|
On February 20 2015 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 23:11 nepeta wrote:On February 20 2015 22:55 waffelz wrote:
Can you lose the ability to feel certain feelings, by not feeling them for a long time or hiding them? Unlikely, unless there is a neurological cause, like trauma or a highly improbable random rewiring. Is it sociopaths that are unable to feel guilt or remorse or am I confusing that with a true psychopath? I mean this in the strictest psychological sense rather than the TV/Move psychological sense.
Both (they are in fact the same). There have been some controversy, but so far there is still no generally academically accepted difference between the two. They are also both contained in the DF60.2 ICD-10 diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder and (I believe) in DSM-V as antisocial disorders.
EDIT: DISCLAIMER: I haven't actually used the DSM-V in my own work, I do however have extensive experience with ICD-10 and worked 3 years in an acute psychiatric ward.
|
On February 21 2015 07:46 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2015 23:58 ThomasjServo wrote:On February 20 2015 23:11 nepeta wrote:On February 20 2015 22:55 waffelz wrote:
Can you lose the ability to feel certain feelings, by not feeling them for a long time or hiding them? Unlikely, unless there is a neurological cause, like trauma or a highly improbable random rewiring. Is it sociopaths that are unable to feel guilt or remorse or am I confusing that with a true psychopath? I mean this in the strictest psychological sense rather than the TV/Move psychological sense. Both (they are in fact the same). There have been some controversy, but so far there is still no generally academically accepted difference between the two. They are also both contained in the DF60.2 ICD-10 diagnosis of dissocial personality disorder and (I believe) in DSM-V as antisocial disorders. EDIT: DISCLAIMER: I haven't actually used the DSM-V in my own work, I do however have extensive experience with ICD-10 and worked 3 years in an acute psychiatric ward.
I suppose the difference would be if you could learn to not feel X, per the original question, vs not feel it period from start to finish.
|
I am pretty sure that you can learn to suppress feelings. Isn't that what happens war veterans and the like?
And isn't a large point of military training to stop your soldiers from empathizing with the enemy?
|
On February 21 2015 08:47 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you can learn to suppress feelings. Isn't that what happens war veterans and the like?
And isn't a large point of military training to stop your soldiers from empathizing with the enemy?
Well I suppose it would come down to how you define dealing with emotions in a healthy fashion. Sure you can suppress, but the very verb you are using implies it is an on going, active process.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On February 21 2015 08:47 Simberto wrote:
I am pretty sure that you can learn to suppress feelings. Isn't that what happens war veterans and the like?
And isn't a large point of military training to stop your soldiers from empathizing with the enemy?
I think it has more to do with training the soldiers to dehumanize the enemy, rather than eliminate empathy altogether. I think it's more ideal to have soldiers who still empathize with each other but not with the ones they plan to murder.
|
On February 21 2015 06:31 nepeta wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 01:35 Acrofales wrote:On February 21 2015 00:47 puerk wrote:
Hopefully the right place to ask this question: What is the deal with prayers, that supposedly yielded answers?
Why do people still accept arguments from "divine guidance" (i.e. someone prayed to something, and tells others he got an answer)?
That whole mechanism baffles me. It came up in the US politics thread, about a doctor praying to god and then not treating the child of a lesbian couple. And people act like if the prayer played any part in the decision process.... People talk to themselves all the time. And manage to reason things out for themselves. Either that, or there is, in fact, a God, who has chosen a few people, including that doctor, to talk to. You choose which one is more likely. Idk about prayer, but talking to yourself can be a very effective way of reflecting on things. Based on Vygotsky's research around 100 years ago, I think it was hypothesized that thought crystallizes in language; it's all a bloody mess being all impulses in neurons, language forces the brain to put out something concrete. If you're interested I think Vygotsky might be a good place to start.
Nowhere did I intend to say otherwise.
|
United States15275 Posts
Screenwriting is an incredibly hard profession, so much so that only a select few people thrive off it and many acclaimed ones can barely find work after initial success. But why is it that so many released films suffer from turgid dialogue, crappy pacing and poor plotting in the first place? If standards are meant to be incredibly high, why is the corresponding output so jarringly mediocre?
|
On February 21 2015 10:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Screenwriting is an incredibly hard profession, so much so that only a select few people thrive off it and many acclaimed ones can barely find work after initial success. But why is it that so many released films suffer from turgid dialogue, crappy pacing and poor plotting in the first place? If standards are meant to be incredibly high, why is the corresponding output so jarringly mediocre?
