• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Stature

Story Friday May 4, 2018

Recommended Posts

7 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oedipus also killed his father. I don't think Perseus needed to worry about that.

And he definitely needed to marry Andromeda (or at least ...) because he found the dynasty and had lot of descendants, including Heracles, who was his half-brother and great-grandson, proving that Zeus doesn't care.

Oedipus completely gets a bad rap for that stuff. People who've read the actual story have a much different take on it...

First, he didn't "kill his father". He killed a random stranger who attacked him on the road for no apparent reason.

Then, he didn't "marry his mother". He arrived at a city in a double crisis. He resolved one crisis, a sphinx threatening to destroy the city, by correctly answering the sphinx's riddle (sphinxes are big on riddles, although there are alternative ways of dealing with them). The second crisis was that the king was missing and presumed dead, with no heirs. The leaders of the city offered Oedipus the throne, with the condition that he marry the presumed-late king's widow to create more of an appearance of legitimacy. He accepted the deal, even though he and his new wife had no knowledge of having met before.

Some time later Oedipus found out that the attacker he had killed on the road was both the missing king (so the presumption that he was dead, was correct) and his own father, and his wife was his mother. In response to this knowledge his mother/wife hanged herself, and he blinded himself.

An accurate "Oedipus complex" would be a bad reaction to learning, after the fact, that you've accidentally married a close relative, and/or to the fact that the person you've quite justifiably killed was a close relative. Not a desire to kill or marry a close relative.

Narcissus, on the other hand, totally fit the common image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

though I will say that cases I've seen where the newer version is unquestionably superior to the old one(s) are pretty rare, and as such the idea of a new version will replace (as opposed to coexist with) the old one really rubs me the wrong way.

I very much agree. I will say that I have on occasion seen remakes bring a different viewpoint to the table, which in and of itself makes them worthwhile, I feel. Just as an example: The original "To Be or Not To Be" from 1942 remains an unsurpassed masterpiece, but I still enjoyed the Mel Brooks version from 1983. The Brooks version very much justified its own existence but it could not possibly replace the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:
16 hours ago, hkmaly said:

I don't think it's most of the time, although the cases where it happened are often VERY visible.

Like the Clash of the Titans, where the better CGI and better looking Kraken can't save the fact that Hades CHOSEN to get Underworld and not counting the issue with Persephone was satisfied with it, that Kraken was Poseidon's monster, and that Perseus definitely didn't married Io, his great-great-great...grandmother.

I suppose I haven't really seen a lot of movie remakes (particularly if one were to rule out new adaptations of stories that have been adapted before that aren't trying to remake the old adaptation), so I can't really make a definitive statement on the matter. Also, come to think of it my experience with remakes, reboots, and new adaptations in general is pretty mixed - though I will say that cases I've seen where the newer version is unquestionably superior to the old one(s) are pretty rare, and as such the idea of a new version will replace (as opposed to coexist with) the old one really rubs me the wrong way.

I suppose the movies are not here long enough to see how the long term effect will be anyway. It's possible I'm just optimists when I think we eventually get good remakes even in those cases where some remake failure already happened. However, new versions might replace old ones even if we don't agree with it ... and the idea that "new" viewers will be watching multiple versions just to decide which was better doesn't sound likely.

8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I almost specified that older digital effects can and often do look pretty bad in a painful way - though I would argue the problem isn't that they look "old" but that in those cases they were never that good in the first place.

They couldn't be. Noone had computers capable of doing good CGI back then.

8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Not that all old CGI was painfully bad, some of it was just painfully obvious. Also, even bad CGI can have it's charm in the right movie - a few years back I re-watched the original Power Rangers movie, and the cheesy CGI in it was just as amusing as the chessy practical effects in the original TV series

This MIGHT be nostalgia talking.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

However, new versions might replace old ones even if we don't agree with it ... and the idea that "new" viewers will be watching multiple versions just to decide which was better doesn't sound likely.

They won't watch it just to decide between them, but they might watch multiple versions because they're a fan of the story or franchise (I know I often do; I've watched both animated & live action Hobbit & Lord of the Rings, many Godzilla movies across multiple continuities, many versions of TMNT, and at least seven adaptations of A Christmas Carol). Also, this probably doesn't happen as often as it ought to, but I'd like to think that if the general consensus is that a older version of a movie/show/whatever is the best one, people who are interested in checking it out will seek out that version.

25 minutes ago, hkmaly said:
8 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Not that all old CGI was painfully bad, some of it was just painfully obvious. Also, even bad CGI can have it's charm in the right movie - a few years back I re-watched the original Power Rangers movie, and the cheesy CGI in it was just as amusing as the chessy practical effects in the original TV series

This MIGHT be nostalgia talking.

It's possible, but I doubt it.

As far as the "not painfully bad" goes, some big budget movies of previous decades managed CGI that would be perfectly acceptable in an animated move, it just doesn't quite mesh with the live action, so it's a bit like watching a more serious "Roger Rabbit" (I'm thinking the Lord of the Rings trilogy, early Harry Potter, and the Star Wars prequels; probably the first Jurassic Park too though I haven't actually re-watched that in years), while others worked within the limitations of the technology (I've always assumed the T-1000 in Terminator 2 was supposed to look unnatural and artificial; it is a strange type of robot after all).

