Subject: You're confusing remake and reboot. (nm)
Author:
Posted on: 2015-03-25 11:45:00 UTC
-
DIC Mission #1! So soon? Eeyup! by
on 2015-03-22 15:58:00 UTC
Reply
"The Day of Reckoning"
IT IS DONE. MUCH TWO-PART MISSION. SUCH 51 PAGES. VERY INSANITY. WOW.
I'll probably work on Lapis's bio later... I need to study. ^^; -
So far, so good. by
on 2015-03-30 01:29:00 UTC
Reply
I just read through the mission today, and I must admit that Lapis' reactions are a lot more believable. Good job.
One comment, though: In the future, please tell your betas before you post so that they don't end up feeling blindsided. For example, I thought that I'd be able to have a more direct hand in Lapis' dialogue.
Speaking of Lapis, something seems out of place.
Upon realizing what she’d just said, Lapis flinched and covered her face.“Sorry, sorry! That was totally uncalled for, I swear!”
“Hey now, it’s totally fine,” Cupid replied, patting her cerulean locks. “I understand that you didn’t know better, though given your age, I’m not surprised at all. Now shhh, Zelda’s waking up!”
Given that Lapis hadn't said anything derogatory, this line seems out of place to me. Could you please explain it?
Also, there is one error that slipped past the radar:
““You said you could travel by plot hole, Lapis? Can you try and get us in there?”
Extra opening quotation mark.
That said, congratulations on a successful first outing for RC 333. -
Is this the one you sent me? by
on 2015-03-23 19:30:00 UTC
Reply
If it is, sorry I haven't gotten back. Its been a very busy weekend. If you still want my input I'll give it. If not, sorry for the delay.
-
Feedback is fine. by
on 2015-03-23 20:11:00 UTC
Reply
In fact, general commentary and SPaG spotting are more than welcome.
And I totally understand. I have to strike a balance between my personal and professional lives on a daily basis myself (which is a lot harder than it looks, for what it's worth). -
My thoughts by
on 2015-03-23 17:38:00 UTC
Reply
I feel like you did a good job with Cupid's characterization. It's interesting how, on one hand, he's rejected the central elements of his homefic - namely, the wangst - but still clinging to some of its trappings, such as the drinking. I get the sense that he feels a lot of guilt for his actions, but tries to hide it behind a cheerful veneer.
That said, I do agree with a lot of Poor Cynic's criticisms, especially about the presence of big battles and the tendency to interact a lot with the canons.
A couple other points - why didn't the agents use disguises? Sarah says that they won't need them because they're jumping through multiple worlds, but that seems almost inherently contradictory to me. Surely, because they are visiting multiple worlds, they would definitely need disguises? In fact, they would probably need the DORKS, so they can switch to continuum-appropriate disguises. If Sarah had said that she didn't think they needed them because there weren't any Sues, that would make more sense, though I might still question her judgement.
Also, the ending implies that Pit still remembers not only the PPC agents, but the Criminal Minds characters. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of the mission? It directly states that Palutena plans on keeping a Milivoj mask as a trophy - that's canon contamination.
Overall, I think your agents could have stood to focus more on the actual Duty, and less on finishing the story. -
Whew! by
on 2015-03-23 19:45:00 UTC
Reply
Between this and yesterday's kerfuffle, I can say that I had quite a lot to sleep over.
Anyway, this response goes to both you and PC. I'm glad there are good things to say about this fic (unlike in that ill-fated Christmas interlude I tried writing once... NEVER AGAIN >_
Sarah's logic was that if the agents were jumping between multiple worlds, it would be harder to disguise themselves consistently, though the DORKS may have been helpful; I could probably chalk it up to inexperience, though. Besides, I wanted to explore a bit of a "Roger Rabbit Effect" in which the animated characters end up in a live-action setting and react accordingly. I could just have Sarah state that there aren't any singular Suvian characters, though, which leads me to my next point.
In my opinion, the climactic battle was necessary for one critical reason. How could three inexperienced agents have taken on an entire army of poorly written characters at once? Knowing what Sarah's done on previous missions, and what Cupid and Lapis are both capable of in theory, one or two Suvian characters wouldn't be too much trouble, Lapis's age notwithstanding - though I must note that Ella Darcy was recruited when she was 10, and Lapis ended up in DIC because it would be safer for her to untangle continua than to kill Sues.
