philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
Has it really only been four years since Dreamwidth started? It seems longer.

I was desperate for cash and tried to sell some old comics at a comic shop. They weren't buying. So I went on Ebay to see about selling old comics. I should have sold them off years ago, apparently. Looks like the market has bottomed out on back issues. Not that I really looked before; it's just, wow, my stuff is nigh worthless.

I think I had a chance to sell off some art prints, um, today, and didn't take it. Oh well.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
I'd like to beg for money for me, because I am really really broke, but instead of digging up my paypal button, I am going to boost a request for money from Shinga of Head Trip, who is freaking out.

http://shinga.livejournal.com/1237980.html
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
The phrase, "Happy the Dagger," popped into my head, and I thought it could be the little non-human sidekick in Disney's Romeo and Juliet.

I have to do much violence to the plot.

At the end, Juliet says to her sidekick, "Oh, Happy! What do I do?" and then a friend of Romeo's crashes in saves them both, or something.

Both the houses of Montague and Capulet are lost, but Romeo and Juliet survive and change their name to Smith. Also, Juliet is a princess of Capulet in this version, because Disney Princesses. So at the end they are the royal family Smith.

In the name of formula, I could make Mercutio into a Disney villain, but I'd rather not.

I considered making them Romy Oh and Julie Ett, but I think, whether or not that joke has been done already, it doesn't fit into the Disneyfication paradigm.

Oh, and there can be a trippy musical number which is implicitly tied to Romeo being on drugs, early in the film. But don't actually say drugs. But yeah.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
Yesterday? I'm not sure.

I tried writing a scene. Got bogged down trying to make the scene before make sense in my head.

"Why I can't write narrative." No, just really haven't worked on it enough. But today a self-critique: Write the scene you mean to write, not a well-analyzed setup for it.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
I was thinking about the Jean Grey School, and what characters I would use if writing X-Men. I had this memory of two of the five Stepford Cuckoos losing their powers in M-Day, and thought I remembered a scene where the five are freaking out because two of them lost their psychic link:

"Mother, I can't hear [name] in my head!"

So I had the idea that there were these two other Cuckoos out there without powers, and there were stories to be told. Well, I should look up their powers, right?

OK, the wikis are telling me that they were already down to three by M-Day, and the other two are not de-powered, but dead. Also some really weird stuff in one of the miniseries, I think it was called Phoenix: Warsong. Anyway, it torpedoes my ideas.

This is why I should just make up my own characters.
philippos42: Sarigar (sarigar)
I'm not making New Year's Resolutions and you can't make me.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
I like Chicago Fire, but the way they're writing it, they're set up to write out most of the main cast by the end of the season. I mean, not just that anyone could be written off randomly, but it feels like we're watching some of these characters' last year on the job.

I think Casey (whose fiancée has already dropped off the show), the chief, and Otis are mostly in the clear--at the moment. (Though earlier this season Casey kind of attacked a cop, so maybe not.)

Hermann's always looking for a new way to make money and might just quit, Severide is hiding an injury that could cripple him, Dawson is the hothead (OK, so are Casey and Severide, kinda, but she's a hothead on the job), Shay gets sucked into Severide's and Dawson's problems and could lose her job because of them, Mills has a mother who wants him to quit (and fits the doomed nice guy trope), and Mouch...is out of shape. And last week Leon (who seemed pretty solid) did something that he's now really torn up about.

Seriously, if this is a one-season show, they can have all the main characters lose their jobs by May. If it's not, seriously, did they give the whole cast one-year contracts? Everybody's set up to be able go at the end of the year.

At least it's a way to get drama for this season and foreshadow anyone leaving at the end of the season without it feeling random. Oddly, though, the one supporting character that already did have to leave the department did leave after a sudden random accident. And the way Hallie was written out was kind of out of left field too. (Then again, their departures help play off Severide and Dawson, and serve their arcs, so they're not totally left field thematically.)

So I don't know. Maybe this show goes for six years, and Dawson and Severide hold on all that time.

Good line

Dec. 26th, 2012 08:32 pm
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
"It's awesome when people manage to do stuff that doesn't come easily to them. Any stuff, any people."

Reply on a friend's dw.

clerics

Dec. 26th, 2012 07:29 pm
philippos42: Miss Tyra funny face (what?)
One of the crazy things about Dungeons and Dragons, that prevents it from being more generally adaptable to different settings, is its treatment of theology, and by extension, of religion. (Well, I haven't played D&D in years, and not the current edition, so in modern terms I guess I mean Pathfinder.)