As for Power Rangers, I never was much of a fan of it back in the 90s; I think my enjoyment of it today comes more out of my love of "so bad it's good" things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I'm thinking the Lord of the Rings trilogy, early Harry Potter, and the Star Wars prequels; probably the first Jurassic Park too though I haven't actually re-watched that in years

Those are still relatively recent and might look worse later. Or, maybe we reached point where the quality of CGI is good enough ...

... but I doubt it. For one, read all the reviews about Hobbit being shot in 48fps and how bad idea it was. IT WASN'T. There are just two possibilities: either it was shot incorrectly because the producers are not used to 48fps, or the viewers are not used to 48fps. Either will change with time. I'm not sure if 3D will stick or where the resolution will stop, but we already know what gamers thinks about games with less than 60fps.

And any movie shot with less than half of that fps, less than quarter of "ideal" resolution, any which is 4:3 if the 2:1 will stuck ... will need to be either "remastered" or be completely remade eventually. See how they remastered TNG.

Most of CGI has lower resolution than the movie it's applied on.

On the other hand, it is possible we are getting close to point where it WILL be possible to do "remastering" which will actually enhance fps or resolution of movie mostly automatically.

4 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

I've always assumed the T-1000 in Terminator 2 was supposed to look unnatural and artificial; it is a strange type of robot after all

That might work. Along with movies where the CGI scenes are supposed to happen inside computer or something, there will be cases where unnatural and artificial is ok. Not for majority of movies, though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

That might work. Along with movies where the CGI scenes are supposed to happen inside computer or something, there will be cases where unnatural and artificial is ok. Not for majority of movies, though.

It is worth mentioning that CGI isn't just CGI. One reason the Jurassic Park dinosaurs had such a huge impact apart from the time was the quality of the CGI used. They had attempted to include detail levels like the play of light on scales, the direction of incoming light, the shadows cast not only by the whole figure but also which parts of the figure itself lay in shadow and so forth. This obviously increased expense and time requirements significantly.

Now compare this to CGI where it is just a random creature blob bungling through the movie. It may look nice, sure, but if the programmers did not take the above details into account, it won't look natural and your brain will balk at being fooled. Add in the Hollywood mentality of "Oh, we'll just do it with CGI, everybody loves that," and you have a bunch of cheaply animated computer cartoons instead of actual movies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Why are there no more directors like Ishirō Honda?

If the special effects aren't by Eiji Tsuburaya, then they aren't really "Special".

They just don't make them like that anymore. Denmark made a go at it but all we got was a silly movie about a dinosaur tail tip that had been frozen since time immemorial which, when thawed, turned into a man in a rubber dinosaur suit bent on stomping a papier-mâché model of Copenhagen flat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

It is worth mentioning that CGI isn't just CGI. One reason the Jurassic Park dinosaurs had such a huge impact apart from the time was the quality of the CGI used. They had attempted to include detail levels like the play of light on scales, the direction of incoming light, the shadows cast not only by the whole figure but also which parts of the figure itself lay in shadow and so forth. This obviously increased expense and time requirements significantly.

Now compare this to CGI where it is just a random creature blob bungling through the movie. It may look nice, sure, but if the programmers did not take the above details into account, it won't look natural and your brain will balk at being fooled.

I'm not sure how that's related to "CGI isn't just CGI" but I definitely agree.

49 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Add in the Hollywood mentality of "Oh, we'll just do it with CGI, everybody loves that," and you have a bunch of cheaply animated computer cartoons instead of actual movies.

Some cartoons are BETTER. Oh, wait, you said "cheaply animated" so you already recognized that.

I suspect Hollywood is blinded by fact that CGI monster is not negotiating for pay raise. Yet.

29 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:
38 minutes ago, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Why are there no more directors like Ishirō Honda?

If the special effects aren't by Eiji Tsuburaya, then they aren't really "Special".

They just don't make them like that anymore.

I think there still are people like this. Problem is, they don't get the funding they would require because someone else will do it for less and claims it's just as good (which isn't true of course).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

I think there still are people like this. Problem is, they don't get the funding they would require because someone else will do it for less and claims it's just as good (which isn't true of course).

Absolutely, but if I admitted to that, I wouldn't sound like a contrary old grump who is constantly complaining about how much better everything used to be, even nostalgia. :danshiftyeyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Those are still relatively recent and might look worse later. Or, maybe we reached point where the quality of CGI is good enough ...

... but I doubt it. For one, read all the reviews about Hobbit being shot in 48fps and how bad idea it was. IT WASN'T. There are just two possibilities: either it was shot incorrectly because the producers are not used to 48fps, or the viewers are not used to 48fps. Either will change with time. I'm not sure if 3D will stick or where the resolution will stop, but we already know what gamers thinks about games with less than 60fps.

