|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 12, 2019 18:10:42 GMT
And is rethinked at home. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Oct 12, 2019 18:22:41 GMT
Are we trying to observe and be aware of the fact that we're mostly just line-mimicking drones, reacting from our ossified viewpoints? And fighting each other with prefabricated lasers? Are we supposed to reach a place where we are generating our own original thoughts? And discovering our own original viewpoints about the films that they haven't essentially say about themselves?
Is this like "The Simpsons already did it."?
Alexrd, are you asking this thread to be rational?!
And isn't the death sticks kid, the kid that designed the training programs in The Matrix?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 12, 2019 20:33:33 GMT
Are we trying to observe and be aware of the fact that we're mostly just line-mimicking drones, reacting from our ossified viewpoints? And fighting each other with prefabricated lasers? Are we supposed to reach a place where we are generating our own original thoughts? And discovering our own original viewpoints about the films that they can't essentially say about themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Oct 12, 2019 21:22:09 GMT
I guess by "why?", I'll modify that to; is it a game we play merely for fun, and/or are we supposed to learn something from it, discover something? Something about ourselves and/or the cinematic apparatus? The human psyche? The nature of life, the universe and everything? Are we finding our Star Wars spirit guide? Is this our initiation of the Whills? Are we supposed to communicate in quotes, or are we supposed to transcend that? Or both? Are we supposed to use the quotes to navigate through the Indra's Net of the film and then lock on (Lacan) to the strongest power source to get to the "main reactor" of the film? This concept, as well as this oracle of a thread by Midi, boards.theforce.net/threads/the-contemplation-of-the-benevolent-creature-the-key-the-rage-the-love-the-door-of-the-phantom.50040933/remind me somewhat of a video I made few years ago. thesyncbook.com/network/?rtag=syncvideos&id=295(Embedding isn't working) |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 12, 2019 21:30:55 GMT
IMHO, yes to all of the above!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 12, 2019 21:42:38 GMT
OMG. As if Pryo just referenced an AOTC video from "QuoteTheGuy". I was just about to create a thread on those videos! A perfect way to digest AOTC in bite-size form. Are we supposed to communicate in quotes, or are we supposed to transcend that? Or both? Are we supposed to use the quotes to navigate through the Indra's Net of the film and then lock on (Lacan) to the strongest power source to get to the "main reactor" of the film? I think we're just supposed to have fun. Somehow. And oh, gosh... Did you just say "main reactor"? Where did I put my notes on "Return-Reactor"? I'm never going to be able to find that notepad now... |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 12, 2019 21:51:43 GMT
A perfect way to digest AOTC in bite-size form. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 12, 2019 22:15:29 GMT
HAHAHA!
Ah, yes...
The table with two "bites" taken out of it, allowing the lovebirds to be that bit closer together. Padme weirdly biting into that pear-thing after Anakin slices into its plump flesh and levitates it, exposing circular/radial patterns inside the bisected surface of the levitated piece and in the bulbous mound that remains on his plate. Negotiations with a light touch.
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Oct 13, 2019 6:33:03 GMT
“The supreme being quotes everything.” The Supreme Being spoke everything into existence. "I create it as I speak it." Abracadabra The universe is made of language. |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 13, 2019 18:57:15 GMT
“The supreme being quotes everything.” The Supreme Being spoke everything into existence. "I create it as I speak it." Abracadabra The universe is made of language. "OPENING LOGOS" |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 13, 2019 23:31:39 GMT
Not very deep (notional rather than any elaborate articulation), but the concept outlined in this video has some bearing on the topic, IMO:
"Intertexuality is something in a text -- in this case, a movie -- that is shaped by another text. That could be a film, or a book, or a play, or a song. Intertextuality is something that you can't escape. It's as old as storytelling is. It's how language works. All language reaches back and is informed by how it was used in the past."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntertextualityIntertextuality is a literary device that creates an 'interrelationship between texts' and generates related understanding in separate works. Intertextuality, however, is a feature of all writing, as all statements rely on previously written words and phrases repurposed for the current goals of the current text; respond to states of knowledge, opinion, or discussion established through prior texts; or explicitly refer to or evoke prior texts, as originally proposed by V. N Volosinov and M. Bakhtin. The evocation of prior texts may be deeply implicit or may be marked by different levels of explicitness, from cultural familiarity with terms such as "theory of relativity" to authorial identification (e.g., "as Bertrand Russell notes") through formal citation, using one of the standard academic referencing formats.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 14, 2019 0:06:31 GMT
Not very deep (notional rather than any elaborate articulation), but the concept outlined in this video has some bearing on the topic, IMO:
"Intertexuality is something in a text -- in this case, a movie -- that is shaped by another text. That could be a film, or a book, or a play, or a song. Intertextuality is something that you can't escape. It's as old as storytelling is. It's how language works. All language reaches back and is informed by how it was used in the past."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IntertextualityIntertextuality is a literary device that creates an 'interrelationship between texts' and generates related understanding in separate works. Intertextuality, however, is a feature of all writing, as all statements rely on previously written words and phrases repurposed for the current goals of the current text; respond to states of knowledge, opinion, or discussion established through prior texts; or explicitly refer to or evoke prior texts, as originally proposed by V. N Volosinov and M. Bakhtin. The evocation of prior texts may be deeply implicit or may be marked by different levels of explicitness, from cultural familiarity with terms such as "theory of relativity" to authorial identification (e.g., "as Bertrand Russell notes") through formal citation, using one of the standard academic referencing formats"A method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression." "Deconstruction focuses on a text as such rather than as an expression of the author's intention, stressing the limitlessness (or impossibility) of interpretation and rejecting the Western philosophical tradition of seeking certainty through reasoning by privileging certain types of interpretation and repressing others. It was effectively named and popularized by the French philosopher Jacques Derrida from the late 1960s and taken up particularly by US literary critics." |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 14, 2019 10:03:41 GMT
Every time Pyro thinks some thoughts on Star Wars:  |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 14, 2019 20:09:29 GMT
I think there's a distinction to be made between a player's character/persona/avatar and a cpu's character/persona/avatar...The idea of this thread alludes to a liminal entity between the two, where a cpu acts in direct proxy for a player (or, very strangely, vice versa). Is there a means of direct control of this entity or is it automated to act as a human representative without input? Pertaining to Star Wars literally, if the droids serve as a metaphor for this concept, what would other symbolic entities comparatively refer to? Clones, Jedi, Creatures, Settings, etc.? Or does the concept get meshed into one thing, where those different types of being are like emanations of simply the character/persona/avatar idea itself? In other words, are "bots" one way of putting a much larger idea? Something like a "vicarious puppet" or a "substitute self" (alter ego)?
