to either have a prepared counter (the rocket launcher for the armored car) or force the good guys to unwittingly advance the plan. Hans Gruber knows that the FBI will shut off the power and break the final vault lock, Simon Gruber knows that the bombs will force the Federal Reserve to turn off their alarms, and that the police are fundamentally incapable of ignoring bomb threats in schools, leaving them plenty of room to bring heavy equipment in to steal all that gold.
In Die Hard 2 they take an airport hostage so they can free the Generalissimo ... and that's exactly what happens. It's not a feint or a coverup. Worse, the "twist" is that the Army Special Forces team that shows up is in on it, which actually makes the requirement for the authorities to be rational actors who unwittingly aid the bad guys by following the playbook an impossibility. Thinking about it, an actually interesting plot would have been staging a robbery to cover up freeing a political prisoner.
It's difficult to get invested in the movie because things never get personal. Holly is in danger, but it's just the ambient danger that everyone is in. They try to kill John, but it's because he's in the way, not because he killed someone's brother (twice!) or to get the detonators, or anything like that. There's never banter except between Holly and Dickhead Reporter. John even starts out happily married. The closest thing to "personal change" anyone goes through is when Officer Fathead tears up the parking tickets. Compare that to the exchanges between John and Hans, or the genuine camaraderie that develops between John and Zeus.
Finally, it's just a poorly written movie. The characters are flat and lifeless, there's never any real tension, and John is almost entirely reacting to the bad guys, never taking action like when he figures out Hans is going to blow up the roof, Simon is robbing the federal reserve, or even just tosses a dead body out the window, or notices Otto stole his friend's badge.
Last edited by Sashi on Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I kind of want to write up a similar thing for Die Hard 3. Because while I liked that movie and think that it's worth watching, it has some problems that detract from my enjoyment of it. So it probably wouldn't belong in this thread.
I wrote up a thing awhile back about So Good It's Bad, about works that are genuinely good or even great but they have some really grating problems that are hard to overlook (ST: TNG, Godfather 3, and Order of the Stick) and DH3 would be my choice for a SGIB action movie.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
fbmf wrote:I liked DH3 overall, but I absolutely despised the climatic battle/resolution.
Which one are you talking about?
... hell, just me typing that sentence should already indicate the major problem with the movie. Honestly, they should've just done a fucking Goldfinger and made the gold explosion the actual plan (rather than a feint) and John/Zeus just ends up killing all of the bad guys.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Ugh. The Killing was recommended to me as a crime drama I might enjoy. I got through the first season, found that there was no resolution, and decided to just read the spoilers for the rest of the show.
Thank God I did, so I can save myself the agony of watching it. The pacing of the show is incredibly slow... Like someone took a three hour film and stretched it into 26 TV episodes. There are no characters on this show that I like - not the police, the victim/victim's family, the various injured parties that are collateral damage in the investigation. The investigative skills of the police officers are a bit deficient. And the running theme seems to be give-in-to-your-impulses-before-you-have-proof - it gets old incredibly fast and doesn't make for an interesting story.
So. Fast Times at Ridgmont High wasn't exactly good, but it was at least watchable. Also: Stacy's state of undress.
So, hungry for a satisfying 80s' teen comedy, I tried to watch Porky's. I couldn't last 10 minutes. Mickey came onto the screen, belted out some racial slurs, then ugh. I just snapped the DVD in half.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
The way critical buzz turned on that show was pretty hilarious if you're like me and find blog community rants more entertaining than most television shows. It came with a good pedigree, aired on a channel people trusted, and featured enough pretty aerial shots and good acting that people responded really warmly to the first few episodes, but by episode 7 or so many people were just hate-watching it in order to find out whodunnit, and most of those people only stuck with it because the Danish show it was based on wrapped up their cases every season. Between that and the uncertainty of renewal, people felt like playing out the string for 6 more episodes seemed like a semi-defensible time investment. By the end of the season finale, people were blowing up twitter and using the word betrayal unironically.
Last edited by Whipstitch on Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Well, I do understand that the first season of Forbrydelsen was 20 episodes, and each one was longer than each episode of the American version... But every single twist and surprise in The Killing seemed to be based on the same dramatic ploy: someone does something somewhat rash and ZOMG! Unexpected horrible consequences.
The problem with overusing that ploy is that it's based, in part, on emotional horror. By the end of the first season, it's already tired, and so instead of feeling that shock when it happens, you just get pissed that yet another person was being a dipshit. The show's producer seriously changed the backdrop on the rollercoaster and then tried to convince us it was a whole new ride.
I have no clue how it landed a season three, and I think Netflix was a total sucker to fall for a season four.
