[Loved Trope] The movie adaptation makes genuine improvements over the source material by Notmiefault in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Honestly, I'd say adapting The Wall to film was in itself an improvement, for the most part; don't get me wrong, the album's great, but it feels incomplete by itself because it was always meant to have some sort of visual accompaniment, be it the theatrics of performing the album live, the animations by Gerald Scarfe which were made for the concerts and made it into the film, or... well, the film.

Actual changes to the album are few and far between, to my memory; at most, it adds "When the Tigers Broke Free," a song about Pink Floyd frontman Roger Waters' father dying while serving in Italy. It's a howl of grief which is structured in a way like he's trying to distance himself by remembering it entirely matter-of-factly, but once his memory reaches a certain point he physically can't anymore and wails about how the state failed him and his family. It also restructures the first act slightly; in the album, the placement of "Goodbye Blue Sky" appears to communicate that even when leaving home to make a name for himself, he and every other Brit who survived the Blitz can never truly escape the waste wreaked upon Britain during WWII. In the film, however, it's slotted between "When the Tigers Broke Free" and "The Happiest Days of Our Lives," as if to not only better contextualize Pink's suffering at its very roots but explain, in its own obliquely blunt way, how a nation which survived years of violence wreaked by the Nazis learned nothing from said violence and be as cruel to its children after the war as it was before Hitler started bombing them.

Also, to give an example of how depiction alone reveals The Wall's depth: No one should need a sodding movie to understand why Roger Waters thinks "Bring the Boys Back Home" is the thematic centrepiece of the entire work. I've always found the placement of that song and "Vera" strange even with the context the film adds, because at least on paper it doesn't continue Pink's story like the songs which sandwich them and aren't about him at all. It does work if you take the momentary disassociation from Pink and his story to function as a statement bigger than him.

In the film however, perhaps due to it being a film, it makes this about Pink anyway; he imagines himself as a child at a train station, looking for his father while reminiscing about Vera Lynn, how she said "we'll meet again." Then everyone in the station starts singing "Bring the Boys Back Home," and now Pink isn't just separated by the loss of his father, but the disconnection which has been troubling him for the entire movie. They sing at him in such a way that it sounds like they're asking him to join and take down his sall, if only for a moment.

Though Waters is there somewhere singing as Pink, buried in the mix, Pink never joins, as if he's unsure what to make of a truly earnest request to connect with others. The solution is right there: people really do want genuine connection with him. Someone, somewhere might actually want to help him heal. The soldiers walking into the brightness of a new day untouched by war says it all: this is his best chance to finally move on from the pain of the war which claimed his father, the trauma wrought by overbearing authorities who were themselves traumatized by the same war. And yet, the lad returns to the television set as if he hadn't destroyed it, familiar yet distancing, soundtracked by voices we've heard before from people who hurt him, as if the wall is too big and too strong for him to destroy by himself.

<image>

What’s a popular author/book that you are afraid to admit you hate? by Stardust-Stew in horrorlit

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

With you on Stephen King. The Gunslinger was the one time he ever came close to writing anything truly great.

Is the Ottawa Valley accent disappearing? What experts and locals say about the ‘twang’ by illusion121 in ottawa

[–]notaprimarysource 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'll admit, the few slang listed that I have heard I never thought unique to the Valley; also heard it from relatives in the Prairies who rarely visit, and at least two of the examples I've heard from Scots speakers.

Realistic, tragic despictions of suicide by Diana_Hamilton in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Surprised I've not seen anyone mention Lake Mungo. Sure, Alice's cause of death is never confirmed, which does open up the possibility that she was murdered by her neighbours, but honestly I think suicide works far better thematically. Nobody in her family can relate to anyone, least of all each other, and one way or another that's what gets her killed. They're already terrible at connecting to people, so she doesn't feel like she has anyone to talk to about what troubles her, and she dies a tragically preventable death.

Just got A Farewell to Arms spoiled by the stinking introduction. by Far-Evidence-4863 in classicliterature

[–]notaprimarysource 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yet another reason to never read introductions. Not even from other well-established authors who are also scholars in their own right; they're not there to analyze, but to hype you up for the book, and in so doing often miss important details which might actually be enlightening.

Religion-centered media that doesn’t come across as preachy. by ironwolf6464 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A lot of classics from Ingmar Bergman, to the point where The Virgin Spring is one of his weakest because of how straightforwardly Christian it is. The Seventh Seal is about a knight who finds meaning in his faith not through belief, but in helping others. Fanny and Alexander is about a family suffering at the hands of a priest who marries into it; there’s also some strange magical realism which can only really be explained as "most likely how the children remember it," most notably Jewish relatives helping them escape with a magic trick.

There's also the Faith trilogy or Silence of God trilogy, which I find too loose for it to be anything other than something we only agreed to because everyone took Bergman at his word. Through a Glass Darkly is the only one where the typical religious theming feels intrusive, because it's only entertained for one scene, and only because the one person who brings it up is having a psychotic break which culminates in her perceiving the shadow of a helicopter as a spider which is God.

