D
Dusty668
I've worn out like 3 copies of Shards of Honor. Love that series too, and like the first 15 books of Honor Harrington, then it got... tedious.
- Status
R
RocketGirl
I've seen exactly one episode. And it was...terrible, frankly. The girl showing it to me seemed to think it was bloody brilliant, but I think it's a case of being awesome if and only if you've been watching the show for a while. It was one of those episodes where they do a shift in perspective, following a different character around for a while, almost-but-not-quite making fun of the show itself...I just wasn't into it. And before you ask which episode, I forget the name of it...but it was about some paranormal group that seemed to be investigating the Doctor, and at the end of it this girl winds up as a talking stone tile or something...
And when it comes to Dr. Who, I got started on the Tom Baker years originally. So my expectations of Dr. Who are, well...not quite in line with what they're doing these days.
Granted, part of why I've only seen one episode is because I don't own a TV set. Oh, sure, I could download 'em, I suppose, but I'm neck deep in "Night Court" right now, and "The Sopranos"...so...
But also, I've been told that the more recent Dr. Who series has done the one thing I tend to find kind of unforgivable: it went dark.
See, some time back, I was watching the deleted scenes from Pulp Fiction, and there'z a part where Mia Wallace is talking to Vincent Vega with a video camera, interviewing him. One question she asks is whether he's an Elvis man or a Beatles man; she believes you can divide the world up into Elvis people and Beatles people, which is why when they drive up to Jack Rabbit Slims, she tells him that an Elvis man should love it.
Now, I believe that you can divide up the world similarly into Superman people and Batman people. Not necessarily that they like those specific superheroes, but rather that they prefer the vibe of those different worlds.
Batman people like things dark and grim, where the hero is tortured and one steps from being a villain himself, where the world, the setting, is best described as "noir".
Superman people, by contrast, prefer their heroes stalwart and brave, their world much like the real one in terms of vibe or mood. There isn't a lot of angst in a Superman world; any strife comes from the villains, not the setting, and the heroes do what they do for its own sake and not due to some trauma in their past.
Granted, this is a spectrum, not a binary set; if you were to ask me, I'd have a difficult time placing, say, Han Solo or Malcolm Reynolds on the Batman/Superman scale. But in essence, I think the concept makes a kind of sense.
That said, I...am dyed-in-the-wool Superman people. Big time.
I like my entertainment to be largely angst-free; it's my escape, y'see. Some people jab a vein, some people snort a line, me...I go to the video store.
Now, per-maybe-haps my info is wrong, but I've had people who know my tastes tell me that new Dr. Who has trotted juuuuust a bit closer to the Batman side of this spectrum. Something about Galifrey being destroyed? All but, like, three Time Lords killed? Daleks learning how to climb stairs? (Okay, maybe less about that last one...) But still... sounds angsty over here.
One of my favorite quotes from JJ Abrams about the new Star Trek movie is that "realistic" and "dark" are not the same thing; I could kiss the man for that! You have No. Idea. how sick I am of dark. If Dr. Who has gone over to the dark side--so to speak--I am SO not down with it.
This...may have been rather more than you were expecting from a one-line question, but...I have some kinna strong feelings about this sort of thing, so...
H
Hansagan
You like your entertainment to be angst free but you read 'Angels2200'? I'm confused....
And I certainly wouldn't describe Dr Who as 'Dark' ...'occasionally goofy' would be closer
And I certainly wouldn't describe Dr Who as 'Dark' ...'occasionally goofy' would be closer
R
RocketGirl
Yeah, I know. Me too, actually.
Take it as a compliment; I'm reading it anyway. You must be doing SOMEthing right, neh?
Maybe it's just my crush on Whiskey.
Hrm. Well, as I say, maybe my info is wrong. But I'm told the vibe has shifted overall...And I certainly wouldn't describe Dr Who as 'Dark' ...'occasionally goofy' would be closer
I'm amused that you seem to consider Lois McMaster Bujold and David Weber to be on opposite ends of a science fiction spectrum. It's like a southerner watching a Bostonian and Rhode Islander quibble about accents.
Also: 'sup, new chick?
R
RocketGirl
I'm a MAXer, myself...though I've been meaning to give Maya a try.
Softimage can bite me. Just sayin'...
Well, in a way, they kind of are opposite ends.
Maybe it's just because of the people I tend to hang with online, but...for me, the characters in the Vorkosigan Saga are awesome, they get into such interesting situations, have equally interesting ways of getting out of them, and they're people I wish I knew and am glad I've spent time with, however virtual; for the people I know online, Honor Harrington has the coolest space battles EVAR, with bajillions of missiles and lots of stats about spaceship speeds and weapons yields to know and memorize.