A thousand heavily armed, well-trained, murderous Milivoj, though? No wonder they had to get help...
Pit and Palutena being aware of the PPC was inspired by the fact that there's no fourth wall in Kid Icarus: Uprising, and the fact that Palutena's a goddess helps her in that respect as well. I could change the ending so the Smash Bros. continuum isn't contaminated, though.
Concerning fetishes and related topics: All of you have made a lot of good points, more than I can say. As for why the tickling was a plot point in the mission that led to Cupid's recruitment (and this mission as well to some extent), I wanted to show the repurcussions of Sarah's past as a badfic character and how they would affect the characters around her, in both positive and negative ways. This not only applies to tickling but also her merciful attitude towards characters in general (her MO is "if they are salvageable and can be proven wrong, don't kill them"). Cupid's having the same interest was directly induced by Sarah because he had been recently created and was therefore a lot more impressionable than most characters are. That said, PC's advice makes sense - putting the fetish content in interludes is something I'll definitely do in the future, though the brick joke that was the Writhing Mass is too good to cut out of this mission. The whole YKINMK discussion is not something that I'll jump into, but at least it's not actively deriding me for having that fetish in the first place (which is something that people have actually done to me in the past, mind you). And anyway, this will probably be the last time I'll integrate my fetishes into my actual missions, so lesson learned, I guess.
Overall, this mission could be considered a combination of "testing my wings" and "the great purging". This was the first time writing Cupid and especially Lapis on a mission and it felt awkward to handle them at first, but I had a lot of fun working with them all the same. In accordance with PC's final bit of advice, though, my next mission will be much shorter, more consistent with the PPC canon, and yes, 100% tickle free. ;)
P.S. Lapis sounding more mature than she looks is actually intentional and related to her backstory both as a character and in terms of my own creative history with her. I'll probably hold off explaining it in full until after she's been through a few missions, though! -
My thoughts. by
on 2015-03-23 05:44:00 UTC
Reply
As always, my reviews contain my honest (and occasionally blunt) opinions. I am not trying to be cruel or mean-spirited, and apologize if I come off that way. It is not my intention.
First off, your characters didn’t quite sit well with me. Their characterization seemed rather flat at times. I did like that Sarah was being tested, but I feel like not enough was done to stress that through the story. As for the other characters, Lapis in particular felt strange to me. Her speech and thoughts sometimes felt more in line with someone much older than she actually is. Slightly relating to that, I’m not a fan of using agents so young. Fifteen feels like a healthy bare minimum for Action Department duties.
I didn’t see the need for the action scene in part one. It seemed to be just an excuse to one, have your characters slightly show off; and two, put in another tickling scene (a phenomenon which I will address below). Nothing seemed to be added by it.
Finally, I really don’t like this tendency for your fics to devolve into massive battles that usually involve canonical characters. I’ve said this multiple times: PPC agents are not soldiers. PPC agents are not James Bourne-esque spies. PPC agents are certainly not James Bond-esque spies. If any sort of canonical comparison is to be made, PPC agents are (at least in my mind) like the original cast of Red vs. Blue: ill-trained, snarky, and stuck in an unenviable position that occasionally involves killing something but mostly involves standing around watching stuff. And we certainly do not get the canonicals involved.
There were also some little details that stuck in my mind:
You have a tendency to overuse the parenthetical aside in your writing. By that, I mean separate one-line instances (separated in a sentence like so). These feel too much like author’s notes. I feel like a lot of those could be either excised entirely or made into actual sentences/paragraphs.
Was the canonical Pit being made aware of the PPC something that happened in the previous mission that I just missed? Didn’t they neuralize him? Canonicals with knowledge of the PPC should be reserved for what are essentially gods. Fourth wall breakers should, at best, only be able to see agents when they are alerted to their presence or, as Roger Rabbit put it, “only when it’th funny.” Otherwise, we’ll be flooded with characters that know about the PPC. We’re supposed to be a secret society, remember?
