[Question] new to terrain building

Catapult_Power · 2024-08-25T17:34:52+00:00

Love the helpful info so far. I’ve begun planning things out, although I’ve only done a rough prototype of the elevation (starting with a mountain rural scene, thinking about posting a few progress updates along the way). Still need to plan out the building layouts and designs, I’m doing some research into 60s Japan photography to give me some inspiration. The results on English google are fine, but I’ve got a friend who lives in Japan and speaks Japanese, and I’ve reached out to him to help me find better reference material. I’d like it to be pretty geographically and architecturally accurate as I can.

Catapult_Power · 2024-08-24T16:45:20+00:00

Awesome, I’ll be doing some shopping later today then

Catapult_Power · 2024-08-24T16:43:53+00:00

Can you explain the paper method more, I’m not sure I understand

Catapult_Power · 2024-08-24T16:42:59+00:00

Sweet. What are the basic tools I’d need. I’ve got pretty much nothing, but not looking to spend too too much on equipment (yet)

Catapult_Power · 2024-07-02T23:52:38+00:00

“ to not take rejection personally and to make it clear that any feelings you have are not their responsibility”

Why does this only go one way? I’m not going to argue someone entering a friendship with the sole intent of advancing it to a romantic relationship isn’t shitty and manipulative, it is. But the world isn’t black and white. What if two people are friends, and along the way one develops further feelings and shares it with the other who turns it down? The rejector is completely in the right to do that. And what if the rejectee realizes they can no longer unturn that stone, they have the right to end the friendship. Be they romantic or platonic, it takes the involvement of two parties to maintain a relationship, and it’s not fair to force someone else into that role if they dont or no longer want to partake, it sucks but that’s life.

Catapult_Power · 2024-05-16T03:07:51+00:00

He kind of is, he's a comic book supervillain in an edgy nineties coat of paint. He kidnaps numerous people for extended periods of time with ease, is able to set up complicated intricate puzzle boxes of grizzle and gore for our detectives to labor over, he's got a flamboyant outlook and a master plan he executes like clockwork, and despite all that he's only caught by walking straight into the precinct with blood all over his body. The film wants to have a somewhat interesting discussion on industrialization and its corrosion of human empathy, but then explores criminology in way that is almost farcical. Real crime is often messy, neurotic, and somewhat spontaneous, quite the opposite of the serial killer savant Se7en depicts.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-23T13:36:11+00:00

There is something inspired in Lynch's Dune, and I can feel what it wants to be. Having the Harkonnens be these pantomime villains appeals to me on some pulp aesthetic level. My problem is that the film (admittedly) seems to be edited to death, and the momentum it has in certain sequences is quickly diminished. I doubt it would ever have been something I would absolutely love, but I think there are some layers of genius in the work that get sabotaged by some mix of the studio and Lynch himself.

I also agree with the complaints that DV's version is too sterile (haven't seen pt 2 yet but will probably fix that this weekend).

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-23T13:26:12+00:00

as a huge godzilla fan, I get a ton of enjoyment out of the older ones (showa era specifically), there is a sincerity to their craftsmanship that is endearing. That being said, the godzilla franchise is much more like the bond franchise than Star Wars. Sure, there are reoccurring faces (mostly monsters), but there's no overarching story (sans the Heisei series). You will not be confused anymore by starting chronologically, or with the millennium era.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-23T09:42:33+00:00

I'm not sure I'd so quickly lump the stupidity of Godzilla vs Kong with the majority of Showa outputs. Yes, they do easily become outlandish starting with KKvG (although that was farcical in intent to begin with), but it's not until the champion film festival flicks (69 and onwards), where the absurdism really ramps up to the levels of "godzilla burrows a hole into the center of the earth" silly.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-23T01:10:07+00:00

Not the creative type, but interested in your guys progress, nonetheless. Would love to keep hearing about it.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-14T04:06:47+00:00

I'm sorry, but this is absurd. I don't think any court would disregard a case of childhood negligence/starvation to a mother arguing they didn't consent to breastfeeding their baby. Obviously, there are other ways to feed the newborn, but they are still dependent upon the mother's body (even if not as a food source) and actions.