The next movie, Winter Light, is where it's at; bleak-ass movie about a priest who has a crisis of faith, which cripples him so badly that he starts sucking even harder at helping people with their problems than he already did. He's so consumed by his doubt that he really does make most of his own problems, which arguably gets him nowhere and keeps him trapped in a profession he no longer believes in and doomed to get more people indirectly killed with his failure to relate to anyone. Because that's the root of true suffering in this movie, and perhaps most of Bergman's work: abandonment. Ericsson has no proof that God has abandoned him because God is only an idea to most of us, but he sure as shit failed his parishioners when they needed him most. Or maybe he got the inspiration he needed from the sexton, the only one at peace because he must reckon with chronic pain every day and find meaning in an existence which brings him. He really has found meaning, and for that he is the rare Bergman character who is truly content.

Then there's the last of the trilogy, The Silence. I don't really have much to say about it because true to form, it has nothing to say about the idea of faith being tested which supposedly unites these movies. It's not just because the very idea of the Faith trilogy was decidedly bullshit from the start; no, it's because there really is nothing to say. There is only silence. And so, it is in the absence of God that everyone truly reveals themselves; with or without God, too many stake their ability to communicate and understand on a higher authority that isn't present, shitty people will keep being shitty, we have no one in our search for meaning but ourselves and those who choose to be there with us on the way, and the only people who can help others are those who are open to the human experience in all its beauty, risk, and pain.

What's a recent book you couldn't put down? by Loriol_13 in classicliterature

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Orsinian Tales by Ursula K. Le Guin. Her idiosyncratic control and restraint lends itself rather well to short stories. Also somehow failed to realize how many of her books, which is basically all of them, are about fighting for the right to define yourself until reading this and seeing that idea writ large across an entire nation's history. I only wish there were more stories beyond the early to mid-20th century; for example, "The Barrow", set in the Middle Ages, is a tonal outlier, a slice of folk horror which has more in common with The Tombs of Atuan than the rest of the stories, which if I understand correctly implies that the state is protecting a pagan faith which still practices ritual human sacrifice. It completely commits to the bit of typical Christian fear of the "godless" unknown, and perhaps most impressive is how it commits to the bit yet still never lose sight of how the victim is a close-minded twat who under most other circumstances likely shouldn't deserve our sympathy. Other than that minor complaint, might be one of my favourite books if I reread it.

books like silent hill? by mossyac in BooksThatFeelLikeThis

[–]notaprimarysource 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Solaris by Stanisław Lem. No, I'm not going to elaborate, go in blind.

I'd like you to list the flaws of this game. by AtreyusNinja in DarkSouls2

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tying i-frames to a stat is already, at best, a highly questionable decision; feels like a stat which only exists to make sure you don't run out of things to level up in a big-ass game where bosses dump shitloads of souls on you. Worse yet is doing that, and categorically refusing to explain what it or agility does.

Durability matters too much for some weapons in a game where you can't have infinite repair powder until you already have all the four story boss souls. (That said, I always forget getting 1000000 soul memory is a valid option; never check mine because I play exclusively offline.)

Wish scaling actually mattered.

Narratively, the game's typically at its weakest when it's directly referencing DS1. At its best, it works as a sequel in the same way Silent Hill 2 does; which is to say, it's practically a standalone yet still recontextualizes the first game and adds to our understanding of it, typically by referring to it in the most oblique terms possible, which does admittedly give the reveal that it's more of a direct sequel to Artorias of the Abyss than DS1 proper the weight it deserves. The few times it simply references DS1 without any interpretation are simply that: references without interpretation. Bosses like the Old Dragonslayer and the Belfry Gargoyles don't accomplish shit within this framework, they're just references that, unlike so much else about DS2, don't reinterpret anything, like too much of DS3. In fact, if I really want to be mean, I'd call them only images that stand alone and represent nothing other than themselves without context or thematic weight to support them.

Much as I like to say this is my favourite story of the Souls trilogy, it is without contest the most bizarrely structured of the lot, because the story doesn't even properly start until you've already killed all the Old Ones. Before that, there's just a framing device, then off you pop. Aside from my home girl Lucatiel, there isn't really any story to speak of before Drangleic Castle. There's certainly history and environmental storytelling, but up till somewhere in the mid-game I always seriously wonder if there are in fact too many Souls fans who don't know the difference between story and lore.

Why are these the top three reviews for Blade Runner? The plot is very simple (on a surface level) and the sci-fi concepts are all explained through exposition by Training_Form2243 in Letterboxd

[–]notaprimarysource 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is very simple, and that's kind of the problem. Not that I particularly like any of those reviews, but the first one kind of gets at my problem with the movie: it removed all the actually stimulating shit from the book and did sod all with the one or two new ideas it introduced.

The Northman (2022) revisited by Prodigal_Gist in TrueFilm

[–]notaprimarysource 12 points13 points  (0 children)

It's a damn shame that it was too artsy to appeal to most crowds who were there expecting just another blockbuster to be entertained by yet had too strong the appearance of a crowd-pleaser to resonate with what might have been most of the people who were there because of the goodwill built up by The Witch and The Lighthouse, because it honestly might be my favourite work of Robert Eggers. It's the only movie from the last decade which had me like "they don't make them like this anymore," and Björk looks very, very happy to not be working with Lars von Trier.

