Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
The GLaDOS lines that got dummied out
Did you ever stop to think that eventually there’s a point where your name gets mentioned for the very last time? Well, here it is: I’m going to kill you, Chell.
Why do I hate you so much? You ever wonder that? I'm brilliant. I’m not bragging. It's an objective fact. I'm the most massive collection of wisdom that’s ever existed. And I hate you. It can't be for no reason. You must deserve it.
Why'd these lines get dummied out, anyways? They'd be great in the game! The latter I particularly like: it could be inserted at the beginning of an otherwise unremarkable test. It'd give GLaDOS an entirely new dimension we don't even get to touch upon in the finished product! I mean, that adoption joke was pretty mean, but that seemed more like something a schoolyard bully would do than anything legitimately malicious.
Comments
♠
^
^ ♠
That's kinda the joke and in my opinion, what made GLaDOS so funny.
Yeah. On that note, I suspect one of the reasons those two lines didn't make it into the game is just that they aren't very funny. And "funny," rather than "threatening," is pretty much the goal of all the writing for Portal.
They're not supposed to be funny. If lines like those two were included, they'd add a whole new dimension to the game. Think about it: you have a superintelligent A.I with complete control of the facility who hates you and everything you stand for utterly.
I just wanted those lines to be put in the game because I like GLaDOS best when she's being SHODAN.
And GLaDOS is. There you go.
It wouldn't "add a new dimension to the game," it would just make it less enjoyable.
GLaDOS already has heaps of lines where she's being threatening. They're just all tinged with humour, which is what gives Portal a big part of its charm and what makes GLaDOS an endearing villain.
I hope you don't mind me saying, Eelektross, but I think you have a habit of taking villains meant to be simple and childish a little too seriously. GLaDOS, Gannondorf, the Ice King are examples I count from the recent past. I get that you interpret more depth and sometimes malice in these characters than is absolutely immediately obvious, and there's nothing really wrong with that, but you shouldn't be surprised when other people interpret these kinds of characters exactly as intended. Not a whole lot of people are going to be on board with interpreting Gannondorf is anything but a straight-up dark lord stereotype, even if he's a beloved and well-executed example.
In the case of GLaDOS, we're not really supposed to fear her, primarily. We're supposed to pity and even empathise with her, but Valve chose to soften those feelings up with commitment to humour. We're supposed to laugh and understand before all else.
That is an excellent point and I have nothing more to say that would not be parroting your statements.
However, I feel that this issue needs a bit of addressing:
Part of why I interpret Ganondorf as an almighty God of Evil instead of just a straight-up evil overlord akin to Sauron or Darth Vader is because I sucked donkey dicks at Zelda as a kid. I cannot count all the times I spent more than two hours stuck on a puzzle! To me, what made Ganondorf such a malevolent figure was how he was apparently responsible (to an extent) for at least some of the puzzles that frustrated me to no end.
(And before this gets addressed, I know there's a big difference between Sauron and Vader: I just used those two because they're the easiest to pick out from recent memory.)
That seems strange because, you know, I don't consider inventing puzzles to be evil. >.>
I do believe there's a difference when failing to solve a puzzle can get you stabbed by Darknuts or thrown into lava.
...Isn't Ganondorf the reincarnation of what is essentially a God of Evil, though?
To be specific, he is the manifestation of Demise's hatred. Not a reincarnation per se, but so close that practically there's no difference. Kind of like the Satan-Antichrist dynamic.
And that just adds fuel to my interpretation of Ganondorf. He even quite explicitly wields the "power of the gods" in the form of the Triforce of Power!
Yeah. I'd definitely say that a god or demi god of evil is a valid interpretation due to that. Not the only one, and could be wrong, but still a valid one
Not to mention that both the interpretation of Ganondorf as an archetypal evil overlord and the interpretation of Ganondorf as a god of evil are by no means mutually exclusive. Hell, look at Vecna!
Yeah, I was gonna say this is like how he seems to take Adventure Time too seriously, too, but you beat me to it, so all I can do is concur.
Hey, not all of the episodes are kiddy fun. Most of them are, no doubt, but there's episodes like the one where Finn (without spoiling anything major) triggers the creation of an undead monstrosity that takes the form of his dearest friend.
Those lines seem to rather fit to AM. Though I have no doubt AM and GLaDOS are good chums.
I was thinking more on the lines of SHODAN, but AM works too.
What about those times you got into how fucked-up the Ice King's psychology is, rather than just allowing him to be a goofy character in a goofy cartoon? Or got into all that power in his crown rather than allowing a goofy setting to be lenient with its magic? Could be that I'm misremembering the former thing, but I got the feeling you were thinking too much about this.
The writers themselves have stated that they want some semblance of internal consistency at the very least, so I think it's fair to try and examine it.
Adventure Time has episodes where it takes itself pretty seriously, if you haven't seen the show, or haven't seen it recently. Though I don't think it ever gets so dark that there's no humor.
But at some point it becomes a question of whether you even consider The Ice King and Simon Petrikov to be the same character or not.
I haven't seen any of the major plot episodes yet -- just a jumble of episodes a friend wanted to watch -- but I know how the setting came about, and I think that that in itself is kind of a strange place to go with this sort of cartoon if it's not going to be a relevant plot point until the writers want to get Serious.
It was a major plot point in the recent two-parter season finale.
And the writers make it clear that there is nothing funny about the Ice King/Simon dichotomy.
Ah, and there is the problem. It's easy to assume that Adventure Time's mechanics lack internal consistency/the show itself lacks any form of "canon" (akin to the more recent Spongebob episodes) from a casual viewing, but upon watching three seasons straight it's apparent that the reverse is true.
Look I get that I might be taking the whole GLaDOS thing too seriously, but I think you're being a bit unfair with this.
This would be an easier solved issue if the writers ever agreed on anything.
You're demonstrating my point. Where else is this aspect of the series relevant? Every episode I've seen so far has functioned perfectly well on its own, without the shallow trappings of post-apocalypse.
I think that's too bad, because this show's perfectly good at just being funny.
Yeah, but I don't see the point of adding some dark edges to it that don't ring true when compared to the rest of the show.
You just seem to be annoyed that the show isn't just a comedy, honestly.
Except I'm not adding them. If I was, the writers beat me to it.
The Lich, one of the biggest threats to Ooo, has his origins deeply tied to the post-apocalyptic backstory. I can count more examples, if you wish.
See the problem here?
I concur.
And hey, that's your opinion: I just don't like how you're enforcing that viewing Adventure Time outside of one aspect of itself is inherently flawed. It's coming off as condescending.
That you think I'm even capable of such primitive emotional responses is more indicative to the level eduction you've received than it is insulting to me, not that as an advanced AI I can be insulted.
If a subject or two is causing trouble for aperture science laboratories, I merely euthanize them. Any and all test subjects who display erratic or destructive behavior, sometimes even a few normal test subjects are selected for euthanasia as well, to act as a control group.
Now that's my GLaDOS!
-laugh track-