|
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Oct 15, 2019 22:02:43 GMT
There's also the relativity of language. Or, how one's particular native language has a determining effect on the way they think and see the world, as put forward in the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativityOn a semi-related note, it's interesting how this novel titled Cryoburn  is translated in Bulgarian more effectively as Cryoheat, since a direct translation of Cryoburn would sound too strange to them. Along with the fact that English is much more Latin-centric than Slavic languages.  en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryoburn |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 16, 2019 2:32:40 GMT
Who doesn't enjoy a good Cryoburn every now and then? If I ever go back to TFN, I think I have my new handle. You just made Kylogenic and variants sound like yesterday's news. Cool covers, especially the second. I see our Naberrie Fields symbol is part of the Bulgarian name. And the name starts with a "K". That's... like... perfect. Note the red/blue or "ice and fire" symbolism around Rey and Kylo:       Bonus item: Kylo and Hux: |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 16, 2019 10:20:49 GMT
Stormtroopers spinning around: the movie!
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 16, 2019 11:35:06 GMT
Stormtroopers spinning around: the movie! Blaring trumpets: the movie! "Let's try spinning, that's a good trick." But yeah, I see what you mean. Their practical/tangible mandate paid off; to the extent it wasn't just fan-pandering doublespeak. You do get these flippy, ragdoll-physics moments in TFA that are slightly hypnotic. Practical Mind Tricks? Don't forget BB-8 spinning inside the Millennium Falcon. It's almost like they wanted to rival the flamboyant digital-physics of TPM when various Battle Droids are flung with the Force or shot apart with blaster bolts. Like a lengthy call-and-response that resulted in the creation of some double-pillar structure; or the ghost of Obi-Wan trying to outdo the ghost of Anakin. Or the undeniably sexy rivalry of Kylo and Hux. It's the energy between the podracer engines: the frisson/freak-on of the two. But what is the point in it? "Our cosmology is better than your cosmology." Gee, that's very grown up. I guess Lucas is right. These are kids' movies. "My dad could beat up your dad." |
|
|
|
Post by Pyrogenic on Oct 16, 2019 15:06:41 GMT
If Star Wars is one nine-part movie, is it justified in covering all the aesthetic bases it can?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Oct 16, 2019 16:09:51 GMT
If Star Wars is one nine-part movie, is it justified in covering all the aesthetic bases it can? Perhaps. But a question/dispute still arises: When is it cannibalising itself to the point of self-plagiarism and empty parody? "So... it's big." Little reminder of some of the thinking/rationalising behind TFA in 2015: Abrams: If they were still making X-Wings, If they were still making TIE Fighters, If they were still making Stormtroopers, what would they do? how would they evolve? There were endless conversations about these things. There have been hundreds if not thousands of movies where the design has been influenced by Star Wars and yet could not be Star Wars. They couldn’t do something as badass as a TIE Fighter, couldn’t do something as undeniable as a Stormtrooper, because you couldn’t rip off Star Wars. But when you are doing something that takes place within that world, to not incorporate those things felt borderline criminal.www.empireonline.com/movies/features/force-awakens-full-story/One could argue that aesthetic bases were squandered -- and will now never be known -- because they decided to go rolling around in the mud, rather than developing and incorporating a vibrant new set of designs, world details, subtle ambiences, and elaborately-woven plot details around a gleaming and lustrously distinct Sequel Trilogy concept engine. But I see what you're saying. On some level, TFA is still aesthetically justifiable; or theoretically justifiable. It's almost like a new set of chess pieces, with delicate design alterations and new moves, were fashioned and brought into being in plain sight, and no-one's really talking about it. It's doing all this odd stuff, like a new lifeform, that people are mistaking for an existing one. Its secret, inner essence, and all the things it's both doing and capable of doing, are being missed. |
|
