Angel_of_Bacon

Badgers

About

Username
Angel_of_Bacon
Joined
Visits
5,750
Last Active
Roles
Moderator,
Points
2,590
Badgers
23
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Angel_of_Bacon mod

About

Username
Angel_of_Bacon
Joined
Visits
5,750
Last Active
Roles
Moderator,
Points
2,590
Badgers
23
  • Re: The [chat] Who Circumnavigated Fairyland

    Lamp wrote: »
    Sometimes I feel totally baffled by how much work goes into so many minutes of animation that don't drive the story forward at all.

    Well, if you hold a strict standard of 'the maximum amount of time must be spent driving the plot forward', that's really going to limit the number of movies you can enjoy. I mean, most movies spend a great deal of time engaging in pure spectacle, mood building, or deliberately manipulating the pace for dramatic effect- without which, you might as well just read the screenplay instead of watching the film.
    Example, I think you're going to find yourself in a real minority if you were to state a Jackie Chan movie would be improved by tightening up the storytelling by excising all that time Jackie spends roundhouse kicking nameless thugs in the face, in favor of getting the plot across more efficiently. The only difference is that 'spectacle time' in a Jackie Chan movie is designed to pump an audience up, whereas in a Miyazaki movie it's designed to elicit a more calm/contemplative/meditative response.

    This may be also why you couldn't get into The Maltese Falcon or detective stories, if you're just looking for story. People think that detective stories hinge on a great, detailed, intricate plot- but if you look at Sherlock Holmes, or Philip Marlowe, or Poirot, or Columbo, it becomes apparent that the plot really is basically just an excuse for a fun main character to get into fun altercations with a broad ranging cast of characters and situations. So if you're not on board with just kinda hanging out with a character for awhile, you're going to find the story dull. I've read all the Philip Marlowe novels and I could not tell you the plot of any one of them from memory, but I love reading them because I love Philip Marlowe's character; and throwing him in almost any situation- even if it's just him ordering a sandwich at a deli counter- is going to be entertaining for me.
    tynic
  • Re: The [chat] Who Circumnavigated Fairyland

    Lamp wrote: »
    a Jackie Chan flick with five too many superfluous fights

    DOES NOT COMPUTE
    IrukaMKRLampm3nacetynic
  • Re: Hexmage's Sketchbook

    Well, I'd say the more you can keep focus on the task at hand the better- but realistically, everyone's mind wanders like this, and keeping that level of focus and concentration on such a finicky, demanding task is something that comes naturally to few people.
    All I can suggest is to take some notes from Zen meditation and cognitive-behavioral therapy, making a habit of noticing when your mind wanders, and then gently and without judgment (beating yourself with "augh I SHOULD be able to stay concentrating" kinda of thoughts, which only serves to distract you even further) returning your focus to the drawing. The more you practice, the easier it will be to recognize mind wandering and keep the necessary attention- and trust me, if I have to be 100% focused 100% of the time to be passable at drawing, man would I ever be out of a job. Just notice it for what it is, and continue on.

    It can also help to refocus your attention by walking away from the drawing and viewing it from a distance, or looking at it in a mirror- getting a new angle on the drawing can help you see things you might have been missing when you had your nose to the grindstone. And sometime you just have to take a break in general- lots of times I find myself knowing that something is off, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is- that's when I have to go get a drink of water or something before returning to it.

    As for talking when drawing, it can't be a defacto terrible thing to do, or else people trying to teach art would find that task impossible. I wouldn't take the left/right brain stuff too exceedingly seriously, simply because a lot of people who want to break things down into simple terms like "oh one is creative, and one is logical" seem to not recognize that a task like drawing requires as much- if not more- logic as it does creative thought, and I doubt there are too many higher functioning tasks that do not require both sides to some degree.

    So I could see talking aloud or to yourself helpful in reinforcing matters of procedure- 'check the measurements, check the angles, is this negative space correct, what is this value versus this other value, what is the edge quality here, does this appear in perspective', etc- stuff that can be broken down in pure terms of logic. Maybe it's not so helpful in coming up with the more creative act of generating ideas for pictures, which may be a more intuitive internal process. But once you have that idea, there's a lot of logic that has to come into play to actually execute it. (There's a whole section in Richard Schmid's book Alla Prima that goes over this very thing- how he might have a thought like "the coloring lacks life" or "the drawing seems wonky", and he goes through a whole little checklist of things that he can check through to break down that vague thought- which he can't do anything with as it is- and translating that into a concrete, technical problem that he can then actually do something about.)

    So I might have gotten off on a tangent there, but I guess what I'm saying is- if you feel talking through the drawing is helpful, go on and keep doing it.
    IrukaHexmage-PAMabelma
  • Re: The [chat] Who Circumnavigated Fairyland

    tynic wrote: »
    well now I'm just wishing I had an Uncle Two-Guns, instead of my actual crop of highly uncool uncles.

    Well, on one hand I am of course disappointed that my guess was wrong.

    On the other hand I'm glad I won't have to negotiate likeness usage rights with a man barechested save for his shoulder holster and unmistakable snakeskin vest, as I go register trademarks and copyrights on popular crowdsource developed character, Uncle Two-Guns©™.
    Angel_of_Bacon on
    tynictapeslingerNightDragon
  • Re: The [chat] Who Circumnavigated Fairyland

    @Iruka It does make me feel better a bit, yeah. :)

    And I think your dilemma is not uncommon- which is why so much of what people post on FB is so banal, even when the people posting are people I know are capable of being far more interesting and entertaining if they wanted to be.

    I know I deliberately have excluded my family from my FB friends list because I know if I did, I'd never post anything even remotely interesting as a result (or at least, trying to be interesting). Even with that precaution taken, I still try to make sure I don't post about any serious issue I might actually have a strong opinion about ('don't discuss politics or religion in polite company', etc) so as not to get in conversations where I'd get really wound up.

    I know FB has a way to filter posts to go only to specific, separate cohorts- but given how much junk I see that I have no idea why I'm seeing it ("Oh, the friend (who I don't know) of a friend (who I don't know) of one of my Facebook friends got married (to someone I also don't know), judging by this random picture. I have no idea why I am being informed of this."), I don't trust those streams to remain separated and not cross-pollinate in a concerning way. The risk of my mother finding out that I, on occasion, will use salty language such as, "butts", is too great.
    Angel_of_Bacon on
    Prospicience