Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

It was just surprising that they created a problem in the narrative for no real reason. It wasn't as if the time crunch was particularly important.

As for why the Weasley's are poor even though they have magical powers... Because magic can't do everything AND they are limited in what they can do due to their environment.

Not because "It is fiction"

[Azzuro]

It was just surprising that they created a problem in the narrative for no real reason. It wasn't as if the time crunch was particularly important.

As for why the Weasley's are poor even though they have magical powers... Because magic can't do everything AND they are limited in what they can do due to their environment.

Not because "It is fiction"

You're missing my point. Whether or not there is a time crunch isn't important, you taking issue with the fact there is one IS your issue. As you said, this thing leaps out to you as a problem, from the tone of your earlier post, whereas I would be willing to bet 99% of the viewers of the show don't even think about it. Have you tried to raise your suspension of disbelief, or watch some more mature media that's at least more to your standards of realism? As someone who's been on both sides of that fence, trust me when I say all sorts of fiction is much more entertaining and enjoyable if you stop overthinking things.

Also, the Weasleys could just buy Muggle food and drink, and since wizard currency is solid gold and silver, the exchange rate is greatly in their favor. In fact they could just copy their oldest child's textbooks and magically replicate school supplies, thus removing all schooling expenses. But since this line of thought is bringing up some seriously cringeworthy memories of me in a less self-aware phase, let's not continue this pointless argument.

[Neonivek]

Also, the Weasleys could just buy Muggle food and drink, and since wizard currency is solid gold and silver, the exchange rate is greatly in their favor. In fact they could just copy their oldest child's textbooks and magically replicate school supplies, thus removing all schooling expenses. But since this line of thought is bringing up some seriously cringeworthy memories of me in a less self-aware phase, let's not continue this pointless argument

They are also extremely poor and don't really have any (A gold coin isn't worth as much as you think it does)... As well suddenly coming out with a bunch of gold breaks the masquerade.

As for school supplies. Notice how often characters conjure something from nothing? In fact I am having a hard time remembering when they ever created something from nothing... Or replicated something magical (or anything at all...)

I think you are mixing up "Suspension of disbelief" with something else.

Given all these setting destroying questions turn out to have been covered pretty solidly... showing that just because something is for children, it doesn't mean you need to shut your brain off.
-In fact the greatest strength of Harry Potter... is all of those "Wait what?" questions you have? Addressed.

---

Then again you are projecting a profound hatred onto me... So... yeah.

I mean, the fact that I put it here means I found it interesting

https://yourscreenplaysucks.wordpress.com/2013/12/13/unwilling-suspension-of-disbelief/

Edit: Yeah as you can tell, people don't take "Just shut your brain off" as a good excuse... for any medium. There is "Just have fun with it" and then there is "Duhh... what is sky?"

[TheBiggerFish]

I don't think you can replicate magical supplies.  Some mundane stuff seems to be producible (e.g. water) but that's all I recall.

[Neonivek]

I am reminded of a somewhat hilarious part of Sabrina the Teenage Witch (a show where magic... can just about do anything)

Where she magics up some snacks and junkfood for her friends and looks on in dismay as they are all knockoff brands.

Why? Because the Witches who work for those companies actually won a supernatural trademark and you cannot magically replicate their things, only create a knockoff "just as good as the real thing".

Though this isn't the only time there were odd magic bans. They banned conjuring up Thanksgiving dinners (they got around this by conjuring up people who could make it. which wasn't against the rules)

---

Wizards of Waverly place was the oddest with their one magic rule... which is that magic doesn't work on plastic.

Which is fine, it makes as much sense as anything else (and well "Magic does what it wants" so it isn't like this is nonsense)... Except goodness can you seemingly do a LOT with the seemingly magic impervious material.

Beyond being able to conjure it effortlessly... It seems like you can do whatever you want with it magically so long as it is to prevent someone else from using magic.

[Azzuro]

I think you are mixing up "Suspension of disbelief" with something else.

Given all these setting destroying questions turn out to have been covered pretty solidly... showing that just because something is for children, it doesn't mean you need to shut your brain off.
-In fact the greatest strength of Harry Potter... is all of those "Wait what?" questions you have? Addressed.

---

Then again you are projecting a profound hatred onto me... So... yeah.

...

Edit: Yeah as you can tell, people don't take "Just shut your brain off" as a good excuse... for any medium. There is "Just have fun with it" and then there is "Duhh... what is sky?"

I'm pretty sure I'm not mixing things up. It's the difference between watching Star Wars and wondering "When is Finn going to tell Rey he used to be a stormtrooper, and how will she react? Will Poe reunite with them and reveal it to her inadvertently?" or wondering "How or why did the New Republic allow the First Order to build an all-new supersuperweapon that's literal orders of magnitude more powerful than the Death Star? How did the First Order even amass the wealth, resources, and labor to build Starkiller Base? How is it that this technology to literally harvest energy on a stellar scale hasn't revolutionised the entire galaxy? How does Jakku's economy even work, and why hasn't Rey starved to death yet?" One allows you to be more immersed in the fiction and enjoy it more, while the other is pointless naval-gazing because those are the conceits of the story.