And as a really minor added bitch, I fucking hate how it enhances the stereotype of Seattle as constantly raining hard. Yeah, I know it's rainy, but it's not Forks.
Last edited by Maj on Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
What were some of the Firefly stories you never got to tell?
He hemmed and hawed, “Should I tell you this?… Oh well, what’s he going to do, fire me?” The original show was darker and this story was more in keeping with that tone.
It opens with Mal and Inara fighting (as they do). Mal tells her she pretends to be a lady and wants everyone to bow before her and kiss her hand but she’s just a whore. Then the Reavers attack and take Inara. While trying to get her back they learn that she had something that would make anyone who had sex with her die. When they finally track down and board the ship they find all of the Reavers dead and Inara shaking and traumatized. They take her back to the ship and Zoe guards her room. Mal tries to get in to see her and Zoe tells him he’s the last person Inara needs to see. He pushes past her, kneels before Inara and kisses her hand.
Of course someone asked, “Is that what the syringe [that Inara gets out when the Reavers approach in the pilot episode] was for?” To which he replied, “I don’t know. Next question."
Inara has yet another fight with Mal, in which he says something especially cruel like "I'm not going to get on my knees and kiss your hand like your a lady. You're a whore."
Inara has a sort of chemical weapon in case of rape, so whomever attacks will die immediately after raping her. (I'm not saying this all as eloquently, I'm pre-coffee).
She's kidnapped by reavers in an attack. Mal and crew go in to the reaver ship to save her.
What they find is the entire crew of reavers, all dead, and Inara huddled on the floor, beaten half to death.
Later, in Inara's shuttle, it's only Zoe there, guarding her silently. Mal tried to come in, and Zoe opens a can of whup ass and tells Mal no fucking way is anyone coming in.
Mal gets past Zoe (yeah, right) and walks over to Inara's bed where she's curled up and post-traumatic. Gets on his knees, and kisses her hand.
I found that... well, frankly extremely dubious. So I've been looking for a smoking gun and unfortunately I've found one.
Oh, and as a bullshit bonus from the original link:
One creepy-ass poster wrote:
This could have been such a tremendous episode. I can see it in three acts:
I) Mel/Inara tension setup; the attack of the Reavers and the talking of Inara.
II) The decision to try to save her, or her remains as Jayne would state she is gone and the ensuing mayhem to do so.
III) Her return to Serenity, broken in body, mind and spirit. This act would dwell on what she meant to others, especially Mel and his regrets; his kissing her hand, his loss of her.
In the meantime, Simon would be able to heal her body, but who could heal her mind, her spirit? I would see River being capable, broken herself, but broken with the gift of preternatural perception and a hyper-genius intellect. She can pull out the broken fragments of Inara's mind via talk-therapy (of a sort) to help her pull it back together, with some help from Simon using 25th century psychotropic drugs, and perhaps a word of wisdom or two from Reverend Brooks and everyone else.
This episode would further the value of River and Simon to the crew; the mystery/capabilities of River to do good, to heal; the heroism of the crew; the value of Inara to all, especially Mel. It would also showcase the ultimate strength of Inara, for to even survive what happened, the gang rape by a bunch of sociopathic Reavers, you have to be supremely strong and capable in the first place
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
Lago PARANOIA wrote:Tim Minear reveals another unfilmed [Firefly] episode
Man...I love Firefly, but that is...extremely disappointing.
I am judging the philosophies and decisions you have presented in this thread. The ones I have seen look bad, and also appear to be the fruit of a poisonous tree that has produced only madness and will continue to produce only madness.
--AngelFromAnotherPin
believe in one hand and shit in the other and see which ones fills up quicker. it will be the one you are full of, shit.
They could put it right after the episode where Captain Dickhead gets angry at "the whore" for doing some simple escort work and needlessly threatens endangers lives over his stupid ego and right before Captain Dick head sleeps with her best friend who is also a prostitute, and she is inexplicably upset by that because lame reasoning, in an episode revolving around defending a besieged brothel from a dissatisfied customer.
Phonelobster's Self Proclaimed Greatest Hits Collection : (no really, they are awesome)
PhoneLobster wrote:They could put it right after the episode where Captain Dickhead gets angry at "the whore" for doing some simple escort work and needlessly threatens endangers lives over his stupid ego and right before Captain Dick head sleeps with her best friend who is also a prostitute, and she is inexplicably upset by that because lame reasoning, in an episode revolving around defending a besieged brothel from a dissatisfied customer.
What episode was that? One of the unaired ones?
EDIT: Oh, Heart of Gold. Damn, has it been 10 years already? Firefly could have it's own fucking OSSR thread. Hell, I think the Firefly RPG is 10 years old by now.