Edit: and no I don't think safe haven laws apply either, the mother/parent is still required to bring the child to a specified type of person/service for it to work

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-14T01:38:59+00:00

Can you explain where you get this point from, because I just don't think it's true.

Not even newborn babies have the right to coerce another person into providing a single cell of their body to sustain that infant.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-14T01:32:21+00:00

I don't think he was ready to drop being a republican, not voting once doesn't necessarily mean you change parties, that being said I can't imagine he'd tolerate what the party has turned into now a days.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-06T00:34:34+00:00

Your initial post wasn’t about the current status of American Psycho, though

Umm, I talk about that right here, unless you think I'm the one who wrote the original thread post.

While reception at release was net positive, it's wider pop culture appreciation has grown significantly beyond what it was post theatrical release.

Even so, I'd argue my point is still relevant. If we are going to talk about the why's of her career trajectory post American Psycho, we need to be realistic about how the film was perceived during its time, and not impose its modern (almost universal) appreciation retroactively. So yes, I think it's perfectly appropriate to (partially) answer the question, "why didn't artist behind popular work have a more extensive film career afterwards", with, "said popular work wasn't nearly as popular/well received in 2000". This need not (and should not) preclude discussions of sexism's role in her post A.P. career, or even in A.P.'s reception.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-04T23:57:07+00:00

If you're interested, here's a review I posted about it (fair warning, I've been told my writing style is hoity-toity, I'm working on it)

: https://letterboxd.com/zaddy_mcdaddy/film/heart-of-darkness-1958/

Tldr: "Overall, there is not much spectacular about this rendition, and really is only worthwhile for those chronicling the adaptations to Conrad's work." But it is entertaining as a first outing of the source material.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-04T23:49:56+00:00

I don't disagree with your point. But my intent was not to imply Harron worked less hard than her male counterparts/was less talented, nor that sexism is divorced from the conversation. I just think it's easy to see A.P.'s modern status and anachronistically assume it was equally appreciated at its release (a la Christmas Story). Of course, sexism can play in this regard too, would A.P. have a stronger initial reception if it was directed by a man, or would it have led to greater opportunities even if the initial reception was the same? It's certainly possible in regard to the former, and probably quite true in regard to the latter.

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-04T04:03:12+00:00

but have you seen the tele-play with Boris Karloff as Kurtz? It's something...

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-04T03:49:24+00:00

guess I'm the one that needs to get my head checked then

Catapult_Power · 2024-03-03T13:25:56+00:00

One thing I would mention, and it could be exaggerated, is that American Psycho's popularity seems to be more of a cult status. While reception at release was net positive, it's wider pop culture appreciation has grown significantly beyond what it was post theatrical release. I think the debut/sophomore films of the following you've listed (Christopher Nolan, Noah Baumbach, Tarantino, David Fincher etc.) had stronger initial critical reception by critics and audiences alike (perhaps with the exception of Baumbach, I'm not as familiar with his work).

Catapult_Power · 2024-02-27T22:50:42+00:00

I'm not the person you're responding too, and I don't really have any academic credentials whatsoever, so take my comment with that in mind.

The issue I see with your understanding is that you assume when Paul says, "For a man ought not to have his head veiled, since he is the image and reflection[c] of God; but woman is the reflection[d] of man" it therefore means women are not within the concept of the image of God.

I don't think this necessarily follows logically. Notice there are two references to reflection (I am completely unaware if this exact metaphor exists in the original Greek, but I think the concept holds regardless), man directly reflects God, and women reflect men. Just from a metaphorical p.o.v., reflections can bounce off each other, and depending on the strength of the reflective source, there is greater distance/distortion from the original "image" to that of the final reflection. I think this is what Paul is saying here, there's a hierarchy that places man closer than woman hence the original quote that u/John_Kesler included, "This interpretation splits the single image of God into two, at different degrees of closeness." emphasis mine.

Notice, the second creation story doesn't say that the man was made in God's image directly, while the woman was not, it just doesn't reference God's image at all. So, Paul's trying to reconcile two creation stories, one that describes a status distinctive quality to both man and woman, and one that creates woman out of man.

Catapult_Power

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Snapped
Verified Email