You have some moments of divergent POV (such as on page 12, when Cupid is getting swarmed by the writhing mass), which can make for some awkwardly phrased moments. Typically with third person, paragraphs follow around one character. When another character acts, speaks, or thinks, you make a new paragraph.
You have multiple moments of telling rather than showing scattered throughout the mission.
Is this supposed to be a specific version of Smash Bros.? I ask because you threw in multiple characters (Master Hand, Crazy Hand, Ice Climbers) that are not in the present Wii U version. Did the author of the badfic do that? If that is the case, it should be marked as a charge. Also, I don’t recall Donkey Kong talking in any canon outside of the CGI cartoon show.
Finally, I want to talk about the tickling. This might get a little rant-ish, so heads up.
Back when I betaed one of your older mission, I recommended that you split off the tickling scenes into a separate side story. If I recall my notes correctly, I was concerned that said scenes upset the pacing of the piece and added nothing to the overall characterization of your agents. You have not only ignored that advice, you amplified the scenes. You even made it a plot point in your last mission. And here it is again, multiple scenes buried in the body of the mission.
I have to ask why.
It’s all very well and good to say, “If you don’t like this, skip ahead,” but in the case of your missions it could mean missing important story or character information. Putting the scenes in question into a separate fic would both ensure that nothing is missed and that those who are interested in reading tickling scenes may do so at their leisure.
At the very least, I ask that you remember that the concept of “Your Kink is Not My Kink” can cut both ways. You are free to have fetishes, and you are free to write about them. But keep in mind that everyone else in the PPC may not have such a fetish, and so is less inclined to read about it.
All in all, I wasn’t blown away by this story. There are too many moments that draw me out of the narrative. I would recommend staying away from big epic missions for the future and focusing on small stories, be they in the field or in the PPC. Get to know the characters. Expand on them. Hone your writing skills. Get outside your comfort zone. -
*Jason Bourne. by
on 2015-03-23 11:28:00 UTC
Reply
Also, I find it very clear that you do not share this particular fetish with SkarmorySilver. In fact, you could hardly be more obvious about it without resorting to some sort of angry placard. While I don't have a tickling fetish, some of my own (and of my agents, come to that) are similarly outré, and I'm sure you have them too. I get that you want them out of sight and out of mind so that you can focus on the agents' characters, but please remember that often one's likes and dislikes inform one's character.
Look, mate, I'm a bratty or uppity kind of sub, depending on who you ask. I disagree with people on a lot of stuff, I'm headstrong, and I get a little unnecessary at times - and it's at least in part because of my desire to be put back in my place. It feels like a more natural, comfortable interaction to have. Besides that, what about gay people who have to trawl through yet another straight romance (with the inevitable attendant sex scenes - oh, sorry, should've edited this bit out) to glean some insight into a character, how they operate, how they love? You're right that YKINMK cuts both ways, but perhaps a little more understanding would benefit everyone.
Agreed on the problems with POV though. The sentence structure can feel rather jarring. -
Valid points. by
on 2015-03-23 14:26:00 UTC
Reply
You're right about one's likes and dislikes informing one's character. I will admit that fetishes can be a way of doing so (and I will fully admit to having my own.) That being said, I would feel the same way even if this were a fetish that I shared. My problem -- one that I probably didn't communicate very well -- is that these scenes seem to be occurring at the expense of the overall story. They slow down the plot and add very little if anything at all to the ultimate conclusion. Their inclusion feels awkward and artificial. At least to me, anyway.
I would also hesitate before filing said scenes under "characterization moments." If one or two character have a specific fetish that ultimately informs how they feel and act, then it's all good to me. When it's multiple characters across multiple stories with the same fetish, it feels less like a method of fleshing someone out and more like the footprint of the author.
So yes. My issue isn't the kink itself; my issue is that the scenes that use it feel intrusive and generally detrimental to the structure of the mission and the quality of the written work. -
Disclaimer: by
on 2015-03-23 12:29:00 UTC
Reply
I haven't read many of Skarm's missions, and haven't particularly flagged up 'the tickling scenes' when I have.