Also, where exactly did I project "a profound hatred" onto you? If I've offended you in any way, I do apologize, but I'm just pointing out that you can ignore these things with a modicum of mental effort, and I assure you it's worth it.

[Neonivek]

And yet those questions are STILL addressed.

Mind you on a stellar scale, nothing really costs that much. As well what made the Deathstar so special wasn't so much its weapon as it was its engines.

[Azzuro]

Dude, you still haven't answered my question. Have you tried raising your suspension of disbelief so you don't get jarred by such minor things, or tried switching to more mature and realistic fiction?

[Neonivek]

Dude, you still haven't answered my question. Have you tried raising your suspension of disbelief so you don't get jarred by such minor things, or tried switching to more mature and realistic fiction?

I already answered that. You are not asking me to raise my suspension of disbelief but to turn my brain off. To refuse to think about what I see and what I experience.

I will tell you something.

thinking is not the enemy of fiction. In fact, it makes it better. Fiction doesn't have to make you think, but it shouldn't be adverse to thinking (You shouldn't have to straight jacket your brain. Rather it should be like sunbathing)

If I did exactly what you are asking me to do. Then everything would become incredibly dull as I am no longer an active listener but just sort of there.

As for "more mature storytelling" let me tell you. Adult entertainment is more head scratching then children's entertainment. It is hilarious that people put down children's entertainment so much (heck, even you are constantly and inadvertently bad mouthing it and making excuses for bad plotting) when it is adult entertainment that needs to clean up its act and improve its quality far more.

---

But mind you... I have NO problem thinking in the pieces sphere of logic.

So don't think I am watching say... My Little Pony and going "How do they chop wood they have no hands?".

---

Actually children's entertainment is the most interesting in that it continues to build itself to higher and higher heights.

It wasn't that long ago that kid shows talking about healthy active living would make Candy some sort of super villain.

Lazy Town? Candy is delicious, it is good to like Candy, heck candy can even be your thing... But you still need to eat right and exercise.

In fact even adult cartoons have FINALLY FINALLY started to make something with themselves instead of being a long line of offensive comedies (I use offensive as genre for lack of better word)

[Neonivek]

One thing I want to do someday since no one understands me in general.

Is instead to start making incredibly detailed posts...

Which would include both what I believe the person I am speaking to is communicating, as well as my response and reasoning for that response.

---

I'll do it Wednesday!

[TheBiggerFish]

...Go for it.

[i2amroy]

But mind you... I have NO problem thinking in the pieces sphere of logic.

So don't think I am watching say... My Little Pony and going "How do they chop wood they have no hands?".

Magic marshmallow hooves.

One thing I want to do someday since no one understands me in general.

Is instead to start making incredibly detailed posts...

Which would include both what I believe the person I am speaking to is communicating, as well as my response and reasoning for that response.

Be careful to maintain good structure though, or you can quickly run into TL;DR type of territory if you try to mix and match the parts badly.

[Azzuro]

I don't see it as 'not thinking' but rather, thinking about the right things instead of questioning things which are part of the worldbuilding. But let's just agree to disagree.

[Neonivek]

I will spend this time to talk about the "Jack of All Trades" and how typically in videogames this kind of character is often done rather poorly.

To some extent this makes sense, someone who has no specialization shouldn't have any real strengths and many games reflect that. At the same time however, the specialty of a character with no specialty is their flexibility. What typically kills an all around character is the fact that they have absolutely no flexibility whatsoever and have no real ability to use their advantages whatsoever. Thus making them a character who is painfully average in a game about standing out.

So I will tell you about two "Jack of All Trade" characters who managed to make this concept work stunningly!

-Zot (Red Dragon Inn): Zot is a very average character with a little bit of everything. He has no particular weakness but he can strike at anyone else's weakness.,, as well as having good defenses. Yet that alone would make him a very "average" character, so what makes him so good?

Because Zot's strengths are very unpronounced and he lacks the ability to nuke anyone in particularly he is overlooked. Then when the late game arrives he is able to defend against the opponent's stronger attacks while lowly tearing them down.

He actually makes being "Average" a strength thanks to the fact that he has the ability to make it work (Rather then folding in the late game, like other average characters) thanks to the fact that they do not skimp on his defenses.

-The Dragon (Tactics Ogre: Let us Cling Together)... In the early-mid game: So we have a unit that is tanky but not as much as the tanks, is strong but not as much as the strong characters, has range but isn't as super deadly as archers, has specials but cannot dish out super damage like other characters... and is overall a very average class that only is special in that they are beefier... So why is this class so amazing in spite only dabbling?

Because the Dragon's real claim to fame is being useful in any and all situations without being weak in any of them. His main attack does decent enough damage but there are two talents that spiral the dragon into incredible usefulness.