And any movie shot with less than half of that fps, less than quarter of "ideal" resolution, any which is 4:3 if the 2:1 will stuck ... will need to be either "remastered" or be completely remade eventually. See how they remastered TNG.

Most of CGI has lower resolution than the movie it's applied on.

On the other hand, it is possible we are getting close to point where it WILL be possible to do "remastering" which will actually enhance fps or resolution of movie mostly automatically.

Well, it all depends on what you count as "recent", but Jurassic Park came out 25 years ago and Return of the King 15 years ago.

I wouldn't know about frame rate and resolution; I didn't see anything wrong with the image quality of the Hobbit movies in theater (granted I watched it in 2D because I don't consider 3D worth the extra ticket price) or on BluRay, and the only problem with the BluRay version of the Lord of the Rings was that it made the seams between some of the CGI and the live footage a little more apparent.

As for older movies and TV shows that didn't have as good resolution as ones made in the past decade or two... well, to risk sounding old and grumpy, I think many of today's viewers are spoiled, and the studios that insist on putting out all these remastered versions should really stop indulging them so much. (Ah, who am I kidding, they'll keep putting them out so long as they're profitable.)

At any rate, I hope the trend of cutting down a standard-definition picture to create a widescreen image ends soon. (No, Funimation, I do not want to see less of what's going on in DBZ just so there won't be black bars on the sides of my screen.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

Well, it all depends on what you count as "recent", but Jurassic Park came out 25 years ago and Return of the King 15 years ago.

... damn they did ... I feel old ...

1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

As for older movies and TV shows that didn't have as good resolution as ones made in the past decade or two... well, to risk sounding old and grumpy, I think many of today's viewers are spoiled, and the studios that insist on putting out all these remastered versions should really stop indulging them so much. (Ah, who am I kidding, they'll keep putting them out so long as they're profitable.)

It's not (only) about being spoiled ; truth is that the same movie looks worse when upscaled on modern TV than when shown on old one.

1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

At any rate, I hope the trend of cutting down a standard-definition picture to create a widescreen image ends soon. (No, Funimation, I do not want to see less of what's going on in DBZ just so there won't be black bars on the sides of my screen.)

I still hope IMAX and similar technologies will help at least little and stops this trend of making TVs wider and wider. And I would really like if, instead of cutting part of image, someone would ADD image to fill those black bars. In lot of cases it would be possible to do mostly automatically, even if the movie wasn't originally shot on widerscreen cameras or if the negatives got lost. Although maybe not in DBZ. Also, even if partially automatic, it would probably be too much work for most movies.

However, there is another thing which needs to die even quicker: interlacing. Some TV shows are done so instead of having 25-30 frames per second, they have 50-60 half-frames. Maybe it really was necessary in past, but 1080i shouldn't ever happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

Well, it all depends on what you count as "recent", but Jurassic Park came out 25 years ago and Return of the King 15 years ago.I

 

3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... damn they did ... I feel old ...

https://xkcd.com/891/  (Note that you now have to add seven years to all of these....)

https://xkcd.com/1686/

https://xkcd.com/1757/

https://xkcd.com/1981/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Star Wars: A New Hope came out 41 years ago now, does that help? :danshiftyeyes:

Only 2 years before I was born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Scotty said:
16 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Star Wars: A New Hope came out 41 years ago now, does that help? :danshiftyeyes:

Only 2 years before I was born.

I'm also younger than Star Wars: A New Hope.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

Star Wars: A New Hope came out 41 years ago now, does that help? :danshiftyeyes:

Wow, I'd forgotten that the original Star Wars was only a few years older than me. When I saw the original trilogy as a kid, I just assumed they were classic movies from a previous generation (I was unaware at the time that Return of the Jedi had actually been released when I was a toddler) and I even knowing their release dates I still tend to think of them that way.

As for "now I feel old", I started to get that when things I became a fan of when they came out when I was a kid (like Transformers & Ninja Turtles) started hitting their 30th anniversaries, and stuff from when I was a teen (like Sonic the Hedgehog) started hitting their 20th anniversaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:

As for "now I feel old", I started to get that when things I became a fan of when they came out when I was a kid (like Transformers & Ninja Turtles) started hitting their 30th anniversaries, and stuff from when I was a teen (like Sonic the Hedgehog) started hitting their 20th anniversaries.

Luckily, I usually completely miss such anniversaries.

... still remember the disappointment when I finally got a transformer toy and it wasn't transforming so nicely as in the advertisement ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Luckily, I usually completely miss such anniversaries.

... still remember the disappointment when I finally got a transformer toy and it wasn't transforming so nicely as in the advertisement ...

Somehow, I usually wind up encountering some promotion for the big anniversaries.

As for Transformers toys, I was just disappointed my parents couldn't afford to get me the toys of all my favorite characters from the show.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The Old Hack said:

Goldarnit, too slow, mlooney beat me to the punch. Ah well.

You could still shake your cane at them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I'm way too feeble for that. *breaks into minute-long fit of coughing*

Please do not become a target of Sirleck (ok, a facsimile of Sirleck).

10 hours ago, mlooney said:

This is me telling you to get off my lawn.

You geezers have no fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now