TychoCelchuuu

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    2800

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by TychoCelchuuu

  1. Posted

    1 hour ago, Gormongous said:

     

    Ronan Wills, who has an excellent teardown of the book on his blog, argues in his wrap-up review that Rothfuss should be taken literally when he says that he's been kicking around ideas for this book since his teens, because there's clearly different strata from different points in Rothfuss' life suggesting that he kept adding to and rewriting drafts of the book as new fantasy influences entered his life. There's stuff at the wizard school that smacks of a smart teen who's just read Harry Potter, there's the worldbuilding and lore that waft of someone in college who's getting into Wheel of Time, and there's the grimdark frame story that's clearly a full-grown adult trying to drum up interest in his manuscript and has taken Game of Thrones as a model for success.

    Dude was 24 when the first Harry Potter book came out, so I suspect there's not any remnant of a smart teen who just read that, unless Rothfuss is a time traveler.

  2. Posted

    6 hours ago, Ben X said:

    But still with the boring army of identical robot/armoured alien enemies from the Avengers.

     

    Also, haven't they done this all out of order? Aren't we supposed to get the films for the respective team members first so we actually give a shit about them teaming up?

    I mean not only are they doing this ass-backwards, they jumped the gun even worse with Suicide Squad, where they took the villains they hadn't introduced and teamed them up and made them go through the arc where they became heroes. But we don't give a shit about them being villains, so it doesn't matter that they became heroes, and we also don't give a shit about these people in the first place because they're being introduced in the movie! DC is basically like "shit shit shit we need to catch up to the Marvel movies, we don't have time for six movies to set these characters up, just jump to the big one. People like the big ones!"

  12. Posted

    Middle-Earth: More Shadow of Mordor

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Moredor

    Middle-Earth: Shadows of Mordor

    Middle-Earth: Another Shadow of Mordor

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor and the Surrounding Locale

    Middle-Earth: The Guy Casting the Shadow of Mordor

    Middle-Earth 2: The Shadow of Mordor

    Middle-Earth: The Shadow of Mordor 2

    Middle-Earth: 2 Shadow 2 Mordor

    Middle-Earth: Of Shadows and Mordor

    American McGee's Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 2

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordors

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: Shadow of War

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: War of Mordor

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: Mordor War

    Sid Meier's American McGee's Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 2

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor: The Sequel

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 2: Jedi Knight

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 3: Jedi Knight 2: Jedi Outcast

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 4: Jedi Knight 3: Jedi Outcast 2: Jedi Academy

    Dark Forces 5: Jedi Knight 4: Jedi Outcast 3: Jedi Academy 2: Middle-Earth: Shadow of War

    Dark Forces 6: Jedi Knight 5: Jedi Outcast 4: Jedi Academy 3: Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 2: Shadow of War

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor 2: Bilbo's Revenge

    Middle-Earth: Shadow of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon Advanced Warfighter

    Middle-Earth: War's Shadow

    Middle-Earth: Reloaded

    Middle-Earth: Attack of the Ork Clones

    Middle-Earth: Sauron's Empire Strikes Back

    Middle-Earth: Jaws 2

    A Middle-Earth Tale: Sauron Goes West

    Middle-After Earth: Shadow of Will Smith's Career

  15. Posted

    18 minutes ago, Spenny said:

    I've only seen about 1/3 of their body of work, and pretty well thoroughly enjoyed everyone I've seen. Can I ask though, what makes a Coen Bros. film a Coen Bros. film?

    Written + directed by the Coen Bros.

     

     

    Black humor, absurdism, downer endings, Jewishness, (Frances McDormand, Steve Buscemi, John Goodman, Jon Polito, John Turturro or George Clooney), Roger Deakins,. Mix these components together in various degrees and you get a Coen Bros. film.

  17. Posted

    Inspired by the Spielberg thread, this is a catch-all thread for the Coen Bros. and your rankings of their movies. Here's my list, with numbers in parentheses ranking each movie out of 100:

     

    1. A Serious Man (96)

    2. The Big Lebowski (94)

    3. Inside Llewyn Davis (92)

    4. Barton Fink (90)

    5. Hail, Caesar! (88)

    6. Burn After Reading (87)

    7. Fargo (85)

    8. Blood Simple (84)

    9. Miller's Crossing (84)

    10. The Man Who Wasn't There (83)

    11. O Brother, Where Art Thou? (82)

    12. The Hudsucker Proxy (79)

    13. No Country for Old Men (79)

    14. Raising Arizona (77)

    15. True Grit (76)

    16. The Ladykillers (76)

    17. Intolerable Cruelty (75)

     

    As you can tell, I like every single one of their movies - 75 is a pretty good score - but there are a couple I don't think I liked as much as other people, namely No Country for Old Men and Fargo, which people generally seem to like more than I did. Or do they? Let's find out!