You say what about gay people who have to trawl through yet another straight romance[?], and you're right, of course. The same goes for every other way in which any given reader or writer differs from the 'cultural norm'. (And as a side note, given your strong opinions in this general area, I'd be really interested to see you contribute to this discussion up-Board.) If you're interested in something that the majority of people aren't - whether it's a fetish, a fandom, or a genre - you're going to have a hard time finding it to read, and are likely to face some... let's say skepticism when you write it.
But on the flip side: most PPC missions aren't stuffed full of (agent) romance, straight or otherwise. There's a handful of cases where someone decided to make their agents' relationships an arc plot (I'm randomly thinking of Araeph's inclusion of the Isaiah/Quen [I think?] subplot in her DTE missions), but even so, most of their missions don't really cover it. So your hypothetical (er... not so hypothetical, around here XD) gay person will usually be able to read a mission without having to read straight romance, whoever that mission is by.
And yeah, sometimes people get ellipsis skeptical about single instances, too. I know at least one person was put off by the fact that Agent Kaitlyn is a lesbian, despite it going virtually unmentioned in the mission which revealed it. But I think there is a difference between 'this thing shows up occasionally, and it kinda bugs me', and 'this thing shows up in every single one of your missions', whatever the thing is. PPC missions aren't about the agents' sex lives, and seeing them pop up constantly can be jarring even if it's entirely in accordance with your own sexuality. ;)
All that being said, and just to make sure I tick off both of you: I'm not sure that YKINMK does cut both ways the way PoorCynic is suggesting. That phrase has always, to me, meant '... but I'll respect it anyway', not '... so don't make a big deal about it'. It's a concept designed to allow people to express feelings (and more broadly, non-harmful opinions) that other people might find unusual - not a way to ask them to stop doing so.
Too many words; gonna stop here.
hS -
That's probably more reasonable a response than I deserved. by
on 2015-03-23 13:09:00 UTC
Reply
You are also right, and I can see that PC was driving for that point as well with the benefit of hindsight. I still think they were being a little harsh with regards to Skarmory's mission, which is a perfectly serviceable little romp through a fandom of which I know the square root of sweet Fanny Adams, but I can see that if you take exception to something and you see it a lot, then it gets grating. Lord knows I'm no stranger to that.
Actually, point of order, that's why I haven't contributed to the discussion, particularly the bit with SeaTurtle's, er, dubious argument in it. I disagree with their assessment of the matter completely and I think it's disingenuous, but I don't trust myself to go into detail without really ripping into them, and the Board is no place for the amount of vitriol I tend to vomit up when sufficiently roused.
To paraphrase Huinesoron's Even Tediouser Day, you won't like me when I'm surly. =]
(actually most people here probably don't like me much anyway but that's by the by. =]) -
Oh, come on. by
on 2015-03-24 00:21:00 UTC
Reply
You don't understand how much I need your input on this matter. If there's something I'm not interpreting correctly or if I'm overlooking some critical fact I absolutely need somebody to tell me so that I can review my position with the new information! I have the awful feeling that I've crossed a line somewhere and I'd like to repair the damage or something.
Are you sure you don't want to chat? I really don't care if you vomit vitriol at me; you don't even know how much bullpoop I've been through in high school. I'm virtually verbally bulletproof at this point. -
Insert old joke about the masochist and the sadist here. by
on 2015-03-24 01:21:00 UTC
Reply
Okay. I've had time to think on this, and I think I can put it this way without resorting to unnecessary shouting.
While your population statistics are probably accurate, that isn't the point. We don't live in a homogenous world, we live in a multicultural one. There are going to be people from different cultures and with different beliefs in any major city, and fanfic writers have a tendency to gloss over this because of how their brains perceive "normal". No, not even that - how they perceive "relatable".
See, there's a pernicious idea that needs expunging from the collective consciousness; that only "normal" people can ever be relatable on any level. Oh, sure, the characters may have quirks, but by and large they're within one standard deviation from what the current society considers normal - which, at present, is Straight White Cisgender Able-bodied Neurotypical Male. This is the image pushed as "normal" and "relatable" to the point where the Ghostbusters remake with Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy got canned and replaced with more Straight White Cisgender etc. Again, the fact that the cast of this was women was only a single point, not that big of a deviation from the norm, and yet this was still cause for entitled outrage on an apocalyptic scale.
