After reading this topic, I must go and see this film. I have not seen so much salt since the days of the Ghostbusters. Those who are new. And considering that the preview film I saw because everyone did not like was Jumanji Welcome to the Jungle ... I will give this film a small chance. And never, never will I discuss it or talk to people about it. I do not want to die from salt poisoning.
All those 3 films have different reasons for the hate/dislike for them, so I would at least inform myself on why instead of just labelling it all as salt and go watch them out of spite, but you do you.
 
In another thirty years I expect we'll be having nostalgia for nostalgia. Frank Zappa's prophecy come true.

I doubt people will get that nostalgic for music and video tapes. Especially video, since neither VHS nor Betamax could beat Blu-Ray.

Video game cartridges aren't about nostalgia, the concept has never really died from the 1970s. (Video game tapes, on the other hand, are just dead and gone.)
 
I believe something was said that Blu-Ray and super high definition made porn less popular since one could clearly see all the flaws in the actors and whatnot.

"Eww! I never noticed she has surgery scars."
 
Well, there's actually a pretty interesting youtube video that argued that certain types of movies/etc actually did better on tape because of the limits of the medium.
Isn't that just an argument against exposing flaws? Better technology shows more ways to improve.
 
Whatever it is that has its flaws revealed, be it special effects, makeup, etc.

But that wasn't even the entire point of the video (ignoring disagreements there that might exist)? Did you skim it or something?

Edit: Note, you aren't required to watch it, if you really want to get into a debate about a video you've never actually watched I could try to summarize points, but... really?
 
Last edited:
But that wasn't even the entire point of the video (ignoring disagreements there that might exist)? Did you skim it or something?

Edit: Note, you aren't required to watch it, if you really want to get into a debate about a video you've never actually watched I could try to summarize points, but... really?
It wasn't related to the video, I accidentally replied to the wrong person. Sorry.

Going back to the movie, does anyone else wonder why Halliday in this version would be giving his stuff to one guy? If the point is not making the same mistakes, wouldn't that be one of them?
 
You exile the board from yourself and then flagellate the board. It's the only logical course of action.
I am not going to make a joke based on the RPO book by saying that only seppuku can cleanse the stains of dishonor. I will however point out I could have.
 
Whatever it is that has its flaws revealed, be it special effects, makeup, etc.

Let me frame this another way. Should every video game try and be a photorealistic tour de force at running at 4k? Should every movie be shot in color and every movie shot in black and white be converted into color? It the answer is no then that should tell you why 'just improve it' isn't an answer. Taking advantage of the low fi nature of VHS and TVs at the time let people do things on budgets that simply would not work on a 50 foot screen at 35mm. You have things that work better in black and white then in color so it is not surprising that you have things that work better with low definition then with high.

The ability to do super high def video on a huge screen at home is good for the medium of moving pictures as a whole but it doesn't mean it is the right choice for every single fim to use every single last technology that exists. More isn't always more when you are talking about art. Sometimes more ends up being less.
 
I don't believe in perfection. I will leave it at that because I don't want to derail the thread.
 
Let me frame this another way. Should every video game try and be a photorealistic tour de force at running at 4k? Should every movie be shot in color and every movie shot in black and white be converted into color? It the answer is no then that should tell you why 'just improve it' isn't an answer. Taking advantage of the low fi nature of VHS and TVs at the time let people do things on budgets that simply would not work on a 50 foot screen at 35mm. You have things that work better in black and white then in color so it is not surprising that you have things that work better with low definition then with high.

The ability to do super high def video on a huge screen at home is good for the medium of moving pictures as a whole but it doesn't mean it is the right choice for every single fim to use every single last technology that exists. More isn't always more when you are talking about art. Sometimes more ends up being less.

The thing is, VHS is the playback mechanism, not the capture mechanism. You can always create a video of lower resolution, meanwhile you can't create a video of higher resolution without some form of interpolation or blurring.

Nobody's stopping people from creating VCDs or DVDs today. And VCDs are as low as 240p in resolution.
 
Last edited:
The thing is, VHS is the playback mechanism, not the capture mechanism. You can always create a video of lower resolution, meanwhile you can't create a video of higher resolution without some form of interpolation or blurring.

Nobody's stopping people from creating VCDs or DVDs today. And VCDs are as low as 240p in resolution.