  18. Posted

    Over the past few weeks I've been listening through Blank Check and it's now one of my favorite podcasts (although I don't listen to a ton). It started off as a series of 3 10 episode miniseries, each about one of the three Star Wars prequels, and eventually it turned into a series of miniseries, each about a movie maker who has a "blank check," so to speak - they were so successful that now they basically get to make whatever they want (like George Lucas, M. Night Shyamalan, the Wachowskis, etc.). They're doing Spielberg right now.

     

    The two hosts, Griffin and David, are hilarious, and they also know a lot about movies and the industry and like to talk shop every once in a while. It has some great running gags, often has really good guests, and sometimes it can be pretty insightful. I started listening from the beginning and enjoyed it a lot but they also have three "best of" episodes fro each of the three Star Wars prequels. I haven't made it to the "best of" episodes yet, but that might be a place to start if you want to see what the podcast is like.

  20. Posted

    37 minutes ago, YoThatLimp said:

     

    Yeah, that was dumb, but your ascribing a scope to the Giant Bombcast that it was never meant to adhere to; you are putting it on a pedal to justify tearing it down.

     

    It's like saying "Idle Thumbs never really addressed the lack of representation for People of Color in gaming" which would be absurd because the politics and leanings of the hosts are pretty apparent and the show was mainly following a fairly simple scope: what they were playing and what off-beat popculture they found interesting. 

    I mean, they did talk about it (Progresscast Twelve, at the very least), but in any case no, it wouldn't be absurd. If they were conspicuously avoiding any discussion of hot-button issues in games, that would be a bone to pick with Idle Thumbs. They don't conspicuously avoid discussing hot-button issues in games, though. I don't listen to enough Giant Bomb to know if their avoidance is conspicuous, but other people in the thread are suggesting as much, and it's something I've heard fairly often, so I would imagine they have a point.

  21. Posted

    What people think of as "apolitical" is not apolitical, it is just not mentioning things that strike them as political. But it's ridiculous to describe that sort of thing as "apolitical" unless you are so blind to politics that so long as nobody mentions stuff that strikes you as political, you think nothing political has been mentioned. But of course political stuff is mentioned all the time no matter what, because it's impossible to be apolitical.

     

     

    My favorite example of this is how people get angry at queer people for mentioning that we are queer. They say stuff like "I don't have a problem if you're gay/lesbian/bisexual/whatever, you just don't need to throw it in my face." But of course straight people throw that in my face all the time without realizing it. They just off-handedly reveal they are straight without thinking of it as political. And to them, it's not political. They have the luxury of their sexuality not being political because theirs is the default, and people think "default" means "apolitical." But it doesn't. It just means "political in a way that the majority can be blind to." If everyone were queer except you, you bet your ass you'd realize that being straight is political.

     

    @eot's example of minority representation in games is another good example. If the default for games is a bunch of muscled cis straight white dudes, gamers don't notice it. As soon as games start putting a bunch of diverse characters in there in anything other than token places, gamers start saying things like "stop being political and pandering to the SJWs" and so on. If a minority person just says something benign like "it's so nice to have a game that isn't just a bunch of straight white cis dudes" suddenly that's political. One thing you might say in response is "well, a straight white cis guy would never say 'I'm so glad this game just has straight white cis dudes.' That's all I want in my podcast. Why can't the minority be like the straight white cis guy and just shut up for once?" And of course you're right: the straight white cis guy would never say that. He doesn't need to! Some people don't need to say a goddamn thing - the default just works for them, unless people fight back. You bet your ass if games weren't the way he wanted them, the straight white cis guy would be speaking up. It would be unreasonable not to expect him to do so. It's impossible not to do so.

     

    If you don't fight back, you're not "neutral" or "apolitical." You're just fighting for the other side. It's a very easy fight, because all you have to do is sit around and let the forces of the "default" enjoy legitimacy by virtue of being the default, but it's a fight nonetheless.

  22. Posted

    How scary is it? What kind of scary is it? I'm really bad with certain sorts of horror movies but I really want to watch this. For reference, Black Swan was too spooky for me, and The Ring fucked me up so badly that I was effectively broken for a couple weeks, but "horror" movies like Alien, Slither, etc. don't even scare me. I'm not really sure why things that scare me scare me or why things that don't scare me don't scare me, but I think jump scares are probably the worst and gore/body horror aren't scary at all. Can I see this movie?