This. Is not. Okay.
Pushing the idea that the only stories worth telling are about Straight White Cisgender etc. is lying to children, feeding them toxic arse-gravy that will come back to haunt every single generation down the line until we break the cycle. Companies won't do it (see previous Ghostbusters point/rant, whichever term for it you prefer), so it's up to fans of the series, and yet people just... don't. Because they want to write stories about "normal" people in fantastic situations, or fantastical people in "normal" situations. Because "normal" is a set demographic pushed by the all-pervading monolith of Western culture (which my people have to shoulder some of the blame for; sorry about that, world), one pushed on people even when it's not remotely possible for them to conform to that standard of "normal" or be part of that demographic.
And frankly, there's no reason for an American story about Straight White Cisgender etc. people to be the "normal" for, say, India (where paler complexions are a mark of beauty due in part to Western influence). Or China. Or anywhere else that isn't bloody America. Yet that's the image of a "relatable" protagonist shoved into the world; J. Random Whiteguy Saving The proverbial Day.
I'll end this on the following quote, courtesy of Noam Chomsky:
"All over the place, from the popular culture to the propaganda machine, there is constant pressure to make people feel that they are helpless, that the only role they can have is to ratify decisions and consume."
We have the choice not to be part of that system; as fanfic writers, we're already on the outside looking in. We don't have to make the same mistakes as the pre-existing culture.
It starts with us. -
MY BODY IS READY by
on 2015-03-24 02:36:00 UTC
Reply
...but I digress.
Firstly, thank you for your answer. I can tell that this subject is very important to you.
Secondly, well said. It's disheartening to see only stories of a particular type featuring the same old cast running around and doing the same things again (quoting hS again: "straightwhiteman wields sword" or "straightwhiteman falls in love"). It's why I'm doing my best in my spinoff to integrate as much diversity as possible-- the PPC is a multidimensional organization dagnabit and it's waaaaay too unlikely that they mostly recruit US/Canadian/British folks.
My original post was motivated by me trying to figure out why white straight protags are overrepresented. It's simply a look at the number of potential straight white non-LGBT authors in the US (who will likely only write about what they can see in their mirror): I didn't mean it to come out as "well, they're the overwhelming majority so we must cater to them" and I apologize if it did. We really need some fresh perspectives on the table: hell, I'm not even sure if I ever encountered a hapa haole white-Chinese protag "in the wild"! Let me tell you that being mixed-race sucks big time: no representation, no love, no respect from either side of the divide.
Once again, thank you for your time and perspective.
Actually, one last thing: there's going to be a Ghostbusters remake? What wasn't I told any of this?! -
Well, it wasn't gonna be a "remake", per se... by
on 2015-03-24 11:38:00 UTC
Reply
More of an ASM-style rebooty kind of deal with the aforementioned all-female main cast than anything else. Despite this, Sony caved to the ragevomiting of the internet's fedora-partial contingent and basically announced a different reboot with a more "action-orientated" story and an all-male cast.
Now, I can't trust myself to not try and kill everyone in the building when I think about it too long, so it's useful that my thoughts were summarized by Film Brain:-
-
I think it was doomed from the start by
on 2015-03-25 11:41:00 UTC
Reply
Because, well, the original is just too much of a classic. It worked in a way that would be practically impossible to top, let alone repeat, regardless of whoever they cast. In pure numerical terms, the original has 97% Tomatometer; this lightning wouldn't strike twice.
Do I support the other, all-male reboot? Of course not; I think it's a very stupid, pointless and damaging idea, and has practically no chance of being good. In comparison to it, Feig's reboot is merely misguided for the reasons I outlined above.
In fact, let me just conclude on something I believe about ALL remakes; to me, they're only worth doing to second-rate films, namely ones with cool ideas that failed hard on execution (i.e. something like Priest or Ultraviolet) because then there's a good chance of getting improved film. There's no improving a classic, and deciding to reboot one is shooting the film in the foot, pretty much deciding to create something inferior from the start.