Between the screen writer them-self and the final product are quite a number of people with creative control that affect the final outcome, namely those that buy the rights to the screen play. Unless you are the writer, director, and producer or one of the two former with enough weight to your name that you don't have to sell creative control to get your shit made, you're going to be subject to the will of money behind your project.
|
On February 21 2015 10:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Screenwriting is an incredibly hard profession, so much so that only a select few people thrive off it and many acclaimed ones can barely find work after initial success. But why is it that so many released films suffer from turgid dialogue, crappy pacing and poor plotting in the first place? If standards are meant to be incredibly high, why is the corresponding output so jarringly mediocre?
Because mediocre is what the masses want maybe? Looking at the top grossing movies of all time not a whole lot of good stuff up there?
|
United States15275 Posts
On February 21 2015 10:38 ThomasjServo wrote:
Between the screen writer them-self and the final product are quite a number of people with creative control that affect the final outcome, namely those that buy the rights to the screen play. Unless you are the writer, director, and producer or one of the two former with enough weight to your name that you don't have to sell creative control to get your shit made, you're going to be subject to the will of money behind your project.
That's assuming that all subsequent changes to the original script detract from its quality. What about eye-catching scripts that were bad but glossed up? I imagine there are plenty of those.
On February 21 2015 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because mediocre is what the masses want maybe? Looking at the top grossing movies of all time not a whole lot of good stuff up there?
Contentious claim at best. Even looking at the list, there's plenty of acceptable to well-written movies there.
|
On February 21 2015 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 10:33 CosmicSpiral wrote:
Screenwriting is an incredibly hard profession, so much so that only a select few people thrive off it and many acclaimed ones can barely find work after initial success. But why is it that so many released films suffer from turgid dialogue, crappy pacing and poor plotting in the first place? If standards are meant to be incredibly high, why is the corresponding output so jarringly mediocre? Because mediocre is what the masses want maybe? Looking at the top grossing movies of all time not a whole lot of good stuff up there?
What list are you looking at? I would hazard to guess that the list is composed of movies rather than, "films," to make a snooty-ish distinction. Without making a value judgement on the merits of either, I would say that the former is going for broad stroke public appeal which the money behind the film may know better than the screen writer may know how to do, the latter is a bit more intent on art in film, or, "serious projects," with more artistic approaches. I use the quotes only for emphasis, people like what they like. I mean hell, I am watching Blade Runner which grossed 33 Million in the theaters but is considered a classic in retrospect as we speak.
|
On February 21 2015 11:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 10:38 ThomasjServo wrote:
Between the screen writer them-self and the final product are quite a number of people with creative control that affect the final outcome, namely those that buy the rights to the screen play. Unless you are the writer, director, and producer or one of the two former with enough weight to your name that you don't have to sell creative control to get your shit made, you're going to be subject to the will of money behind your project. That's assuming that all subsequent changes to the original script detract from its quality. What about eye-catching scripts that were bad but glossed up? I imagine there are plenty of those. Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because mediocre is what the masses want maybe? Looking at the top grossing movies of all time not a whole lot of good stuff up there? Contentious claim at best. Even looking at the list, there's plenty of acceptable to well-written movies there.
Maybe it's harder to write a creative plot with interesting dialogue about Spiderman and Thor than you would think?
|
On February 21 2015 11:02 CosmicSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 10:38 ThomasjServo wrote:
Between the screen writer them-self and the final product are quite a number of people with creative control that affect the final outcome, namely those that buy the rights to the screen play. Unless you are the writer, director, and producer or one of the two former with enough weight to your name that you don't have to sell creative control to get your shit made, you're going to be subject to the will of money behind your project. That's assuming that all subsequent changes to the original script detract from its quality. What about eye-catching scripts that were bad but glossed up? I imagine there are plenty of those. Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 10:40 GreenHorizons wrote:
Because mediocre is what the masses want maybe? Looking at the top grossing movies of all time not a whole lot of good stuff up there? Contentious claim at best. Even looking at the list, there's plenty of acceptable to well-written movies there.
Ties into GH's comment about top grossing films, I would say there are those two primary avenues for a script, it depends on the intent behind the script in question though. It goes both ways, positive and negative contributions/deletions to a script to be sure. I just trend towards cynicism, been listening to too many podcasts about movies and TV shows.
|
To add some clarity to my comment we would have to be a bit more specific on the pool we're looking at. I do have a random example from a show as opposed to a movie (though I think the point carries):
The new show Fresh Off The Boat is a show about an Chinese kid heavily influenced by rap/black culture that moves to a more traditional suburban white area.