In D&D, there are real, powerful gods, and clerics are connected to them. If you want a cult where the god is (like in real life) sort of unknown, an open question, D&D doesn't represent this well. I think Eberron tried to be more ambiguous, but most of the time, there are gods, they are definite, their existence just is.

So--a culture that venerates gods with no unambiguous reality? Non-standard.
An empire where the god is the dead father of the present empire, like Rome? Nope.
A cleric of a cult that venerates something that isn't really a god (like the Sun, or a dragon) or may not exist at all (like a legendary hero)--not a cleric in game terms.

Nope, D&D has its particular theological rules, and your particular campaign may be even tighter.

It's limiting, and something I ran up against when I started playing it, because divine casters were expected to have an affiliation with and outlook on the supernatural that I did not expect, and not to have views that seemed reasonable to me in fantasy worldbuilding.

Bleh.

Something that came back to mind after a discussion about the cult of Sol Invictus. Not Saturn & Jove, not Sol Invictus, not the divine Caesar, not Jesus Christ, had clerics quite like those in D&D--as far as I know.

Funny way to set up something that spawned so many variants and settings.
philippos42: zat on stage (escape)
Yesterday I was surprised to see that DCnU has a new version of Timothy Hunter.

Then I woke up thinking about that name...

If Rip Hunter can be read as a hunter of rips, can Timothy Hunter be read as a hunter of Timothies? "Be vewy vewy quiet, we're hunting Timothies"?

Well, of course not. But I did start thinking about how you end up with a name like "Hunter."

I have taken it as given that many people have what seem to be occupation names, like Cooper or Smith. Growing up, one learns that this is how society is, and takes it as normal.

But "Hunter"? Is that an occupation, or is it something that came about another way?

Some names seem to be based on a personal description: e.g., Tallman, Strong, Stout, Moody (though that last one meant something different in Old English).
Some come from a place: e.g., Romney, Birmingham, Romagnolo.
Some are just arbitrary, like the season names (Winter), ornamental names (Sjogren, Goldfarb), & possibly some of the color names (Blue, Brown, White).

A name like "Forrest" could be a place-name, or it could be from an occupation like "Forester," or it could be completely arbitrary. "Hunter," similarly, could be a personality trait, a job of some kind, or completely arbitrary.

And as I thought about it, I realized that family names inherited from the father are actually really weird, and it's actually deeply strange that they ever became the custom. We only think they're normal because we're in that culture.

I kind of already knew it didn't make sense. If your name is Thompson, and you don't know who Thom (or Thomp) was, isn't it nonsensical?

But it's really strange that it happened this way at all, particularly with names that seem like personal nicknames. I guess enough sons were the images of their fathers to get those to stick.

But stepping back and looking at it, it's really odd, actually.
philippos42: heather (superhero)
MGK has the new Man of Steel trailer up.

I approach this movie with some caution, as I explained in the comments:

I have never seen either Snyder’s 300 or Watchmen, and I don’t care. One is Frank Miller’s version of the Tolkienian lie that Western Civilization, arbitrarily defined, is the one abode of true men, and the rest of the world is made of monsters. The other is a paean to the self-importance of Alan (spit) Moore’s damn revisionist shitfics.

But this I may bother to see. Supes and I go way back.

I can already tell that they’ve messed up Pa Kent, and thus changed Clark’s core motivation. One of my favorite things about Supes is his motivation: Clark doesn’t fight crime out of displaced guilt like Spidey, or a quest for displaced revenge like batty Bats. Clark serves the world because he was properly brought up, and it was Pa Kent who taught him that. This version of Pa is a little too much like the Amish family that raised Kal El in JLA: The Nail. And that’s a shame. But a movie about a sort of Nail-ish Supes could still be good.


On reading the other comments, I think I may have been too harsh on the portrayal of Pa Kent. Still, an odd way to present Pa Kent in the trailer.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
August 19th, http://philippos42.livejournal.com/225970.html
So, I have this detective fiction concept, and maybe I should try writing stories in it without explaining it, but that would mean actually writing narrative instead pretending I'll write narrative someday, and while that would make more sense, it's never going to happen.

Oh, yeah. Never mind.