The only exceptions to that rule I can think of are The Departed (condensed improvement), All Quiet on The Western Front (where the original was a silent, black-and-white film) and Coens' True Grit (at least as good as the original). However, these are only three films versus dozens of mediocre retreads and outright disasters. -
You're confusing remake and reboot. (nm) by
on 2015-03-25 11:45:00 UTC
Reply
-
Perhaps, but... by
on 2015-03-25 12:54:00 UTC
Reply
Does it really make any difference it terms of having to live up to, and compete with, the original (my primary, and only concern)?
Hell, back when Spider-Man was rebooted, I at least could understand the rationale of them adapting different arcs from the character's 70 year-old or so comic-book history that weren't seen on the big screen before. I guess that Feig's reboot could do something like that and be successful in its own right; I'm not ruling it out completely. However, I still think that an weaker, less established property would've been a better fit, and contributed more to cinema.
Think back to The Invasion of Body Snatchers of 1979; it was based on a 1950's film of the same name that was decent but no more, and they made their film so good it became the definite version, and no-one besides film historians now remembers the original (especially since there were two shitty remakes afterwards, further proving my point).
I think it's awesome, and if Feig chose a film of similar calibre, he and his actresses could've made their reboot the iconic, definite version. As much as we might wish otherwise, this will never really happen with a Ghostbusters reboot, regardless of gender, race and other characteristics of those involved. -
Here's what I'm getting from this: by
on 2015-03-25 21:58:00 UTC
Reply
(And do feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding you.)
"Ghostbusters, a slightly campy comedy movie from the '80s, is Deathless Art and must remain unsullied by mortal hands. Anyone who comes at it with a fresh, interesting, or updated take will destroy it, in the action of the reverse Midas; that which was gold, will be remade normal. Woe, woe and thrice woe that this should come to pass, that we receive TWO new Ghostbusters movies in short order, NEITHER of which is exactly the same as the original thing that I really really like!"
If I have understood you properly, you are skeptical of Sony's ability to not screw something up. This is entirely justified, especially after the news that they're funding what amounts to a direct competitor to the planned all-female reboot because of all the whinging neckbeards who decried that girls and their cooties come anywhere near their bloody tree house. What is also a shame is that we know from what Sony's told us that the all-male reboot is going to be a colossal reeking turd in the modern way.
Don't hide behind a front of caring about art, as if a Ghostbusters movie (A BLOODY GHOSTBUSTERS MOVIE) "contributing more to cinema" is your primary concern. It's disingenuous. You don't want a remake because you don't want anything to remove the original Ghostbusters films from your brain. Therefore, I leave you with an anecdote from Ray Bradbury.
The film version of Fahrenheit 451 is an unmitigated disaster. During an interview, Bradbury was asked what he thought of Hollywood eejits destroying his books. Bradbury gestured at a wall packed full of them and said "What do you mean? They're all here! They're fine!" -
Ugh. Twitter. I hate it. by
on 2015-03-24 16:44:00 UTC
Reply
You never know until about halfway through a chain if you are supposed to read it from top to bottom or vice versa.
Well, I also hate it because it turns all rational discussion into mudslinging by necessity because of the tragically short post length, and that for some reason people think a stream of short blurbs will fix this issue, but that's a rant for another day.
-----
Anyway, wow. I have no connection to Ghostbusters (child of the 2000's, YAY!) but that is just stupid. Although, I am only seeing one side of the argument. Let me go check and see if there are any reasonable arguments for the all-male cast elsewhere...
...Nope! Just a bunch of dudes who remember their Ghostbusters being male, so want all Ghostbusters to be male. That's round-about the extent of it. -
I'll be honest by
on 2015-03-24 23:43:00 UTC
Reply
I was not super keen on the film, mostly because not of the idea, but the cast. I do not find Melissa McCarthy or Kristen Wiig very entertaining. So I thought they just would not make it a very entertaining film. I still would have seen it. I would also would not have been keen on it if it was an all male cast and starred Will Ferrell and Steve Carell. I just do not think they are very funny. Then again it is going to be hard to top the genius that was Aykroyd, Ramis, Murrey. In my opinion.
-
Your opinion would perhaps have more weight... by
on 2015-03-25 01:14:00 UTC
Reply
If you could spell Bill Murray's name right.
-
And that's why I ought not read law books while posting (nm) by
on 2015-03-25 03:23:00 UTC
Reply