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Sat Jan 25, 2014 5:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
PoliteNewb wrote:
Man...I love Firefly, but that is...extremely disappointing.
Yeah, I can only tell myself that it is such a shitty pile of shit that it never actually would have been made an episode anyway because someone would have spoken some reason into their minds before finishing it, maybe an actor, a producer, someone.
Firefly is definitely a better show with the syringe's contents not being revealed as rape-vengeance juice.
I'm not nearly as bitter these days about the show being ended since maybe it did end a very good and solid show before stupidity could ruin it.
The new TV show Intelligence has none. I am not sure how I managed to make my way through four episodes of the show... Maybe because the premise was vaguely interesting in a Gee-I-Really-Miss-Chuck sort of way (but he's on Netflix now, so I can just watch the original). Or maybe I just really like Meghan Ory.
Whatever the case, the show totally lost me when they traveled to Damascus, Syria. The first thing that needed to be done was find their target. They did this by doing a 3D rendering of the marketplace where she was last known to be. I can almost forgive them for portraying the marketplace in Damascus like something from Aladdin. Almost.
But they then proceeded to scan the faces of every single person in the rendering trying to find their target. Why? I don't fucking know because she was the only fucking pale-ass white woman in the place. She looked like a Canadian in a generic Middle Eastern costume. In order to help the moronic, drooling viewers at home understand that this lady was different, the show shit on itself by making its own premise utterly pointless.
Once they located the target, they sent in their agents to talk to her. They had to be sneaky because she was being watched. So what did they do? They "camouflaged" a Secret Service agent in the marketplace by taking away her gun holster and putting a hijab on her head. That's it. Suit pants? Check. White button-down shirt? Check. Standard issue shoes. Check. They were in a fucking marketplace where they could have purchased more than a fucking scarf. Hell, they used a rack of clothing as a screen. A rack of CLOTHING!!!11! And the agents are still wearing their fucking uniforms. The guys even had their stupid black ties on!
Fuck you, Intelligence. You've insulted mine. I hope you go down like the Titanic. May your ratings suck and your name be lost to the annals of history. And hopefully your actors will quickly find some other TV show to star in.
Running from the Raptor
Taken at the Dinosaur Museum
Taken by the Pterodactyl
T-Rex Troubles
Ravished by the Triceratops
Mating with the Raptor
In the Velociraptor’s Nest
Apparently, there are audiobook versions, too.
Mating with the Raptor wrote:Marga was the Protectress, the city’s leader, charged with defending it against dinosaur attacks. It is her sworn duty to protect her city at all costs, even when a pack of velociraptors attack her and her men at a small, undermanned outpost outside of the city.
The battle is a vicious one, and after a daring maneuver to save a fellow soldier, she finds herself trapped by the pack leader, a powerful male. The creature captures the Protectress and takes her to his cave. Will this raptor make the Protectress his next meal? Or does the beast have different plans for the beautiful warrioress?
Last edited by hyzmarca on Wed Feb 12, 2014 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DSMatticus wrote:It's not just that everything you say is stupid, but that they are Gordian knots of stupid that leave me completely bewildered as to where to even begin. After hearing you speak Alexander the Great would stab you and triumphantly declare the puzzle solved.
Honestly, the only thing about that that surprises me is that it's apparently lucrative enough to bother to keep doing. It's the fucking internet. If you want to find erotic dinosaur smut, someone out there is writing it for free. And that goes doubly so for the werewolf, demon, orc, and dragon smut.
I'm less creeped out by the freaky dinosaur sex and more by the excessive use of the suffix -ess.
Seriessly, what ess the point of thess?
Last edited by Lago PARANOIA on Thu Feb 13, 2014 7:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Josh Kablack wrote:Your freedom to make rulings up on the fly is in direct conflict with my freedom to interact with an internally consistent narrative. Your freedom to run/play a game without needing to understand a complex rule system is in direct conflict with my freedom to play a character whose abilities and flaws function as I intended within that ruleset. Your freedom to add and change rules in the middle of the game is in direct conflict with my ability to understand that rules system before I decided whether or not to join your game.
In short, your entire post is dismissive of not merely my intelligence, but my agency. And I don't mean agency as a player within one of your games, I mean my agency as a person. You do not want me to be informed when I make the fundamental decisions of deciding whether to join your game or buying your rules system.
It's an antiquated gender-specific suffix that is pretty much obsolete outside of words like "princess." I actually got dinged in an essay for using the words "authoress" and "poetess" because it was considered sexist - since an author or poet can be a man or a woman.