It's two radically different ways of looking at our literature, yanno?
I think I'm getting sick, alas. And tonight's one of my clubbing nights.
I'm a MAXer, myself[/QUOTE]
I approve of RocketGirl
(I would have approved either way, though
)Maybe we can collaborate on something halforums-related some time.
R
RocketGirl
You're the second one to tell me that now...and it wouldn't be the first time this has happened. My introduction to Buffy the Vampire Slayer--aside from that atrocious movie, that is--was the episode "I, Robot; You, Jane"...and that was bad enough to make me refuse to watch any more.
...until, of course, a girl I was crushing on sat me down and made me watch more than that. So perhaps the new Who is worth two views before I refuse.
Even one doing right AFTER some trauma has a certain appeal. Like, as you mentioned, Spider-Man.
It's the ones who wallow in their trauma that really get my hackles up.
Well, perhaps.
Well, fair enough, then.
Hrm. Well, perhaps it's worth another look.
Hrm...not entirely certain I'm down with that.
One thing that actually drives me up the freakin' wall with ST:TNG is the human-worship, especially with regard to Data. I'd like to see an android-type character who actually says, "Having weighed the relative measures of emotions versus dispassion, I can confidently state that the efficiency of lacking emotions definitely outweighs the experiences of pleasure and pain; I choose to remain emotionless." You know...as opposed to wanting to be human to the point where it comes off like a borderline fetish.
So if the Doctor is going around emotionally fellating humankind, well...I'm not down with it. I like it when humans in sci-fi comes off as about average when compared to other species...neither lauded nor derided.
R
RocketGirl
That's a tough one. They all have good qualities.
I will say that five and six are not in the running; those were...kinna meh. But one is classic; two is actually even better; three is a lot of fun and the first time with the interface where the action stops when you type, no more having to speed-type or die; four is the first with VGA graphics, voice (on CD), and the mouse-only interface (which I actually quite disliked at the time; felt less intellectual to not use words) and a pretty good adventure, too...
So many disparate factors to weigh. If two had three's interface and four's graphics, it'd be a shoo-in. Though three's semi-freedom of movement with command of your own space ship was pretty gnarly.
Gah! How to choose? How to choose?
I think I'll go with 2. There'z just...sumfin' about it.
I'm a MAXer, myself...though I've been meaning to give Maya a try.[/QUOTE]
I think it's easier to model in Max but for everything else Maya is tops, in my humble opinion of course.
I'm a MAXer, myself...though I've been meaning to give Maya a try.[/QUOTE]
I think it's easier to model in Max but for everything else Maya is tops, in my humble opinion of course.[/QUOTE]
I always thought it depended on the look you're going for. Max gives you some great low poly options that I don't feel Maya pulled off as well. Maya, however, is wonderful when you're looking to get a smooth, high-poly model out the door. Also texture mapping was easier in Max, imo.
As a fun aside, those high-end cinematics Blizzard pumps out are modeled in Max. They do 99% of their 3D work in it. I believe BioWare relies heavily on it as well.
R
RocketGirl
My webcomic is done entirely in MAX...well, except the compositing/lettering, of course; I have Photoshop for that.
But all the 3D work is done in MAX.
But all the 3D work is done in MAX.
I'm a MAXer, myself...though I've been meaning to give Maya a try.[/QUOTE]
I think it's easier to model in Max but for everything else Maya is tops, in my humble opinion of course.[/QUOTE]
I always thought it depended on the look you're going for. Max gives you some great low poly options that I don't feel Maya pulled off as well. Maya, however, is wonderful when you're looking to get a smooth, high-poly model out the door. Also texture mapping was easier in Max, imo.
As a fun aside, those high-end cinematics Blizzard pumps out are modeled in Max. They do 99% of their 3D work in it. I believe BioWare relies heavily on it as well.[/QUOTE]
Easier to texture map but Maya gives you so much more control it's ridiculous. I'm not down talking 3ds. It's a great program, I just think that maya does some things much better.
Honestly, just use the one that works best for you
Really it's about whichever gets the job done fastest and best.I'm a MAXer, myself...though I've been meaning to give Maya a try.[/QUOTE]
I think it's easier to model in Max but for everything else Maya is tops, in my humble opinion of course.[/QUOTE]
I always thought it depended on the look you're going for. Max gives you some great low poly options that I don't feel Maya pulled off as well. Maya, however, is wonderful when you're looking to get a smooth, high-poly model out the door. Also texture mapping was easier in Max, imo.