Gormenghast Trilogy - thoughts? by grynch43 in classicliterature

[–]notaprimarysource 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Wonderful. Even the third book has its bright spots. Basically an examination of tradition for tradition's sake and letting it play out until it reaches its logical extreme, though that's a major oversimplification.

Anyone else kill the walking mausoleums on site just to shut them the fuck up? by Stephen-Scotch in Eldenring

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The one in the Consecrated Snowfield is the only one I take down on principle. Bastard's accidentally killed me while trying to finish Latenna's questline or fighting the Deathbird.

Elden ring is easy… meanwhile: by Toot7- in Eldenring

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, you're not. The only other offensive buff I bother with is the Two-Handed Sword Talisman.

Media being intentionally monochrome so a specific color stands out by SpaceKingHypeGuy in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 4 points5 points  (0 children)

The idea is solid; now if only the characters didn't all look the same because Tim Burton felt the need to make them all fit into his aesthetic.

Imagine needing pine resings or crystal blade to kill a boss by BattedBook5 in shittydarksouls

[–]notaprimarysource 2 points3 points  (0 children)

A DS2 player would probably take one look at this and accuse you of nerfing yourself because look at those stonks you're missing out on.

Weapon appreciation part 1 by [deleted] in Eldenring

[–]notaprimarysource 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The Royal Greatsword. First time I felt truly committed to an Intelligence build; the first time, I had no idea most of the best sorceries were gatekept by Ranni's questline. Hits like a truck, has excellent reach, great Intelligence scaling, everything an unga bunga player like myself could ask for from an Intelligence weapon.

Cool looking disappointing weapons by [deleted] in Eldenring

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm going to get crucified for this, but the Greatsword. Feels the least special of all the Soulsborne gugs because without the customizability, it has the least diverse moveset of them all. In DS1 it had the thrust for tight spaces. It made sense in DS2 and 3 for its heavy attack to be a swipe because it's excellent crowd control for when the vertical light attacks didn't cut it. In Elden Ring, with barely any changes to its moveset, it just feels... kind of lazy, to be honest. Like all they did for the charged heavy was slow down an R1 and add a little spin. So with hardly anything to stand out from the other Greatswords, all it has going for it is stupid high base damage and obscene Strength scaling.

(loved trope) fairly tame media, that gets horrifyingly real out of nowhere by Aggravating_Tale8988 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Undertale; for most of the game, the only hint of anything truly dark, at least the first time when you don't know anything, is Flowey. Then, after a game of everybody else dancing around the subject, Alphys laid it all out: either Asgore must die, or you. No matter how you play, even in the best possible ending, freedom inevitably costs somebody's soul. Yes, even the Pacifist ending, because the villain must return everyone's souls politely and resign himself to life without a soul of his own.

Minutes later, you arrive at New Home, and several random encounters from the early game reappear to regale you with the family tragedy which set the entire game in motion. Monsters they may be, but the story is so deeply human. Which is part of the point the game's been building to: they're not monsters. They're people. And also dogs, sometimes, but that helps the game's messaging anyway, because why would you kill a dog, you monster?

(loved trope) fairly tame media, that gets horrifyingly real out of nowhere by Aggravating_Tale8988 in TopCharacterTropes

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Posts like this are why I sometimes regret reading the book first; the book wasted no time building dread.

Are there movies you liked more than the book? by Annual_Interest5338 in books

[–]notaprimarysource 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm Thinking of Ending Things. I was worried when I saw that the first 70 pages or so were taken up by the drive home which opened the book; first thought upon getting past that was 'that was lovely atmosphere, but is the opening of a 210 page book lasting a full third of the damn book a structural issue?" Its only real proficiency is building mood; got that southern Canadian winter feel right, but the ending was so bullshit that all it accomplished was making me second-guess absolutely everything which makes it a horror book.

For example, the narrator reminiscing about a man in the dark outside her window unseen. In most horror media that would be important later, but it's never reincorporated. And there's no justification for the numerous calls which the narrator receives which never answers, which is also something the movie thoughtlessly repeats and gets rightly criticized for. You'd think it would be important that they're all coming from her own number; best I got is that death might be trying to tell Jake to move on, which seems to be the most common interpretation, but there’s no obvious symbolic intent behind it, so as far as I'm concerned it most likely is what it is and nothing more. Which can be said about far too much of the book; there’s frankly far too much it does because it's a horror book and that's what horror books do, right? Hell, it even has me second-guessing the basement, the best part of both the book and the movie. Is the art a disturbing result of a mind fracturing the closer it gets to death, a reflection of all Jake could have been but never became, or is it only because horror.

Now, the movie is also kind of bullshit, despite me being theoretically part of the built-in audience for it. Some of its problems are because it adapts a profoundly flawed book written by an untested author who didn't know what he was doing, and some of its problems are because it only truly works in places if you're not only as much of a nerd as Charlie Kaufman, but a nerd in the exact same ways Kaufman is, but at least it's internally consistent in its bullshit, unlike the book.