Um... yes. I am not sure what this has to do with my point that you don't have to use every bit of technology if you don't want to. Capturing at a high resolution and selectively downsampling is how a huge number of films in the found footage genre are made. Being in control of exactly how low rez you want your end product to be is very cheap now even if I have yelled at the screen sometimes that 'no VHS never looked that good'.
 
there's an ongoing LR of the book on Something Awful if you are interested

Old Kentucky Shark said:
Nah, this is a lot worse than most, both because it's surprisingly popular and because Cline is much much worse about it than all but the most dire white male nerd fantasists. He has drilled white male nerd fantasy to its hollow quaking bones. He is to nerd fantasy what John Ringo and Tom Kratman are to jock fantasy.

Like, check it out; traditionally, even the most sketched-in, hackneyed, paper thin power fantasies at least pay lip service to the idea of the Hero's Journey of Self Discovery, but Cline doesn't even do that much. You can see him cludgily stealing the framework of such stories from other media, but he does so in such a half-assed way he wrecks them utterly. Take Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, a movie this book is often compared to because they start from similar premises. If RPO was just a bad copy of Willy Wonka, that'd be all right. But it actively undermines the main thrust of WW's moral, and it does it in an amazingly toxic way. In Willy Wonka, Wonka's factory is presented by its quirky creator as a fantasy dream-land, but it's actually a kind of moral crucible, weeding out the bad, selfish, arrogant, and greedy children with hidden traps until only Charlie, who displays optimism, tenacity, and honesty, is rewarded for his purity of spirit by gifts beyond his wildest dreams.

Halliday's Puzzle at first looks like a similar set up, with one major difference; there's no moral crucible. There's no value judgment whatsoever. The whole idea of moral value judgments seems toxic to Cline. The quixotic mystery man at the heart of the story is literally doing exactly what he said he was: testing his audience's tolerance for rote memorization of useless trivia and capacity for obsessive compulsion. It is a game that can only be won by being as good at the video games of Halliday's childhood as Halliday was. The ultimate prize, complete control over a billion dollar corporation, goes to the person most capable of narcissistic emulation of a man trapped in a vision of his own past. Think how creepy that is: to live your life entirely within the shadow of someone else's childhood, and then imagine what it would be like to voluntarily dive into that fate. Wade Watts doesn't prevail in the end because he's pure of heart, or because he has unique talents or insights, or because he learns the power of friendship, but because he's the biggest, nerdiest, hikikomori-est loser in the world.

The fundamental message of the book is that if you ignore your friends and the outside world and keep doing exactly what you've been doing and don't change in any way, you too can earn a billion dollars and be famous and gently caress the nerdy non-threatening girl next door.
Angry Salami said:
OK, so we've established that Wade is low level, so if he dies and loses all his experience, it's not that big a deal. He's also been established as unfamiliar with D&D. And he's visiting the Tomb of Horrors, the adventure infamous for its arbitrary traps and deadly puzzles.

So what happens? Oh, he uses a walkthrough to avoid all the dangers.

Because, you know, a sequence of him struggling to overcome the puzzles and having to restart over and over might show Wade's problem solving skills and emphasize his tenacity, but why do that when you can just have him show off his ability to memorize nerd poo poo?
 
Last edited:
So I've encountered a lot of people who don't agree with the negative takes on the film, and talking with them has raised a disquieting question in my mind: Is it not rather unfair, if not outright elitist, to accuse people of having fun wrong?
People can disagree with people, dude. I think this film is a piece of shit and the people who liked it need to calibrate their taste levels more - it's an opinion.
 
This line really irritates me. Deconstructions are about taking apart tropes and examining how they work, typically by relating them to real life. While they are often darker in nature than their sources of inspiration, they don't have to be. Darkness is also not inherently deconstructive; look at Overlord or Re: Monster. A lot of people think that just because a work has hyperviolence or evil sides winning, it's deconstructive.
Indeed. Red vs Blue's first five seasons are a pretty solid deconstruction of typical sci-fi first-person-shooter tropes, and they're also the show at its absolute silliest.
There's also Konosuba, but that's already been mentioned.

On topic, a friend of a friend of mine recently went to see the movie. I simply said "I'm sorry for your loss." Still haven't heard back from them on how it was. :V
 
Back
Top