I've been ashamed of that post for a while now. I've written embarrassing posts, angry posts, stupid posts, friend-losing posts. This may be the worst post.

I don't remember what the idea was. It's just gone. It's been gone. I could at least make notes of things like this, pitch them so others can flesh them out. Then they would have a chance at life. Instead I just killed that idea and went on with my pathetic self-hating life.

There's something I realized in the last few hours. My whole life, I have been thinking in terms of being creative, of being a writer or some kind of creative artist, an author of a work, not just a technician fleshing out someone else's story. Even if at the time I thought it was about acting or film production or music, it was about making something--my opus.

Oh, sure, I went through long periods of thinking that fiction was not for me, that it was more important to live life than to imagine it. But I was defining that in terms of, "If I'm not a writer." For a long while now, I have been, really, "not a writer." A failed writer trying not to think of myself as a writer.

But where other people might want kids or their own business or a degree, what I have wanted all along was to have a creative legacy. Maybe in film rather than prose, maybe nonfiction instead of fiction, but I wanted a work with my name on it. I want to be known for a work more than I want to do the work.

I know I'm oversimplifying. I did go through my period where I wanted to be a photographer, and another where I wanted to be a statesman. Sometimes I thought I could channel the drive to make into something physical like fruit tree breeding or architecture, that that might be better for my ambition. But really, I'm a frustrated creative person, who comes up with characters and then can't write their stories, or imagines stories in fair detail but somehow balks at writing them down.

I have worried that I wanted to write books because I read books, that I wanted to sing because I listened to music, that I wanted to go into politics because I followed politics, that it was only stupid imitation of things I find interesting with no aptitude to be able to do it.

I think I do have some aptitude as a photographer; why am I not a photographer? (Well, there's a reason for that; that's another story.) I quit photography a long time ago, and I don't really run around thinking I really should try to be Eisenstadt now (though I did for a long time).

But creating characters, that's always been there, or at least it's recurred an awful lot. Whether making up characters for stories, or imagining a person I wanted to make myself into. That's a pretty basic part of me. No use denying it.

And that means I'm not really cut out to make a career of being an editor or a critic of others' work, which were ideas I had at various points.

So here's the thing. I'm not a writer. I may never be. I may never make a living at it. But if I have an idea for a premise, or a pitch, I want to post it so it's out there and it has a chance at life. Maybe it can be fleshed out or even produced as a film instead of yet another treatment of some character we've seen a dozen times before.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
Reading little_details, one of those posts where the response is generally, "By the way, you missed some big details."

I'm impressed that someone who thinks the UK is more or less like the US has even heard of Chiswick. (Well, except that Donna Noble is from there, I guess.) It seems like such an obscure bit of England.
http://little-details.livejournal.com/3247548.html

I wanted to be an ass and say that the weird thing is that there is nothing paranormal about Chiswick at all. (Like I know.)
philippos42: Sarigar (blue)
I know, I should talk, but I wonder where people from old LJ days went to. Off raising children or something, maybe.

Apparently there's now a book named Blue Fall--not written by our blue, maybe by someone who remembered her name and thought it was cool, probably just a coincidence.
philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
Hm. I ran across this--
http://michaelmay.us/blog/2008/09/26/in-your-leather-skirt-laying-down-some-hurt/
--which linked to this:
http://www.comicmix.com/news/2008/09/08/whats-wrong-with-wonder-woman-by-mike-gold/
Whereas Greek mythology is central to her origin, it is no more significant than, say, Krypton is to the Man of Steel or the Vietnam War is to Iron Man. It’s the backstory, not the real story.
Here’s the problem. Her creator, Dr. William Moulton Marston, may have had his peccadilloes (and, hot damn, am I being polite here), but he came up with Wonder Woman because he liked the idea of a woman superhero. Screw his dominance issues; he promoted the idea of a woman superhero.
Superhero. Not god.
Play Wonder Woman as a genuine superhero and she’ll serve just fine as a model for girls and women… and for boys and men. She’s a superhero; she should do superhero stuff to supervillains and save the planet from intergalactic pan-dimensional threats and generally fight for truth and justice. The rest of the icon bit will take care of itself.
Oh, one thing more. The same thing’s true of our women politicians.

Profile

philippos42: Sarigar (Default)
philippos42

May 2013

S M T W T F S
   123 4
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031 

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Style:
Kaigou
Resources:
Circular Icons

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags