8 ms·

While I mostly agree, The Lord of the Rings still stands head and shoulders above anything else in the fantasy genre. I recently reread them and I'd forgotten h

by Hasu 4y ago

While I mostly agree, The Lord of the Rings still stands head and shoulders above anything else in the fantasy genre. I recently reread them and I'd forgotten how much better they are than anything else in fantasy.

georgeecollins 4y ago
>> the boring, soulless, pondrous killer in Friday the 13th? " You mean Halloween, in which John Carpenter invented the genre that everyone imitated. If you haven't seen it...
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  Thank you! I forgot which one came first. Hopefully, my point still comes across.
JohnBooty 4y ago
I'm tempted to agree, but that's a huge statement given the absolute torrent of fantasy novels that have been written in its wake! I need to re-read them. It's been too long.
deltaonefour 4y ago
i personally found LOTR to be "groundbreaking" for it's time. But if LOTR came out after say something like GOT. Well GOT is better in that sense. The key difference between modern cinema and previous cinema is pacing; and this is a key ingredient stories need to be good, that people often dismiss. GOT by itself, is a relatively Mundane story. But pacing was masterful. Killing off the main character at the end of the first season was revolutionary. LOTR also has a relatively generic plot. LOTR is mostly famous for the world building. That was a first and it was revolutionary as well. I would say however, that when analyzing basic human nature and looking at what we truly like and don't like... pacing is actually far more important then world building. Blade Runner is great, I liked blade runner for the world building and character development as well. But don't be so snobbish as to ignore pacing. The pacing in blade runner is categorically horrible.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  You seem to have a very specific view of pacing: faster is better. To me that feels very limiting. But, as with all things art, I think there's no way to enjoy or feel about it. I feel a lot differently but that doesn't mean I'm right.
  - deltaonezero 4y ago
    You seem to have a very specific view that pacing = faster. Pacing is not faster. GOT is not fast at all. In fact it takes several seasons for GOT to reach a payoff and everyone watched it in ANTICIPATION for that payoff. Literally they sat through the equivalent of 30 blade runners back to back to get to what was imo not that great of a payoff. But what made them do it was the masterful pacing. >But, as with all things art, I think there's no way to enjoy or feel about it. I feel a lot differently but that doesn't mean I'm right. No I disagree. There is such a thing as a general perspective held by a statistically significant portion of the population. And that general perspective is often what what should be counted as correct. For example if someone thinks something as horrible as rape is morally right does it make it right? Or should we go with what the general population thinks. You can be the guy who holds a different opinion. But I would say something is wrong with you if you can't even begin to empathize with why a general audience thinks the way they do. Don't be snobbish. Your art quote actually has a bit of an odor hinting at this.
    - JohnBooty 4y ago
      You're saying that there's an objectively right way to appreciate things, and I'm snobbish? I mean, okay. lol.
      - deltaonezero 4y ago
        No I'm saying there's a majority opinion. And something is up if you can't empathize with the majority opinion. I mean you can say everyone has their own opinion and they're all right from their perspective but this statement in itself is pointless. It's more meaningful to discuss why the majority opinion is better or why the minority opinion is better. The thing about snobbery is that you referred to it as "art." Whenever I hear this I think "snob"

by Hasu 4y ago

georgeecollins 4y ago

>> the boring, soulless, pondrous killer in Friday the 13th? " You mean Halloween, in which John Carpenter invented the genre that everyone imitated. If you haven't seen it...

JohnBooty 4y ago
Thank you! I forgot which one came first. Hopefully, my point still comes across.

JohnBooty 4y ago

I'm tempted to agree, but that's a huge statement given the absolute torrent of fantasy novels that have been written in its wake! I need to re-read them. It's been too long.

deltaonefour 4y ago

i personally found LOTR to be "groundbreaking" for it's time. But if LOTR came out after say something like GOT. Well GOT is better in that sense. The key difference between modern cinema and previous cinema is pacing; and this is a key ingredient stories need to be good, that people often dismiss. GOT by itself, is a relatively Mundane story. But pacing was masterful. Killing off the main character at the end of the first season was revolutionary. LOTR also has a relatively generic plot. LOTR is mostly famous for the world building. That was a first and it was revolutionary as well. I would say however, that when analyzing basic human nature and looking at what we truly like and don't like... pacing is actually far more important then world building. Blade Runner is great, I liked blade runner for the world building and character development as well. But don't be so snobbish as to ignore pacing. The pacing in blade runner is categorically horrible.

JohnBooty 4y ago
You seem to have a very specific view of pacing: faster is better. To me that feels very limiting. But, as with all things art, I think there's no way to enjoy or feel about it. I feel a lot differently but that doesn't mean I'm right.
- deltaonezero 4y ago
  You seem to have a very specific view that pacing = faster. Pacing is not faster. GOT is not fast at all. In fact it takes several seasons for GOT to reach a payoff and everyone watched it in ANTICIPATION for that payoff. Literally they sat through the equivalent of 30 blade runners back to back to get to what was imo not that great of a payoff. But what made them do it was the masterful pacing. >But, as with all things art, I think there's no way to enjoy or feel about it. I feel a lot differently but that doesn't mean I'm right. No I disagree. There is such a thing as a general perspective held by a statistically significant portion of the population. And that general perspective is often what what should be counted as correct. For example if someone thinks something as horrible as rape is morally right does it make it right? Or should we go with what the general population thinks. You can be the guy who holds a different opinion. But I would say something is wrong with you if you can't even begin to empathize with why a general audience thinks the way they do. Don't be snobbish. Your art quote actually has a bit of an odor hinting at this.
  - JohnBooty 4y ago
    You're saying that there's an objectively right way to appreciate things, and I'm snobbish? I mean, okay. lol.
    - deltaonezero 4y ago
      No I'm saying there's a majority opinion. And something is up if you can't empathize with the majority opinion. I mean you can say everyone has their own opinion and they're all right from their perspective but this statement in itself is pointless. It's more meaningful to discuss why the majority opinion is better or why the minority opinion is better. The thing about snobbery is that you referred to it as "art." Whenever I hear this I think "snob"