1) Their Boulder Throw: The dragon throws somewhat inaccurate, somewhat damaging ranged attacks. Essentially they always have the ability to attack the enemy but what gives this an extra boost is that these boulders do not count as arrows for the purposes of resistance which is a very common resistance for lighter classes.
2) Their Special: Dragons might not have the strongest special, but theirs is fully charged far earlier than other classes. They can essentially bring special damage often and hard.

Taken all together as long as a dragon is in a battle they will always be a threat. Where your other tanks will be slowly trying to get into range, the dragon will still be attacking.

The biggest issue with the Dragon however is that of most monster classes in RPGs in that without equipment their damage and stats fall off the earth. They are still useful after the fact... But their role is to give enemies elemental weaknesses and allies elemental strengths, which is potent but it would take hours to grind due to how the game handles element skills. If this alone was fixed, Dragons would have remained useful.
-In fact only one non-humanoid monster in that game doesn't suffer in the late game... and it is the one people like the least.

---

I guess the reason it sort of bugs me is that I actually like the concept of flexible characters.

[Neonivek]

So this is crazy and I know people might not agree but here it goes.

I think the screenplay for a musical is just as important as the actual songs and... well.. .comedy (if any) in it.

I watched the musical for legally blond on a lark (it suddenly popped in my YouTube recommendations) and I watched it and was really happy because at the start it seemed a LOT better than I thought it was (I will give the music credit... it can be really funny at times!... stupid Ireland song aside).

Yet a mysterious feeling overtaken my body... it seemed that the longer I watched it the less impressed I was and the less I liked it. It was almost like the inferior qualities of the play started to sink in even though the comedy and music was still on point (for... the most part... the music gets kind of samey an hour in... for a musical this musical is relentless I don't think there is like... more then a minute without a song. It is almost an opera).

Why? Because it kind of isn't as good as the movie. The point of the movie was it played on the audience's expectation and your bias was shared by everyone elses. Elle Woods our protagonist seemed like a ditzy airhead... on the surface... but even early on if you were paying attention she was a lot smarter than she let on. The play sort of gives ONE hint (in a admitting funny scene... Look if you want to watch it... Yeah watch the first 10-15 minutes you won't regret it. It is the best part of the play anyhow) and then sort of drops it entirely supplanting her intelligence by just making it seem like she works non-stop forever until it works (rather then it hinting that maybe she was smart the whole time)

As well a certain point of the movie Elle sort of improves herself for the sake of improving herself and proving that she really can do it. In the play... someone tells her to work harder and she does. As well the amount of work she does seems to be serious burnout potential... But then again a guy did tell her to work through all holidays so how can she say no? She is a strong independent woman, she don't need no man! Except for you know... the guy.

Finally even in terms of Elle one thing I felt is kind of lost is that she is kind of someone who cares and you see this through her interaction with everyone. The play REALLY doesn't highlight this well.

Sorry ACTUALLY FINALLY! The Play is antagonistic towards Elle as a character. The Movie had no issues with Elle wearing pink, liking fashion, reading magazines, or any of the things she did before she went to Harvard... In fact that is what made her a stronger character, Harvard wasn't impressed with her styled hair, pink clothes, or general attitude but she liked it. The Play constantly talks about how it makes her dumber and that fashion is dumb, haircare is dumb, and basically hates everything about her.

Now while it is unfair to compare it to the movie in some respects. I am only highlighting just how weak the play is because trust me the play doesn't give anything more substantive in place of this...

It is about some dumb girl who gets dumped, works insanely hard to get into Harvard, loses all motivation, and then is told her motivation. Whoop-de-doo!

It feels like a PARODY of Legally Blond.

The odd thing is I love musicals... I honestly thought that a terrible musical that had good music would pierce my firm critical nature and love of good storylines... but apparently not even that. I even want to love this one, sometimes the musics REALLY good... but man... I can't...
---

Ohh and remember that Simpsons episode that parodied Broadway and Off-Broadway's tendency to turn movies into stories about Love?

Yeah EXACTLY that happened to Legally Blond.

---

Also I can't help but notice that some musicals kind of have this problem with their songs where they cannot separate a character speaking objective narration and them speaking on their own behalf.

Elle at one point goes "I am so much better than before!" in song

Now... I think the play intends me to take this VERY literally as in yes that is how she feels. Yet coming off of a crushing break up, it rings hallow and suggests more of a pushing herself up off the floor.

Is that a musical thing? Are you meant to take people very literally in musicals no matter how much dissonance it creates? Since I always thought songs were meant to be what the character is thinking or feeling.

---

Finally since I have to give the play some credit.

In terms of like... the choreography, set design, and just how it moves... I can find no fault. It is actually pretty creative at times.

AAAAAAND... 1 hour 40 minutes in... I REALLY don't like it. It had a whole song about whether or not this guy is gay or not and it was sooo boring and bad.