Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
don mick senn
LIKE DONALD TRUMP X RICHARD NIXON
noknok shell
far as i know this is quite normal of a practice amongst musicians -- e.g. playing a piece at different tempos to figure out what works best for one's desired interpretation, or (correct me if i'm wrong) playing a sample or some other song back in different ways, perhaps adding instruments or subtracting some audio channels or with various adjustments/distortions
and musicians aren't the only ones to do this; games have mods, plays have updated or parody or other-setting retellings, and so on
why is it treated strangely when this practice is extended to storytelling? why is it canon treated as something static to be placed on a pedestal? why does every detail have to be clear? why can't things be left to the audience to figure out and even decide? what about engaging the audience in the creative process, rather than simply presenting some static, finished product -- especially when a story itself isn't truly a static thing to be viewed and bought and sold like a commodity but actually a dynamic journey to be experienced for oneself?
I'm probably trying to give it more weight than it's usually given, possibly even by its creators in some instances.
But hey, what's wrong with that?
also why are your replies giant text
> it gets to a point where you're no longer talking about the same thing everyone else is
Well, you might disagree with me on this, but the way I see it, I'm just not not making the same assumptions with regards to interpreting and assessing the story. Like, I don't see trends where other people do because I haven't seen as many of those shows, or I presume that the characters don't act "off-camera" as much in a certain way that they often act on camera because it wouldn't make as much sense if they did, or so on.
I'm horribly wordy, aren't I.
I could have accomplished this by saying:
though it'd be more terse and less detailed.
Also, just because character types and plot types recur doesn't mean that a story has to follow them, and some of them even kinda depend on the viewer having a fresh perspective, so I think it's not wrong to try to approach them with a fresh perspective that sees the story as an alternate reality rather than a designed plotline.
> That sounds needlessly complicating, and pretty
unlike my experience with spinoff media that try to show what characters
(might) have done offscreen.
I wasn't referencing ViVid Strike in particular with that comment, but honestly I don't really see the problem with having alternate interpretations and speculating at how that changes what things mean and how things happen. I mean, this is pretty common fan behavior anyway.
I was never looking for my interpretation to "catch on". I don't really care whether it catches on; I just don't like the idea that the only correct interpretation is the fandom consensus interpretation. If my interpretation happens to be the fandom consensus interpretation, I don't mind that either, though it might simply not come up as often since that's not something that can be argued over.
> overselling modern entertainment
just because it's not written with greater meaning or profound beauty in mind doesn't mean it's wrong to find it in a work
J.S. Bach's cantatas were written, one a week, for regular church services
yet people regard that as high art
the seeming distinction between what is or isn't considered "worthy" of finding meaning or artistic value/merit or enjoyment or whatever is really arbitrary and pretty much up to perceptions
now perhaps i AM using an atypical approach, because i'm sorta natively an instrumental classical musician, and instrumental classical music is generally much more abstract with regards to its meaning, so it is considered normal to engage one's imagination in interpreting and performing the music, usually (though not necessarily) with regards to attempting to discern period performance practices and social context as well as the context of the composer's own life and possible intentions (with varying degress of speculation depending on how well he/she left annotations). so maybe i'm sorta taking this level of interpretative freedom to a medium that is generally seen as much more concrete with regards to its details, and instead of complaining when details aren't concrete, I allow the audience to fill in details and fit pieces together as needed, using their own imagination.
but honestly, it is really not that hard to see how this makes sense. take any series. let's say, a certain scientific railgun. For some, it's a sci-fi story; for some, it's a slice-of-life story; for some, it's an action story; for some, it's a yuri story; for some, it's a superhero story; for some, it's a story about scientific ethics. And so on. And the work as it's presented supports all of them. You can argue over which ones are more important, and you can argue over which ones the writers intended more, but you can't really argue about the fact that people found meaning in these interpretations, even the ones that weren't intended, and may have liked it for those specific reasons.
[/rant]
oh well, it's in the shitposting thread
QUESTION MARKS!!!!
periods???