Long story short they changed a joke to include "The Beasty Boys" instead of the original rap group. They did so because the reference would of went over the masses heads. Despite that by changing the band to the Beasty Boys, they changed the entire meaning of the line.
Basically a lot of stuff is probably written well and then has to get dumbed down or totally ruined for most people to get it. The stuff that comes out the best is stuff when a something well written gets a star cast of talented people not looking to get a check and an audience willing to accept the story for what it is.
Rappers complain about this all the time. They'll come up with a single with crazy good lyrics and another with some dumb catchy hook and we all know which one sells. So talented people end up writing crap or don't get work (which was alluded to in the original question).
|
On February 21 2015 05:23 jetburger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2015 05:04 Simberto wrote:On February 21 2015 04:39 jetburger wrote:This question has to do with the movie Predestination, so I'll put it in a spoiler. Don't even read the question if you don't want the movie spoiled for you: + Show Spoiler +What would really happen if a hermaphrodite were able to impregnate itself? Would the child be a genetic copy of the parent? Like a twin, just one generation apart? I have no idea about that movie, so i am going to answer your question in a spoiler + Show Spoiler +
From my understanding of biology, no. The whole point of sexual reproduction is that it mixes the genes of both parents, and there is a random element involved, too, otherwise all children of the same two people would be genetically identical. Thus, there could be many different results for the doublechild of a hermaphrodite, based on which part of the parents genome is in the sperm, and which is in the egg.
For example, if a hermaphrodite has genes AaBBddEe (a letter symbolizes a type of gene, capitalised/noncapitalised a different variant of that gene) could produce both sperm and eggs with something like ABdE, aBde, ABdE, aBdE. The child could have any combination thereof, for example AABBddEE, aaBBddee, or whatever. Many different combinations possible.
Disclaimer: This is very simplified and based on my highschool biology lessons, i am not a biologist by trade.
+ Show Spoiler +Thanks, that makes sense. So hermaphrodite and child are about as genetically similar as two siblings of the same parents would be.
+ Show Spoiler + more similar actually. And you know how relatives shouldn't have kids together? Rare recessive diseases that risk appearing in two copies? You get that problem, but even more, if you get offspring with yourself. Worse than siblings having kids. You can also get other harmless recessive traits to manifest. For example a brown eyed hermafrodite could get a blue eyed offspring.
|
On February 21 2015 13:20 GreenHorizons wrote:
To add some clarity to my comment we would have to be a bit more specific on the pool we're looking at. I do have a random example from a show as opposed to a movie (though I think the point carries):
The new show Fresh Off The Boat is a show about an Chinese kid heavily influenced by rap/black culture that moves to a more traditional suburban white area.
Long story short they changed a joke to include "The Beasty Boys" instead of the original rap group. They did so because the reference would of went over the masses heads. Despite that by changing the band to the Beasty Boys, they changed the entire meaning of the line.
Basically a lot of stuff is probably written well and then has to get dumbed down or totally ruined for most people to get it. The stuff that comes out the best is stuff when a something well written gets a star cast of talented people not looking to get a check and an audience willing to accept the story for what it is.
Rappers complain about this all the time. They'll come up with a single with crazy good lyrics and another with some dumb catchy hook and we all know which one sells. So talented people end up writing crap or don't get work (which was alluded to in the original question).
Sorry, but there isn't any objective truth regarding what a good lyric or movie is. So who are you, or the rappers, or the "talented" script writers to say that everyone are wrong, and enjoy "stupid" movies/songs? Same goes for essentially any kind of art where a minority of "experts" decide what is best, against the majority of people often, when there is no way to objectively define what a good movie/song/art is, if not through what people like. Nothing more than a circle jerk.
So yes, a "stupid" movie is better for the vast majority of people. If you want to make a movie that appeals to a movie expert, go ahead, but it will likely be a movie that goes over the head of most non experts. Don't see why that is a problem.
|
Good writing =\= good performance =\= good filmmaking =\= good writing
If anything in that chain is mediocre then the whole film also becomes mediocre.
|
|
|
All sports games and sims games.
|
I can't believe SC2 is in there, but SC is not :o
Also, that baseball game at no. 2. WTF?
In general, that list makes no sense to me.
Monkey Island not on there.
Myst not on there.
Fallout 1 and 2 not on there.
Commandos not on there.
Worms not on there.
Wing Commander 3 not on there.
Instead they have:
CoD (all)
Baseball
Some other shitty sports games
The Sims
World of Goo
Not a good list 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