As a fun aside, those high-end cinematics Blizzard pumps out are modeled in Max. They do 99% of their 3D work in it. I believe BioWare relies heavily on it as well.[/QUOTE]
Easier to texture map but Maya gives you so much more control it's ridiculous. I'm not down talking 3ds. It's a great program, I just think that maya does some things much better.
Honestly, just use the one that works best for you
Really it's about whichever gets the job done fastest and best.[/QUOTE]True enough. Really the programs are just different enough that it's easier to get a preference for one or the other. I preferred Maya myself.
Me too, however, if I had used 3DS more in the beginning... who knows? Honestly it was the particle systems in maya that got me hooked.
Me too, however, if I had used 3DS more in the beginning... who knows? Honestly it was the particle systems in maya that got me hooked.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I worked with 3DS first, but Maya was better for environment design (to me) which is what I had wanted to do when I still had talent.
Don't worry, it's completely okay to not like Dr. Who, since it's not really that good!
What do you think about the legitimacy of the Academy Awards (Oscars) ?
What do you think about the legitimacy of the Academy Awards (Oscars) ?
R
RocketGirl
Heh.
I'm not even sure what that means...I mean, what--beyond a bit of press and a statue--do you get for winning an Oscar?
Goodness knows that it's really, really, REALLY rare for a movie that I dig to even be waved at the Oscars...except possibly in the FX category. Winning an Oscar seems to be less about how enjoyable a movie is, but rather how pretentious it was...at least in my never-humble opinion...
R
RocketGirl
Interestingly, I REFUSED to see it after how the first movie nostril-raped my childhood so badly...
So, pick a year out of the last several, and give your own oscars out, for like Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress, Screenplay, and Director? Or you could do this year, if there isn't much else coming out you're interested in. After all, December is [strike]Oscar,[/strike] Pretentious Season
R
RocketGirl
Well, it smells worse.
And...I'll be honest, my nostrils were just really not meant f'dat. I mean, maybe I'm guilty of orifice prejudice here, but unless we're talking specifically about oxygen-rich air, I tend to think of nostrils as being 'Exit Only'.
I suppose I could do that.
At some point. When I'm not in middle of at least three things that I really ought to be doing instead of looking at webboards.
North_Ranger
Staff member
Ever sang about Rocket Girl like William Shatner?
R
RocketGirl
H
Hansagan
What is it that makes you so loathe William Shatner?
R
RocketGirl
I'm...not sure I can properly explain it. There are words that explain exactly why I could quite cheerfully light him on fire...but every time I use them, people invariably either choose an alternate definition of the really important words or they attach emotional baggage to 'em that I never intended. And then I spend the next forty-eleven paragraphs putting out fires I'd never meant to have set.
I'm just sayin'. I'm loathe to explain it here cuz I wanna be friends with folks rather than get into a Shatner-argument. Seriously, I've been through that on other boards; right now I think that discretion is the better part here.
And I'm sure it doesn't help that he looks a lot like a grown-up version of Henry Foster, the school bully from first to third grade, till the little fucker moved away. That's not the main thing, it's just...it ain't in his favor, yanno?
H
Hansagan
What episode was that? I'm intrigued.
R
RocketGirl
Aside from the US and Canada--and mostly just the coasts of those two, barring a couple of brief visits to Ohio to see relatives--the only place I've been is Cuba. 'Course, not a lot of folks from the US have been there who aren't military, so that's kind of impressive...
Also recently took a trip to Hawaii, which kicked ass; I'd live there if I could.
Oh! And there was that trip to Neptune...but I'm not supposed to talk about that.
---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:57 AM ----------
You mean there'z something that isn't?
I frankly don't see the difference between those two choices; either is a lack of free will, therefore either seems like death to me.
Now if there was more to those choices, like being a cold-calculating machine came with time off to do my own thing, or if dying free actually meant fighting for freedom against those machines with the potential to die in battle, the choice would be clear; you'll almost always find me on the side of the underdog opposing oppression.
But the question was kinna vague-yet-limiting, and given the choices, I'd probably take death over being conscious, but without free will...
R
RocketGirl
Perhaps you could elaborate on that a bit further? I can see far too many possibilities for what "the anthropomorphic problem" might mean--anything from aliens being too humanoid to my reader-base being full of furries--to answer your question fairly...
Perhaps you could elaborate on that a bit further? I can see far too many possibilities for what "the anthropomorphic problem" might mean--anything from aliens being too humanoid to my reader-base being full of furries--to answer your question fairly...[/QUOTE]
The former: aliens being basically just another type of human with the occasional moment of 'wierd' tossed in. It's a tough issue in SF, although it can be explained off to certain degrees.
Is it an issue in your work?
- Status